religion

[Glenzig]

Wow you're so much smart. Can u teach me to reedz?

[Whirled]

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/12141015.jpg

I am feeling compelled to make a new game called Buffoonery & Magic Missles for some reason....

[Glenzig]

Heheheh.

[Faron]

What created the Matter and Energy of The Big Bang

Something cannot come from Nothing

Matter cannot be created or destroyed right?

That's not what the theory says. It's like people are willfully dumb sometimes.

[Eliseus]

The sheer weight of scientific ignorance exposed by this thread is staggering. I suppose a lot of it can be blamed on the proliferation of "anti-evolution" sites such as answersingenesis.org that spread disinformation, create strawmen and post outrageous lies concerning the science behind the fact and theory of biological evolution.

For example:


Confusing the casual use and scientific use of the word "theory".
A scientific theory is based on plentiful and coherent evidence, and while it may be modified, is accepted as the best current explanation of empirical evidence by a consensus of the scientific community. The Theory of Gravity is one such example, Electrical Theory another.


Falsely claiming that any evidence of biological evolution must include observed speciation.
Biological evolution in its simplest form can be summed up in a single sentence: Changes in the frequency of alleles in a population over time. That this process happens is a scientifically established fact, observed countless times both in a laboratory and in the wild.

I could go on, but I'm not into building a wall of text. For a more comprehensive list of misconceptions and disinformation you can visit this (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#e2) site.

You can call science a religion, and I can call a dog a caterpillar, but it would not change the essence of either. Religion is based on faith and belief, while science is based on a coherent, falsifiable interpretation of empirical evidence.

Religion should remain within the purview of the religious community and science within the purview of the scientific community.

Failing that, if you want to argue against biological evolution at least take the time to familiarize yourself with the scientific fact and theory that defines it. Anything from Kent Hovind and company doesn't count. ;)

Basically what this guy says is it's ok for scientists to make claims towards what is accurately correct and not correct without extensive proof, but not religious people.

[Glenzig]

Basically what this guy says is it's ok for scientists to make claims towards what is accurately correct and not correct without extensive proof, but not religious people.

You can't question his faith in evolution man. Some people just have that amount of faith in unsubstantiated claims.

[leewong]

Basically what this guy says is it's ok for scientists to make claims towards what is accurately correct and not correct without extensive proof, but not religious people.

Someone needs better reading comprehension skills.

[leewong]

You can't question his faith in evolution man. Some people just have that amount of faith in unsubstantiated claims.

Faith is belief without evidence. Evolution and the big bang have thousands of scientific studies confirming them. HUGE DIFFERENCE. Where is your evidence to support Genesis? Oh that's right...you have none.

[Non Quixote]

Basically what this guy says is it's ok for scientists to make claims towards what is accurately correct and not correct without extensive proof, but not religious people.That is just about the polar opposite of what I posted.

[Glenzig]

Faith is belief without evidence. Evolution and the big bang have thousands of scientific studies confirming them. HUGE DIFFERENCE. Where is your evidence to support Genesis? Oh that's right...you have none.

That's not actually what faith is. But ok.

[leewong]

A few commandments 99% of Christians completely ignore:

1. Pray if you are sick...dont go to the doctor else you have NO FAITH in god: James 5:14

2. Gouge out your eyeballs if they cause you to lust. Every Christian should be eyeless: Matthew 5:29

3. Cut off your hands if you have committed ANY sin with them: Matthew 5:30

4. Never swear an oath...why do Christians get so upset about God being removed from the Pledge of Allegiance if they aren't allowed to take an oath?: Matthew 5:34

5. Dont defend yourself if attacked. When was the last time you seen a Christian turn the other cheek?: Matthew 5:39

6. Give anything you have to anyone who asks: Matthew 5:42

7. Dont pray in public: Matthew 6:6

8. Dont save money...I am guessing retirement accounts like IRAs are super evil: Matthew 6:19

9. Give away ALL your possessions: Luke 14:33

G13, Eliseus, and Glenzig...why are you ignoring the word of God? Is it too inconvenient for you? Shouldnt you be eyeless, handless, dirt poor, and dead from disease? Please send you all your money and possessions to me. I asked and according to Matthew you have to oblige.

[leewong]

That's not actually what faith is. But ok.

Check the dictionary, dipshit.

[mtb tripper]

http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/replicate/EXID44168/images/JasonHovind.jpgThe sheer weight of scientific ignorance exposed by this thread is staggering. I suppose a lot of it can be blamed on the proliferation of "anti-evolution" sites such as answersingenesis.org that spread disinformation, create strawmen and post outrageous lies concerning the science behind the fact and theory of biological evolution.

For example:


Confusing the casual use and scientific use of the word "theory".
A scientific theory is based on plentiful and coherent evidence, and while it may be modified, is accepted as the best current explanation of empirical evidence by a consensus of the scientific community. The Theory of Gravity is one such example, Electrical Theory another.


Falsely claiming that any evidence of biological evolution must include observed speciation.
Biological evolution in its simplest form can be summed up in a single sentence: Changes in the frequency of alleles in a population over time. That this process happens is a scientifically established fact, observed countless times both in a laboratory and in the wild.

I could go on, but I'm not into building a wall of text. For a more comprehensive list of misconceptions and disinformation you can visit this (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#e2) site.

You can call science a religion, and I can call a dog a caterpillar, but it would not change the essence of either. Religion is based on faith and belief, while science is based on a coherent, falsifiable interpretation of empirical evidence.

Religion should remain within the purview of the religious community and science within the purview of the scientific community.

Failing that, if you want to argue against biological evolution at least take the time to familiarize yourself with the scientific fact and theory that defines it. Anything from Kent Hovind and company doesn't count. ;)

[BurgyK]

Yall ma fakas need jesus

[Glenzig]

A few commandments 99% of Christians completely ignore:

1. Pray if you are sick...dont go to the doctor else you have NO FAITH in god: James 5:14

2. Gouge out your eyeballs if they cause you to lust. Every Christian should be eyeless: Matthew 5:29

3. Cut off your hands if you have committed ANY sin with them: Matthew 5:30

4. Never swear an oath...why do Christians get so upset about God being removed from the Pledge of Allegiance if they aren't allowed to take an oath?: Matthew 5:34

5. Dont defend yourself if attacked. When was the last time you seen a Christian turn the other cheek?: Matthew 5:39

6. Give anything you have to anyone who asks: Matthew 5:42

7. Dont pray in public: Matthew 6:6

8. Dont save money...I am guessing retirement accounts like IRAs are super evil: Matthew 6:19

9. Give away ALL your possessions: Luke 14:33

G13, Eliseus, and Glenzig...why are you ignoring the word of God? Is it too inconvenient for you? Shouldnt you be eyeless, handless, dirt poor, and dead from disease? Please send you all your money and possessions to me. I asked and according to Matthew you have to oblige.

So you're a bible literalist?

[leewong]

So you're a bible literalist?

All the those commandments are very clear. They arent parables open for interpretation. See ya in hell.

[Whirled]

http://reactionface.net/images/block/776.jpg

Just don't over do it with the salt!

[Glenzig]

All the those commandments are very clear. They arent parables open for interpretation. See ya in hell.

Talk about not having reading comprehension.

[Non Quixote]

http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/replicate/EXID44168/images/JasonHovind.jpgNice picture of Kent. Amazing how an absolutely batshit crazy halfwit can look so benign in a photo.

[leewong]

Talk about not having reading comprehension.

Tell me how a bible scholar such as yourself would interpret these passages then:

James 5:14- Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.

Matthew 5:29- If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.

Matthew 5:30- And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

Matthew 5:34- But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God

Matthew 5:39- But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Matthew 5:42- Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

Matthew 6:6- But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

Matthew 6:19- Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal

Luke 14:33- So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple

Face it, you are a sinner and are not welcome in God's kingdom.

[Glenzig]

Tell me how a bible scholar such as yourself would interpret these passages then:

James 5:14- Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.

Matthew 5:29- If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.

Matthew 5:30- And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

Matthew 5:34- But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God

Matthew 5:39- But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Matthew 5:42- Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

Matthew 6:6- But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

Matthew 6:19- Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal

Luke 14:33- So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple

Face it, you are a sinner and are not welcome in God's kingdom.

Maybe you should do some honest and thorough research on those scriptures and figure it out. It can't be too hard, even a simpleton like me can understand it.

[leewong]

Maybe you should do some honest and thorough research on those scriptures and figure it out. It can't be too hard, even a simpleton like me can understand it.

Matthew and Luke make it very clear. Possessions should be given away and you are not welcome in Heaven if you refuse to do so. Even a child could read those passages and understand them. You ignore the commandments because they are too inconvenient for you. You put more faith in material possessions than you put in the bible as do 98% of Christians.

[Non Quixote]

Maybe you should do some honest and thorough research on those scriptures and figure it out. It can't be too hard, even a simpleton like me can understand it.Leewong, you must read the Bible with the Jehovah approved Bible Vision Glasses ™ . They really do help, as it seems that common words in the bible can have some crazy definitions. They help with verses and chapters too, although even Christians fight tooth and nail over what things mean. I suppose some of them aren't wearing the approved glasses.

[Glenzig]

Leewong, you must read the Bible with the Jehovah approved Bible Vision Glasses ™ . They really do help, as it seems that common words in the bible can have some crazy definitions. They help with verses and chapters too, although even Christians fight tooth and nail over what things mean. I suppose some of them aren't wearing the approved glasses.

I have to say that's pretty funny. But scientists fight over what things mean too, so that's not a proof against any particular belief.

[leewong]

Maybe you should do some honest and thorough research on those scriptures and figure it out. It can't be too hard, even a simpleton like me can understand it.

He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. -Titus 1:9

And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth -Timothy 2:24-25

Ignoring more of God's good word.

[Glenzig]

Matthew and Luke make it very clear. Possessions should be given away and you are not welcome in Heaven if you refuse to do so. Even a child could read those passages and understand them. You ignore the commandments because they are too inconvenient for you. You put more faith in material possessions than you put in the bible as do 98% of Christians.

Your misunderstanding of the bible has no bearing on me whatsoever. Thanks for the concern though.

[Glenzig]

He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. -Titus 1:9

And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth -Timothy 2:24-25

Ignoring more of God's good word.

Not sure why you would quote those and presume that I ignore them, but ok.

[leewong]

Your misunderstanding of the bible has no bearing on me whatsoever. Thanks for the concern though.

Please do tell me then. When Luke commands you to give away ALL possessions...what is he really saying? So funny watching you tap dance around this.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Basically what this guy says is it's ok for scientists to make claims towards what is accurately correct and not correct without extensive proof, but not religious people.

I know it's not going to do a whole lot of good, but I wanted to address this.

No. That is not what he said. Science is a process. It has no ego and no sacred cows. Evolution may perhaps one day be proven false, and if it is, science will immediately adopt that new evidence into its framework. There is no dogma beyond methodological rigor, and no belief beyond knowing that you do not know everything.

When you flip a light switch you expect the lights to come on. You have done this thousands of times, and every time the bulb comes on. Repeat action has established a trend of consistency that leads to a reasonable expectation that flipping the switch will turn the light on or off. The first time the bulb burned out you were probably puzzled, but no matter, you simply adopted this new fact into your world view and moved on. Eventually you figured out that in 99.9% of switch flips the light comes on and in the rest it's broken.

The "theory" of evolution has been built in exactly the same way. It is no more than a reasonable explanation for observations made in the course of study. Consistency and predictive power is the essence of good theory, and the theory of evolution has promise in both areas. It is an incomplete model, but it is one that has successfully explained observations without itself being invalidated. This is the core of the scientific method; it is process without ego. Should we gather enough contrary evidence to exhaust the possibilities of evolution, it will be abandoned without hesitation.

Face it, you are a sinner and are not welcome in God's kingdom.

Perhaps you are frustrated, but this does nothing to make your argument more appealing. Science has no feelings, but people do, and you're being a rather poor diplomat right now. Also, Aquinas solved this problem a long time ago. Drop the act. Did you come here to spread ideas or to troll?

[leewong]

Not sure why you would quote those and presume that I ignore them, but ok.

Pretty obvious what I was getting at. God commands you to answer questions asked about scripture. You refused therefor you are going against God's will.

[leewong]

Perhaps you are frustrated, but this does nothing to make your argument more appealing. Science has no feelings, but people do, and you're being a rather poor diplomat right now. Also, Aquinas solved this problem a long time ago. Drop the act. Did you come here to spread ideas or to troll?

A little of both I would say. Glenzig refuses to even answer the simplest questions and is in troll mode so I thought I would toss a little back his way.

[Frieza_Prexus]

And what happens in the end? The Kent Hovind /Answers in Genesis crowd digs in deeper, and the ones who might have listened walk off.

[Whirled]

1 Corinthians 2:9
No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love Him.

http://www.icstc.com/bg/bv.html

^there's lots more to help the research

[leewong]

And what happens in the end? The Kent Hovind /Answers in Genesis crowd digs in deeper, and the ones who might have listened walk off.

Or they could see that G13 and Glenzig have absolutely no clue about science even when they have been walked through it 40 times with the simplest language. It is discussions like these that convinced me to drop faith. Watching Christians deny reality and tip toe around bible passages is more powerful than you give credit for.

[paulgiamatti]

You should have dropped faith a long time ago, my friend.

[leewong]

1 Corinthians 2:9
No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love Him.

http://www.icstc.com/bg/bv.html

^there's lots more to help the research


Empty promises. God isnt real. Quit wasting the only life you KNOW you have believing in magic and fairy tales.

[paulgiamatti]

Oh, I see now that's what you were saying. In that case: keep on truckin'.

[leewong]

You should have dropped faith a long time ago, my friend.

Been an atheist for over 2 decades now. Is that not long enough ago? :(

[paulgiamatti]

Be careful though, as I discussed earlier, we mustn't say "god is not real" or "god does not exist". We're supposed to neutral in these kind of claims. We don't have evidence to substantiate those kinds of claims, and you're going to end up in a world of theological shit trying to debate like that.

[paulgiamatti]

Sometimes the big points don't click have decades, or longer. Maybe for some the better part of a century. People don't change their mind in real-time, either. All we can do is send out a line, a few packets of logic, and hope for the best.

[paulgiamatti]

*click for

[Glenzig]

"If, now, that right eye of yours is making you stumble, tear it out and throw it away p. 7from you. For it is more beneficial to you for one of your members to be lost to you than for your whole body to be pitched into Gehenna.”—Matthew 5:29.

Of course, Jesus was not advocating self-mutilation. Rather, he was stressing metaphorically that we should be willing to cut out of our life anything that is spiritually harmful. True, the action we take may be very painful. But it will protect us.

[Non Quixote]

I have to say that's pretty funny. But scientists fight over what things mean too, so that's not a proof against any particular belief.Never said that it was. Your belief system is of no concern to me so long as it doesn't infringe on my life in an adverse manner. Just because I don't believe in the supernatural doesn't mean that I don't believe that you have the right to.

You are free to worship your couch if it makes you happy, just don't drag it up on my porch and harangue me to worship it too.

Scientists do disagree, sometimes on really big things, like a steady state universe versus an expanding universe, but eventually they reach a consensus agreement the majority of the time. Then they move on. Oftentimes someone discovers that a theory needs refinement, like the Theory of Gravity, and so it is further refined. It's fair to say that theories are constantly refined as new evidence presents itself.

[Whirled]

Empty promises. God isnt real. Quit wasting the only life you KNOW you have believing in magic and fairy tales.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itvnQ2QB4yc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLO7tCdBVrA

[Glenzig]

Never said that it was. Your belief system is of no concern to me so long as it doesn't infringe on my life in an adverse manner. Just because I don't believe in the supernatural doesn't mean that I don't believe that you have the right to.

Thank you. And just to be clear this is the same exact stance I have toward evolution, or any other belief. Everyone is a free moral agent and can make those decisions for themselves. I've never felt compelled to force my beliefs on anyone. Do I share them, yes. But that's different than trying to force someone to believe what I believe.

[Eliseus]

That is just about the polar opposite of what I posted.

Sure it is

[Eliseus]

Never said that it was. Your belief system is of no concern to me so long as it doesn't infringe on my life in an adverse manner. Just because I don't believe in the supernatural doesn't mean that I don't believe that you have the right to.

