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

Prove to me that creationism is the true origin of life without mentioning these:


god
bible
jesus
religion
evolution
anything to do with the above

Originally posted by xyz revolution
Prove to me that creationism is the true origin of life without mentioning these:


god
bible
jesus
religion
evolution
anything to do with the above





Evolution is Creation.

Yes it is..............Now look what you did, you made him shut up........

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Evolution is Creation. I know that. But christians don't. I mean that Inteligent Design thing. The one true creator. It cannot be described without the bible which is why it isn't a science. To say it was all created at an instant craps all over development of beings.

Originally posted by xyz revolution
I know that. But christians don't. I mean that Intelligent Design thing. The one true creator. It cannot be described without the bible which is why it isn't a science. To say it was all created at an instant craps all over development of beings.

Intelligent Design is just a code word for Christianity.

ID isn't science because it doesn't adhere to the scientific method. The real problem therein is that it isn't falsifiable.

Also, it violates Ocham's Razor and it's just a political move to integrate pseudoscience, proreligious theories into public school systems, which is never a good thing.

Originally posted by Wesker
ID isn't science because it doesn't adhere to the scientific method. The real problem therein is that it isn't falsifiable.

Also, it violates Ocham's Razor and it's just a political move to integrate pseudoscience, proreligious theories into public school systems, which is never a good thing. yes

Texas: no.
Louisiana: no.
Missippi: no.
Alabama: no.
Georgia: yes.

see the pattern?

Evolution-changes as we learn more. Begins with observation, then moves on to hypothesis, testing and debate. It never stops researching untill everything is explained.

ID-is rigid. It begins with fiction, then moves onto asserting, insisting, twisting the facts and even TORTURING those who disagree.

what christians don't understand that from the beginning Darwin said we're like this because of the environment we live in, and we develop over time to fit this environment better.

Sciences that support evolution: Biology, History, Geography, Psychology, Psychiatry, Physics, Chemisty, Technology and many more.

Sciences that support ID: ...

Originally posted by xyz revolution
Prove to me that creationism is the true origin of life without mentioning these:


god
bible
jesus
religion
evolution
anything to do with the above


Not that I disagree with your intent, but isn't that kinda like asking, Prove evolution w/o mentioning scientific method or evidence?

Originally posted by Mindship
Not that I disagree with your intent, but isn't that kinda like asking, Prove evolution w/o mentioning scientific method or evidence?

Not really. To prove anything requires either overwhelming empirical evidence or overwhelming rational evidence or both. Really, scientific theory isn't "proven"; it's the best answer out there with all the information we have. That's why it's falsifiable; it can be disproved with new information. ID can't because it's built on intangible and unprovable claims.

So you couldn't prove either of them without resorting to the scientific method AND best provided evidence.

exactly, and by definition, the only theories that can be included in a science class are theories that can be proven or tested with the scientific method. Dogma and mythology can't.

Of course. A lot of supporters of ID think it's an attack on the existance of God or religion, but it isn't; it's just prudence.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
exactly, and by definition, the only theories that can be included in a science class are theories that can be proven or tested with the scientific method. Dogma and mythology can't.

Dogma and Mythology should not be considered to be science because they have different functions then science.

i think the only way to prove creation would be to determine god's composition.

All rational thought is counter-religious. What's your point?

my point is that's the only way to end this thread. prove god's composition and wether its parts function as particles, waves, or both.

Originally posted by Mindship
Not that I disagree with your intent, but isn't that kinda like asking, Prove evolution w/o mentioning scientific method or evidence? You gotta have that, that's how all sciences are explained. Roughly.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Dogma and Mythology should not be considered to be science because they have different functions then science. Isn't religion roughly the same.

This thread was actually targeted for religious audiences, but I like having allies. also, evolution=development. To disprove evolution you're disproving development.

Originally posted by Wesker
Not really. To prove anything requires either overwhelming empirical evidence or overwhelming rational evidence or both. Really, scientific theory isn't "proven"; it's the best answer out there with all the information we have. That's why it's falsifiable; it can be disproved with new information. ID can't because it's built on intangible and unprovable claims.

So you couldn't prove either of them without resorting to the scientific method AND best provided evidence.

I couldn't agree more. It just seems that, since creationists use God as the basis for their position, to say you can't mention that is taking away a major underpinning, the way a rational evaluation of empirical evidence is a crucial underpinning to advancing (or disproving) scientific theories.

The opening statement of this thread just struck me like, Prove you can high-jump w/o using your legs.

Perhaps it would've been better to simply say, Prove creationism using scientific method (ie, that which provides the best "as if" in understanding way the world works).

Yeah, but then most people would assume that Creationism does follow the method, even though it doesn't.

creationism says that father and mother aren't your creator. It says god is.


I was created by my parents, who were dreated by their parents and so on and so on. as this happens, our lives change because of new dangers, new experiences and so on. So by a long period of time, a monkey can turn into an ape and a human. God doesn't just wave a wand and create us to test if we're good enough to live with him.

Reproduction is evolution. Are you going to say giving birth is wrong aswell?

Not that I agree with Intelligent design, but science and religion are not so different. For example, prove to me that science is right without meantioning these :

- scientific method

Originally posted by xyz revolution
creationism says that father and mother aren't your creator. It says god is.


I was created by my parents, who were dreated by their parents and so on and so on. as this happens, our lives change because of new dangers, new experiences and so on. So by a long period of time, a monkey can turn into an ape and a human. God doesn't just wave a wand and create us to test if we're good enough to live with him.

Reproduction is evolution. Are you going to say giving birth is wrong aswell?

I agree and the proof of evolution is in most of our houses but people refuse to believe. The proof is your dog or cat. These animals do not exist in nature.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I agree and the proof of evolution is in most of our houses but people refuse to believe. The proof is your dog or cat. These animals do not exist in nature. yes pets act different than wild animals. It's environment that changes things, so anything can change the world in ways you can't imagine.

Originally posted by xyz revolution
yes pets act different than wild animals. It's environment that changes things, so anything can change the world in ways you can't imagine.


Also, when was the last time you saw a poodle in the wild? We have changed the animals by selective breading. The reason these animals can change like this is evolution. The animals have a range of genetic possibilities that will come into play as the environment changes over generations.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Also, when was the last time you saw a poodle in the wild? We have changed the animals by selective breading. The reason these animals can change like this is evolution. The animals have a range of genetic possibilities that will come into play as the environment changes over generations. EXACTLY!!!














