Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Who invented scientific theory? Is scientific theory an absolute? But atheists claim that there are no absolutes. The scientific method is applicable in everyday life so it can be used for anything right? Can a Christian use the scientific method to substantiate the existence of the transcendent God? Why or why not? I believe so. I believe that they are applicable to God. They may not provide a photo of God, but they corroborate His existence nontheless.


Observation: The universe, planets, stars, earth, fundamental forces, cells, life, etc. are very complicated.

Question: Why are they so complicated? How do they exist? Why do they exist?

Hypothesis: The universe, planets, stars, earth, fundamental forces, cells, life, etc. are very complicated because they were designed by Someone Who possesses sufficient wisdom, knowledge, intelligence, and power to create them.

Prediction: If the hypothesis is correct, THEN if those things are analyzed they should reveal, show, or evince evidence of design.

Experiment or Observation: Analyze the universe, planets, stars, earth, fundamental forces, cells, life, etc.

Conclusion: The universe, planets, stars, earth, fundamental forces, cells, life, etc. are very complicated because they were designed by Someone Who possesses sufficient wisdom, knowledge, intelligence, and power to create them hypothesis is supported.

...But where is the testing.experimentation stage? You can't repeat observation...

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
...But where is the testing.experimentation stage? You can't repeat observation...

http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/Mansproof.html

I personally would ask people to take a more personal route to finding God. I dont think he needs to be proven via scientific method, nor should he be.. All the proof a person needs should come from themselves, if they can't find God, then there is a reason for that.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Experiment or Observation: Analyze the universe, planets, stars, earth, fundamental forces, cells, life, etc.
This is the part that makes things fall apart, because it's just a matter of viewpoint.

Originally posted by King Kandy
This is the part that makes things fall apart, because it's just a matter of viewpoint.

I agree.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I personally would ask people to take a more personal route to finding God. I dont think he needs to be proven via scientific method, nor should he be.. All the proof a person needs should come from themselves, if they can't find God, then there is a reason for that.

The reason I asked the question is because atheists have a problem with intelligent design being taught along side evolution in classrooms because they claim that it is based only on belief and that it is an untestable.

http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2005/08/02/43000_scientists_bush_puts_sch.php

^ ID is a code word for Christianity. People would not have a problem with ID, if it wasn't for the fact that fundamentalist Christians cannot be trusted.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
^ ID is a code word for Christianity. People would not have a problem with ID, if it wasn't for the fact that fundamentalist Christians cannot be trusted.

Tell that to the President of your United States.

http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2005/08/02/43000_scientists_bush_puts_sch.php

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Tell that to the President of your United States.

What does that have to do with anything?

ID will not allow, over time, evolution to be taught in schools, if it allowed to be part of the curriculum.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
^ ID is a code word for Christianity. People would not have a problem with ID, if it wasn't for the fact that fundamentalist Christians cannot be trusted.

When Big Bang was first produced the Scientific World mocked it as absolute shit.

Now its the accepted theory...

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Tell that to the President of your United States.

http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2005/08/02/43000_scientists_bush_puts_sch.php
...Okay.

What sort of argument was that supposed to be?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Who invented scientific theory? Is scientific theory an absolute? But atheists claim that there are no absolutes. The scientific method is applicable in everyday life so it can be used for anything right? Can a Christian use the scientific method to substantiate the existence of the transcendent God? Why or why not? I believe so. I believe that they are applicable to God. They may not provide a photo of God, but they corroborate His existence nontheless.


Observation: The universe, planets, stars, earth, fundamental forces, cells, life, etc. are very complicated.

Question: Why are they so complicated? How do they exist? Why do they exist?

Hypothesis: The universe, planets, stars, earth, fundamental forces, cells, life, etc. are very complicated because they were designed by Someone Who possesses sufficient wisdom, knowledge, intelligence, and power to create them.

Prediction: If the hypothesis is correct, THEN if those things are analyzed they should reveal, show, or evince evidence of design.

Experiment or Observation: Analyze the universe, planets, stars, earth, fundamental forces, cells, life, etc.