You are free to worship your couch if it makes you happy, just don't drag it up on my porch and harangue me to worship it too.

Scientists do disagree, sometimes on really big things, like a steady state universe versus an expanding universe, but eventually they reach a consensus agreement the majority of the time. Then they move on. Oftentimes someone discovers that a theory needs refinement, like the Theory of Gravity, and so it is further refined. It's fair to say that theories are constantly refined as new evidence presents itself.

Btw, there is nothing wrong with people going door to door asking if you want to hear what they have to say. It's ok that people have to accept the disease of being gay, but I'm not aloud to ask someone if they want to live the same happiness I do? Backwards logic there. What you also ask is that people accept facts that don't exist, but you also claim that people shouldn't accept, in your words, facts that don't exist. Also, the supernatural is up for personal interpretation for the most part.

(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

unnaturally or extraordinarily great.

This is open to basically ANYTHING currently not explainable could be considered supernatural. This even contradicts its other definition.

manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin, such as ghosts.

So God in "theory" could just work at advanced technological levels that we don't understand, therefore it must be what you imply the definition of supernatural should be, but in reality, anything not able to be currently explained is supernatural, hell, most scientific theories could be explained as supernatural, and you base your opinions off of that, yet claim you don't believe in the supernatural.

Let's not also ignore the claims that science makes to be able to do God like things one day, and the existence of other life out there, apparently it's even more far fetched to assume that a God could possibly exist right? In the end though your responses and own beliefs are full of hypocritical statements and opinions. It isn't that you think people shouldn't believe in something, it's that you think everyone should just agree with your misinformation.

[Non Quixote]

Thank you. And just to be clear this is the same exact stance I have toward evolution, or any other belief. Everyone is a free moral agent and can make those decisions for themselves. I've never felt compelled to force my beliefs on anyone. Do I share them, yes. But that's different than trying to force someone to believe what I believe.And yet you continue to insist that science is a belief system as is religion.

Is it all science that you relegate to a belief system, or just the ones that support biological evolution?

If medical science is a belief system aren't you just as well off sitting at home with a broken leg and praying over it as you are visiting an emergency room? If a loved one contracts a life threatening illness are you simply going to pray for divine intervention?

Do you believe that computer scientists prayed over a block of silicon to receive enlightenment regarding computational complexity theory? Or is it more reasonable to assume that they arrived at a theory using the tools of science?

It exasperates me to no end that a person will decry evolutionary theory one moment and the next show up for an injection to protect themselves from the latest evolutionary form of a flu virus.

"All science is solid except for that evolutionary science stuff. That's just voodoo."

[Non Quixote]

Sure it isThanks for being honest.

[Ket]

Btw, there is nothing wrong with people going door to door asking if you want to hear what they have to say. It's ok that people have to accept the disease of being gay, but I'm not aloud to ask someone if they want to live the same happiness I do? Backwards logic there. What you also ask is that people accept facts that don't exist, but you also claim that people shouldn't accept, in your words, facts that don't exist. Also, the supernatural is up for personal interpretation for the most part.

(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

unnaturally or extraordinarily great.

This is open to basically ANYTHING currently not explainable could be considered supernatural. This even contradicts its other definition.

manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin, such as ghosts.

So God in "theory" could just work at advanced technological levels that we don't understand, therefore it must be what you imply the definition of supernatural should be, but in reality, anything not able to be currently explained is supernatural, hell, most scientific theories could be explained as supernatural, and you base your opinions off of that, yet claim you don't believe in the supernatural.

Let's not also ignore the claims that science makes to be able to do God like things one day, and the existence of other life out there, apparently it's even more far fetched to assume that a God could possibly exist right? In the end though your responses and own beliefs are full of hypocritical statements and opinions. It isn't that you think people shouldn't believe in something, it's that you think everyone should just agree with your misinformation.

Wow - This actually has me dumbfounded.

-Ket

[Glenzig]

And yet you continue to insist that science is a belief system as is religion.

Is it all science that you relegate to a belief system, or just the ones that support biological evolution?

If medical science is a belief system aren't you just as well off sitting at home with a broken leg and praying over it as you are visiting an emergency room? If a loved one contracts a life threatening illness are you simply going to pray for divine intervention?

Do you believe that computer scientists prayed over a block of silicon to receive enlightenment regarding computational complexity theory? Or is it more reasonable to assume that they arrived at a theory using the tools of science?

It exasperates me to no end that a person will decry evolutionary theory one moment and the next show up for an injection to protect themselves from the latest evolutionary form of a flu virus.

"All science is solid except for that evolutionary science stuff. That's just voodoo."

What exactly are you going on about? Why would I practice faith healing? Anyone with half a mind knows it not true. The best you will ever get is a placebo effect. Medicine was practiced long before the theory of evolution was canonized, so I'm not sure why I would be required to believe in evolution to receive medical treatment. By the way you know Luke was a physician right? Meaning a doctor. Science is not confined to evolution any more than its confined to the bible. If you can't see that then it only reinforces the fact that it is a religion. People were practicing science and medicine, curing diseases and practicing medicine long before Charles or Erasmus Darwin were ever even born. Evolution is not the end all be all of scientific endeavor or thought.

[Non Quixote]

Btw, there is nothing wrong with people going door to door asking if you want to hear what they have to say. It's ok that people have to accept the disease of being gay, but I'm not aloud to ask someone if they want to live the same happiness I do? Backwards logic there. What you also ask is that people accept facts that don't exist, but you also claim that people shouldn't accept, in your words, facts that don't exist. Also, the supernatural is up for personal interpretation for the most part.

(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

unnaturally or extraordinarily great.

This is open to basically ANYTHING currently not explainable could be considered supernatural. This even contradicts its other definition.

manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin, such as ghosts.

So God in "theory" could just work at advanced technological levels that we don't understand, therefore it must be what you imply the definition of supernatural should be, but in reality, anything not able to be currently explained is supernatural, hell, most scientific theories could be explained as supernatural, and you base your opinions off of that, yet claim you don't believe in the supernatural.

Let's not also ignore the claims that science makes to be able to do God like things one day, and the existence of other life out there, apparently it's even more far fetched to assume that a God could possibly exist right? In the end though your responses and own beliefs are full of hypocritical statements and opinions. It isn't that you think people shouldn't believe in something, it's that you think everyone should just agree with your misinformation.Holy fuck. Is everyone else reading this?

I'm pretty sure at this point that you're just trolling because I have a hard time believing that anyone's reading comprehension is that poor. But I'll give you some quick answers just in case it is.

The definition of supernatural that you gave works for the most part. Anything outside of the realm of the natural world is supernatural. A creator god would have to be outside of the natural world, else he or she couldn't create it.

Science only deals with the natural world, so no, scientific theories cannot be supernatural because the supernatural lies outside the realm of science. Which is why science makes no claim about gods, ghosts, goblins or spooks. Having said that, there are pseudo-sciences that do make that claim, so I understand the confusion.

Hell, science does god-like things now. Or at least it would appear so to a person a couple of centuries ago.

As to whether you agree with me or not, honestly I'm expecting you not to. That matters to me not a whit. What does matter is that I make a well reasoned argument, which is difficult given that the material that you've left me to work with is rife with non-sequiturs and confoundedly poor logic. But I like a challenge. :D

One question though:

Are you yet another one who believes that all scientists sit in labs using nothing but a Ouija board and a pair of dice or maybe some mouse entrails to create scientific theories?

[Non Quixote]

What exactly are you going on about? Why would I practice faith healing? Anyone with half a mind knows it not true. The best you will ever get is a placebo effect. Medicine was practiced long before the theory of evolution was canonized, so I'm not sure why I would be required to believe in evolution to receive medical treatment. By the way you know Luke was a physician right? Meaning a doctor. Science is not confined to evolution any more than its confined to the bible. If you can't see that then it only reinforces the fact that it is a religion. People were practicing science and medicine, curing diseases and practicing medicine long before Charles or Erasmus Darwin were ever even born. Evolution is not the end all be all of scientific endeavor or thought.Danced all around my questions, so I'll just ask the most important one again. (Although I'm happy that we can both agree to faith healing being essentially bullshit.)

Is it all science that you relegate to a belief system, or just the ones that support biological evolution?

[Glenzig]

Danced all around my questions, so I'll just ask the most important one again. (Although I'm happy that we can both agree to faith healing being essentially bullshit.)

Is it all science that you relegate to a belief system, or just the ones that support biological evolution?

I thought I stated it quite plainly several times. The theory of evolution is a religion. It does not encompass all science and all science does not require it. I respect the work of scientists,even those who are proponents of evolution. But I realize that it is a form of scientific interpretation, not science itself. Therefore I reject the interpretation of scientific findings into evolutionary terms.
Do you feel that there would be no science in any form without the theory of evolution?

[Non Quixote]

I thought I stated it quite plainly several times. The theory of evolution is a religion. It does not encompass all science and all science does not require it. I respect the work of scientists,even those who are proponents of evolution. But I realize that it is a form of scientific interpretation, not science itself. Therefore I reject the interpretation of scientific findings into evolutionary terms.
Do you feel that there would be no science in any form without the theory of evolution?No, of course not. Science existed long before scientists started realizing that biological organisms evolved. Having said that, I can't think of any science that exists in a vacuum, or any that aren't connected to other scientific fields in some way.

I asked that specific question because many sciences contribute to or depend on evolutionary theory. Biology and anthropology for example. I asked medical questions because that science also contributes to, and is dependent on evolutionary theory.

I suppose I'm just trying to get my head around how you decide which of the fields of science are indeed "science" and which fields are just made up stuff.

[Glenzig]

No, of course not. Science existed long before scientists started realizing that biological organisms evolved. Having said that, I can't think of any science that exists in a vacuum, or any that aren't connected to other scientific fields in some way.

I asked that specific question because many sciences contribute to or depend on evolutionary theory. Biology and anthropology for example. I asked medical questions because that science also contributes to, and is dependent on evolutionary theory.

I suppose I'm just trying to get my head around how you decide which of the fields of science are indeed "science" and which fields are just made up stuff.

How do you decide?

[mtb tripper]

jesus man... don't you understand that arguments like this never get anywhere.

[Glenzig]

jesus man... don't you understand that arguments like this never get anywhere.

Go get high.

[Non Quixote]

How do you decide?Good question. I'm an engineer not a scientist, (although I sometimes wish that I had chosen science instead) so I'm limited to reviewing evidence found in the field, and reading how scientists interpreted that evidence. I have no real problems with any science, so I'll stick to explaining why I accept evolutionary theory as opposed to rejecting it.

You're probably quite a bit younger than I am so suffice to say that I've had decades to delve into evolutionary study and review research findings. I've also had decades to research and review creationist and ID claims. What I look for are reasonable and logical interpretations of evidence as it relates to the natural universe. In other words, I've removed the possibility of supernatural influence from the equation. What I've found is that evolutionary science satisfies those requirements and explains the biosphere with enough clarity and precision to accept that the interpretations are valid. Further, the science is predictive, and in each instance where a prediction could be verified (in the field of microbiology for example), it has been.

When I add the possibility of divine intervention back into the equation and examine the claims of creationism, I find no evidence to support such a claim. But I suppose if there were evidence, we'd all be believers.

There you have my, albeit brief, honest answer.

[Non Quixote]

jesus man... don't you understand that arguments like this never get anywhere.Yeah, but I've got time to kill. :D

[Whirled]

http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/files/2014/06/NotWhatISaid.jpg

Who has a 1st edition bible?

[Eliseus]

Holy fuck. Is everyone else reading this?

I'm pretty sure at this point that you're just trolling because I have a hard time believing that anyone's reading comprehension is that poor. But I'll give you some quick answers just in case it is.

The definition of supernatural that you gave works for the most part. Anything outside of the realm of the natural world is supernatural. A creator god would have to be outside of the natural world, else he or she couldn't create it.

Science only deals with the natural world, so no, scientific theories cannot be supernatural because the supernatural lies outside the realm of science. Which is why science makes no claim about gods, ghosts, goblins or spooks. Having said that, there are pseudo-sciences that do make that claim, so I understand the confusion.

Hell, science does god-like things now. Or at least it would appear so to a person a couple of centuries ago.

As to whether you agree with me or not, honestly I'm expecting you not to. That matters to me not a whit. What does matter is that I make a well reasoned argument, which is difficult given that the material that you've left me to work with is rife with non-sequiturs and confoundedly poor logic. But I like a challenge. :D

One question though:

Are you yet another one who believes that all scientists sit in labs using nothing but a Ouija board and a pair of dice or maybe some mouse entrails to create scientific theories?

So, your implication is that the definition of supernatural is only relevant whenever science claims its relevant or not.

I would ask if you are one of those people that spam about reading comprehension whenever someone disagrees with you, but you already made that answer obvious.

I don't think scientists do that, and in fact have not even once in this thread claimed that god is the all mighty. I have simply provided logic to your guys argument which usually results in angry responses that I just don't get it, when there is no grey areas or not understanding the definitions and facts that I have provided. You are the one to claim that things that things without any real proof are true while claiming religious views are without a doubt 100% fabricated, which is the same idea as a theory.

Let me ask you a question, are you one of those people that feels because shitty things happen, or you personally are such a piece of shit that God must not exist, because if he did, this stuff wouldn't happen? Because there is NO scientific evidence at all to prove God doesn't exist, matter of fact, there is more scientific theories that would point to the possibility than not just from logical thinking.

[Glenzig]

Good question. I'm an engineer not a scientist, (although I sometimes wish that I had chosen science instead) so I'm limited to reviewing evidence found in the field, and reading how scientists interpreted that evidence. I have no real problems with any science, so I'll stick to explaining why I accept evolutionary theory as opposed to rejecting it.

You're probably quite a bit younger than I am so suffice to say that I've had decades to delve into evolutionary study and review research findings. I've also had decades to research and review creationist and ID claims. What I look for are reasonable and logical interpretations of evidence as it relates to the natural universe. In other words, I've removed the possibility of supernatural influence from the equation. What I've found is that evolutionary science satisfies those requirements and explains the biosphere with enough clarity and precision to accept that the interpretations are valid. Further, the science is predictive, and in each instance where a prediction could be verified (in the field of microbiology for example), it has been.

When I add the possibility of divine intervention back into the equation and examine the claims of creationism, I find no evidence to support such a claim. But I suppose if there were evidence, we'd all be believers.

There you have my, albeit brief, honest answer.

Good enough. Thank you for actually answering honestly. I actually do the same thing with the exception of ruling out anything supernatural. Does that make me dumb? Maybe, but I'm not really that worried about that. I myself have never been able to reconcile the high level of design found in even the lowest forms of life in the natural world with there being no creator. Design to me, must always infer a designer.
Take stone hence for example. No one knows exactly who built it, or exactly when. We have never met and seen whomever it was that built it. But even at with something that seems to be so simple, stones laying on stones in a circle, is not given a purely natural explanation. No reasonable person would deny that stonehenge was designed.

The universe runs on existing laws. It shows design to high a superbly high degree. Otherwise we would not even be able to keep time.

Based on that I cannot reject the idea of a creator. Design comes from intelligence. Also what I have learned in my decades of reading and studying the bible in no way contradicts science. I know this will be a point of contention for most people, but I have not found an area where the bible touches on science (after all, it was never meant to be a scientific textbook) that is inaccurate. Misunderstood, yes, but not actually inaccurate. There are also areas where the bible touches on science and explains things that were no known at the time. To me this is a strong evidence of its source.

I also wanted to point out that I have never shied away from pro evolution books or websites. In fact I find them the most enlightening. I'm currently reading a book from the early 1900's about the formation of the doctrine of evolution.

[leewong]

"If, now, that right eye of yours is making you stumble, tear it out and throw it away p. 7from you. For it is more beneficial to you for one of your members to be lost to you than for your whole body to be pitched into Gehenna.”—Matthew 5:29.

Of course, Jesus was not advocating self-mutilation. Rather, he was stressing metaphorically that we should be willing to cut out of our life anything that is spiritually harmful. True, the action we take may be very painful. But it will protect us.

So why doesnt the verse say that instead? Pretty unclear for a holy book if you ask me. Either God gives horribly vague instructions that are open for any interpretation or it was meant for literal translation.

If I was omnipotent and wanted to instruct my creation, I think I could do WAY better. Hell, I am not omnipotent and I could still right a book that has less contradictions and less cryptic verses.