I mean: That's only a theory. The bible doesn't say it. How can it be true? You're evil.

i like pretending to be religious I'm also the son of god

Originally posted by xyz revolution
EXACTLY!!!














I mean: That's only a theory. The bible doesn't say it. How can it be true? You're evil.

i like pretending to be religious I'm also the son of god

I am religious. I just follow a more open minded religion called Buddhism.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am religious. I just follow a more open minded religion called Buddhism. also made-up, but doesn't cause as many problems, so it's okay.

Originally posted by xyz revolution
also made-up, but doesn't cause as many problems, so it's okay.

Buddhism is honest about its origins. I would rather take the advice of 3,000 years of very smart people talking about the human condition then from an imaginary all powerful deity that can never be wrong.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Buddhism is honest about its origins. I would rather take the advice of 3,000 years of very smart people talking about the human condition then from an imaginary all powerful deity that can never be wrong. well, bhuddist can't have sex

Originally posted by xyz revolution
well, bhuddist can't have sex

Sorry, but that is a stupid statement. Please know what you are talking about cause you don't.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sorry, but that is a stupid statement. Please know what you are talking about cause you don't. but I thought they believe in reincarnation not reproduction?

Originally posted by xyz revolution
but I thought they believe in reincarnation not reproduction?

That would be like me saying that atheists can't marry because marriage is a religious institution. Just stupid.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That would be like me saying that atheists can't marry because marriage is a religious institution. Just stupid. Then I shouldn't marry, right? But I understand what you're getting at.

Originally posted by xyz revolution
Prove to me that creationism is the true origin of life without mentioning these:


god
bible
jesus
religion
evolution
anything to do with the above





Ok, let's put it simple....
Life doesn't exist without god, so how can i tell you without mentioning god?

If you believe the universe can be made by a giant bang then you must believe in a super-being who has probably came from another universe.

Originally posted by O Green World
Ok, let's put it simple....
Life doesn't exist without god, so how can i tell you without mentioning god?

If you believe the universe can be made by a giant bang then you must believe in a super-being who has probably came from another universe. what do you mean life doesn't exist without god? Ofcourse it does. Life exists. God doesn't.

Originally posted by xyz revolution
what do you mean life doesn't exist without god? Ofcourse it does. Life exists. God doesn't.

Can you prove it without mentioning evolution?

Originally posted by O Green World
Can you prove it without mentioning evolution? okay. We all reproduce by shagging, thus we are the creators. Not god.

Originally posted by xyz revolution
okay. We all reproduce by shagging, thus we are the creators. Not god.

That's simple, so....?
Where'd the 'we' come from then? who made the 'we' part of your explanation?

Originally posted by O Green World
That's simple, so....?
Where'd the 'we' come from then? who made the 'we' part of your explanation?

Aliens planted the DNA just to make us. hysterical jk

Originally posted by O Green World
That's simple, so....?
Where'd the 'we' come from then? who made the 'we' part of your explanation? If you look at us at the moment and go forward in time, we're getting more and more well built and complex and advanced. So if you go back in time, the opposite should happen. Eventually you'll get into something simple as a single cell organism. Cells are made up of elements called Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen and Carbon. Now, because of gravity, heat and energy, these could of come together at one point on this earth due to those laws creating cells. Now there are no proof on where the elements came togethor but hydrogen can react with itself causing other elements which does happen. So where did the hydrogen come from? We may never know. But a Big-Bang shows the rush of energy and Hydrogen. And after that things develop over time.

you know what i think, as particle's and compunds got constantly more complex which in turn lead to even more complexity, life/conciouncs is the eventual goal of ALL matter that is given an enviornment to combine and get increasingly complicated and if given enough time and stable conditions, ALL planets will eventually harbour something resembling life.{specially if you study viruses which arent exactly biological/organic things but just because of complicating the non organic particles and continuous chemical reactions and combination, they can be said to harbour at the EDGE of living and non living, n they can also mutate very VERY easily which could give us insight into how an organism that hasnt QUITE qualified to be called biological life can easily mutate and thus answer the questions of how life could survive so easily in its initial stages of development without having adapted or developed specialized surviveability features.}

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Aliens planted the DNA just to make us. hysterical jk

That is technically what god is like, a highly advanced being from another universe who created this universe along with us...

Originally posted by xyz revolution
If you look at us at the moment and go forward in time, we're getting more and more well built and complex and advanced. So if you go back in time, the opposite should happen. Eventually you'll get into something simple as a single cell organism. Cells are made up of elements called Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen and Carbon. Now, because of gravity, heat and energy, these could of come together at one point on this earth due to those laws creating cells. Now there are no proof on where the elements came togethor but hydrogen can react with itself causing other elements which does happen. So where did the hydrogen come from? We may never know. But a Big-Bang shows the rush of energy and Hydrogen. And after that things develop over time.

*pssss there is no creation. Time is an illusion, and the universe has always been and always will be. The big band is just the last pulse of a flashing light in the nothingness. But don't tell anyone.*

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Aliens planted the DNA just to make us. hysterical jk that's creationism again

Originally posted by leonheartmm
you know what i think, as particle's and compunds got constantly more complex which in turn lead to even more complexity, life/conciouncs is the eventual goal of ALL matter that is given an enviornment to combine and get increasingly complicated and if given enough time and stable conditions, ALL planets will eventually harbour something resembling life.{specially if you study viruses which arent exactly biological/organic things but just because of complicating the non organic particles and continuous chemical reactions and combination, they can be said to harbour at the EDGE of living and non living, n they can also mutate very VERY easily which could give us insight into how an organism that hasnt QUITE qualified to be called biological life can easily mutate and thus answer the questions of how life could survive so easily in its initial stages of development without having adapted or developed specialized surviveability features.} yes you might be interested to know that Venuus coould of been like Earth and Saturn's moon Titan may be like a pre-earth because of it's similar climates. So why don't we look at it's development of species. Or is god starting again?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
*pssss there is no creation. Time is an illusion, and the universe has always been and always will be. The big band is just the last pulse of a flashing light in the nothingness. But don't tell anyone.* Yes. The Big Bang is where everything rushes out, when it stops, everything will go backwards untill the pressure is too great. For every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction.