Conclusion: The universe, planets, stars, earth, fundamental forces, cells, life, etc. are very complicated because they were designed by Someone Who possesses sufficient wisdom, knowledge, intelligence, and power to create them hypothesis is supported.

i somewhat agree with him. Somebody or something must have created a physical law and it lead to creation or evolution of living things. whethere you call it God or creator or a thing that poops out universe.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What does that have to do with anything?

ID will not allow, over time, evolution to be taught in schools, if it allowed to be part of the curriculum.

Why not? Is it more plausible than your theory of evolution?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
When Big Bang was first produced the Scientific World mocked it as absolute shit.

Now its the accepted theory...

That is true, but ID is not a scientific theory; it is a wolf in sheep's skin.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Why not? Is it more plausible than your theory of evolution?

Because fundamentalist Christians cannot be trusted.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is true, but ID is not a scientific theory; it is a wolf in sheep's skin.


The scientific method can be appropriately applied to intelligent design postulation; therefore, it is scientific theory.


Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Who invented scientific theory? Is scientific theory an absolute? But atheists claim that there are no absolutes. The scientific method is applicable in everyday life so it can be used for anything right? Can a Christian use the scientific method to substantiate the existence of the transcendent God? Why or why not? I believe so. I believe that they are applicable to God. They may not provide a photo of God, but they corroborate His existence nontheless.


Observation: The universe, planets, stars, earth, fundamental forces, cells, life, etc. are very complicated.

Question: Why are they so complicated? How do they exist? Why do they exist?

Hypothesis: The universe, planets, stars, earth, fundamental forces, cells, life, etc. are very complicated because they were designed by Someone Who possesses sufficient wisdom, knowledge, intelligence, and power to create them.

Prediction: If the hypothesis is correct, THEN if those things are analyzed they should reveal, show, or evince evidence of design.

Experiment or Observation: Analyze the universe, planets, stars, earth, fundamental forces, cells, life, etc.

Conclusion: The universe, planets, stars, earth, fundamental forces, cells, life, etc. are very complicated because they were designed by Someone Who possesses sufficient wisdom, knowledge, intelligence, and power to create them hypothesis is supported.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Because fundamentalist Christians cannot be trusted.

I think your greatest fear is that evolution when compared next to intelligent design would be exposed and seen for what it truly is not: science.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The scientific method can be appropriately applied to intelligent design postulation; therefore, it is scientific theory.

That does not matter. Fundamentalist Christians will throw out ID once they have finally gotten rid of evolution and science. Without science, America will become an ignorant and war like nation. For example; back to your statement about the President of your United States.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The scientific method can be appropriately applied to intelligent design postulation; therefore, it is scientific theory.
That would work fine, but the testing/experiment phase has no real way of being done.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I think your greatest fear is that evolution when compared next to intelligent design would be exposed and seen for what it truly is not: science.

Look how long it took them to admit the possibility that a T-Rex was a scavenger rather than a hunter. ID will take a long time to get accepted (assuming its a credible work)

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Because fundamentalist Christians cannot be trusted.

How can biased evolutionists be trusted? They work off of the assumption that evolution is true. They do not use the scientific method objectively, they are bent on disproving the existence of God.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I think your greatest fear is that evolution when compared next to intelligent design would be exposed and seen for what it truly is not: science.

No. My biggest fear is the USA becoming a Christian religious state and cause evil and pain in the world.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
America will become an ignorant and war like nation.

What do you mean...will become...?

Originally posted by King Kandy
That would work fine, but the testing/experiment phase has no real way of being done.

It has already been done; hence, intelligent design.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Look how long it took them to admit the possibility that a T-Rex was a scavenger rather than a hunter. ID will take a long time to get accepted (assuming its a credible work)

ID will be destroyed by fundamentalist Christians.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
What do you mean...will become...?

Good point.

i believe there are evidences of evolution,

look at it this way. ive seen that children are much taller and much "stronger" than their parents, because of the environment/food intake/activity of everyday living/etc.

why are people have whiter skin in northern lands and darker skin on southern lands. I see it that due to the environment in northern lands that they lack exposure to the sun that they dont develop melanin where as in the southern (near equator) parts of the world people have darker skin and their exposure to the sun is much more compared to the people that are in northern lands. so the people in the southern lands develop melanin in their skin to protect them from the sun. thats just my 2cent on evidences on evolution.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
ID will be destroyed by fundamentalist Christians.