So we are left with two possibilities, God intentionally gave unclear instructions or God is not that good at communicating his message. Either way it doesnt look good for him.

Lastly, you seem to be avoiding the two verses I listed about giving away your material possessions. Is there some cryptic interpretation that allows you to ignore them as well?

[paulgiamatti]

I have not found an area where the bible touches on science that is inaccurate. Misunderstood, yes, but not actually inaccurate.

And here we have Christian apologetics in a nutshell. It doesn't matter how absurd the religious claim is, it is always being misconstrued in some way by the non-believer. God created the earth six days? Oh no, they didn't mean literally six days. Be more open-minded!

This is absolute drivel. It's nothing more than the byproduct of an ancient, superstitious and out-moded belief system which we'd be so much better off without. If you want to believe in it, knock yourself out. Don't teach it to my kids, and don't expect a kind reply from me when you approach my doorstep attempting to win converts to your sadistic cult.

[Eliseus]

So why doesnt the verse say that instead? Pretty unclear for a holy book if you ask me. Either God gives horribly vague instructions that are open for any interpretation or it was meant for literal translation.

If I was omnipotent and wanted to instruct my creation, I think I could do WAY better. Hell, I am not omnipotent and I could still right a book that has less contradictions and less cryptic verses.

So we are left with two possibilities, God intentionally gave unclear instructions or God is not that good at communicating his message. Either way it doesnt look good for him.

Lastly, you seem to be avoiding the two verses I listed about giving away your material possessions. Is there some cryptic interpretation that allows you to ignore them as well?

What, that is your argument? That something in the "The bible" (I put quotes, because although the bible is generally the same among all religions that have it, there has been some interpretations that certain things have been corrupted, or misinterpreted and either changed or omitted) couldn't be possibly misinterpreted or rather spoken in such a different tongue that someone like you just doesn't understand it? So God works in such a way that if someone like you fails to understand the meaning or the metaphorical meaning behind something, then he must not be God because he would make it so that idiots like you would understand? Or you know God so well that some things are literal meaning? I'm trying to understand, either way though, you seem to profess your understanding for knowing this benevolent been so well yet claim he doesn't exist at the same time. Maybe you should listen to those who do believes words or understanding rather then coming up with your own understanding that you seem to obviously not get. I'm not saying what Glenzig even says is the correct meaning, I'm just trying to better understand your ignorance.

[paulgiamatti]

Based on that I cannot reject the idea of a creator. Design comes from intelligence.

All we're saying is we need more evidence than, "Hmm, seems like it was designed." Grandiose claims that there was an intelligent, omnipotent life form that designed and created the universe requires massive, huge, irrefutable, undeniable evidence. Until you can provide such, it is still mine and every reasonable person's view that dismissing these claims is completely rational.

[leewong]

Good enough. Thank you for actually answering honestly. I actually do the same thing with the exception of ruling out anything supernatural. Does that make me dumb? Maybe, but I'm not really that worried about that. I myself have never been able to reconcile the high level of design found in even the lowest forms of life in the natural world with there being no creator. Design to me, must always infer a designer.
Take stone hence for example. No one knows exactly who built it, or exactly when. We have never met and seen whomever it was that built it. But even at with something that seems to be so simple, stones laying on stones in a circle, is not given a purely natural explanation. No reasonable person would deny that stonehenge was designed.

The universe runs on existing laws. It shows design to high a superbly high degree. Otherwise we would not even be able to keep time.

Based on that I cannot reject the idea of a creator. Design comes from intelligence. Also what I have learned in my decades of reading and studying the bible in no way contradicts science. I know this will be a point of contention for most people, but I have not found an area where the bible touches on science (after all, it was never meant to be a scientific textbook) that is inaccurate. Misunderstood, yes, but not actually inaccurate. There are also areas where the bible touches on science and explains things that were no known at the time. To me this is a strong evidence of its source.

I also wanted to point out that I have never shied away from pro evolution books or websites. In fact I find them the most enlightening. I'm currently reading a book from the early 1900's about the formation of the doctrine of evolution.

You comparison is very poor. We know humans build things, we have found tools around Stonehenge along with other objects which place humans there. When was the last time you seen an omnipotent being create something?

[Eliseus]

All we're saying is we need more evidence than, "Hmm, seems like it was designed." Grandiose claims that there was an intelligent, omnipotent life form that designed and created the universe requires massive, huge, irrefutable, undeniable evidence. Until you can provide such, it is still mine and every reasonable person's view that dismissing these claims is completely rational.

You use the word Grandiose way too much. You also keep using it as such that it only exists in religion. But to your last comment, it is just back and forth bs that never gets anywhere because the same applies to the different arguments that have come forth in this thread, yet you keep claiming that it doesn't, but can't provide anything to counter it, therefore being on the same bases as "Grandiose claims".

[paulgiamatti]

If you want to continue conflating theory with claim, go right ahead. It's your stupidity that's being broadcast, not mine.

[leewong]

What, that is your argument? That something in the "The bible" (I put quotes, because although the bible is generally the same among all religions that have it, there has been some interpretations that certain things have been corrupted, or misinterpreted and either changed or omitted) couldn't be possibly misinterpreted or rather spoken in such a different tongue that someone like you just doesn't understand it? So God works in such a way that if someone like you fails to understand the meaning or the metaphorical meaning behind something, then he must not be God because he would make it so that idiots like you would understand? Or you know God so well that some things are literal meaning? I'm trying to understand, either way though, you seem to profess your understanding for knowing this benevolent been so well yet claim he doesn't exist at the same time. Maybe you should listen to those who do believes words or understanding rather then coming up with your own understanding that you seem to obviously not get. I'm not saying what Glenzig even says is the correct meaning, I'm just trying to better understand your ignorance.

Try using paragraphs...I only read the first few lines of your wall of text but I will answer anyhow.

If God wanted to provide CLEAR instruction for how he wanted us to live then why didnt he or why couldnt he? This in itself is a clear sign that the Bible was thought up and written by humans...not an all-knowing being.

Imagine if instructions for using your ipod were so cryptic and open to interpretation.

I already know your response...blah, blah, blah...written in a different language, the writer's were channeling God, etc. That still doesnt mean God could not have provided clear instructions that would last throught the ages. Surely, a being that knows everything would know that the Bible would be misused and misinterpreted. If God is all powerful he would know a way to make it crystal clear. Either he is incompetent or uncaring for writing such a shitty book.

[Eliseus]

You comparison is very poor. We know humans build things, we have found tools around Stonehenge along with other objects which place humans there. When was the last time you seen an omnipotent being create something?

It's irrelevant because even if something was pointed out to you, you would deny. For example, lets say God provided the knowledge or tools to create Stonehenge, you would consider fallacy because he didn't do it with his own hands. There was once a astronomer for example who said that day after day, they could never find anything in space, then one day it was almost as if someone took there hand and moved some kind of invisible wall in space to allow further discovery. Though it was still human discovery, was it not possible for God to assist in such thing because he didn't leave some kind of fingerprint somewhere or some kind of miraculous thing behind to show it was God? You base your belief upon the idea that if God existed the world would be forced into some kind of perfection and that he is so marvelous that faith in him would require miraculous proof.

[iruinedyourday]

heres how it works if you believe in the bible, cool.

if you dont and you understand science, cool.

if you believe in the bible but think science is a religion think you're smarter than people htat understand science, shut the fuck up.

[G13]

Try using paragraphs...I only read the first few lines of your wall of text but I will answer anyhow.

If God wanted to provide CLEAR instruction for how he wanted us to live then why didnt he or why couldnt he? This in itself is a clear sign that the Bible was thought up and written by humans...not an all-knowing being.

Imagine if instructions for using your ipod were so cryptic and open to interpretation.

I already know your response...blah, blah, blah...written in a different language, the writer's were channeling God, etc. That still doesnt mean God could not have provided clear instructions that would last throught the ages. Surely, a being that knows everything would know that the Bible would be misused and misinterpreted. If God is all powerful he would know a way to make it crystal clear. Either he is incompetent or uncaring for writing such a shitty book.

Have you ever read The Bible?

Ever read The New Testament?

The instruction given couldn't be anymore clear

[leewong]

It's irrelevant because even if something was pointed out to you, you would deny. For example, lets say God provided the knowledge or tools to create Stonehenge, you would consider fallacy because he didn't do it with his own hands. There was once a astronomer for example who said that day after day, they could never find anything in space, then one day it was almost as if someone took there hand and moved some kind of invisible wall in space to allow further discovery. Though it was still human discovery, was it not possible for God to assist in such thing because he didn't leave some kind of fingerprint somewhere or some kind of miraculous thing behind to show it was God? You base your belief upon the idea that if God existed the world would be forced into some kind of perfection and that he is so marvelous that faith in him would require miraculous proof.

Absolute dribble. So now you want to credit God with mankind's hard work and achievements? Please provide evidence that supports your claim that an omnipotent being is "providing the knowledge or tools to create". Go on, show me where you have seen a God handing out intellectual property. You might as well be saying a muse from greek mythology inspired all the greatest poetry on Earth. It's nonsense and a cop-out.

[Eliseus]

Try using paragraphs...I only read the first few lines of your wall of text but I will answer anyhow.

If God wanted to provide CLEAR instruction for how he wanted us to live then why didnt he or why couldnt he? This in itself is a clear sign that the Bible was thought up and written by humans...not an all-knowing being.

Imagine if instructions for using your ipod were so cryptic and open to interpretation.

I already know your response...blah, blah, blah...written in a different language, the writer's were channeling God, etc. That still doesnt mean God could not have provided clear instructions that would last throught the ages. Surely, a being that knows everything would know that the Bible would be misused and misinterpreted. If God is all powerful he would know a way to make it crystal clear. Either he is incompetent or uncaring for writing such a shitty book.

You claim God didn't give clear instructions. You create some kind of grey are that doesn't exist. Better yet, like I mentioned in my response that you quoted, there is somewhat different interpretations of the bible depending on your Christian religion, now assuming God DOES exist, I think they would have to be only one that is true correct? Well, maybe a lot of the core values are true, but then other stuff gets jumbled up and confusing. Even more so considering if the Bible is text from X period and has gone through several different translations, it might be safe to assume that not all of it is proper. Anyways, you seem to not like what said instructions are, so you are concluding that he is incompetent or uncaring? Like I also said, apparently you seem to know God personally, but claim he doesn't exist. I think it's safe to assume that you really have no idea what you are saying.

Also, next time you tell someone that you stopped reading, don't respond to comments that were later in the response. Even more so, I will not break up sentences for you to feel less illiterate because for some reason your brain can't process text without having a big white space between 3-4 lines.

[leewong]

Have you ever read The Bible?

Ever read The New Testament?

The instruction given couldn't be anymore clear

So no one disagrees on what the Bible says? News to me. You might want to inform the thousands of different denominations of Christianity.

[Eliseus]

Absolute dribble. So now you want to credit God with mankind's hard work and achievements? Please provide evidence that supports your claim that an omnipotent being is "providing the knowledge or tools to create". Go on, show me where you have seen a God handing out intellectual property. You might as well be saying a muse from greek mythology inspired all the greatest poetry on Earth. It's nonsense and a cop-out.

Lol this proves exactly what I pointed out from the thing you quote. To claim anything is Gods work, you would deny anyways. You just supported everything you quoted to the T.

[Eliseus]

So no one disagrees on what the Bible says? News to me. You might want to inform the thousands of different denominations of Christianity.

So no one disagrees on what science says? News to me. You might want to inform the thousands of different scientists.

[Glenzig]

You comparison is very poor. We know humans build things, we have found tools around Stonehenge along with other objects which place humans there. When was the last time you seen an omnipotent being create something?

Who built Stonehenge?

[Eliseus]

heres how it works if you believe in the bible, cool.

if you dont and you understand science, cool.

if you believe in the bible but think science is a religion think you're smarter than people htat understand science, shut the fuck up.

Facts are facts.

[leewong]

You claim God didn't give clear instructions. You create some kind of grey are that doesn't exist. Better yet, like I mentioned in my response that you quoted, there is somewhat different interpretations of the bible depending on your Christian religion, now assuming God DOES exist, I think they would have to be only one that is true correct? Well, maybe a lot of the core values are true, but then other stuff gets jumbled up and confusing. Even more so considering if the Bible is text from X period and has gone through several different translations, it might be safe to assume that not all of it is proper. Anyways, you seem to not like what said instructions are, so you are concluding that he is incompetent or uncaring? Like I also said, apparently you seem to know God personally, but claim he doesn't exist. I think it's safe to assume that you really have no idea what you are saying.

Also, next time you tell someone that you stopped reading, don't respond to comments that were later in the response. Even more so, I will not break up sentences for you to feel less illiterate because for some reason your brain can't process text without having a big white space between 3-4 lines.

FINETHENIWONTBREAKUPTEXTEITHER> If you want anyone to take you serious you should at least TRY to express your ideas in a coherent fashion.

"a lot of the core values are true, but then other stuff gets jumbled up and confusing. Even more so considering if the Bible is text from X period and has gone through several different translations"

An omnipotent being would know this and write it in a way that it can be easily translated...next.

"Anyways, you seem to not like what said instructions are, so you are concluding that he is incompetent or uncaring?"

I dont think "he" exists at all. You seem to miss the point entirely. OMNIPOTENT BEINGS CAN DO ANYTHING INCLUDING WRITING A BOOK WITHOUT RELYING ON SHEEP HERDERS TO SCRIBBLE IT DOWN. It is the virtual nail in the coffin...men wrote the bible and it came from the minds of very fallible men. Why would a God need someone to channel his inner thoughts to us? It is complete nonsense.

[Glenzig]

So why doesnt the verse say that instead? Pretty unclear for a holy book if you ask me. Either God gives horribly vague instructions that are open for any interpretation or it was meant for literal translation.

If I was omnipotent and wanted to instruct my creation, I think I could do WAY better. Hell, I am not omnipotent and I could still right a book that has less contradictions and less cryptic verses.

So we are left with two possibilities, God intentionally gave unclear instructions or God is not that good at communicating his message. Either way it doesnt look good for him.

Lastly, you seem to be avoiding the two verses I listed about giving away your material possessions. Is there some cryptic interpretation that allows you to ignore them as well?

So you've never ever used illustrations or hyperbole to make a point? Point blank cut and dry facts would give you the information, but we are humans, we like to be able to reason on things. We like to get emotionally involved. We like to learn and reinforce ideas and work things out for ourselves. This also allows for free will. If you refuse to try to understand, or refuse a reasonable explanation, then that's your choice.

[leewong]

So you've never ever used illustrations or hyperbole to make a point? Point blank cut and dry facts would give you the information, but we are humans, we like to be able to reason on things. We like to get emotionally involved. We like to learn and reinforce ideas and work things out for ourselves. This also allows for free will. If you refuse to try to understand, or refuse a reasonable explanation, then that's your choice.

If I was giving instructions on something as critical as God was then YES...you are damn straight that I would be as literal and clear as possible. Imagine if we built nuclear factories using vague and open to interpret instructions. This isnt even on the same scale. These are instructions from the creator of the universe on how to live life according to God's plan or else you are TORTURED FOREVER but yet the instructions are more vague than an HBO season finale.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

So you've never ever used illustrations or hyperbole to make a point? Point blank cut and dry facts would give you the information, but we are humans, we like to be able to reason on things. We like to get emotionally involved. We like to learn and reinforce ideas and work things out for ourselves. This also allows for free will. If you refuse to try to understand, or refuse a reasonable explanation, then that's your choice.

I would agree up to a point. It becomes completely unnecessary and actually counter productive when illustrations and hyperbole are used in instruction manuals. This would go triple when it's instructions that your beloved children need to follow to save their immortal souls.

"God works in mysterious ways" just doesn't cut it.

[Glenzig]

I would agree up to a point. It becomes completely unnecessary and actually counter productive when illustrations and hyperbole are used in instruction manuals. This would go triple when it's instructions that your beloved children need to follow to save their immortal souls.

"God works in mysterious ways" just doesn't cut it.