Originally posted by xyz revolution
Yes. The Big Bang is where everything rushes out, when it stops, everything will go backwards untill the pressure is too great. For every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction.

Over and over again throughout eternity.

What is really cool is that we can now understand this because of what we know, but it is a very old idea. These people back thousands of years ago were smart.

the development of concionce/self awareness can be understood better with computers. since all programs are basically made up of 0s and 1s which on their own are NUTHING but blips on a screen or actually even simpler, a rush of electron in a wire/circuit. but wonderful intelligences can be made up by adding/joining and complicating these pulses{which the basic circuit interprets as electricity, your prosessor interprets as os and 1s and the program on a WHOLE interprets as commands. now the relationship between running electrons and commands/reactions is as vague as between randomly distributed matter and a talking thinkin human being{even though the first example is simplified} and it is THIS that most relegious humans or even normal humans cannot comprehend, HOW can sumthing so lifeless/simple turn into a complex and PERFECT{which is a wrong assumption since a human being is perfect only in ITS state of thought which is based merely on complicated combination of simpler units, infact its not any more perfect that a rock, its only ones thinking} without a creator when its actually POSSIBLE and PROBABLE that it can happen without anything aiding it. the simple fact is, that our THOUGHTS/ emotions are sumthing like 10th generation{or higher} computer languages{trying to explain here} just like a program created with the BASE language of C++ cannot take instructions nor interpret an analog code{0s and 1s} when basically, at the very core, 0s and 1s and ultimately kinetic energy of electrons flowing in paths of less resistance are what it actually made of.in similar ways, human beings who are so complex cannot imagine that they come from reletive simplicity and with their high level complex emotions, they dream up explanations which are easier for their current complex forms to bear with.

{sry, i get carried away}

Originally posted by leonheartmm
the development of concionce/self awareness can be understood better with computers. since all programs are basically made up of 0s and 1s which on their own are NUTHING but blips on a screen or actually even simpler, a rush of electron in a wire/circuit. but wonderful intelligences can be made up by adding/joining and complicating these pulses{which the basic circuit interprets as electricity, your prosessor interprets as os and 1s and the program on a WHOLE interprets as commands. now the relationship between running electrons and commands/reactions is as vague as between randomly distributed matter and a talking thinkin human being{even though the first example is simplified} and it is THIS that most relegious humans or even normal humans cannot comprehend, HOW can sumthing so lifeless/simple turn into a complex and PERFECT{which is a wrong assumption since a human being is perfect only in ITS state of thought which is based merely on complicated combination of simpler units, infact its not any more perfect that a rock, its only ones thinking} without a creator when its actually POSSIBLE and PROBABLE that it can happen without anything aiding it. the simple fact is, that our THOUGHTS/ emotions are sumthing like 10th generation{or higher} computer languages{trying to explain here} just like a program created with the BASE language of C++ cannot take instructions nor interpret an analog code{0s and 1s} when basically, at the very core, 0s and 1s and ultimately kinetic energy of electrons flowing in paths of less resistance are what it actually made of.in similar ways, human beings who are so complex cannot imagine that they come from reletive simplicity and with their high level complex emotions, they dream up explanations which are easier for their current complex forms to bear with.

{sry, i get carried away} I guess.

Aliens created us.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Not that I agree with Intelligent design, but science and religion are not so different. For example, prove to me that science is right without meantioning these :

- scientific method

Remember when you turned on your computer to get it to work? That's proof of -science-. Remember when you turned the ignition on your car? Again. Remember last time you made a phone call?

Those are all instances in which science WAS right. That is, unless you have a faith-based answer for those. I'd LOVE to see that.

Originally posted by O Green World
Ok, let's put it simple....
Life doesn't exist without god, so how can i tell you without mentioning god?

If you believe the universe can be made by a giant bang then you must believe in a super-being who has probably came from another universe.

Incorrect. You've made the assertion that life can't exist without God, but you haven't proven it. However, there's no evidence to suggest that life requires a God. Now, the Big Bang theory isn't my idea of "teh oober argument" as that has it's own unique set of problems (Which are another topic in itself), but everyone who supports ID or Creationism says the same thing: It is too complex/perfect/ordered/strange/law-abiding, therefore it must be done by a supernatural being. In every case the person jumps from a natural occurance to a supernatural answer, and it's Mythos, not Logos. It spits in the face of over two thousand years of Western philosophy and thought.

Originally posted by xyz revolution
I know that. But christians don't. I mean that Inteligent Design thing. The one true creator. It cannot be described without the bible which is why it isn't a science. To say it was all created at an instant craps all over development of beings.

Isnt evolution, started by the big bang,....


"all created at an instant".


Just a flash of light in the void and ..BOOM!!!

Stars, moons, suns, planets, .... THE UNIVERSE, etc....



The big bang does the same thing (a whole lotta something from nothing) as creation, but gives no reason for it.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Isnt evolution, started by the big bang,....


"all created at an instant".


Just a flash of light in the void and ..BOOM!!!

Stars, moons, suns, planets, .... THE UNIVERSE, etc....



The big bang does the same thing (a whole lotta something from nothing) as creation, but gives no reason for it.



The Big Bang theory wasn't even mainstream over the steady state theory until the 1960s, so how you assume evolution starts with that, I can't guess. I suppose someone needs to brush up on their science and not make "common knowledge" guesses on things. Evolution was covered by Darwin well before Big Bang was ever even on the drawing board. The theory itself is heavily in dispute, but it is supported by cosmic microwave background radiation, and even then it's only a scientific theory because it's falsifiable. Creationism isn't. Big Bang is the best we've got, but no scientist worth his degree will make claims about Big Bang the way a Creationist will carry on about their unsubstantiated claims.

And scientists do not know what could have been before the supposed Big Bang at all, though most would suggest a concentrated form of all matter in the universe. I suggest you research the topic THOROUGHLY before you assume there's just no good reason for it.

Meanwhile, a Creationist has this two thousand year old collection of stories by different authors that has been passed down and retranslated and it's supposed to come up with a figure of around six thousand years and we're just supposed to believe that all fields of science and their researchers are ALL wrong concerning the age of earth entirely.

Right.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Isnt evolution, started by the big bang,....


"all created at an instant".


Just a flash of light in the void and ..BOOM!!!