Yeah, these far-right Zionist Protestant peoples have a habit of destroying things.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No. My biggest fear is the USA becoming a Christian religious state and cause evil and pain in the world.

The USA has already done that through same-sex marriage, racism, promoting sex outside of marriage through the media (especially Hollywood), abortion, evolutionary teaching in schools (and they wonder why people have very little sense of self-worth after being told that they were an accident, and that survival of the fittest is how they got here. The Columbine killers believed in survival of the fittest), removing the Bible and prayer from schools, etc,

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Yeah, these far-right Zionist Protestant peoples have a habit of destroying things.

That is who I am talking about. Most Christians are good people, but it only takes a few radicals to cause pain and evil in the world. Example; the current world problems.

hey jesus zealot, you just have to accept that not everyone or the majority of people of the earth does not accept your beliefs.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is who I am talking about. Most Christians are good people, but it only takes a few radicals to cause pain and evil in the world. Example; the current world problems.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No. My biggest fear is the USA becoming a Christian religious state and cause evil and pain in the world.

The USA has already done that through same-sex marriage, racism, promoting sex outside of marriage through the media (especially Hollywood), abortion, evolutionary teaching in schools (and they wonder why people have very little sense of self-worth after being told that they were an accident, and that survival of the fittest is how they got here. The Columbine killers believed in survival of the fittest), removing the Bible and prayer from schools, etc,

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
It has already been done; hence, intelligent design.
Um no, there's a reason that it hasn't been excepted. Complexity is a bad argument, and ID can't be tested because it works off of bad arguments... All of it's evidence is a matter of interpretation.

Of course, only a total idiot would think that evolution if it was true, would "Disprove" God. Because it wouldn't, and I don't know where you got the idea it would from.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is who I am talking about. Most Christians are good people, but it only takes a few radicals to cause pain and evil in the world. Example; the current world problems.


Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No. My biggest fear is the USA becoming a Christian religious state and cause evil and pain in the world.

The USA has already done that through same-sex marriage, racism, promoting sex outside of marriage through the media (especially Hollywood), abortion, evolutionary teaching in schools (and they wonder why people have very little sense of self-worth after being told that they were an accident, and that survival of the fittest is how they got here. The Columbine killers believed in survival of the fittest), removing the Bible and prayer from schools, etc,

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The USA has already done that through same-sex marriage, racism, promoting sex outside of marriage through the media (especially Hollywood), abortion, evolutionary teaching in schools (and they wonder why people have very little sense of self-worth after being told that they were an accident, and that survival of the fittest is how they got here. The Columbine killers believed in survival of the fittest), removing the Bible and prayer from schools, etc,

People like you are the evil ones I am talking about.

Do you want a Christian USA with no other religion allowed to exist? It would be a nation dedicated to god.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is who I am talking about. Most Christians are good people, but it only takes a few radicals to cause pain and evil in the world. Example; the current world problems.

Which is why the Pope was right to declare that these "cults" if you will were not real churches.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The USA has already done that through same-sex marriage, racism, promoting sex outside of marriage through the media (especially Hollywood), abortion,
Enforcing their religion? I don't see how.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
evolutionary teaching in schools (and they wonder why people have very little sense of self-worth after being told that they were an accident, and that survival of the fittest is how they got here. The Columbine killers believed in survival of the fittest), removing the Bible and prayer from schools, etc,
No, the Columbine guy killed people because he was a TOTAL NUTCASE. It had NOTHING TO DO with Evolution.

By the way, I'm glad you noticed that Christians have NEVER killed anyone.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Who invented scientific theory? Is scientific theory an absolute? But atheists claim that there are no absolutes. The scientific method is applicable in everyday life so it can be used for anything right? Can a Christian use the scientific method to substantiate the existence of the transcendent God? Why or why not? I believe so. I believe that they are applicable to God. They may not provide a photo of God, but they corroborate His existence nontheless.


Observation: The universe, planets, stars, earth, fundamental forces, cells, life, etc. are very complicated.

Question: Why are they so complicated? How do they exist? Why do they exist?

Hypothesis: The universe, planets, stars, earth, fundamental forces, cells, life, etc. are very complicated because they were designed by Someone Who possesses sufficient wisdom, knowledge, intelligence, and power to create them.

