Kontratz> ” dont make up definitions, because it does not mean in the absolute absense of proof. And the term "buddy" has nothing to do with your sex.”
I’m not making up anything.
But, hey, go ahead and prove me wrong. Prove there is a holy ghost, a God, that Jesus existed etc. I’m all ears (or eyes as the case may be).
“oh you want tests? Okay. Prove a bumblebee or a helicopter can fly. What was that? You cant? Both break the laws of physics? Well then, they just can't do it can they? Oh... wait... they can....”
Prove what? Look at a bumblebee and a helicopter. They do fly.
http://travel.howstuffworks.com/helicopter.htm
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/inquirer/8356096.htm
“sure it does, you wanna refute it, take it to a matrix forum.” Because you can’t prove that it’s a Christian movie? 😆 No, sorry. It STILL doesn’t work that way, buddy.
“hating a religion has nothing to do with hating people.” Oh, so you as a Christian has nothing to do with your person?? My my, how odd 😉
“no, it does have to be in the minority. it has nothing to do with proof. Someone can have all the proof they need, just like galileo did, but nobody will beleive them if they dont WANT to.”
BEEP! Wrong again. Read up on the Scientific Method, will ya? In science it is NOT about believing, it’s about proving your hypothesis.
That’s what is so cool about science. It renews itself in light of new research and new proof. Something which cannot be said about your precious religion… Galileo comes to mind again. Go look up when the church recalled it’s ban on the good Galilei and thereby accepted that the Earth circles the Sun…
🙄
Interesting article from Newsweek:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6699200/site/newsweek/
Worth reading if you're interested in JC.
[
[B]Kontratz> ” dont make up definitions, because it does not mean in the absolute absense of proof. And the term "buddy" has nothing to do with your sex.”
I’m not making up anything.
Omega: But, hey, go ahead and prove me wrong. Prove there is a holy ghost, a God, that Jesus existed etc. I’m all ears (or eyes as the case may be).
dictionary.com doesnt mention absoluteproof, so adding to a definition, or altering, makes a definition that of your own, not of what it really is...
“oh you want tests? Okay. Prove a bumblebee or a helicopter can fly. What was that? You cant? Both break the laws of physics? Well then, they just can't do it can they? Oh... wait... they can....”
Omega: Prove what? Look at a bumblebee and a helicopter. They do fly.
yes, i know they DO fly, but you said to show you tests, because, by YOUR beliefs, only science can prove something as being true. Well, based on physics, neither bumblebees nor helicopters can fly, yet they obviously do.
“sure it does, you wanna refute it, take it to a matrix forum.” Omega:Because you can’t prove that it’s a Christian movie? 😆 No, sorry. It STILL doesn’t work that way, buddy.
Make a thread in the matrix forum and i will debate it there
“hating a religion has nothing to do with hating people.”
Omega: Oh, so you as a Christian has nothing to do with your person?? My my, how odd 😉 No, but i am not a religion. I am a person that believes in God. A religion, by definition, must be a group of people, whereas I am only one...
“no, it does have to be in the minority. it has nothing to do with proof. Someone can have all the proof they need, just like galileo did, but nobody will beleive them if they dont WANT to.”
Omega: BEEP! Wrong again. Read up on the Scientific Method, will ya? In science it is NOT about believing, it’s about proving your hypothesis.
Yes, that is what science is about, but in order to get the masses to believe, their leaders must first admit to something being right first (in that time period), and the leaders only believe what they choose to believe, not what is obviously proven before them.