I never said that God works in mysterious ways. Blunt facts would only work to a point though. You could tell someone not to commit adultery or they will die, but that will only keep them obedient as long as they're scared of threat of death. Explaining to them how important and meaningful it is to follow that command, and how strongly they need to feel about it in order to maintain their stance goes much much further. You can't do that without colorful language like illustration and hyperbole.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

I never said that God works in mysterious ways. Blunt facts would only work to a point though. You could tell someone not to commit adultery or they will die, but that will only keep them obedient as long as they're scared of threat of death. Explaining to them how important and meaningful it is to follow that command, and how strongly they need to feel about it in order to maintain their stance goes much much further. You can't do that without colorful language like illustration and hyperbole.

It can be done and you know it. Let's suppose for the sake of argument that you couldn't though. Why not for the sake of consistency have both? These are again God's precious children after all.

[Glenzig]

It can be done and you know it. Let's suppose for the sake of argument that you couldn't though. Why not for the sake of consistency have both? These are again God's precious children after all.

The bible contains both direct commands and illustrative talk and hyperbole.

[Non Quixote]

So, your implication is that the definition of supernatural is only relevant whenever science claims its relevant or not.No. That's not even close to what I said.

I would ask if you are one of those people that spam about reading comprehension whenever someone disagrees with you, but you already made that answer obvious.
At this point your reading comprehension is suspect, whether I note that it is or not. You continue to "respond" to your own fabrications. You're either being malicious (trolling) or misunderstanding what I'm posting. And honestly, you'd have to form a coherent argument before I can even be sure what you're disagreeing with.

I don't think scientists do that, and in fact have not even once in this thread claimed that god is the all mighty.I never said that you claimed that. Yet another misrepresentation.I have simply provided logic to your guys argument which usually results in angry responses that I just don't get it, when there is no grey areas or not understanding the definitions and facts that I have provided. You are the one to claim that things that things without any real proof are true while claiming religious views are without a doubt 100% fabricated, which is the same idea as a theory.Let's see if I can sort this goop out. Firstly, you have yet to respond logically to anything, even your own strawmen. Secondly, I agreed with the definitions you provided, no idea how you got anger from that. Followed by yet another strawman. I think. It's pretty garbled. Maybe you could take another shot at phrasing your complaint coherently?

Let me ask you a question, are you one of those people that feels because shitty things happen, or you personally are such a piece of shit that God must not exist, because if he did, this stuff wouldn't happen? Because there is NO scientific evidence at all to prove God doesn't exist, matter of fact, there is more scientific theories that would point to the possibility than not just from logical thinking.Oh yes, the "you don't believe in a god because you're angry and your life is shitty" gambit. Do you guys read from the same script?

Of course there is no scientific evidence to prove that gods doesn't exist. If you had comprehended what you read in my post (if you even read it), you would see that I clearly stated that a) science deals exclusively with the natural world, and b) gods lie outside the natural world. So no, science can't disprove the existence of your god, or for that matter of fact, the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Gods are outside of the realm of science.

Slow down a bit and re-read what you type before you post it. I don't mind responding, but your post has to be somewhat coherent in order for me to do that.

[Glenzig]

It can be done and you know it. Let's suppose for the sake of argument that you couldn't though. Why not for the sake of consistency have both? These are again God's precious children after all.

So how would you go about explaining and reinforcing a command that is plain and simple and blunt and to the point. Why shouldn't I steal?

[Non Quixote]

Facts are facts.I would be interested in seeing you post some. One even.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

The bible contains both direct commands and illustrative talk and hyperbole.

Not consistently. It does not follow up every story with: "in short the moral of the story is..."

All sin is equal in the eyes of God, as such all protections from sin should be as well.

[leewong]

I never said that God works in mysterious ways. Blunt facts would only work to a point though. You could tell someone not to commit adultery or they will die, but that will only keep them obedient as long as they're scared of threat of death. Explaining to them how important and meaningful it is to follow that command, and how strongly they need to feel about it in order to maintain their stance goes much much further. You can't do that without colorful language like illustration and hyperbole.

Or it could have the exact opposite effect. It leads to billions of people suffering eternal torture simply because they lack clear and concise instruction.

Let's go back to my nuclear plant example...

Here is how I would state something of importance:
"Failing to provide sufficient cooling will cause a runaway nuclear reaction and meltdown. This will render the land uninhabitable for thousands of years and possibly result in millions of deaths. YOU MUST MAINTAIN COOLING AT ALL TIMES."

Here is how the bible would tell you:

"And Ismabad said to the people of Jerico, "let not the waters run dry in the age of the atom for hellfire will consume the land and all it's inhabitants." That isnt an instruction at all. It is garbage and useless...just like the bible.

If the author is clear on the instructions and I can understand them then it is my own fault for not listening and I can accept that. If the author is using vague language and is unclear then it is the AUTHORS fault for not making sure his point was understood...to pass the blame on to me then torture me for eternity for not getting it right is psychopathic.

[Glenzig]

Not consistently. It does not follow up every story with: "in short the moral of the story is..."

All sin is equal in the eyes of God, as such all protections from sin should be as well.

And you have absolutely no power of reason with which to sort the moral out? No way of figuring out what an illustration or a hyperbole may mean? The point isn't one of protection, its one of warning. People ignore blatant warnings all the time. No one, even God, is going to physically stop you from commiting a sin if you want to.

[Glenzig]

Or it could have the exact opposite effect. It leads to billions of people suffering eternal torture simply because they lack clear and concise instruction.

Let's go back to my nuclear plant example...

Here is how I would state something of importance:
"Failing to provide sufficient cooling will cause a runaway nuclear reaction and meltdown. This will render the land uninhabitable for thousands of years and possibly result in millions of deaths. YOU MUST MAINTAIN COOLING AT ALL TIMES."

Here is how the bible would tell you:

"And Ismabad said to the people of Jerico, "let not the waters run dry in the age of the atom for hellfire will consume the land and all it's inhabitants." That isnt an instruction at all. It is garbage and useless...just like the bible.

If the author is clear on the instructions and I can understand them then it is my own fault for not listening and I can accept that. If the author is using vague language and is unclear then it is the AUTHORS fault for not making sure his point was understood...to pass the blame on to me then torture me for eternity for not getting it right is psychopathic.

So I'm gathering that you believe in Hellfire and eternal torment. You've referenced it several times now.

[leewong]

And you have absolutely no power of reason with which to sort the moral out? No way of figuring out what an illustration or a hyperbole may mean? The point isn't one of protection, its one of warning. People ignore blatant warnings all the time. No one, even God, is going to physically stop you from commiting a sin if you want to.

You do realize there are over 1,500 denominations of Christianity, right? Apparently, it isnt so obvious to all. You act like you have the entire bible figured out yet there are MILLIONS of people that would disagree with your interpretation. Quit acting like the entire bible is an easy read and that everyone agrees with what is being said. You simply have no ground to stand on here.

[Glenzig]

You do realize there are over 1,500 denominations of Christianity, right? Apparently, it isnt so obvious to all. You act like you have the entire bible figured out yet there are MILLIONS of people that would disagree with your interpretation. Quit acting like the entire bible is an easy read and that everyone agrees with what is being said. You simply have no ground to stand on here.

I have made none of those claims.

[leewong]

So I'm gathering that you believe in Hellfire and eternal torment. You've referenced it several times now.

I dont believe any of it but it is one of the interpretations of the bible. I guess this is where you tell me that hell isnt real according to your own personal beliefs. That still doesnt dismiss the fact that a majority of Christians think otherwise and completely disagree. Ever considered if you are wrong? Isnt God gonna be pretty upset with you ignoring what was so obvious to others?

[paulgiamatti]

So I'm gathering that you believe in Hellfire and eternal torment. You've referenced it several times now.

More over-attribution. Careful! Don't even reference something that came from religion, because that automatically qualifies you as a believer!

Absolute nonsense.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

And you have absolutely no power of reason with which to sort the moral out? No way of figuring out what an illustration or a hyperbole may mean? The point isn't one of protection, its one of warning. People ignore blatant warnings all the time. No one, even God, is going to physically stop you from commiting a sin if you want to.

You do realize there are over 1,500 denominations of Christianity, right? Apparently, it isnt so obvious to all. You act like you have the entire bible figured out yet there are MILLIONS of people that would disagree with your interpretation. Quit acting like the entire bible is an easy read and that everyone agrees with what is being said. You simply have no ground to stand on here.

Beat me to it.

[Glenzig]

I dont believe any of it but it is one of the interpretations of the bible. I guess this is where you tell me that hell isnt real according to your own personal beliefs. That still doesnt dismiss the fact that a majority of Christians think otherwise and completely disagree. Ever considered if you are wrong? Isnt God gonna be pretty upset with you ignoring what was so obvious to others?

Have I ever considered that I was wrong? Yes all the time. If we were just working off of majority opinion being mandatory for belief, you would have to be a Christian. There are more christians than atheists after all. does that make all of them right? No. So I think we can agree that what the majority of one or another group believes doesn't necessarily dictate what everyone individually has to believe.

Have you ever considered that you are wrong?

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Christianity is not the most populous of belief systems.

[leewong]

I have made none of those claims.

So you think all denominations are reading the bible correctly?

[Glenzig]

Christianity is not the most populous of belief systems.

I'm guessing it is in the country he lives in.

[Glenzig]

So you think all denominations are reading the bible correctly?

No. Do you?

[leewong]

Have I ever considered that I was wrong? Yes all the time. If we were just working off of majority opinion being mandatory for belief, you would have to be a Christian. There are more christians than atheists after all. does that make all of them right? No. So I think we can agree that what the majority of one or another group believes doesn't necessarily dictate what everyone individually has to believe.

Have you ever considered that you are wrong?

I have never seen someone miss a point so consistently and reliably. Congrats.

[leewong]

No. Do you?

So we are playing this game now? You have to know the point I was getting at or you have the most abysmal reading skills on the planet.

[Glenzig]

I have never seen someone miss a point so consistently and reliably. Congrats.

You're welcome.

[Glenzig]

So we are playing this game now? You have to know the point I was getting at or you have the most abysmal reading skills on the planet.

Wasn't it a yes or no question?

[leewong]

Wasn't it a yes or no question?

I see you have given up and resorted to being a 12 year old. That's ok...time for me to drive home. Have a nice weekend.

[Glenzig]

I see you have given up and resorted to being a 12 year old. That's ok...time for me to drive home. Have a nice weekend.

I thought you were a man that liked direct answers. Sorry.
Same here and you too.

[paulgiamatti]

There are more christians than atheists after all.

Not true. Every Christian is an atheist with regard to the Muslim god of Muhammad. Everyone is atheistic with regard to Zeus, or Athena, or Thor, and so on. Atheism exists in everyone which is why it's silly to call yourself one - I don't need to prove my disbelief in medieval doctrines and superstitious bullshit. It should be immediately assumed that anyone with a moral compass doesn't buy into it either.

[Glenzig]

Not true. Every Christian is an atheist with regard to the Muslim god of Muhammad. Everyone is atheistic with regard to Zeus, or Athena, or Thor, and so on. Atheism exists in everyone which is why it's silly to call yourself one - I don't need to prove my disbelief in medieval doctrines and superstitious bullshit. It should be immediately assumed that anyone with a moral compass doesn't buy into it either.

Are you Christopher Hitchen's ghost?

[Non Quixote]

Not true. Every Christian is an atheist with regard to the Muslim god of Muhammad.Which is weird since both Christians and Muslims worship the god of Abraham. Some Christians get it though, and just regard Muhammad as a pretender.

[paulgiamatti]

Are you Christopher Hitchen's ghost?

That's very high praise of you but no. Hitchens was a guiding light for me among others like Sam Harris, Noam Chomsky, Salmon Rushdie, Andrea Dworkin, Lawrence Krauss, to name a few.

[RobotElvis]

Not true. Every Christian is an atheist with regard to the Muslim god of Muhammad. Everyone is atheistic with regard to Zeus, or Athena, or Thor, and so on. Atheism exists in everyone which is why it's silly to call yourself one - I don't need to prove my disbelief in medieval doctrines and superstitious bullshit. It should be immediately assumed that anyone with a moral compass doesn't buy into it either.

Not true. I am a Christian, but do not deny that there are others that the bible calls "gods". These include demonic forces, fleshly desires, and even humans who have placed themselves above God. These gods can have great influence on people seperating them from tries worship to the creator.

[Non Quixote]

Not true. I am a Christian, but do not deny that there are others that the bible calls "gods". These include demonic forces, fleshly desires, and even humans who have placed themselves above God. These gods can have great influence on people seperating them from tries worship to the creator.So you believe in Zeus, Athena, Mars, Loki, Thor, Wankan Tanka, Vishna, Brahman, et al.? Heaven has suburbs?

[Eliseus]

Lol, now this thread is getting silly. People who argue religion as a fallacy are just being retarded now and hypocritical, for example, saying that Christians are Atheists towards other religions, but nor accepting that science itself is a religion, which actually has legit proof to support, by definition, Christians are not Atheists in any sort or form, no matter how much you guys again try to create a grey area. I do appreciate the anon trolls though and illogical arguments many of you guys who can't prove stuff like evolution for the good laugh at how its ok to brainwash children upon fallacies of science, but not the fallacies of religion. I'm pretty sure people like Non Quixote is just the same person trying to add more support for his cause lmao.

[paulgiamatti]

Lol, now this thread is getting silly. People who argue religion as a fallacy are just being retarded now and hypocritical, for example, saying that Christians are Atheists towards other religions, but nor accepting that science itself is a religion, which actually has legit proof to support, by definition, Christians are not Atheists in any sort or form, no matter how much you guys again try to create a grey area. I do appreciate the anon trolls though and illogical arguments many of you guys who can't prove stuff like evolution for the good laugh at how its ok to brainwash children upon fallacies of science, but not the fallacies of religion. I'm pretty sure people like Non Quixote is just the same person trying to add more support for his cause lmao.

Nope, science is no more a religion than atheism is a system of belief. No matter how much you want to keep repeating that it is, it doesn't make any difference because it falls flat against the overwhelming consensus that there is a crystal clear, easily defined distinction between the two. No matter how much want to conflate them, and I'll keep saying this until it sinks in, it simply is not going to pass as fact to any rational human being, and you will be immediately disqualified from having an intellectual conversation about these matters if you continue to do so.

[Eliseus]

You are basing what you say off of a majority view. In your own understanding, God does exist then.

[paulgiamatti]

Now you're conflating consensus with incorrectness. There are many issues which I happily stand in the minority on; just because the majority can and oftentimes does align with what is actually correct doesn't make it less correct.

[leewong]

Lol, now this thread is getting silly. People who argue religion as a fallacy are just being retarded now and hypocritical, for example, saying that Christians are Atheists towards other religions, but nor accepting that science itself is a religion, which actually has legit proof to support, by definition, Christians are not Atheists in any sort or form, no matter how much you guys again try to create a grey area. I do appreciate the anon trolls though and illogical arguments many of you guys who can't prove stuff like evolution for the good laugh at how its ok to brainwash children upon fallacies of science, but not the fallacies of religion. I'm pretty sure people like Non Quixote is just the same person trying to add more support for his cause lmao.

What do you think scientist actually do? You seem to have a massive misunderstanding of the scientific method or you are being purposefully deceptive. Let me explain to you for the thousandth time in this thread what scientist do:

1. Observe something then ask a question - "I wonder how big Earth is..."

2. Think of an experiment to determine an answer to that question - "With some fancy math and measurements of shadows from two locations that are far apart I can answer this!"

3. Conduct the experiment

4. Have others repeat the experiment to confirm the results. If they match up to yours...congrats. You just solved a question using the scientific method.


Tell me, Eliseus, why do you consider this process like religion? Do churches/cults build massive telescopes, particle colliders, or launch rovers to Mars and I am unaware of it? When was the last time you see a preacher use a microscope to answer a question during his sermon?

[Patriam1066]

Nope, science is no more a religion than atheism is a system of belief. No matter how much you want to keep repeating that it is, it doesn't make any difference because it falls flat against the overwhelming consensus that there is a crystal clear, easily defined distinction between the two. No matter how much want to conflate them, and I'll keep saying this until it sinks in, it simply is not going to pass as fact to any rational human being, and you will be immediately disqualified from having an intellectual conversation about these matters if you continue to do so.

People put blind faith in science all the time. How many people use anti-depressants, when they don't solve their issues, because they have faith in their doctors / pharmaceutical companies telling them that those remedies work. Australia's government falsified climate data to make their temperature records look more conducive to climate change theory. And yet people still think that scientists are not humans like the rest of us, capable of error.