Prediction: If the hypothesis is correct, THEN if those things are analyzed they should reveal, show, or evince evidence of design.

Experiment or Observation: Analyze the universe, planets, stars, earth, fundamental forces, cells, life, etc.

Conclusion: The universe, planets, stars, earth, fundamental forces, cells, life, etc. are very complicated because they were designed by Someone Who possesses sufficient wisdom, knowledge, intelligence, and power to create them hypothesis is supported.

You didn't experiment in that. You observed, made a biased decision, declared it true and claimed to have made a proof.

That's not science. Hell thats not even logic.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
People like you are the evil ones I am talking about.

Do you want a Christian USA with no other religion allowed to exist? It would be a nation dedicated to god.

Why do you feel that I am evil?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Which is why the Pope was right to declare that these "cults" if you will were not real churches.

I would be happy if the pope could rein in these trouble makers.

Originally posted by King Kandy

By the way, I'm glad you noticed that Christians have NEVER killed anyone.

Jesus certianly didn't. Well, not in his short tenure in flesh.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You didn't experiment in that. You observed, made a biased decision, declared it true and claimed to have made a proof.

That's not science. Hell thats not even logic.

Many experiments have already been conducted and many experiments are being conducted.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Jesus certianly didn't. Well, not in his short tenure in flesh.



Every other religious leader has.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Why do you feel that I am evil?

Because you get onto this forum and disrespect everyone who does not believe like you do. You have no respect for how other people believe.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Many experiments have already been conducted and many experiments are being conducted.

That doesn't change jack shit about what I said.

You made a claim, failed to support it and used it to draw a conclusion.

Thats just stupid.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Many experiments have already been conducted and many experiments are being conducted.

Evolution: "Many experiments have already been conducted and many experiments are being conducted."

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I would be happy if the pope could rein in these trouble makers.

Sadly these "churches" are not part of the Holy See or else he would have very quickly. The Pope is often misrepresented in his statements because people take one sentence out of a 16 page document in order to make him out to be a evil, arrogant tyrant.

Luckily certain religious leaders, say the Dali Llama or Archbishop of Canterbury are on very good terms with the Pope.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Why do you feel that I am evil?

You type in blue. This means you kill babies.

Hence you are evil.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive


Every other religious leader has.

Did the Buddha?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Did the Buddha?

He sat on a couple unbelieving heathens here and there.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Um no, there's a reason that it hasn't been excepted. Complexity is a bad argument, and ID can't be tested because it works off of bad arguments... All of it's evidence is a matter of interpretation.

Of course, only a total idiot would think that evolution if it was true, would "Disprove" God. Because it wouldn't, and I don't know where you got the idea it would from.

I never said that evolution would disprove anything. Here is what I said:

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
How can biased evolutionists be trusted? They work off of the assumption that evolution is true. They do not use the scientific method objectively, they are bent on disproving the existence of God.

I simply stated that evolutionists are determined to disprove God. I did not say that evolution would or was capable of disproving God .

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
He sat on a couple unbelieving heathens here and there.
He wasnt very heavy though...all that fasting...

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive


Every other religious leader has.
EVERY religious leader?

That's a complete lie.

Originally posted by King Kandy
EVERY religious leader?

That's a complete lie.

Well do what I didnt and provide an example, dont just say "thats a complete lie".

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I never said that evolution would disprove anything. Here is what I said:



I simply stated that evolutionists are determined to disprove God. I did not say that evolution would or was capable of disproving God .
Which makes no sense, since many Evolutionary Biolegists believe in God.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Which makes no sense, since many Evolutionary Biolegists believe in God.

He meant SOME evolutionists, i.e Dawkins, not all of them.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Well do what I didnt and provide an example, dont just say "thats a complete lie".
Why should I? He made the statement, the burden of proof is apon him.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That doesn't change jack shit about what I said.

You made a claim, failed to support it and used it to draw a conclusion.

Thats just stupid.

That was never my purpose. My objective was to prove that the scientific method was applicable for supporting my theory that God created the universe and everything in it. But I did provide a link that aims to do what you request. I have more links that support my hypothesis than I am able to furnish. I would be here all night posting them, and you would be here for the rest of your life reading them.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The scientific method can be appropriately applied to intelligent design postulation; therefore, it is scientific theory.