Stars, moons, suns, planets, .... THE UNIVERSE, etc....



The big bang does the same thing (a whole lotta something from nothing) as creation, but gives no reason for it.

no, no, no. Evolution says everything developed over time. Crating into more and more advanced. Therefore, by going back in time, you would get less and less advanced until you get to nothing. The Big Bang is the start of everything. By questioning the Big Bang you're questioning the beginning. You can't get before the big bang. I'm not saying the big bang is for definate but it makes more sense than a ****ing creator in the clouds.

Origin of the Species summed up Evolution pretty damn good, actually.

Originally posted by xyz revolution
Prove to me that creationism is the true origin of life without mentioning these:


god
bible
jesus
religion
evolution
anything to do with the above



How clever..all of these were already a seperate thread but you just combined them all

Originally posted by xyz revolution
Prove to me that creationism is the true origin of life without mentioning these:


god
bible
jesus
religion
evolution
anything to do with the above






Look in the mirror..a*s**l**s don't evolve, they're obviously created. According to natural selection, a species would have evolved past procreating a*s**les long ago...

Just my two cents..or maybe 3..

Fin

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Look in the mirror..a*s**l**s don't evolve, they're obviously created. According to natural selection, a species would have evolved past procreating a*s**les long ago...

Just my two cents..or maybe 3..

Fin Maybe 4 cents

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Look in the mirror..a*s**l**s don't evolve, they're obviously created. According to natural selection, a species would have evolved past procreating a*s**les long ago...

Just my two cents..or maybe 3..

Fin ??? Evolution happens in reproduction and over millions of years...

YOU ****ING MORON GET A LIFE AND READ A TEXT BOOK

Originally posted by Wesker
Remember when you turned on your computer to get it to work? That's proof of -science-. Remember when you turned the ignition on your car? Again. Remember last time you made a phone call?

Those are all instances in which science WAS right. That is, unless you have a faith-based answer for those. I'd LOVE to see that.

But my point is that you still needed to use the scientific method in those examples.

The scientific method tells us that scientific hypothesis must be tested using empirical observation, or just empiricism if you want. Now, empiricism is the belief(synonymous to faith) that present theories should be based on our observations of the world.

If you use the scientific method to prove science, it means that you are based on faith in empiricism, what means that religion and science are not so much different form each other... even science requires a little faith.

To not make use of faith to prove science you must do it without using the scientific method or any other belief system. Can you do it ?

Its impossible...

Originally posted by Mindship
Not that I disagree with your intent, but isn't that kinda like asking, Prove evolution w/o mentioning scientific method or evidence? So your admitting it's a science. You just said Evolution is based on facts. Making it true.

Evolution-changes as we learn more. Begins with observation, then moves on to hypothesis, testing and debate. It never stops researching untill everything is explained.

creationism-is rigid. It begins with fiction, then moves onto asserting, insisting, twisting the facts and even TORTURING those who disagree.

what christians don't understand that from the beginning Darwin said we're like this because of the environment we live in, and we develop over time to fit this environment better.

Sciences that support evolution: Biology, History, Geography, Psychology, Psychiatry, Physics, Chemisty, Technology, Child Development, Geology, Astronomy and many more.

Sciences that support creationism: ...

Originally posted by Atlantis001
But my point is that you still needed to use the scientific method in those examples.

The scientific method tells us that scientific hypothesis must be tested using empirical observation, or just empiricism if you want. Now, empiricism is the belief(synonymous to faith) that present theories should be based on our observations of the world.

If you use the scientific method to prove science, it means that you are based on faith in empiricism, what means that religion and science are not so much different form each other... even science requires a little faith.

To not use faith you must prove science you must do it without using the scientific method or any other belief system. Can you do it ?

Its impossible...

We're wading through semantics here...

Firstly, if you do NOT use empirical evidence to support your theory, you are arguing strictly a priori. And a priori arguments cannot prove things in the real world by themselves. You cannot tell me the mating habits of the sea turtle by pure a priori arguing. Now, before you toss around the term "faith", know its definition:

faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.

Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.

Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.

often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.

The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.

A set of principles or beliefs

Religious faith is based on the second definition- it does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.. This is exactly the OPPOSITE of science. Science uses both logical proof and material evidence.

Look at my thread on the concept of an all-good god: rationally, God could not be allpowerful and all good and still allow evil to exist. The Bible scriptures would have you believe that freedom of choice exempts God from his responsibility, but then it also claims predestination and thus it contradicts itself. If you ask a staunch Christian how this can be, they will rattle of some illogical answer like "We can't know God" or "Who are we to question God?" They cannot prove their case with logic or with material evidence. Hence, theirs is blind faith, while scientific method and theory is based on common sense and applicable givens. To generalize faith as you have done is to mistake the word's very meaning.

Originally posted by Wesker
We're wading through semantics here...

Firstly, if you do NOT use empirical evidence to support your theory, you are arguing strictly a priori. And a priori arguments cannot prove things in the real world by themselves. You cannot tell me the mating habits of the sea turtle by pure a priori arguing. Now, before you toss around the term "faith", know its definition:

faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.

Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.

Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.

often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.

The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.

A set of principles or beliefs

Religious faith is based on the second definition- it does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.. This is exactly the OPPOSITE of science. Science uses both logical proof and material evidence.

Look at my thread on the concept of an all-good god: rationally, God could not be allpowerful and all good and still allow evil to exist. The Bible scriptures would have you believe that freedom of choice exempts God from his responsibility, but then it also claims predestination and thus it contradicts itself. If you ask a staunch Christian how this can be, they will rattle of some illogical answer like "We can't know God" or "Who are we to question God?" They cannot prove their case with logic or with material evidence. Hence, theirs is blind faith, while scientific method and theory is based on common sense and applicable givens. To generalize faith as you have done is to mistake the word's very meaning. yes

The argument is indeed based on an equivocation fallacy.

What are the facts supporting creationism?

Originally posted by Wesker
We're wading through semantics here...

Firstly, if you do NOT use empirical evidence to support your theory, you are arguing strictly a priori. And a priori arguments cannot prove things in the real world by themselves. You cannot tell me the mating habits of the sea turtle by pure a priori arguing. Now, before you toss around the term "faith", know its definition:

faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.

Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.

Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.

often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.

The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.