I'm not saying I disagree with you on all of what you've said... But there are tons of people who believe incorrectly in the infallibility of scientists

[Patriam1066]

What do you think scientist actually do? You seem to have a massive misunderstanding of the scientific method or you are being purposefully deceptive. Let me explain to you for the thousandth time in this thread what scientist do:

1. Observe something then ask a question - "I wonder how big Earth is..."

2. Think of an experiment to determine an answer to that question - "With some fancy math and measurements of shadows from two locations that are far apart I can answer this!"

3. Conduct the experiment

4. Have others repeat the experiment to confirm the results. If they match up to yours...congrats. You just solved a question using the scientific method.


Tell me, Eliseus, why do you consider this process like religion? Do churches/cults build massive telescopes, particle colliders, or launch rovers to Mars and I am unaware of it? When was the last time you see a preacher use a microscope to answer a question during his sermon?

And those scientists who do this are completely immune to external factors like cultural influences and grant money... Come on, you're smarter than this. EVERY group of people has a few dickheads and liars

[Eliseus]

What do you think scientist actually do? You seem to have a massive misunderstanding of the scientific method or you are being purposefully deceptive. Let me explain to you for the thousandth time in this thread what scientist do:

1. Observe something then ask a question - "I wonder how big Earth is..."

2. Think of an experiment to determine an answer to that question - "With some fancy math and measurements of shadows from two locations that are far apart I can answer this!"

3. Conduct the experiment

4. Have others repeat the experiment to confirm the results. If they match up to yours...congrats. You just solved a question using the scientific method.


Tell me, Eliseus, why do you consider this process like religion? Do churches/cults build massive telescopes, particle colliders, or launch rovers to Mars and I am unaware of it? When was the last time you see a preacher use a microscope to answer a question during his sermon?

re·li·gion
noun \ri-ˈli-jən\

: the belief in a god or in a group of gods

: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group


a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3
archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
— re·li·gion·less adjective
See religion defined for English-language learners »
See religion defined for kids »








be·lief
noun \bə-ˈlēf\

: a feeling of being sure that someone or something exists or that something is true

: a feeling that something is good, right, or valuable

: a feeling of trust in the worth or ability of someone

: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2
: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3
: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence







1faith
noun \ˈfāth\

: strong belief or trust in someone or something

: belief in the existence of God : strong religious feelings or beliefs

: a system of religious beliefs

a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>
— on faith
: without question <took everything he said on faith>




Inb4 you deny more stuff again.

[leewong]

And those scientists who do this are completely immune to external factors like cultural influences and grant money... Come on, you're smarter than this. EVERY group of people has a few dickheads and liars

Yes, and the scientific method has a built in system to correct false data. Yes, humans make errors. Yes, some scientist will conflate data. That is exactly why peer review exists. Science corrects it's mistakes but it isnt an instant or perfect process. Nothing on Earth is but the scientific method is the MOST RELIABLE process we have for determining reality...hands down.

Show me a better way to determine the laws of the universe if you think science is completely broken.

[paulgiamatti]

Well, thanks for that, I think? I'm not sure why the definitions of words which are easily looked up and serve to the credit of my last two posts warrant their own post, but in case anyone needs to brush up on vocabulary, there you are.

[leewong]

re·li·gion
noun \ri-ˈli-jən\

: the belief in a god or in a group of gods

: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group


a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3
archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
— re·li·gion·less adjective
See religion defined for English-language learners »
See religion defined for kids »








be·lief
noun \bə-ˈlēf\

: a feeling of being sure that someone or something exists or that something is true

: a feeling that something is good, right, or valuable

: a feeling of trust in the worth or ability of someone

: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2
: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3
: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence







1faith
noun \ˈfāth\

: strong belief or trust in someone or something

: belief in the existence of God : strong religious feelings or beliefs

: a system of religious beliefs

a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>
— on faith
: without question <took everything he said on faith>




Inb4 you deny more stuff again.

So you posted definitions to the word belief, faith, and religion? What exactly is that suppose to prove? Go back and read my post again, numbskull. This time let it sink in.

[Eliseus]

So you posted definitions to the word belief, faith, and religion? What exactly is that suppose to prove? Go back and read my post again, numbskull. This time let it sink in.

Because the last time I posted definitions, you and the 2 other constant responding idiots tried saying it was irrelevant because it was against your points. One of you also tried saying something that scientists don't have beliefs or something similar. So I just saved you the time of arguing more misinformation, cut out the middle bs, and gave you the definitions now. Sadly, proven wrong, instead of arguing more on being incorrect, you try to attack my knowledge of giving you irrelevant info.

[Patriam1066]

Yes, and the scientific method has a built in system to correct false data. Yes, humans make errors. Yes, some scientist will conflate data. That is exactly why peer review exists. Science corrects it's mistakes but it isnt an instant or perfect process. Nothing on Earth is but the scientific method is the MOST RELIABLE process we have for determining reality...hands down.

Show me a better way to determine the laws of the universe if you think science is completely broken.

I don't have a better way. But the fact that you believe that this system is infallible, like a devout catholic believes in the Pope, proves that you are in fact treating "science" in a religious fashion. Everything can fail, especially when that thing involves human beings. I'm not saying it does, and I certainly don't believe that evolution is a hoax like everyone else in this thread, but nonetheless it's healthy to challenge even confirmed science. I believe that's part of the scientific method?

[Patriam1066]

I don't have a better way. But the fact that you believe that this system is infallible, like a devout catholic believes in the Pope, proves that you are in fact treating "science" in a religious fashion. Everything can fail, especially when that thing involves human beings. I'm not saying it does, and I certainly don't believe that evolution is a hoax like everyone else in this thread, but nonetheless it's healthy to challenge even confirmed science. I believe that's part of the scientific method?

I missed the point of your post... You're right about most of it.

I still think that science is treated like a religion. I thought you said perfect where you had in fact said not perfect... Whoops

[paulgiamatti]

No, we believe it is fallible, and falsifiable, which is the mark of anything that is rational and sane.

[Eliseus]

Well, thanks for that, I think? I'm not sure why the definitions of words which are easily looked up and serve to the credit of my last two posts warrant their own post, but in case anyone needs to brush up on vocabulary, there you are.

So what you are implying is that definitions of things are based off of what you want and that common use of the word is invalid even though that it is..... common use. Basically, scientists who disagree with what religion is (or people like you) have some book held in some deep dark cellar that no one will ever find, and they have different definitions for everything, and that what everyone else in the world defines these things as is incorrect.

[Patriam1066]

No, we believe it is fallible, and falsifiable, which is the mark of anything that is rational and sane.

I'm not saying that you don't... I misread leewong's post. But there are tons of people that believe scientists, doctors, etc... Anyone dealing with higher learning, are infallible. I agree with both sides of this debate, but I think Eliseus is right to say that many treat scientists as modern clergymen issuing divine edicts that are not to be challenged

[Patriam1066]

Anyway, nice to have a civil discussion here, that's a first. I'm off to watch Alabama... Roll tide

[paulgiamatti]

No, I just to carefully consider what the intellectual majority of people including scholars, authors, scientists, teachers, and yes, even theologians, regard as semantically correct.

It's like when people bring up egalitarianism as an end unto itself rather than a means to an end. Egalitarianism doesn't operate in a void - you can't just take one interpretation of it or one definition of it from a textbook and shoehorn it into the real world. There are more factors at play when considering huge, sweeping ideas like egalitarianism just like there are with every single word in the English lexicon.

A textbook definition isn't direction for application. It's just a definition. That's why dictionaries are constantly updated, refined and adapted to modern society.

[paulgiamatti]

*choose to carefully consider

[leewong]

Because the last time I posted definitions, you and the 2 other constant responding idiots tried saying it was irrelevant because it was against your points. One of you also tried saying something that scientists don't have beliefs or something similar. So I just saved you the time of arguing more misinformation, cut out the middle bs, and gave you the definitions now. Sadly, proven wrong, instead of arguing more on being incorrect, you try to attack my knowledge of giving you irrelevant info.

Just because you believe or have faith in something doesnt make you religious anymore than being able to swim makes you a fish.

[Eliseus]

Anyway, nice to have a civil discussion here, that's a first. I'm off to watch Alabama... Roll tide

It's actually been pretty far from civil at some points. I do agree though that is is fun to discuss, even though from the time I've been around, you never can change any minds here, everyone thinks there knowledge is the superior knowledge no matter what evidence you point out. Then (this thread for example), you find yourself repeating the exact same thing several times in the same thread to the exact same person because everyone is just running in circles re-debating stuff that has already been brought up and dismissed, because one side feels the others information is better. Really though, it becomes just such a hassle, for example, I legitimately pointed out in a response how trying to say what God could of done or not is irrelevant because the other side would deny it anyways. The dude literally quoted me supporting that, so it is almost why argue in the first place, it's mostly to not let them have the last word, because I really don't want these ignorant people to leave and think they won some kind of war when they really didn't.

Anyways though, to your first comment, most outbursts to destroy this "civil" attitude have mostly been brought upon this side that thinks God doesn't exist. I would assume though their moral compass is probably a bit off, so it's somewhat expected.

[Eliseus]

Just because you believe or have faith in something doesnt make you religious anymore than being able to swim makes you a fish.

No one said it does, it was along with the religion definition because, like I already said (please stop just reading what you want to read in posts), one of you already pointed out how scientists don't have a "belief", so I gave the definition of belief and faith, to remove any middle-ground argument BS that having belief is only to have a belief in the supernatural blah blah blah or that faith is only prevalent in the supernatural or blah blah blah.

[mtb tripper]

shut the fuck up man

[paulgiamatti]

I don't think anyone said scientists don't have beliefs. I certainly said that science is not a religion, and that atheism is not a system of belief, but many scientists are indeed theists whose work we'd be much poorer without. As I've said on this topic in other threads, it's not a question of intelligence, but of morality.

[leewong]

No one said it does, it was along with the religion definition because, like I already said (please stop just reading what you want to read in posts), one of you already pointed out how scientists don't have a "belief", so I gave the definition of belief and faith, to remove any middle-ground argument BS that having belief is only to have a belief in the supernatural blah blah blah or that faith is only prevalent in the supernatural or blah blah blah.

You accuse me of reading what I want to see but then in the same post assume I share the same beliefs as a previous poster. You arent cutting out any middle man. You are propping up straw men and knocking them down.

Please tell me how was your posts on definitions even remotely relevant to my previous post explaining the scientific method? Also, please answer my original question posted in the same post. How do you consider the scientific method as I posted "religious"?

[paulgiamatti]

And in my last post, I don't mean to confuse generic "belief" with belief in the supernatural or belief in the suspension of the laws of physics. Just to avoid that pesky over-attribution - everyone has beliefs. Everyone has ideas, and thoughts, or at least I hope by some amount of their own volition they do.

Just like I will not tolerate any making of offhand remarks like "thank god" or "god only knows", or the participation in traditional holidays as suddenly qualifying someone as a believer of a divine dictatorship or the supernatural, I will not allow the word "belief" to be hijacked by religionists in the same way.

[Eliseus]

You accuse me of reading what I want to see but then in the same post assume I share the same beliefs as a previous poster. You arent cutting out any middle man. You are propping up straw men and knocking them down.

Please tell me how was your posts on definitions even remotely relevant to my previous post explaining the scientific method? Also, please answer my original question posted in the same post. How do you consider the scientific method as I posted "religious"?

Oh one of these people, claims straw MAN for everything that you disagree with. YOU literally asked how science was religious, and I pointed it out.

It's not just sciences but it is ANYTHING that people share the same views as someone else or something else is religious, which was my very first post in this thread, to argue that any views against religion is ridiculous because that view in of itself is a religious view. Then you guys turned it into "science vs religion" and it turned mostly into the hypocritical views you idiots share on how ok it is for someone to be taught things that can be completely fabricated, but because it has the words "science" above it somehow changes the fact that our kids could be preached that instead of religious fabrications. That is the entirety of my points, even more so, off of definitions that I don't just live by, but legit definitions that EVERYONE has access to and lives by, you are INCORRECT in your assertion that sciences is not a religion.

In the end though, like I said, it ultimately doesn't matter here, I'm sure if people like you truly wanted to know the facts of life, you wouldn't be looking for it on a websites called project1999 lol. I don't expect people to change their minds, no matter how logical the situation or argument is here. I do enjoy however bringing up stuff and really seeing how people think or feel or believe. Sometimes it leads into really cool discussions or what if type situations or interesting facts I've never heard or read about that really, are just kind of cool, weather it's a religious view I don't agree with or a scientific view I don't agree with, or an Atheist being, well, an Atheist.

Oh, and to touch up on your last question, because I don't think I really answered that going off on a little rant instead. Well actually I did answer it, you have just chosen several times to ignore it. Religion is more than just the following of a supernatural belief. For example, some guy suggests the big bang is what happened. Even 1 person with the same belief is considered it a religious follow. Religion is more-or-less the idea of sharing the same beliefs/morals/etc.... Not just "hey man, do you believe in God". That is the point of the definitions, which you guys claim are false, because someone in a land that no one can access, random scientists have different definitions of stuff that is incorrect from what the masses believe/know.

[leewong]

YOU literally asked how science was religious, and I pointed it out.

You posted the definitions for faith, belief, and religion. That isnt an answer to my question at all. Here I will ask for the third time:

1. Observe something then ask a question - "I wonder how big Earth is..."

2. Think of an experiment to determine an answer to that question - "With some fancy math and measurements of shadows from two locations that are far apart I can answer this!"

3. Conduct the experiment

4. Have others repeat the experiment to confirm the results. If they match up to yours...congrats. You just solved a question using the scientific method.

Tell me, Eliseus, why do you consider this process anything remotely similar to a religion?

According to your very definition of "religious", any two people that believe something share a religion. So, believing in gravity is a religion, thinking your spouse will return home after a days work is a religion, believing you are watching television is a religion, and so is believing the brakes on your car will work. I could go on and on but any sane person knows that isnt what a religion is.

A Webster dictionary definition has multiple meanings listed for a reason. Words are defined by context.

[Eliseus]

You posted the definitions for faith, belief, and religion. That isnt an answer to my question at all. Here I will ask for the third time:

1. Observe something then ask a question - "I wonder how big Earth is..."

2. Think of an experiment to determine an answer to that question - "With some fancy math and measurements of shadows from two locations that are far apart I can answer this!"

3. Conduct the experiment

4. Have others repeat the experiment to confirm the results. If they match up to yours...congrats. You just solved a question using the scientific method.

Tell me, Eliseus, why do you consider this process anything remotely similar to a religion?

According to your very definition of "religious", any two people that believe something share a religion. So, believing in gravity is a religion, thinking your spouse will return home after a days work is a religion, believing you are watching television is a religion, and so is believing the brakes on your car will work. I could go on and on but any sane person knows that isnt what a religion is.

A Webster dictionary definition has multiple meanings listed for a reason. Words are defined by context.

Since I know you think you are smart, so you are going to try and argue your ignorance some more to each point. I'll put in perenthesis what it means, I don't know though if I can break things down to your level of stupidity to help)


1. I wonder if god exists. (Obvious question I would assume)

2. Think of an experiment. (Lets assume prayer)

3. Conduct experiment. (People have received answers to their prayers)

4. Have others conduct the experiment. (Several people have received answers to their prayers)

I'm not sure where you were getting at. You are also correct in your last paragraph, finally you understand. It doesn't matter what you think is correct or not because it doesn't fit your agenda, it is what it is.

[JayN]

http://www2.b3ta.com/fp-archive/host/10361953-1.gif

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Since I know you think you are smart, so you are going to try and argue your ignorance some more to each point. I'll put in perenthesis what it means, I don't know though if I can break things down to your level of stupidity to help)


1. I wonder if god exists. (Obvious question I would assume)

2. Think of an experiment. (Lets assume prayer)

3. Conduct experiment. (People have received answers to their prayers)

4. Have others conduct the experiment. (Several people have received answers to their prayers)

I'm not sure where you were getting at. You are also correct in your last paragraph, finally you understand. It doesn't matter what you think is correct or not because it doesn't fit your agenda, it is what it is.

Honestly trying to figure out if this some kind of a joke.