Only in as much as ID fails the method.

Your hypothesis cannot be substantiated. You only have assumptions- assumptions that something intelligent must have designed it, and assumptions that the evidence shows it. You have NO evidence, only questions.

Such a thing has absolutely no place at all in the science classroom. None.

The only reason you believe so is your total perversion of what and what is not scientific. This cannot be reasonably argued with you because you display absolutely no reason in this area, much as the fanatic dpes. This is a pitiful quality.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Why should I? He made the statement, the burden of proof is apon him.

No it isn't. He made the statement, your refuting it. Its your job to show why it is refutable. Didn't you ever sit an exam at school or Uni?

Originally posted by King Kandy
EVERY religious leader?

That's a complete lie.


Name one religious leader that has not sinned.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
No it isn't. He made the statement, your refuting it. Its your job to show why it is refutable. Didn't you ever sit an exam at school or Uni?

Well, in asking for the person making the statement to provide the evidence for it, he is certainly showing a more educated approach than you are.

It is absolutely the onus of the person making the positive claim to back that postive. If that is not done, there is no need to refute. Refutation is only necessary against something that is established.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Name one religious leader that has not sinned.
Now hold on, first you said killed and now you say sinned? There's more to sin then killing, so you'll have to make up your mind before I can answer this.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
That was never my purpose. My objective was to prove that the scientific method was applicable for supporting my theory that God created the universe and everything in it. But I did provide a link that aims to do what you request. I have more links that support my hypothesis than I am able to furnish. I would be here all night posting them, and you would be here for the rest of your life reading them.
The scientific can't be applied to it because there's no way to test it.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, in asking for the person making the statement to provide the evidence for it, he is certainly showing a more educated approach than you are.

It is absolutely the onus of the person making the positive claim to back that postive. If that is not done, there is no need to refute. Refutation is only necessary against something that is established.

Thats rubbish, he wasn't asking for evidence. He just said, thats a lie. I asked him to provide an example which shows it to be a lie like I did...

Until JIA proves it, he is entitled to call it a lie. Simple as that. An unsubstantiated claim is akin to falsehood in rational debate.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Until JIA proves it, he is entitled to call it a lie. Simple as that. An unsubstantiated claim is akin to falsehood in rational debate.

No, not atall, just because JIA has low argument standards doesnt mean his opponent's are allowed to drop.

If the statement had no logical basis it is considered false in and of itself.

I think Jesus gets pwned by LaVey

It's not dropping. Like I say, such a claim is akin to a lie. Telling someone making a claim with no backing that is is nonsense, gibberish, a lie or whatever is absolutely fine. JIA had no call making a claim with no backing.

The only low standard here is the unsubstantiated postive.

Originally posted by King Kandy
If the statement had no logical basis it is considered false in and of itself.

Oh, so that makes it acceptable to just go, your lying.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Oh, so that makes it acceptable to just go, your lying.

Yup. Well, more precisely, that it is a lie, i.e. a falsehood.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Oh, so that makes it acceptable to just go, your lying.
Yes, completely.

If I said that there was an invisible elephant next to me, then barring evidence you would have to asume that i'm lying.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Yup. Well, more precisely, that it is a lie, i.e. a falsehood.

I really dont think that would be accepted by you in a debate with anyone other than JIA.

I really think it would, actually.

And it is all a massive distraction from the point that if JIA was capable of doing so he could easily counter KK's criticism.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I really think it would, actually.

And it is all a massive distraction from the point that if JIA was capable of doing so he could easily counter KK's criticism.

Well, I will do well to remember this.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Because you get onto this forum and disrespect everyone who does not believe like you do. You have no respect for how other people believe.

That makes me evil?

Serial killers are evil. Beating someone up and taking their lunch money is evil. Molesting children is evil. Raping someone is evil. Saddam Hussein was evil. Stealing large populations of people from their homeland, packing them on ships like sardines in chains for thousands of miles while the defecate on and urinate on themselves, then forcing them to work for hundreds of years without benefits or pay under harsh rigor, then creating a provision in the supreme law of the land that describes them as chattel, and three-fifths of a human, then lynching them, bombing their homes, raping their wives and daughters, separating their families apart, depriving them of basic human rights, discriminating against them, continuing to reinforce a system that keeps them oppressed racially, socioeconomically, and in terms of class, racially profiling them, and locking them up in large numbers in prison, and continuing to make their lives difficult is evil. Terrorists are evil, Hitler was evil. Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are evil.