Omega: That’s what is so cool about science. It renews itself in light of new research and new proof. Something which cannot be said about your precious religion… Galileo comes to mind again. Go look up when the church recalled it’s ban on the good Galilei and thereby accepted that the Earth circles the Sun…
🙄
science constantly renews itself? Renews, maybe, replaces, that's more like it. Science is composed mainly of THEORIES, not laws. And as new theories are created, old are thrown out. science is constantly changing, but also constantly destorying its own past, proving theories of old wrong time and time again. Does this make science wrong? Not in the least. Has science ever proven the bible wrong? No. WIll it? No. Has the Bible ever proven science wrong? No. Will it? No. It is easily possible for both to co-exist. People who claim creationism to be idiotic obviously have no idea just how gapped the big-bang theory actually is, and those who claim creationism as the absolute truth and that science is completely wrong about creation don't look into their own bibles well enough to see that science actually helps prove their beliefs.
Kontratz> “dictionary.com doesnt mention absoluteproof, so adding to a definition, or altering, makes a definition that of your own, not of what it really is.”
It doesn’t matter.
Give me proof.
“yes, i know they DO fly, but you said to show you tests, because, by YOUR beliefs, only sci-ence can prove something as being true. Well, based on physics, neither bumblebees nor heli-copters can fly, yet they obviously do.”
Read the links I supplied you with. Or couldn’t you be bothered to read the proofs?
“Make a thread in the matrix forum and i will debate it there.” Why didn’t YOU do that in the first place? Who started talking about the Matrix in the first place? It sure wasn’t me.
“No, but i am not a religion. I am a person that believes in God. A religion, by definition, must be a group of people, whereas I am only one...”
So am I to conclude that you do NOT feel hated?
“Yes, that is what science is about, but in order to get the masses to believe, their leaders must first admit to something being right first (in that time period), and the leaders only be-lieve what they choose to believe, not what is obviously proven before them.”
Or… the “masses” in question can read a science book.
”science constantly renews itself?”
Yes, as in “Wow, look what we discovered here. That is new. Let’s test it, see if it’s true, and the show it to others.” That’s how the Universe went from being all about Earth, 6000 years old (Christian extremist thinking) to what it is today.
“Science is composed mainly of THEORIES, not laws.”
(Bangs head against keyboard-table) Okay, YOU definitely needs to read up on the scientific method and what is MEANT by a scientific theory.
By a scientific THEORY (As opposed to a hypothesis) is meant a scientific law. The word theory is not used as it is in every-day speech, where “theory” is really “hypothesis.”
Go read up on how well tested the General THEORY of Relativity is.
“Has science ever proven the bible wrong? No. WIll it? No.”
Argumentum ad ignorantum, dude! Something is not proven to be true, just because someone cannot prove it to be wrong. You can NOT prove a negative, the non-existence of a thing. Do I REALLY have to whip out the flying reindeer again???
It rests on those making a POSITIVE assertion to prove said assertion.
“People who claim creationism to be idiotic obviously have no idea just how gapped the big-bang theory actually is.”
Oh, IS it now. How is it… gapped?
Yes, I claim creationism is idiotic. The Universe is NOT 6000 years old for starters.
Originally posted by The Omega
Kontratz> “dictionary.com doesnt mention absoluteproof, so adding to a definition, or altering, makes a definition that of your own, not of what it really is.”
It doesn’t matter.
Give me proof.“yes, i know they DO fly, but you said to show you tests, because, by YOUR beliefs, only sci-ence can prove something as being true. Well, based on physics, neither bumblebees nor heli-copters can fly, yet they obviously do.”
Read the links I supplied you with. Or couldn’t you be bothered to read the proofs?“Make a thread in the matrix forum and i will debate it there.” Why didn’t YOU do that in the first place? Who started talking about the Matrix in the first place? It sure wasn’t me.
“No, but i am not a religion. I am a person that believes in God. A religion, by definition, must be a group of people, whereas I am only one...”
So am I to conclude that you do NOT feel hated?“Yes, that is what science is about, but in order to get the masses to believe, their leaders must first admit to something being right first (in that time period), and the leaders only be-lieve what they choose to believe, not what is obviously proven before them.”
Or… the “masses” in question can read a science book.”science constantly renews itself?”