Prayer "works" less than one percent of the time. Miracles happen 0 percent of the time. Any scientific experiment with results even tenfold more successful, would be thrown out because the rest results are unreliable and absolutely do not show evidence that the initial hypothesis is correct.

[leewong]

Since I know you think you are smart, so you are going to try and argue your ignorance some more to each point. I'll put in perenthesis what it means, I don't know though if I can break things down to your level of stupidity to help)


1. I wonder if god exists. (Obvious question I would assume)

2. Think of an experiment. (Lets assume prayer)

3. Conduct experiment. (People have received answers to their prayers)

4. Have others conduct the experiment. (Several people have received answers to their prayers)

I'm not sure where you were getting at. You are also correct in your last paragraph, finally you understand. It doesn't matter what you think is correct or not because it doesn't fit your agenda, it is what it is.

Bwahahha! Did you seriously just...hahahahahah...omfg. Ok, time for me to drive home. I will be giggling all the way there. Thanks for the laugh.

[Eliseus]

Bwahahha! Did you seriously just...hahahahahah...omfg. Ok, time for me to drive home. I will be giggling all the way there. Thanks for the laugh.

Apparently you don't know what an assumption is, and it's even more how ignorant you are with your response. You asked me to provide something and I did. To kagatobs extent, that is completely 100% false. You do not have any statistics for prayer, let alone, if you did, you can't group all religions together as 1 religion.

You can think whatever you want and giggle all you want. I provided the examples like you asked. I think the joke more is you can't take a discussion serious when someone provides you the facts and it pisses you off.

[iruinedyourday]

Apparently you don't know what an assumption is, and it's even more how ignorant you are with your response. You asked me to provide something and I did. To kagatobs extent, that is completely 100% false. You do not have any statistics for prayer, let alone, if you did, you can't group all religions together as 1 religion.

You can think whatever you want and giggle all you want. I provided the examples like you asked. I think the joke more is you can't take a discussion serious when someone provides you the facts and it pisses you off.

Stop using words like ignorant. Those words are not for you to use.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Apparently you don't know what an assumption is, and it's even more how ignorant you are with your response. You asked me to provide something and I did. To kagatobs extent, that is completely 100% false. You do not have any statistics for prayer, let alone, if you did, you can't group all religions together as 1 religion.

You can think whatever you want and giggle all you want. I provided the examples like you asked. I think the joke more is you can't take a discussion serious when someone provides you the facts and it pisses you off.

It was simply a bad example and is not scientific. Are there similarities I suppose, but nothing testable or predictable as a result therefore it's not a scientific experiment.

[RobotElvis]

So you believe in Zeus, Athena, Mars, Loki, Thor, Wankan Tanka, Vishna, Brahman, et al.? Heaven has suburbs?

If you read the mythology of all cultures you will see a common thread, that the gods were in chaos and order had to come from chaos.

The bible provides insight into the reason for this commonality. When the sons of God rebelled and became wicked demonic creatures.
Mythology is just a retelling of this tale from the demonic perspective.
Do I believe in Zeus? In a way.

The spirit who presented himself as Zeus in Greek culture would present himself as Odin in Viking culture and Osiris in Egyptian culture, et cetera.

[RobotElvis]

Really, not everything in text books is real? How exactly is the theory of evolution wrong there fella? Please provide some data to back up your claims. Not a single creationist has been able to do it yet but dont let that stop you from trying.

The evolution of man is not only a guess, but a very wild one; and it is totally unsupported by any convincing arguments. It can be mathematically demonstrated to be an impossible theory. Every proof of the unity of the human race in the days of Adam or Noah shatters the theory of the evolution of man.

If the evolution of the human race be true, there must have been, hundreds of thousands of years ago, a great multitude of heads of the race, in many parts of the earth, without one common language or religion. The present population of the globe proves that mankind must have descended from one pair who lived not earlier than the time of Noah.

The unity of languages also proves one common head about the same time. Certain beliefs and customs, common to various religions, point to one original God-given religion in historic time, in contrast to the evolution idea of many religions invented by ape-men in millions of years. The history of the world and the migration of nations point to one locality where the human race began in times not more remote, and show that man was created in a civilized state, and, therefore, never was a brute. If evolution were true, there would have been many billion times as many human beings as now exist, a great multitude of invented languages with little or no similarity, a vast number of invented religions with little, if anything, in common. Even the sciences invented and exploited by evolutionists, the Mendelian Inheritance Law and Biometry, also prove evolution impossible.

I will await your response as to how ignorant I am.

[paulgiamatti]

any views against religion is ridiculous because that view in of itself is a religious view.

I can't just let this go unattacked. Is anyone else reading this nonsense? Is this thing on?

I simply can't understand how someone can so easily conflate religiosity with literally, in his words, any view. I will say it again, this is the most egregious line of non-thought I've ever encountered. It is so patently obvious what a sad and underthought attempt this is at debunking rationally drawn, clear, articulate, undisputed boundaries between religionist and secular, scientific worldviews.

As long as he begins an argument with this, you can right away disregard everything he's about to say. He is immediately disqualified. This is not how you profess ideas in a society which for very good reasons holds itself to higher standards. This is absurdity. White. Noise.

This should not pass as either an argument or a segue into anything worth listening to.

[Glenzig]

Very well stated RobotElvis.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

The evolution of man is not only a guess, but a very wild one; and it is totally unsupported by any convincing arguments. It can be mathematically demonstrated to be an impossible theory. Every proof of the unity of the human race in the days of Adam or Noah shatters the theory of the evolution of man.

If the evolution of the human race be true, there must have been, hundreds of thousands of years ago, a great multitude of heads of the race, in many parts of the earth, without one common language or religion. The present population of the globe proves that mankind must have descended from one pair who lived not earlier than the time of Noah.

The unity of languages also proves one common head about the same time. Certain beliefs and customs, common to various religions, point to one original God-given religion in historic time, in contrast to the evolution idea of many religions invented by ape-men in millions of years. The history of the world and the migration of nations point to one locality where the human race began in times not more remote, and show that man was created in a civilized state, and, therefore, never was a brute. If evolution were true, there would have been many billion times as many human beings as now exist, a great multitude of invented languages with little or no similarity, a vast number of invented religions with little, if anything, in common. Even the sciences invented and exploited by evolutionists, the Mendelian Inheritance Law and Biometry, also prove evolution impossible.

I will await your response as to how ignorant I am.

Where do Neanderthals fit into this line of thought?

[Eliseus]

I can't just let this go unattacked. Is anyone else reading this nonsense? Is this thing on?

I simply can't understand how someone can so easily conflate religiosity with literally, in his words, any view. I will say it again, this is the most egregious line of non-thought I've ever encountered. It is so patently obvious what a sad and underthought attempt this is at debunking rationally drawn, clear, articulate, undisputed boundaries between religionist and secular, scientific worldviews.

As long as he begins an argument with this, you can right away disregard everything he's about to say. He is immediately disqualified. This is not how you profess ideas in a society which for very good reasons holds itself to higher standards. This is absurdity. White. Noise.

This should not pass as either an argument or a segue into anything worth listening to.

Lol this reminds me of the recent black people riot. "You guys seeing this? That white guy shot a black guy, racist! ALL WHITES SHOULD DIE! LETS GET FREE TVS!" Just because a mass mount of idiots agree on something, doesn't make it right either. This thread has been apparent of it.

Again, I gave an example because he asked for one, just because he likes it or doesn't like the example is irrelevant, doesn't matter if it was 1% 2% or 100% is irrelevant. It still works for the criteria he gave. If you argue it was 100%, that doesn't matter either, because scientific theories among scientists that agree is 100% either.

[Eliseus]

isn't 100%***

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Yes it's known as "margin of error" and the % correlation is not only relevant, it's the entire purpose of doing the experiment. Science is about predictions. You are still not talking about science.

Having a hypotheses isn't exclusive to the scientific method anymore than wings are exclusive to airplanes.

Please learn the error in how you continue to conflate everything.

[iruinedyourday]

FUCK THIS THREAD

[leewong]

Apparently you don't know what an assumption is, and it's even more how ignorant you are with your response. You asked me to provide something and I did.

I didnt ask you to shoehorn your religion into a scientific experiment. I ask how the particular example I provided was in any way similar to a religion. You STILL havent answered my question. Reading comprehension...something you lack.

[Eliseus]

Yes it's known as "margin of error" and the % correlation is not only relevant, it's the entire purpose of doing the experiment. Science is about predictions. You are still not talking about science.

Having a hypotheses isn't exclusive to the scientific method anymore than wings are exclusive to airplanes.

Please learn the error in how you continue to conflate everything.

How are you guys not getting this. NONE OF THIS MATTER. He wanted a concept compared to the criteria he gave, and it was given, and instead, retards like you jump back into the convo like "LOL WHAT!?" It's like you didn't even read anything.

This is what you guys see.

Eliseus arguing God exists.

Random person saying something that I agree with

Eliseus arguing Gd exists.

Random person saying something else that I agree with.

Eliseus still arguing God exists.

Random person saying something more to contradict that though.

Eliseus still arguing God exists. Why doesn't he just get God doesn't exist.

Random person saying more stuff.

Does Eliseus ever stop with God exists.

Random people laugh because at Eliseus in agreement.

Eliseus still arguing God exists why?

It's just like what? Though I strongly believe in God, I have not only claimed that you must all bow down and believe in God, but have given counter arguments based off logic.

Eliseus still arguing God exists. Will probably claim this entire posts is "I STRONGLY BELIEVE IN GOD."

[Eliseus]

You posted the definitions for faith, belief, and religion. That isnt an answer to my question at all. Here I will ask for the third time:

1. Observe something then ask a question - "I wonder how big Earth is..."

2. Think of an experiment to determine an answer to that question - "With some fancy math and measurements of shadows from two locations that are far apart I can answer this!"

3. Conduct the experiment

4. Have others repeat the experiment to confirm the results. If they match up to yours...congrats. You just solved a question using the scientific method.

Tell me, Eliseus, why do you consider this process anything remotely similar to a religion?



lawls, my reading comprehension is super hard.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

How are you guys not getting this. NONE OF THIS MATTER. He wanted a concept compared to the criteria he gave, and it was given, and instead, retards like you jump back into the convo like "LOL WHAT!?" It's like you didn't even read anything.

This is what you guys see.

Eliseus arguing God exists.

Random person saying something that I agree with

Eliseus arguing Gd exists.

Random person saying something else that I agree with.

Eliseus still arguing God exists.

Random person saying something more to contradict that though.

Eliseus still arguing God exists. Why doesn't he just get God doesn't exist.

Random person saying more stuff.

Does Eliseus ever stop with God exists.

Random people laugh because at Eliseus in agreement.

Eliseus still arguing God exists why?

It's just like what? Though I strongly believe in God, I have not only claimed that you must all bow down and believe in God, but have given counter arguments based off logic.

Eliseus still arguing God exists. Will probably claim this entire posts is "I STRONGLY BELIEVE IN GOD."

Do you acknowledge that your God may not exist?

[leewong]

The evolution of man is not only a guess, but a very wild one; and it is totally unsupported by any convincing arguments. It can be mathematically demonstrated to be an impossible theory. Every proof of the unity of the human race in the days of Adam or Noah shatters the theory of the evolution of man.

If the evolution of the human race be true, there must have been, hundreds of thousands of years ago, a great multitude of heads of the race, in many parts of the earth, without one common language or religion. The present population of the globe proves that mankind must have descended from one pair who lived not earlier than the time of Noah.

The unity of languages also proves one common head about the same time. Certain beliefs and customs, common to various religions, point to one original God-given religion in historic time, in contrast to the evolution idea of many religions invented by ape-men in millions of years. The history of the world and the migration of nations point to one locality where the human race began in times not more remote, and show that man was created in a civilized state, and, therefore, never was a brute. If evolution were true, there would have been many billion times as many human beings as now exist, a great multitude of invented languages with little or no similarity, a vast number of invented religions with little, if anything, in common. Even the sciences invented and exploited by evolutionists, the Mendelian Inheritance Law and Biometry, also prove evolution impossible.

I will await your response as to how ignorant I am.

You keep making claims but you havent provided any evidence yet. Just wild assertions from creationists websites and answersingenisis.com that have long been discredited. Look up every single claim you just made and type the word debunked after it in google. I am not going to waste my time on this garbage.

[Eliseus]

You keep making claims but you havent provided any evidence yet. Just wild assertions from creationists websites and answersingenisis.com that have long been discredited. Look up every single claim you just made and type the word debunked after it in google. I am not going to waste my time on this garbage.

This is coming from the same guy that didn't provide a single piece of evidence when evolution was brought up earlier in the thread. Just saying.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

This is coming from the same guy that didn't provide a single piece of evidence when evolution was brought up earlier in the thread. Just saying.

Just because you refuse to accept the plethora of peer-reviewed studies that back up evolutionary theory, that doesn't suddenly make them any less evidential.

[paulgiamatti]

It's just like what? Though I strongly believe in God, I have not only claimed that you must all bow down and believe in God, but have given counter arguments based off logic.

Stop. Conflating. Ideas.

No one is oppressing your right to argue for religion, theism, deism, or whatever else you choose to argue, but when you begin a paragraph with "everything is a religion!", no one is going to take you seriously. I mean come on, come up with a reasoned argument. I'd love to hear it, but if you think you're getting out of this unscathed after telling us how literally any argument we make is categorically, definitively absurd because it's actually religious, you've got another thing coming.

It's hardly an argument, and it's definitely not logical.

[leewong]

lawls, my reading comprehension is super hard.

Yes, it is. Read it again if you still cannot understand it. I have stated the question 5 times now. Your example wasnt an experiment in even the broadest sense and it isnt what I asked for in the first place. Let me explain it in a very long winded way so perhaps you will understand.

I am not asking how you would go about proving prayers work or for you to give me an example of another experiment. Really think about this....I want to know how hypothesis, experimentation, and peer review are religious. The process itself is not religious or do you believe it is? FFS, this isnt a hard question and I have tried to pry it out of you for two pages now.

[leewong]

This is coming from the same guy that didn't provide a single piece of evidence when evolution was brought up earlier in the thread. Just saying.

I mentioned DNA, the geological record, and fossils. All point to the same thing...evolution.

Here is a some proof for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zi8FfMBYCkk#t=21

If you were even slightly interested in finding proof of evolution you would have already. Anyone who has done even the basic research could see which side is being dishonest. I will ask you to do the same as another poster. Simply type the word "debunked" after the crazy shit you are about to post. Chances are that someone has already proven the creationist propaganda false and they will give you a far more insightful and rigorous answer than I most likely.

[Eliseus]

I mentioned DNA, the geological record, and fossils. All point to the same thing...evolution.

Here is a some proof for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zi8FfMBYCkk#t=21

If you were even slightly interested in finding proof of evolution you would have already. Anyone who has done even the basic research could see which side is being dishonest. I will ask you to do the same as another poster. Simply type the word "debunked" after the crazy shit you are about to post. Chances are that someone has already proven the creationist propaganda false and they will give you a far more insightful and rigorous answer than I most likely.


http://lmgtfy.com/?q=evolution+debunked (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=evolution+debunked)

per your request.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Can't even answer:

Do you acknowledge that your God might not exist?

[leewong]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=evolution+debunked (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=evolution+debunked)

per your request.

I already know what creationists claim. They keep repeating the same propaganda. I listened to both sides and came to the conclusion that creationism is a farce. You on the other hand, clearly have your head stuck so far up your ass you cant even hear a question I repeat 5 times.

Here is a great series that pretty much covers every single argument you have made:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY&list=PL126AFB53A6F002CC

Watch a few, you might actually learn something.

[paulgiamatti]

And which link should we click first in the list of Google results for "debunking evolution"? ApologeticsPress.org? WakeUp-World.com? John Michael Fischer's brilliantly designed NewGeology.us? Ah, here we go, let's see what Mashable has to say about it.

The word "theory" has a different meaning inside the scientific community than it does elsewhere.

In everyday language, you and I would use "theory" to describe a whim feeling: a theory that eating the crust on your sandwiches makes you taller, or, say, that Marty Hart's daughter on True Detective was actually involved with the Tuttle clan the whole time (pshh).

Either would totally work in this case. In the general sense, an idea doesn't necessarily need to make sense, or even be true, to be considered a theory.