But disagreeing with you on this forum about non-life threatening issues is evil? I do not believe that I am evil. I am perhaps strong-willed, but not evil.

You're evil because you try to twist the minds of the sensible, silly christian man, JESUS IS DEAD GET OVER IT

Originally posted by The Grey Fox
You're evil because you try to twist the minds of the sensible, silly christian man, JESUS IS DEAD GET OVER IT

Your lying.

Originally posted by King Kandy
The scientific can't be applied to it because there's no way to test it.

There is no way to test what?

Yeah cos God aint real

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Did the Buddha?

Which one? There were many Buddha's.

Originally posted by The Grey Fox
Yeah cos God aint real
Your lying.
This debating tactic is sponsored by Ush

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Which one? There were many Buddha's.
The original.

You're lying too

suck that!

Originally posted by The Grey Fox
You're lying too

suck that!
Another Lie you have told,
This debating tactic is sponsored by Ush

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
That makes me evil?

Serial killers are evil. Beating someone up and taking their lunch money is evil. Molesting children is evil. Raping someone is evil. Saddam Hussein was evil. Stealing large populations of people from their homeland, packing them on ships like sardines in chains for thousands of miles while the defecate on and urinate on themselves, then forcing them to work for hundreds of years without benefits or pay under harsh rigor, then creating a provision in the supreme law of the land that describes them as chattel, and three-fifths of a human, then lynching them, bombing their homes, raping their wives and daughters, separating their families apart, depriving them of basic human rights, discriminating against them, continuing to reinforce a system that keeps them oppressed racially, socioeconomically, and in terms of class, racially profiling them, and locking them up in large numbers in prison, and continuing to make their lives difficult is evil. Terrorists are evil, Hitler was evil. Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are evil.

But disagreeing with you on this forum about non-life threatening issues is evil? I do not believe that I am evil. I am perhaps strong-willed, but not evil.

Sorry if I misstated, but I don't believe that people are evil. The path that people follow is good or evil, and the path you are following, in my opinion, is an evil path.

There is no such thing as evil as evil is an opinion not fact.

Originally posted by The Grey Fox
There is no such thing as evil as evil is an opinion not fact.

Evil is a way of describing something. The something in this case is unneeded suffering.

Originally posted by The Grey Fox
There is no such thing as evil as evil is an opinion not fact.

Ahh now he speaks truth...cue the Euthyphro Dilemma.

Thank you

I shall speak sense from now on

Originally posted by The Grey Fox
Thank you

I shall speak sense from now on

The Grey Fox, remember I am not a Christan; I am a Buddhist. Therefore, when I say evil, I mean it like a Buddhist would mean it.

Wow, Buddhism is great you know. Such a peaceful and caring religion, I repect you.

Originally posted by The Grey Fox
Wow, Buddhism is great you know. Such a peaceful and caring religion, I repect you.

I really hope that Shakyamunison doesnt take that as a compliment...

why

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
There is no way to test what?
MAN, you are stupid... Read the quote.

no

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Which one? There were many Buddha's.
(Hope I spelled this right) Gautama Buddha.

Originally posted by The Grey Fox
why

Your probably more ignorant about his religion than I am...sure you call it peaceful and respectful, but you do so without any real knowledge.

Ha, wrong. I am a Religious Studies student, jackass

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Your probably more ignorant about his religion than I am...sure you call it peaceful and respectful, but you do so without any real knowledge.

He believes that is agrees with him. But if he became a real Buddhist, I think he would find it limiting and difficult.

What do you mean, explain now please

Originally posted by The Grey Fox
Ha, wrong. I am a Religious Studies student, jackass

Oh really, forgive my skepticism.

Hmmm, skeptic eh...?

Originally posted by The Grey Fox
Hmmm, skeptic eh...?

Religious Studies...:lo:

why lol?

Originally posted by The Grey Fox
What do you mean, explain now please

You say that Buddhism is a religion without a god, and on the surface, that is true. However, we believe in the mystic or Nam Myoho Renge Kyo. The truth is, Buddhism does not care if there is a God or not. Atheists care that there NOT be a God.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Your lying.
This debating tactic is sponsored by Ush


The original.