A set of principles or beliefs

Religious faith is based on the second definition- it does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.. This is exactly the OPPOSITE of science. Science uses both logical proof and material evidence.

Look at my thread on the concept of an all-good god: rationally, God could not be allpowerful and all good and still allow evil to exist. The Bible scriptures would have you believe that freedom of choice exempts God from his responsibility, but then it also claims predestination and thus it contradicts itself. If you ask a staunch Christian how this can be, they will rattle of some illogical answer like "We can't know God" or "Who are we to question God?" They cannot prove their case with logic or with material evidence. Hence, theirs is blind faith, while scientific method and theory is based on common sense and applicable givens. To generalize faith as you have done is to mistake the word's very meaning.

Good stuff Wesker.

you can't explain creationism as science.

Originally posted by xyz revolution
??? Evolution happens in reproduction and over millions of years...

YOU ****ING MORON GET A LIFE AND READ A TEXT BOOK

You've proved to all that there is a God, based on natural selection not allowing for the evolution of ass*oles like yourself.

Now aren't you supposed to shut up?

Fin.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
You've proved to all that there is a God, based on natural selection not allowing for the evolution of ass*oles like yourself.

Now aren't you supposed to shut up?

Fin.

Do I see a beam in your eye?

Originally posted by xyz revolution
??? Evolution happens in reproduction and over millions of years...

YOU ****ING MORON GET A LIFE AND READ A TEXT BOOK

You're my hero!

Originally posted by Da preacher
You're my hero!



You must have very low expectations...

Fin

He is right anyway.

That was the dumbest post I've read in ages.

Hit the library... but start with something like 'The old man and the sea', you'll might understand it.

Originally posted by xyz revolution
no, no, no. Evolution says everything developed over time. Crating into more and more advanced. Therefore, by going back in time, you would get less and less advanced until you get to nothing. The Big Bang is the start of everything. By questioning the Big Bang you're questioning the beginning. You can't get before the big bang. I'm not saying the big bang is for definate but it makes more sense than a ****ing creator in the clouds. Though I did watch on the Science Channel that with some quantum physics theories, that there was something connecting the big bang and some living type organism, possibly with some intelligence.....

Originally posted by Da preacher
He is right anyway.

That was the dumbest post I've read in ages.

Hit the library... but start with something like 'The old man and the sea', you'll might understand it.


I'm sure I'll might understand it..but I'm not sure if you'll might.

Fin

Oh, I've read it.
It's quite simplistic and only has 100 pages or so but it is a very satisfying book.

Originally posted by xyz revolution
Prove to me that creationism is the true origin of life without mentioning these:


god
bible
jesus
religion
evolution
anything to do with the above





Stuff happened that I can't explain, therefor, creationism is true.

Originally posted by BackFire
Stuff happened that I can't explain, therefor, creationism is true.

You're my hero, Backfire. This quote goes in my profile.

Tell you one thing...........BLIND FAITH kills everything people stands for......kills your mind and all you could ever hope to be, following after some doctrine ( that is man made) that only gives you some hope and nothing achieved.....If you follow it, then you might as well call yourself dead, because youre not using what you've been given..............a mind...And that is what we all consist of.

Why is it that this thread is now five pages long and no one has presented any evidence for Creationism?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Why is it that this thread is now five pages long and no one has presented any evidence for Creationism?

But I did!

the proof is everywhere. how can the human body be so complex without the inteligent creator God?

Originally posted by xyz revolution
Prove to me that creationism is the true origin of life without mentioning these:


god
bible
jesus
religion
evolution
anything to do with the above




Genesis of the Bible is the core of creationism. Without mentioning any of those, there's not point in discussing creationism.

You win at life.

Originally posted by G a n n o n
the proof is everywhere. how can the human body be so complex without the inteligent creator God?

It is very complex, therefore God made it? I guess God made New York city then, because that thing is irreducibly complex... Oh wait. That didn't have an intelligent creator. Oops. Bad logic.

Well, as we know scientists believe the universe was formed by a gigantic explosion as the result of built-up gasses that concentrated and formed an explosive chemichal reaction.

But where did those gasses come from? How were they formed? How did the universe go from nothingness to have gas that could slowly grow into a substance that could create the universe?

Though it's fairly possible considering how chemistry doesn't fail us, it seems awfuly ignorant and narscistic to believe no outside force could possibly be involved with said explosion. However, I believe both creationists and evolutionists spend far too much time, energy, and money, on the annoying tug-of-war of how the universe began, when it really doesn't matter, it's here, and it's here to stay. We should worry more about how it might end, especialy considering the times..

Originally posted by Hack Benjamin
Well, as we know scientists believe the universe was formed by a gigantic explosion as the result of built-up gasses that concentrated and formed an explosive chemichal reaction.

But where did those gasses come from? How were they formed? How did the universe go from nothingness to have gas that could slowly grow into a substance that could create the universe?

Though it's fairly possible considering how chemistry doesn't fail us, it seems awfuly ignorant and narscistic to believe no outside force could possibly be involved with said explosion. However, I believe both creationists and evolutionists spend far too much time, energy, and money, on the annoying tug-of-war of how the universe began, when it really doesn't matter, it's here, and it's here to stay. We should worry more about how it might end, especialy considering the times..

Before the big bang was the big crunch and before that was another big bang and before that... get it? No beginning...

I personally think the assumption that creation NEEDS a beginning is humans putting linear limitations on everything. Humans think in terms of beginnings and endings. The idea that they don't apply to the universe is baffling, but to me it makes a great deal of sense.

I mean, what came before the beginning? And before that? And so on.

Nothing in life has ever been proven

I ask you:

How do you think the plants in your garden existed?

than i ask:

How did the book of botany existed?


If creationism don't exist the book on botany shld not exist. So does your home, the buildings. It takes a intelligent being to create a AI being therefore it takes a supreme being to create a Intelligent being like u and me and all those around.

if creationism is true, why is it a more valid "scientific" theory than any other creation myth? why can't the babylonian creation be taught? is it ludicrous thinking that a cosmic bull jizzed on a barren planet compared to a divine being creating people from dirt?

so when they clone humans, and they will, will man then be a supreme being

Originally posted by BackFire
Stuff happened that I can't explain, therefor, creationism is true. Isn't that how religion started? If you can't explain it, study it, don't just say, "God did it proving religion" No. that's going to stop science all togethor if everyone thinks that. Then we'll be wasting ourlives trying to talk to someone who doesn't exist. I don't want that to happen.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
You've proved to all that there is a God, based on natural selection not allowing for the evolution of ass*oles like yourself.