A scientific theory, on the other hand, refers to a comprehensive explanation for a variety of phenomena A scientific theory, on the other hand, refers to a comprehensive explanation for a variety of phenomena.

It begins as a hypothesis. Then, if enough evidence exists to support it, through repeated and thorough testing, it moves to the next step in the scientific method — a theory — where it is accepted as a credible explanation.

One example is atomic theory, which shows how matter is composed of atoms.

Evolution, similarly, is accepted by the vast majority of scientists and backed up by research in fields such as embryology, molecular biology and paleontology.

[Misto]

Aliens had sex with monkeys.

This created humans.

Their wives found out and proceeded to divorce court where the male aliens got screwed.

The end.

This theory cannot be proven or disproved by evolution or creationism.

Holds equal weight to either aforementioned theories.

[leewong]

Aliens had sex with monkeys.

This created humans.

Their wives found out and proceeded to divorce court where the male aliens got screwed.

The end.

This theory cannot be proven or disproved by evolution or creationism.

Holds equal weight to either aforementioned theories.

Actually, that would be pretty easy to verify by comparing ape and human DNA or if human DNA was radically different than all other species on the planet it might lend the theory credit.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Aliens had sex with monkeys.

This created humans.

Their wives found out and proceeded to divorce court where the male aliens got screwed.

The end.

This theory cannot be proven or disproved by evolution or creationism.

Holds equal weight to either aforementioned theories.

Except much like creationism and much unlike evolution there is no evidence to support your claim.

http://i.imgur.com/xiaLq.jpg

[leewong]

Still waiting on an answer to my question, Eliseus

[Glenzig]

Except much like creationism and much unlike evolution there is no evidence to support your claim.

http://i.imgur.com/xiaLq.jpg

You owe me a pack of BandAids. Your super edgy post left me all cut up and bloody.

[Misto]

Actually, that would be pretty easy to verify by comparing ape and human DNA or if human DNA was radically different than all other species on the planet it might lend the theory credit.

You are Asian, so I hold anything you say as credible and irrefutable.

[Eliseus]

Still waiting on an answer to my question, Eliseus

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=head+stuck+up+ass+debunked

[Eliseus]

And which link should we click first in the list of Google results for "debunking evolution"? ApologeticsPress.org? WakeUp-World.com? John Michael Fischer's brilliantly designed NewGeology.us? Ah, here we go, let's see what Mashable has to say about it.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=theory+debunked

[Eliseus]

You are Asian, so I hold anything you say as credible and irrefutable.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=asians+debunked

[Eliseus]

You owe me a pack of BandAids. Your super edgy post left me all cut up and bloody.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=bandaids+debunked

[leewong]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=head+stuck+up+ass+debunked

You arent helping your case.

Still waiting on that answer to the question I have asked 7-8 times now. Also, it would be nice if you acknowledge I provided proof of evolution. Did you watch the video?

[Eliseus]

You arent helping your case.

Still waiting on that answer to the question I have asked 7-8 times now. Also, it would be nice if you acknowledge I provided proof of evolution. Did you watch the video?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=evolution+debunked

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=you+are+a+fool+and+don%27t+listen+debunked

[Misto]

Every ancient civilization on Earth has drawings of what appear to be aliens.

If you don't believe my theory tough shit. I'm an American and believe what I want.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22bo6CKJcJM

0:28

[Tasslehofp99]

http://i.imgur.com/xiaLq.jpg

lol'd

[Eliseus]

Every ancient civilization on Earth has drawings of what appear to be aliens.

If you don't believe my theory tough shit. I'm an American and believe what I want.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22bo6CKJcJM

0:28

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=America+debunked

[leewong]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=evolution+debunked

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=you+are+a+fool+and+don%27t+listen+debunked

8-9 times now. The fact you switched to troll mode instead of answering it speaks volumes.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&docid=5Za_fnKY1sr_uM&tbnid=EtAZVRNu8D7p1M:&ved=0CAUQjBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.durangobill.com%2FCreationism Pics%2FCreationismPopular.gif&ei=4hMeVNHHIMOHyAT4zoGACg&psig=AFQjCNFoNQDWkAvYC04j0oWX2pe7nLx2zg&ust=1411343714634037

[Eliseus]

8-9 times now. The fact you switched to troll mode instead of answering it speaks volumes.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&docid=5Za_fnKY1sr_uM&tbnid=EtAZVRNu8D7p1M:&ved=0CAUQjBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.durangobill.com%2FCreationism Pics%2FCreationismPopular.gif&ei=4hMeVNHHIMOHyAT4zoGACg&psig=AFQjCNFoNQDWkAvYC04j0oWX2pe7nLx2zg&ust=1411343714634037

Simply type the word "debunked" after the crazy shit you are about to post.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Doing+exactly+what+you+asked+and+you+still+don% 27t+like+it+debunked

[leewong]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Doing+exactly+what+you+asked+and+you+still+don% 27t+like+it+debunked

9-10 times now. You can continue acting like a child that has had it's toys taken away or you can grow a pair and answer the question honestly.

[Eliseus]

9-10 times now. You can continue acting like a child that has had it's toys taken away or you can grow a pair and answer the question honestly.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=No+question+asked+debunked

honesty debunked (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=honesty+debunked)

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=acting+like+a+child+debunked

Simply type the word "debunked" after the crazy shit you are about to post.

[paulgiamatti]

If you don't believe my theory tough shit. I'm an American and believe what I want.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22bo6CKJcJM

Hahaha, that was great. "What? You actually don't believe in evolution anymore?!"

[RobotElvis]

Where do Neanderthals fit into this line of thought?

According to Prof. R. S. Lull and other evolutionists, "The skull of the pithecanthropus is characterized by a limited capacity of about two-thirds that of a man."Assuming that this skull is that of a normal creature of that age, as is done in all the arguments of "our friends, the enemy," then the pithecanthropus must have lived 20,000,000 years ago, one-third the period assigned to life. Evolutionists claim the pithecanthropus lived 750,000 years ago; later the guess is reduced to 375,000.

Does any one in his senses believe that an ape-human animal developed one-third of the normal human brain in 375,000 or 750,000 years, when it took 59,250,000 years to develop two-thirds of the brain? If one-third of the normal brain developed in the last 750,000 years, the rate of development must have been 39.5 times as great as in the preceding 59,250,000 years. If one-third developed in the last 375,000 years, the rate of development must have been 78 times as rapid as in the preceding 59,625,000 years. This is incredible. If life began 500,000,000 years ago, and one-third the brain developed in the last 750,000 years, the rate must have been 332 times as rapid as in the preceding 499,250,000 years; and 666 times as rapid in 375,000 years as in the preceding 499,625,000 years. All these guesses are clearly impossible.

In like manner, if the Piltdown man had the estimated brain capacity of 1070 c.c., instead of the normal 1500 c.c., this fabricated creature must have lived about 17,200,000 years ago, if life began 60,000,000 years ago; and 143,333,333 years ago, if life began 500,000,000 years ago.

Prof. Schaaffhausen, the discoverer, estimated the capacity of the Neanderthal man at 1033 c.c. Then he must have lived 18,680,000 years ago, if we accept the 60,000,000 year period; and 311,333,333 years ago, if we accept Prof. Russell's guess of 1,000,000,000 years.


And in all these long ages, fragments of only four skeletons of very doubtful character have been found, and upon this flimsy proof, the youth of our land are expected by self-styled "scientists" to believe it!

[RobotElvis]

According to Prof. R. S. Lull and other evolutionists, "The skull of the pithecanthropus is characterized by a limited capacity of about two-thirds that of a man."Assuming that this skull is that of a normal creature of that age, as is done in all the arguments of "our friends, the enemy," then the pithecanthropus must have lived 20,000,000 years ago, one-third the period assigned to life. Evolutionists claim the pithecanthropus lived 750,000 years ago; later the guess is reduced to 375,000.

Does any one in his senses believe that an ape-human animal developed one-third of the normal human brain in 375,000 or 750,000 years, when it took 59,250,000 years to develop two-thirds of the brain? If one-third of the normal brain developed in the last 750,000 years, the rate of development must have been 39.5 times as great as in the preceding 59,250,000 years. If one-third developed in the last 375,000 years, the rate of development must have been 78 times as rapid as in the preceding 59,625,000 years. This is incredible. If life began 500,000,000 years ago, and one-third the brain developed in the last 750,000 years, the rate must have been 332 times as rapid as in the preceding 499,250,000 years; and 666 times as rapid in 375,000 years as in the preceding 499,625,000 years. All these guesses are clearly impossible.

In like manner, if the Piltdown man had the estimated brain capacity of 1070 c.c., instead of the normal 1500 c.c., this fabricated creature must have lived about 17,200,000 years ago, if life began 60,000,000 years ago; and 143,333,333 years ago, if life began 500,000,000 years ago.

Prof. Schaaffhausen, the discoverer, estimated the capacity of the Neanderthal man at 1033 c.c. Then he must have lived 18,680,000 years ago, if we accept the 60,000,000 year period; and 311,333,333 years ago, if we accept Prof. Russell's guess of 1,000,000,000 years.


And in all these long ages, fragments of only four skeletons of very doubtful character have been found, and upon this flimsy proof, the youth of our land are expected by self-styled "scientists" to believe it!


I typed debunked in front of that and Google blew up

[Eliseus]

I typed debunked in front of that and Google blew up

lmao!! I love it

[leewong]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=No+question+asked+debunked

honesty debunked (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=honesty+debunked)

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=acting+like+a+child+debunked

10-11 or 12-13 times? Losing count now. Backed you into a corner and you went off into the deep end. I will consider this a win for what it is worth. Have a good night.

[Eliseus]

10-11 or 12-13 times? Losing count now. Backed you into a corner and you went off into the deep end. I will consider this a win for what it is worth. Have a good night.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Doesn%27t+like+to+be+proven+wrong+so+claims+he+ wins+some+frabricated+fight+just+like+his+fabricat ed+knowledge.

[Eliseus]

The best part about this is when it searches, it's spell checks all my mistakes! NICE!

[RobotElvis]

I mentioned DNA, the geological record, and fossils. All point to the same thing...evolution.

Here is a some proof for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zi8FfMBYCkk#t=21

If you were even slightly interested in finding proof of evolution you would have already. Anyone who has done even the basic research could see which side is being dishonest. I will ask you to do the same as another poster. Simply type the word "debunked" after the crazy shit you are about to post. Chances are that someone has already proven the creationist propaganda false and they will give you a far more insightful and rigorous answer than I most likely.

"Chances are"........... What faith you have.

Why not take you're own advice and do some research yourself.

But as you say evolution isn't religion, you just happen to put faith in other peoples abilities to debunk what you don't want to believe.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

According to Prof. R. S. Lull and other evolutionists, "The skull of the pithecanthropus is characterized by a limited capacity of about two-thirds that of a man."Assuming that this skull is that of a normal creature of that age, as is done in all the arguments of "our friends, the enemy," then the pithecanthropus must have lived 20,000,000 years ago, one-third the period assigned to life. Evolutionists claim the pithecanthropus lived 750,000 years ago; later the guess is reduced to 375,000.

Does any one in his senses believe that an ape-human animal developed one-third of the normal human brain in 375,000 or 750,000 years, when it took 59,250,000 years to develop two-thirds of the brain? If one-third of the normal brain developed in the last 750,000 years, the rate of development must have been 39.5 times as great as in the preceding 59,250,000 years. If one-third developed in the last 375,000 years, the rate of development must have been 78 times as rapid as in the preceding 59,625,000 years. This is incredible. If life began 500,000,000 years ago, and one-third the brain developed in the last 750,000 years, the rate must have been 332 times as rapid as in the preceding 499,250,000 years; and 666 times as rapid in 375,000 years as in the preceding 499,625,000 years. All these guesses are clearly impossible.

In like manner, if the Piltdown man had the estimated brain capacity of 1070 c.c., instead of the normal 1500 c.c., this fabricated creature must have lived about 17,200,000 years ago, if life began 60,000,000 years ago; and 143,333,333 years ago, if life began 500,000,000 years ago.

Prof. Schaaffhausen, the discoverer, estimated the capacity of the Neanderthal man at 1033 c.c. Then he must have lived 18,680,000 years ago, if we accept the 60,000,000 year period; and 311,333,333 years ago, if we accept Prof. Russell's guess of 1,000,000,000 years.


And in all these long ages, fragments of only four skeletons of very doubtful character have been found, and upon this flimsy proof, the youth of our land are expected by self-styled "scientists" to believe it!

This is a jumbled mess that makes a ton of assumptions, including but not limited to: implying the scientific community doesn't correct it's hypotheses as new information is gathered, brain development has a set rate at which it can happen, that there are only 4 protohuman skeletons in existence (seriously WTF) and that said skeletons are fabricated.

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/236x/44/b9/11/44b911ba33eb4f9393096925f5e4645b.jpg

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

"Chances are"........... What faith you have.

Why not take you're own advice and do some research yourself.

But as you say evolution isn't religion, you just happen to put faith in other peoples abilities to debunk what you don't want to believe.

Probability is a religion, you heard it here first folks.

[Eliseus]

You guys just don't get it. You make claims that basically only science is aloud to make up fabricated stuff, but someone that believes in God isn't. That is really the entire thread.

[Eliseus]

Oh and that all scientific theories are absolute and 100% correct. They are aloud to adjust these theories though, but religious people aren't.

[Eliseus]

oh and debunked

[RobotElvis]

This is a jumbled mess that makes a ton of assumptions, including but not limited to: implying the scientific community doesn't correct it's hypotheses as new information is gathered, brain development has a set rate at which it can happen, that there are only 4 protohuman skeletons in existence (seriously WTF) and that said skeletons are fabricated.

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/236x/44/b9/11/44b911ba33eb4f9393096925f5e4645b.jpg

Previous post from Kaga: Yes it's known as "margin of error" and the % correlation is not only relevant, it's the entire purpose of doing the experiment. Science is about predictions. You are still not talking about science.

Having a hypotheses isn't exclusive to the scientific method anymore than wings are exclusive to airplanes.

Please learn the error in how you continue to conflate everything.
End quote




So according to your definition of the scientific method e.g. "Prediction", then my post was scientific. Thanks

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

You guys just don't get it. You make claims that basically only science is aloud to make up fabricated stuff, but someone that believes in God isn't. That is really the entire thread.

Once again you conflate two things.

Observing the available evidence and accepting the most likely conclusion via testing as "factual" is one thing (there are no facts in science, even existence itself is merely assumed but that's too advanced for you so I'll go no further.).
Preaching "Christian truth" and calling all forms of evidence fabricated (note no evidence of fabrication is provided) is another thing entirely.

It's clear nothing will change your mind. My mind on the other hand... to quote Bill Nye. SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Previous post from Kaga: Yes it's known as "margin of error" and the % correlation is not only relevant, it's the entire purpose of doing the experiment. Science is about predictions. You are still not talking about science.

Having a hypotheses isn't exclusive to the scientific method anymore than wings are exclusive to airplanes.

Please learn the error in how you continue to conflate everything.
End quote




So according to your definition of the scientific method e.g. "Prediction", then my post was scientific. Thanks

Honestly no idea what you are trying to express in this post. Reformat and try again please.

[Eliseus]

Once again you conflate two things.

Observing the available evidence and accepting the most likely conclusion via testing as "factual" is one thing (there are no facts in science, even existence itself is merely assumed but that's too advanced for you so I'll go no further.).
Preaching "Christian truth" and calling all forms of evidence fabricated (note no evidence of fabrication is provided) is another thing entirely.

It's clear nothing will change your mind. My mind on the other hand... to quote Bill Nye. SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!

That ts the point, THERE ISNT AVAILABLE EVIDENCE for all available science that is commonly accepted and, for example, taught in school. Your comment supports EXACTLY what you quoted to try and tear down.

[RobotElvis]

This is a jumbled mess that makes a ton of assumptions, including but not limited to: implying the scientific community doesn't correct it's hypotheses as new information is gathered, brain development has a set rate at which it can happen, that there are only 4 protohuman skeletons in existence (seriously WTF) and that said skeletons are fabricated.