The debating tactic thing is hilarious.

Tṛṣṇaṃkara is the name of the first Buddha. I couldn't locate at this time whether he killed anyone or not.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The debating tactic thing is hilarious.

Tṛṣṇaṃkara is the name of the first Buddha. I couldn't locate at this time whether he killed anyone or not.

No, he did not kill anyone.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You say that Buddhism is a religion without a god, and on the surface, that is true. However, we believe in the mystic or Nam Myoho Renge Kyo. The truth is, Buddhism does not care if there is a God or not. Atheists care that there NOT be a God.

Actually I guess I'm agnostic. I'm pretty open to a lot of concepts, but the idea of Christianity; a religion with a cruel god, bad leaders, a bloody past, filled with murder, and sexist, racist etc. Holy Book.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sorry if I misstated, but I don't believe that people are evil. The path that people follow is good or evil, and the path you are following, in my opinion, is an evil path.

What path? The only path I follow is Jesus. Remember: Jesus is the Way (i.e. Path), the Truth, and the Life....

Only in your opinion, please remember that.

Originally posted by The Grey Fox
Actually I guess I'm agnostic. I'm pretty open to a lot of concepts, but the idea of Christianity; a religion with a cruel god, bad leaders, a bloody past, filled with murder, and sexist, racist etc. Holy Book.

I believe that the universe is alive, and I call the Universe God, but I have no reason to worship the universe.

That's a pretty nice concept.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, he did not kill anyone.

I have a Bible that proves that Jesus never killed anyone, do you have a book that does this for the first Buddha?

Of course Jesus didn't kill anyone, but he caused the Crusades etc. so yes he caused mucho death.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The debating tactic thing is hilarious.

Tṛṣṇaṃkara is the name of the first Buddha. I couldn't locate at this time whether he killed anyone or not.
So if you cannot will you admit that you were lying?

Hopefully. It's a silly and IMMATUREIO debating tactic. It gets nowhere and shows how ignorant the guy is.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The scientific method can be appropriately applied to intelligent design postulation; therefore, it is scientific theory.

By all means, explain how Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory when it is not testable, correctable, falsifiable, and does not make any predictions about the natural world or its phenomena.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I have a Bible that proves that Jesus never killed anyone, do you have a book that does this for the first Buddha?

There is a book from the first century that says Jesus, as a boy, killed another boy, and then resurrected him.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Only in as much as ID fails the method.

Your hypothesis cannot be substantiated. You only have assumptions- assumptions that something intelligent must have designed it, and assumptions that the evidence shows it. You have NO evidence, only questions.

Such a thing has absolutely no place at all in the science classroom. None.

The only reason you believe so is your total perversion of what and what is not scientific. This cannot be reasonably argued with you because you display absolutely no reason in this area, much as the fanatic dpes. This is a pitiful quality.

And you have no assumptions or bias with respect to evolutionary theory?

MURDERER

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I have a Bible that proves that Jesus never killed anyone, do you have a book that does this for the first Buddha?

I have a book that states that pink elephants can fly, but it does not follow from this that there are such things as pink elephants, nor does it follow from this that if there were such a thing as pink elephants, that they could indeed fly.

Bottom line: The only thing that The Bible is evidence of is that ink sticks to paper. Try again.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is a book from the first century that says Jesus, as a boy, killed another boy, and then resurrected him.

There are many books that say many things but the Bible is the final authority on the life and ministry of Jesus Christ.

Yes Darth Voldemort you are right. the bible is bullhish

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
There are many books that say many things but the Bible is the final authority on the life and ministry of Jesus Christ.

And so **** what?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
There are many books that say many things but the Bible is the final authority on the life and ministry of Jesus Christ.

OK, show proof... Substantiate your claim.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
By all means, explain how Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory when it is not testable, correctable, falsifiable, and does not make any predictions about the natural world or its phenomena.

Do you know what scientific theory is?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
OK, show proof... Substantiate your claim.

Prove what?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
And you have no assumptions or bias with respect to evolutionary theory?

Evolutionary theory has a ton of evidence supporting it. ID remains entirely an unsupported hypothesis. Bottom line.