Now aren't you supposed to shut up?

Fin. what? Natural selection proves god? What the **** are you talking about? What language are you speaking because it sounds like Bollucks!

Originally posted by xyz revolution
Evolution-changes as we learn more. Begins with observation, then moves on to hypothesis, testing and debate. It never stops researching untill everything is explained.

creationism-is rigid. It begins with fiction, then moves onto asserting, insisting, twisting the facts and even TORTURING those who disagree.

what christians don't understand that from the beginning Darwin said we're like this because of the environment we live in, and we develop over time to fit this environment better.

Sciences that support evolution: Biology, History, Geography, Psychology, Psychiatry, Physics, Chemisty, Technology, Child Development, Geology, Astronomy and many more.

Sciences that support creationism: ...
Originally posted by xyz revolution
What are the facts supporting creationism?
Originally posted by xyz revolution
you can't explain creationism as science.

Originally posted by Wesker
I personally think the assumption that creation NEEDS a beginning is humans putting linear limitations on everything. Humans think in terms of beginnings and endings. The idea that they don't apply to the universe is baffling, but to me it makes a great deal of sense.

I mean, what came before the beginning? And before that? And so on. Does it matter what the beginning is? We're never gonna know I think. What we should be focusing on is the future, how we could make that better.

you can prove religion to a baby or someone who's already known it. But what about if an alien comes and asks about which is believable, how are you going to explain it?

I'm still waiting for proof.

youll never get it.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
youll never get it. exactly so why is there a prove evolution thread?

Originally posted by xyz revolution
exactly so why is there a prove evolution thread?

It is not a matter of proof, it is a matter of choice. That is the difference between science and myth.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It is not a matter of proof, it is a matter of choice. That is the difference between science and myth. no, creation is science. It makes more sense. Somehow.

What I find interesting is that so many people are so eager to prove that all around us is explained by chemical reactions and natural development, that there is nothing more. So I ask all that do believe in evolution, what do you believe happens when you die? Are you perfectly satisfied believing that when you die that is it, you cease to exist? If that is true perhaps you better examine your own mortality a little more.

Really I am at the point of not giving a crap about all that want to try so hard to disprove religion. I know what I believe, and for those that want to go their separate path, have fun in hell.

Evolution is a religion in itself. IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN. So they dug up some bones that look similar to human. If evolution is true then why do we still have apes? Why do we still have all those beginning steps? Why do we not see any of those intermediate steps today?

If scientists chose to try and prove the existence of God, then more than likely you would see Jesus in science books and not Darwin. Scientists keep spouting their theories and people keep taking them as facts just because they are labeled scientists. Yet I have heard no viable theory as to where that initial space rock that everything exploded from came from.

Consider this, explosions are created from a chemical reaction. A chemical reaction is created by certain conditions being met during a period of time. So if this rock always existed then it would be outside the constraints of time therefore time would not exists for these conditions to be met. Of course the same thing could be said of God, but science works with these time boundaries, thus why they can't say where it all started from.

Anyway if you are so set on the evolution theory then why are you so adamant for people to submit proof that God does exist? Perhaps your beliefs are not as sound as you think.

Originally posted by Jayrell
What I find interesting is that so many people are so eager to prove that all around us is explained by chemical reactions and natural development, that there is nothing more. So I ask all that do believe in evolution, what do you believe happens when you die? Are you perfectly satisfied believing that when you die that is it, you cease to exist? If that is true perhaps you better examine your own mortality a little more.

Really I am at the point of not giving a crap about all that want to try so hard to disprove religion. I know what I believe, and for those that want to go their separate path, have fun in hell.

Evolution is a religion in itself. IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN. So they dug up some bones that look similar to human. If evolution is true then why do we still have apes? Why do we still have all those beginning steps? Why do we not see any of those intermediate steps today?

If scientists chose to try and prove the existence of God, then more than likely you would see Jesus in science books and not Darwin. Scientists keep spouting their theories and people keep taking them as facts just because they are labeled scientists. Yet I have heard no viable theory as to where that initial space rock that everything exploded from came from.

Consider this, explosions are created from a chemical reaction. A chemical reaction is created by certain conditions being met during a period of time. So if this rock always existed then it would be outside the constraints of time therefore time would not exists for these conditions to be met. Of course the same thing could be said of God, but science works with these time boundaries, thus why they can't say where it all started from.

Anyway if you are so set on the evolution theory then why are you so adamant for people to submit proof that God does exist? Perhaps your beliefs are not as sound as you think.



so your reasoning isnt any different form any1 relegious. if everythin has to come from domewhere then tell me WHERE GOD CAME FROM? cant answer that? cant even think up of a THEORY? dont worry neither can the wrest of the relegious world. if you say HE ALWAYS EXISTED, than the rock can also ALWAYS HAVE EXISTED.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
so your reasoning isnt any different form any1 relegious. if everythin has to come from domewhere then tell me WHERE GOD CAME FROM? cant answer that? cant even think up of a THEORY? dont worry neither can the wrest of the relegious world. if you say HE ALWAYS EXISTED, than the rock can also ALWAYS HAVE EXISTED.

Yes I can think of a reason, I have read it. It's called the Bible, which is what I believe in. According to what I believe God created everything including time. Science can't give us an answer to that question.

So no my reasoning isn't any different from anyone else religious. It's what I believe. Yet if I see someone attacking what I believe then I am going to voice it.

Feel free to believe whatever you want, I know where I will go when I die. Have fun wrestling with your own theories.

Originally posted by Jayrell
Yes I can think of a reason, I have read it. It's called the Bible, which is what I believe in. According to what I believe God created everything including time. Science can't give us an answer to that question.

So no my reasoning isn't any different from anyone else religious. It's what I believe. Yet if I see someone attacking what I believe then I am going to voice it.