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/236x/44/b9/11/44b911ba33eb4f9393096925f5e4645b.jpg

How did man become a hairless animal? is a hard question for evolutionists. Any scientific theory must be ready to give an account of all phenomena. A hypothesis to explain the origin of man must explain all the facts. How did man become a hairless animal? Darwin's explanation is too puerile for any one professing to be a learned scientist to give. He says that the females preferred males with the least hair (?) until the hairy men gradually became extinct, because, naturally, under such a regime, the hairy men would die off, and, finally only hairless men to beget progeny would survive. What do sensible, serious students think of this "scientific" explanation? If we try to take this explanation seriously, we find that the science of phrenology teaches that females, as a rule, inherit the traits of their fathers, and males the traits of their mothers.

Hence, not the males but the females would become hairless by this ridiculous process. How do evolutionists account for the hair left on the head and other parts of the body? Why do men have beard, while women and children do not? If the hair left on the body is vestigial, why is there no hair on the back, where it was most abundant on our brute ancestors? Even Wallace, an evolutionist of Darwin's day, who did not believe in the evolution of man, calls attention to the fact that even the so-called vestigial hair on the human form is entirely absent from the back, while it is very abundant and useful on the backs of the monkey family. If there was any good reason why the human brute should lose his hair, why for the same reason, did not other species of the monkey family lose their hair? Can it be explained by natural selection? Was the naked brute better fitted to survive than the hairy animal? Did man survive because he was naked, and the hairy brute perish? Evidently not, for the hairy brute still exists in great abundance!

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

That ts the point, THERE ISNT AVAILABLE EVIDENCE for all available science that is commonly accepted and, for example, taught in school. Your comment supports EXACTLY what you quoted to try and tear down.

You have been given a plethora of evidence. Your refusal to accept it does not negate is existence.

If you aren't going to take this seriously I'm going to stop responding. I'm tired of repeating things to deaf ears.

[RobotElvis]

Honestly no idea what you are trying to express in this post. Reformat and try again please.

Prediction= assumption= science!

[RobotElvis]

This is a jumbled mess that makes a ton of assumptions, including but not limited to: implying the scientific community doesn't correct it's hypotheses as new information is gathered, brain development has a set rate at which it can happen, that there are only 4 protohuman skeletons in existence (seriously WTF) and that said skeletons are fabricated.

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/236x/44/b9/11/44b911ba33eb4f9393096925f5e4645b.jpg
Prof. R. S. Lull: "The brain, especially the type of brain found in the higher human races, must have been _very_ slow of development

[Eliseus]

You have been given a plethora of evidence. Your refusal to accept it does not negate is existence.

If you aren't going to take this seriously I'm going to stop responding. I'm tired of repeating things to deaf ears.

What evidence, there still hasn't been any evidence, the evidence that has been provided is still based off theories that don't have legitimate support to back it up. Your right, it is getting tiresome trying to explain lack of evidence to people like you. I'm sure if I took a shit, said I'm a scientist, and this shit will turn into a new planet. You would accept it.

[rgostic]

If you trust a man in a lab to give you an accurate prediction of speciation dates on scales of millions of years based off of a hominid's cranial volume without reading his reports then you are pretty silly.

[RobotElvis]

Once again you conflate two things.

Observing the available evidence and accepting the most likely conclusion via testing as "factual" is one thing (there are no facts in science, even existence itself is merely assumed but that's too advanced for you so I'll go no further.).
Preaching "Christian truth" and calling all forms of evidence fabricated (note no evidence of fabrication is provided) is another thing entirely.

It's clear nothing will change your mind. My mind on the other hand... to quote Bill Nye. SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!

You bust on my post as jumbled and full of assumptions and then try to prop up science as factual yet assumed? Nothing dogmatic and religious there!

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

:pHow did man become a hairless animal? is a hard question for evolutionists. Any scientific theory must be ready to give an account of all phenomena. A hypothesis to explain the origin of man must explain all the facts. How did man become a hairless animal? Darwin's explanation is too puerile for any one professing to be a learned scientist to give. He says that the females preferred males with the least hair (?) until the hairy men gradually became extinct, because, naturally, under such a regime, the hairy men would die off, and, finally only hairless men to beget progeny would survive. What do sensible, serious students think of this "scientific" explanation? If we try to take this explanation seriously, we find that the science of phrenology teaches that females, as a rule, inherit the traits of their fathers, and males the traits of their mothers.

Hence, not the males but the females would become hairless by this ridiculous process. How do evolutionists account for the hair left on the head and other parts of the body? Why do men have beard, while women and children do not? If the hair left on the body is vestigial, why is there no hair on the back, where it was most abundant on our brute ancestors? Even Wallace, an evolutionist of Darwin's day, who did not believe in the evolution of man, calls attention to the fact that even the so-called vestigial hair on the human form is entirely absent from the back, while it is very abundant and useful on the backs of the monkey family. If there was any good reason why the human brute should lose his hair, why for the same reason, did not other species of the monkey family lose their hair? Can it be explained by natural selection? Was the naked brute better fitted to survive than the hairy animal? Did man survive because he was naked, and the hairy brute perish? Evidently not, for the hairy brute still exists in great abundance!

Like most scientists, Darwin was incorrect about the finer details of a great many things. Your entire argument hinges on the misguided belief that scientists a. believe themselves infallible and b. Revere Darwin as some sort of deital figure.

Your entire argument is flawed, both ignoring that many people are born with copious amounts of hair (see the French), and that there are hairless species of many "kinds" of animals. That's not even considering the invention of clothing and shelter could be factors.

A better question similar to yours but against your stance would be "why do Whales and Dolphins have hair follicles when they don't have any hair?

[Glenzig]

Once again you conflate two things.

Observing the available evidence and accepting the most likely conclusion via testing as "factual" is one thing (there are no facts in science, even existence itself is merely assumed but that's too advanced for you so I'll go no further.).
Preaching "Christian truth" and calling all forms of evidence fabricated (note no evidence of fabrication is provided) is another thing entirely.

It's clear nothing will change your mind. My mind on the other hand... to quote Bill Nye. SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!

Really? There has never been any evidence of fabrication specifically to support the evolutionary theory? You actually believe that?

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

You bust on my post as jumbled and full of assumptions and then try to prop up science as factual yet assumed? Nothing dogmatic and religious there!

Are you implying that the universe doesn't exist?

[Eliseus]

Oh, even more funny, you idiots say to google stuff with debunked, but when you google evolution debunked, no artciles are valid, but if I do something like God debunked, all those articles would be valid correct? You preach stuff you don't even follow yourself. You prove your ignorance because you guys only listen to your voice of reasoning, if it isn't on your side it is wrong, period. That is why I pointed out that nothing I say matters, because it will be denied anyways. I specifically already gave examples EXACTLY to the criteria your buds give, but now apparently it's not valid, because it was against what you guys were hoping for.

Basically, you guys are hypocrites, you only want taught what you want taught, or only want to hear what you want to hear. It is human nature to want the facts, but most of peoples responses against you have been that science doesn't have all the facts, that is why it is theories and not fact. Just because someone peer-reviews something you do and agrees with it doesn't necessarily make it fact. Yet you live a life full of fabrications that aren't "religious", but "religious" people aren't aloud to preach their fabrications. I know I'm just repeating myself again, and again, and you still won't get it, and you will respond with the same exact thing over and over again just as I would, and we get to have the next 47 pages of the same thing that is the first 47 pages.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Really? There has never been any evidence of fabrication specifically to support the evolutionary theory? You actually believe that?

Seeing is believing.

Have you ever gone digging for fossils? I have. It's somewhat tedious but rewarding in the end. Finding all of those fake fossils placed there by the noodly appendage to test our faith.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Oh, even more funny, you idiots say to google stuff with debunked, but when you google evolution debunked, no artciles are valid, but if I do something like God debunked, all those articles would be valid correct? You preach stuff you don't even follow yourself. You prove your ignorance because you guys only listen to your voice of reasoning, if it isn't on your side it is wrong, period. That is why I pointed out that nothing I say matters, because it will be denied anyways. I specifically already gave examples EXACTLY to the criteria your buds give, but now apparently it's not valid, because it was against what you guys were hoping for.

Basically, you guys are hypocrites, you only want taught what you want taught, or only want to hear what you want to hear. It is human nature to want the facts, but most of peoples responses against you have been that science doesn't have all the facts, that is why it is theories and not fact. Just because someone peer-reviews something you do and agrees with it doesn't necessarily make it fact. Yet you live a life full of fabrications that aren't "religious", but "religious" people aren't aloud to preach their fabrications. I know I'm just repeating myself again, and again, and you still won't get it, and you will respond with the same exact thing over and over again just as I would, and we get to have the next 47 pages of the same thing that is the first 47 pages.

Every debunk has a rebuttal. Each side has a unique way of addressing the counter arguments. Unfortunately for you, "well the Bible says" holds no weight and only hurts your stance.

[Glenzig]

Seeing is believing.

Have you ever gone digging for fossils? I have. It's somewhat tedious but rewarding in the end. Finding all of those fake fossils placed there by the noodly appendage to test our faith.

So no one ever faked a fossil discovery? This is based on your experience as an extremely amateur paleontologist.

[Eliseus]

Seeing is believing.

Have you ever gone digging for fossils? I have. It's somewhat tedious but rewarding in the end. Finding all of those fake fossils placed there by the noodly appendage to test our faith.

Did you just say you have seen evolution?

[RobotElvis]

:p

Like most scientists, Darwin was incorrect about the finer details of a great many things. Your entire argument hinges on the misguided belief that scientists a. believe themselves infallible and b. Revere Darwin as some sort of deital figure.

Your entire argument is flawed, both ignoring that many people are born with copious amounts of hair (see the French), and that there are hairless species of many "kinds" of animals. That's not even considering the invention of clothing and shelter could be factors.

A better question similar to yours but against your stance would be "why do Whales and Dolphins have hair follicles when they don't have any hair?

We'll that proved nothing. Darwin's beliefs do not change the amount of hair on humans or the laws of heredity.

[Eliseus]

Every debunk has a rebuttal. Each side has a unique way of addressing the counter arguments. Unfortunately for you, "well the Bible says" holds no weight and only hurts your stance.

Uhh what.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

We'll that proved nothing. Darwin's beliefs do not change the amount of hair on humans or the laws of heredity.

What's your point? What about dolphins/whales?

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Uhh what.

Like I said earlier, most of this is above you. I'm trying to teach you but you need to be willing to learn.

[Eliseus]

Actually, I think Kagatob is onto something, more and more the Bible is being proven to have historically correct info, but Kagatob has seen evolution in motion, and claims the Bible is incorrect, therefore Kagatob has been around forever?

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

So no one ever faked a fossil discovery? This is based on your experience as an extremely amateur paleontologist.

Never claimed anything of the sort. Though at this point I'm gonna tune out your contributions to this thread for a while. Typing on my phone and while I enjoy your troll persona, my finger fucking hurts.

[RobotElvis]

Are you implying that the universe doesn't exist?

???????? No existence is not assumed. I think therefore I am. I exist. If I exist and am made of matter then all matter that I can observe exists, even matter that I cannot observe, as all matter in the universe has an effect on all matter in the universe.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

more and more the Bible is being proven to have historically correct info.

Examples please. From my perspective there's barely anything left in the book that's even remotely plausible.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

???????? No existence is not assumed. I think therefore I am. I exist. If I exist and am made of matter then all matter that I can observe exists, even matter that I cannot observe, as all matter in the universe has an effect on all matter in the universe.

So you assume that we exist?

[Eliseus]

Examples please. From my perspective there's barely anything left in the book that's even remotely plausible.

I don't need too, you have been around forever, please enlighten me on the accuracy and evolution.

[Glenzig]

So you assume that we exist?

Do you assume that we don't?

[Glenzig]

Never claimed anything of the sort. Though at this point I'm gonna tune out your contributions to this thread for a while. Typing on my phone and while I enjoy your troll persona, my finger fucking hurts.

You said there has never been brought forth any evidence of fabrication. You really believe that to be true?

[G13]

Never claimed anything of the sort. Though at this point I'm gonna tune out your contributions to this thread for a while. Typing on my phone and while I enjoy your troll persona, my finger fucking hurts.

You're a lying fucking fraud

That much is obvious

[Eliseus]

You said there has never been brought forth any evidence of fabrication. You really believe that to be true?

Remember, the other side is resorting to calling everyone trolls now to try and deflect from questions like this.

[RobotElvis]

:p

Like most scientists, Darwin was incorrect about the finer details of a great many things. Your entire argument hinges on the misguided belief that scientists a. believe themselves infallible and b. Revere Darwin as some sort of deital figure.

Your entire argument is flawed, both ignoring that many people are born with copious amounts of hair (see the French), and that there are hairless species of many "kinds" of animals. That's not even considering the invention of clothing and shelter could be factors.

A better question similar to yours but against your stance would be "why do Whales and Dolphins have hair follicles when they don't have any hair?
Unlike most mammals, dolphins do not have hair, except for a few hairs around the tip of their rostrum (beak) which they lose shortly before or after birth. The only exception to this is the Boto river dolphin, which has persistent small hairs on the rostrum.
There are certain characteristics that all mammals have in common. Mammals all are warm-blooded animals, they breathe air, have hair, and moms feed their babies milk from mammary glands. Whales actually do all of these things!

I guess dolphins and whales do have hair. Probly because they are mammals. That's called science.

The better question to ask yourself is: if there are hair follicles present where there is no hair, at what point did the animal lose the hair and why don't we find hairy dolphin and whale fossils?

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Remember, the other side is resorting to calling everyone trolls now to try and deflect from questions like this.

No Glenzig is indeed riding me here. You are simply misguided.

[paulgiamatti]

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say that there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg.

Look, I don't care who wants to believe in what, I really don't. If you want to dismiss evolution and the work that's been put into it, that's fine. If you want to be a monotheist, a polytheist, an omnitheist, knock yourself out. If you want to broadcast this to everyone, that's also fine - at least then we'll know what and how you think.

I can say with certainty though that you won't be getting into our schools. The intellectual community is on our side, and absolutely no apology needs to be made for the teaching of evolution. Any suggestion of such is the death of thought and simply anti-intellectual. If you want something to change, you go do the work. You come up with something tangible and credible to discredit evolutionary biology.

[Glenzig]

No Glenzig is indeed riding me here. You are simply misguided.

You bet. You made a claim that you knew was false when you made it.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Unlike most mammals, dolphins do not have hair, except for a few hairs around the tip of their rostrum (beak) which they lose shortly before or after birth. The only exception to this is the Boto river dolphin, which has persistent small hairs on the rostrum.
There are certain characteristics that all mammals have in common. Mammals all are warm-blooded animals, they breathe air, have hair, and moms feed their babies milk from mammary glands. Whales actually do all of these things!

I guess dolphins and whales do have hair. Probly because they are mammals. That's called science.

The better question to ask yourself is: if there are hair follicles present where there is no hair, at what point did the animal lose the hair and why don't we find hairy dolphin and whale fossils?

Hairy marine mammals aren't dolphins. That's the thing about evolution that is hardest for a creationist to grasp. There's no such thing as a transition species, only other species.

[Eliseus]

No Glenzig is indeed riding me here. You are simply misguided.

Aww I see, my apologies. I did find it interesting that as soon as you started posting, he came back to the thread. Assuming he follows you around?

[Glenzig]

Look, I don't care who wants to believe in what, I really don't. If you want to dismiss evolution and the work that's been put into it, that's fine. If you want to be a monotheist, a polytheist, an omnitheist, knock yourself out. If you want to broadcast this to everyone, that's also fine - at least then we'll know what and how you think.

I can say with certainty though that you won't be getting into our schools. The intellectual community is on our side, and absolutely no apology needs to be made for the teaching of evolution. Any suggestion of such is the death of thought and simply anti-intellectual. If you want something to change, you go do the work. You come up with something tangible and credible to discredit evolutionary biology.

[B]Your[B] schools? Evolutionists own the school system now? Why do I have to pay taxes on it then?

[G13]

You bet. You made a claim that you knew was false when you made it.

Seems to be a pattern with this lying fucking fraud

[Glenzig]

Hairy marine mammals aren't dolphins. That's the thing about evolution that is hardest for a creationist to grasp. There's no such thing as a transition species, only other species.

No such thing as a transition species? Hmmm. How does one kind of animal change into another then? How did a water breathing fish change into an oxygen breathing mamal?