Yes, as in “Wow, look what we discovered here. That is new. Let’s test it, see if it’s true, and the show it to others.” That’s how the Universe went from being all about Earth, 6000 years old (Christian extremist thinking) to what it is today.“Science is composed mainly of THEORIES, not laws.”
(Bangs head against keyboard-table) Okay, YOU definitely needs to read up on the scientific method and what is MEANT by a scientific theory.
By a scientific THEORY (As opposed to a hypothesis) is meant a scientific law. The word theory is not used as it is in every-day speech, where “theory” is really “hypothesis.”
Go read up on how well tested the General THEORY of Relativity is.“Has science ever proven the bible wrong? No. WIll it? No.”
Argumentum ad ignorantum, dude! Something is not proven to be true, just because someone cannot prove it to be wrong. You can NOT prove a negative, the non-existence of a thing. Do I REALLY have to whip out the flying reindeer again???
It rests on those making a POSITIVE assertion to prove said assertion.“People who claim creationism to be idiotic obviously have no idea just how gapped the big-bang theory actually is.”
Oh, IS it now. How is it… gapped?
Yes, I claim creationism is idiotic. The Universe is NOT 6000 years old for starters.
here, im going to just start numbering the topics so we dont have to keep re-quoting each other...
1) Jesus existed, we have 'credible' documentation of that. The rest, i suppose, goes on faith.
2) i glanced over the links, but they still didnt really prove to much. The basic laws of physics still must apply to all things, and helicopters and bumblebees both are able to avoid these.
3)just drop the matrix deal, i dont want to debate it, as i said in the first place, it was only an aside
4) no, i dont feel hated, as i have already said.
5) the masses believe whatever the hell they want to. They choose whether or not to beleive what they read in a science book, nomatter how logical it may seem
6) yes, i know the difference between normal theory and official theory. Official theory is when somehting seems true based on quite a few tests, but has yet to prove its absolute validity through numerous tests, and has possibly even failed once or twice. If it does prove itself after more examination, however, it becomes law.
7) yes,i know that it is virtually impossible to disprove the bible, or most other "spiritual books" etc for that matter. I was simply trying to say that the bible does not disprove science, and science does not disprove the bible, it is quite possible for both to co-exist.
7) big-bang theory has no beginning. In the theory itself, there is an unknown... what began the chain reaction. I believe it is god. I dont really believe in evolution either, as many of the "missing links" to date have been found to be hoaxes. But i do not rule out that god could create the human race through evolution, creation is creation, after all. And yes, i also believe 6k years is a bit too low. But the estimated 7.5 billion or so that evolution typically falls back on is also far too high. Take our moon for example. The moon grows each year due to an increase in lunar dust it collects. Even if the moon were to start out as a single speck of dust, it would be well over 2x the size of earth if it was even more than a few dozen million years old.
now, my believes are also more "modern" than those of typical christians. I am, after all, majoring in a field of science. I do believe in God, and i believe he plays an active role in the universe. I will not, however, rule out the fact that life is still very mysterious to both faith and science. Evoltion is very possible, as is creationism. Both theories simply need to be changed to a degree to accomodate for the new information and other theories that we have today that were not in existance when these theories initially went into play.
Feceman> is that all you have to say these days? "Grow up"? Intelligence is - among things - defined by the size of someones vocabulary.
Short sentences do not equate a limited vocabulary. If I wanted to break out the $2.00 words, I would write a scientific report--TEH KIDNEYZ R LOCATED RETROPERITONEALLY, I had a myocardial infarction involving temporary asphyxiation due to the condition of pneumohemothorax when a blade penetrated by parietal pleura and opened the pleural cavity before tearing the visceral pleura, myobacterium tuberculosis is a pathogen that defenestrates the body's immune system, destroying antibodies and the varying forms of macrophages... (Surely I must have expended my vocabulary on such a stressful exercise!)
I have said "grow up" only once before, and it was--as is this--deserving. If one cannot argue something without ridiculing another's beliefs, one needs to mature and/or take a debate class.