Prove God exists right now right here.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Prove what?

Prove this...

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
There are many books that say many things but the Bible is the final authority on the life and ministry of Jesus Christ.

Stop using childish tactics.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
There are many books that say many things but the Bible is the final authority on the life and ministry of Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The only thing that The Bible is evidence of is that ink sticks to paper. Try again.




Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Do you know what scientific theory is?

Apparently, you do not:

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
By all means, explain how Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory when it is not testable, correctable, falsifiable, and does not make any predictions about the natural world or its phenomena.

Darth Voldemort you are my friend, no?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I have a book that states that pink elephants can fly, but it does not follow from this that there are such things as pink elephants, nor does it follow from this that if there were such a thing as pink elephants, that they could indeed fly.

Bottom line: The only thing that The Bible is evidence of is that ink sticks to paper. Try again.

So that huge, thick-skinned, pink creature with the white tusks (oh, I had those removed so that he could not gore me), trunk, wings (actually I had the wings removed so that he could not fly away) is not an elephant? Well I be a tree sittin' in front of a fat man's yard on groundhog's day, I could've made a fortune.


http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/7712/250pxreexposureofelephafc1.jpg

(Babar my pet elephant on his birthday with his friends)

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
So that huge, thick skinned pink creature with the white tusks (oh, I had those removed so that he could not gore me), trunk, wings (actually I had the wings removed so that he could not fly away) is not an elephant? Well I be a tree sittin' in front of a fat man's yard on groundhog's day, I could've made a fortune.


http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/7712/250pxreexposureofelephafc1.jpg

(Babar my pet elephant on his birthday with his friends)

If it's pink then it's not an elephant, and you my friend are on drugs, problemo solved.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Who invented scientific theory? Is scientific theory an absolute? But atheists claim that there are no absolutes. The scientific method is applicable in everyday life so it can be used for anything right? Can a Christian use the scientific method to substantiate the existence of the transcendent God? Why or why not? I believe so. I believe that they are applicable to God. They may not provide a photo of God, but they corroborate His existence nontheless.


Observation: The universe, planets, stars, earth, fundamental forces, cells, life, etc. are very complicated.

Question: Why are they so complicated? How do they exist? Why do they exist?

Hypothesis: The universe, planets, stars, earth, fundamental forces, cells, life, etc. are very complicated because they were designed by Someone Who possesses sufficient wisdom, knowledge, intelligence, and power to create them.

Prediction: If the hypothesis is correct, THEN if those things are analyzed they should reveal, show, or evince evidence of design.

Experiment or Observation: Analyze the universe, planets, stars, earth, fundamental forces, cells, life, etc.

Conclusion: The universe, planets, stars, earth, fundamental forces, cells, life, etc. are very complicated because they were designed by Someone Who possesses sufficient wisdom, knowledge, intelligence, and power to create them hypothesis is supported. crylaugh

Don't cry my friend.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Evolutionary theory has a ton of evidence supporting it. ID remains entirely an unsupported hypothesis. Bottom line.

Evolutionary theory is not science. Nevertheless, does it have a ton of evidence supporting macroevolution? No? That's because there isn't any.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Evolutionary theory is not science. Nevertheless, does it have a ton of evidence supporting macroevolution? No? That's because there isn't any. crylaugh

YES IT ****ING DOES YOU DICKWAD. IT'S SCIENCE PURE AND SIMPLE, NOT SOME RELIGIOUS HOKEY!!!

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Apparently, you do not:

Have you met Babar my pet elephant yet?

that's in response to JIA's silly post about science. PIECE OF SHIT!!! j/k

your elephant is nice Jesusman

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Evolutionary theory is not science. Nevertheless, does it have a ton of evidence supporting macroevolution? No? That's because there isn't any.

You are not telling the truth.

I know, he's lying, I think even he knows he's lying.

Originally posted by King Kandy
So if you cannot will you admit that you were lying?

No. Just because I cannot find any evidence at the moment to support what I stated does not necessarily mean that the every religious leader (including the first Buddha), has not killed someone.

I've killed someone, and I'm a religious leader.

This is where creationism fails at every point in the method, the test/experiment phase. You can't test it or experiment because you must have faith that it worked, this is why it fails every single time.

I HATE KFC