Feel free to believe whatever you want, I know where I will go when I die. Have fun wrestling with your own theories.


funny, just one post before you were actually discussing LOGIC, the second u start losin u dismissed all things logical and went on belief and thought ID be the one wrestling with my theories. try n wrestle with yours of trnity and god being one or god being the father and the son at the same time. or god being perfect yet being proven imperfect. etc etc

Originally posted by leonheartmm
funny, just one post before you were actually discussing LOGIC, the second u start losin u dismissed all things logical and went on belief and thought ID be the one wrestling with my theories. try n wrestle with yours of trnity and god being one or god being the father and the son at the same time. or god being perfect yet being proven imperfect. etc etc

And that is where your points exhibit no merit. Before you argue against something maybe try and understand it a little.

Religion is not simple 1 + 1 = 2, you must think beyond those simple equations. Your last 2 sentences make perfect sense to me beacuse I have actually read enough of the Bible to know what it all means. You seem to just pick up bits and pieces and think you have it figured out.

To me, my beliefs are logical, there is simply no other reasonable way for the creation of everything. You only see they are not because they are not what you believe. I guess you have never really believed in anything before to the point that it makes perfect sense.

i HAVE actually up until the age of 11-12 which is why i KNOW what im talkin about. if youve read the bible{n many others have} then why dont u EXPLAIN to my stupid little mind how you can make sense of all those contradictions and paradoxes when my mind and logic{along with most of the logical world} CANT.

Originally posted by Jayrell
What I find interesting is that so many people are so eager to prove that all around us is explained by chemical reactions and natural development, that there is nothing more.

Actually, the stance of a proper scientist and philosopher is not one that God or Gods cannot exist; it's that one cannot know their nature since evidence and proof is not forthcoming. Atheism and science do not go hand in hand. That's called a stereotype.



A rational person accepts that this is a possibility. We hope not, but we can't prove otherwise. What do you expect us to do? Have faith?



... But you had to say something. If you weren't personally insulted, you wouldn't have replied. A confident and faithful person does not get angry and wish people "fun in hell" for being not of their faith. That's called "being a self righteous religious bastard". Having an attitude like that doesn't help your case any. It just makes you look arrogant and narrowminded.



Read my above post to Atlantis. The idea of "proof" and "truth" is heavily in debate. But the best way to solve this is to look to common sense: are you going to go to a doctor and say "No, I don't want that life saving surgery. It's made by an unproven science of medicine. Instead I'll stick eight pins in my ass and pray"? No. That's ludicrous. Science provides real and natural explanations for how the world works. Religion offers nothing but a carrot to dangle before the donkey.



Most likely because, if you understood the concepts behind evolution, you'd realize that offshoots of species undergo random mutation, which in turn eventually makes certain species unable to reproduce with their parent species. They then go on to reproduce and number their ecosystem until another such mutation occurs. This accounts for diversity in nature. We can observe such effects nowadays.



Who says they are beginning steps? We have more extinct species of animals then we have living ones in this day and age. Very few creatures on this earth remain unchanged from the dinosaur era, and almost none exist unchanged from previous eras.



Go research evolution before you make these claims. All these basic questions can be answered in textbooks.



No, this is a ridiculous assertion. God cannot be known with current methods and technology. Any assumptions made otherwise are purely arrogant and presumpuous. Darwin is a living man, and his observations can be found after his death. God leaves no such trails.



People believe in scientists because in most cases, scientists' hard work and observation benefits mankind and helps us understand the world around us. Being on your knees and praying to the invisible man up in Heaven doesn't produce a cure for cancer, pal. Don't discredit scientists just because they don't endorse your organized religion. They provided the computer you're typing on.



Glad you know the name. The Big Bang theory is one of a few theories and is the most popular one. It is just that: a theory. Scientifically, it has some evidence in its corner. Mostly stuff you wouldn't be able to make heads or tails of, but it's there. And like any scientific theory, it is falsifiable, meaning it is only held as accurate until new information can be found, assuming there is any. At least scientists don't make bold claims like their findings are absolute truth and 100% correct. Religion makes such claims all the time. Proof? 0.



What the hell ARE you talking about?



Religion is human egoism given flesh. Religion claims that God is a certain way and that human is weak before God and must obey or rot in hell. Instead of tearing down science for providing logical and applicable answers to the world around us, take a good long look at the very foundation you're supporting. It's narrowminded and lacks proof. Quite the opposite to science.

Originally posted by Jayrell
What I find interesting is that so many people are so eager to prove that all around us is explained by chemical reactions and natural development, that there is nothing more. no, were all doing a DIFFERENT part in explaining it, so our EVIDENCE is more accurate and reasonable. Don't see anyone doing that to creationism.

Originally posted by Jayrell
So I ask all that do believe in evolution, what do you believe happens when you die? Are you perfectly satisfied believing that when you die that is it, you cease to exist? If that is true perhaps you better examine your own mortality a little more. when you die, you rot in the ground because the elements and compounds we're made of, react that way. We become the ground, which (when reacted with seeds air and light energy from the sun) become plants which we eat. That is saying energy can't be lost, it goes in a cycle. Or do you believe a soul floating into a kingdom in the clouds makes much more sense?

Originally posted by Jayrell
Really I am at the point of not giving a crap about all that want to try so hard to disprove religion. I know what I believe, and for those that want to go their separate path, have fun in hell. what is this "hell" that you speak of. Where is it?

Originally posted by Jayrell
Evolution is a religion in itself. IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN. So they dug up some bones that look similar to human. If evolution is true then why do we still have apes? Why do we still have all those beginning steps? Why do we not see any of those intermediate steps today? Just like the bible, you askked two questions that contradict eachother. You said "Why aren't the apes here today?" and "Why are the apes still here?" Did you not? The apes we evolved from are different to the apes today, did you actually look at the fossils and bones? Or are you just makiing this up?

Originally posted by Jayrell
If scientists chose to try and prove the existence of God, then more than likely you would see Jesus in science books and not Darwin. Scientists keep spouting their theories and people keep taking them as facts just because they are labeled scientists. Yet I have heard no viable theory as to where that initial space rock that everything exploded from came from. So what you're saying is, Jesus is a scientists, every other like Darwin is a liar and if you can't prove an assumption, it's obviously false. Now who's the crazy one?

Originally posted by Jayrell
Consider this, explosions are created from a chemical reaction. A chemical reaction is created by certain conditions being met during a period of time. So if this rock always existed then it would be outside the constraints of time therefore time would not exists for these conditions to be met. Of course the same thing could be said of God, but science works with these time boundaries, thus why they can't say where it all started from. ermm, we'll never know what the beginning is. God can't be the beginning, what made god? Don't you realise you're asking a question that NO-ONE can answer?

Originally posted by Jayrell
Anyway if you are so set on the evolution theory then why are you so adamant for people to submit proof that God does exist? Perhaps your beliefs are not as sound as you think. We wanna prove god doesn't exist because people like you are posting crap, that is gonna turn the world back into the dark ages, where everyone is fighting over which god is right. And which book is right. Understand.

I think what Jayrell is trying to do is prove creationism by disproving evolution, showing he didn't bother to read the first post. Not only that, but he didn't pay attention to any science that might shake-up his whole world view. But what he doesn't know is, I've just proven him wrong, before he even got a chance to be right. And just so yoou know, I'm not even 15 yet

evolution is in plants and horses and everything else.

Raspberries, Blackberries n Blueberries come from the same ancestor. Every single current n grape.

Cabbages, Cauliflowers and Sprouts, the same ancestor that changed due to the environments they were in.

Creationism says nothing changes. It was all created at an instant. That's saying we don't grow. That we look exactly the same from birth to death. Evolution is growth but on a longer scale. That's how stupid creationism is. Or are we going to disprove growth?

also, why did Jayrell call a reaction a rock?

also, why did Jayrell call a reaction a rock?

How come no-one's replying to me?





























At all?

I don't know........I would, but I don't really have anything to say...Imagine that!

tv_horror

Originally posted by debbiejo


I don't know........I would, but I don't really have anything to say...Imagine that!

tv_horror Yeah, I am right, aren't I. flirt

In perusing some of the posts, I am struck by statements generally featuring/asking the following...
1. If there is no God, where did the Big Bang come from?
2. If there Is a God, where did "He" come from?
3. Evolution is not a "fact," it is a theory, just like creationism/I.D.

As such, I feel compelled to throw in more 2-cents worth. It would help, IMO, if...
1. ...we define what we mean by "God." If the consensus is the Biblical interpretation, then so be it, though, personally, this is not where I would go.
2. ...we considered the possibility that God/the Cosmos did not have a beginning, just always was. In fact, if we attribute the trait of "being infinite" to either, then by definition there Is No Beginning to debate about.
(As a fun alternative, when people ask where did God come from, I like to say, God created Himself, to which the response usually is, How can God create Himself? And I reply, That's what makes God God. And when the reply to this is, That makes no sense, I like to say, Why should something that is Utterly Infinite and Unimaginable in its nature make sense to a finite human mind? Kinda arrogant, no? Hell, even quantum mechanical behavior doesn't "make sense."
3. Instead of regarding "facts" as valid (ie, truthful, depicting Reality as it "really is", regard them as reliable (ie, offering accurate models of reality, models which conform with observations, logic and allow for predictions. Let evolution and ID be compared along these lines).


balloon

Originally posted by Mindship
In perusing some of the posts, I am struck by statements generally featuring/asking the following...
1. If there is no God, where did the Big Bang come from?
2. If there Is a God, where did "He" come from?
3. Evolution is not a "fact," it is a theory, just like creationism/I.D.

As such, I feel compelled to throw in more 2-cents worth. It would help, IMO, if...
1. ...we define what we mean by "God." If the consensus is the Biblical interpretation, then so be it, though, personally, this is not where I would go.
2. ...we considered the possibility that God/the Cosmos did not have a beginning, just always was. In fact, if we attribute the trait of "being infinite" to either, then by definition there Is No Beginning to debate about.
(As a fun alternative, when people ask where did God come from, I like to say, God created Himself, to which the response usually is, How can God create Himself? And I reply, That's what makes God God. And when the reply to this is, That makes no sense, I like to say, Why should something that is Utterly Infinite and Unimaginable in its nature make sense to a finite human mind? Kinda arrogant, no? Hell, even quantum mechanical behavior doesn't "make sense."
3. Instead of regarding "facts" as valid (ie, truthful, depicting Reality as it "really is", regard them as reliable (ie, offering accurate models of reality, models which conform with observations, logic and allow for predictions. Let evolution and ID be compared along these lines).


balloon what? Evolution is a science. All sciences are theories. ID isn't based on anything to even be near a scientific classroom! TThey just made it up.

http://www.ncsu.edu/labwrite/res/res-glossary.html



http://jmsscienceweb.tripod.com/vocabulary.htm

Too many people don't realise that a scientific theory is called a theory because it is falsifiable and subject to change with the discovery of new facts. However, that does not mean it has not been proven correct many many times.

It remains a 'theory' because it is always possible we discover new things, even if that 'theory' has been proven correct 10,000,000 times out of 10,000,000.

Religion, on the other hand, stays rigid throughout millenia, not allowing for change that discovery of new facts to needs to explain new findings.

Intelligent Design doesn't even follow the scientific method, which barely makes it psuedoscience.

"God did it" is the easy and lazy way out.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
http://www.ncsu.edu/labwrite/res/res-glossary.html



http://jmsscienceweb.tripod.com/vocabulary.htm

Too many people don't realise that a scientific theory is called a theory because it is falsifiable and subject to change with the discovery of new facts. However, that does not mean it has not been proven correct many many times.

It remains a 'theory' because it is always possible we discover new things, even if that 'theory' has been proven correct 10,000,000 times out of 10,000,000.

Religion, on the other hand, stays rigid throughout millenia, not allowing for change that discovery of new facts to needs to explain new findings.

Intelligent Design doesn't even follow the scientific method, which barely makes it psuedoscience.

"God did it" is the easy and lazy way out. that's what I've been saying. That's how religion started. Like the 10 plagues of Egypt. That can be explained scientifically.

Well Where did the universal believe of God came from? Not from reason or argument. Belief of God is not a result of logical arguments. Not even from traditions for traditions can perpetuate only what has been originated.

The case of evolution itself is weak. it's take an organism to evole a million years? Did science had the time to witness it. So how can science say that evolution exist when it's fervent to say the God don't exist jus because they don see him? Evolution of something has to spring up out of something.... so show me the root of it.

have the faithful had time to witness creation?

Originally posted by joesha28
Well Where did the universal believe of God came from?

How is it "universal"? Are you really so arrogant and ignorant as to believe that everyone believes in God, and that all believe in one God, and your God?



Which is exactly why they should be viewed with skepticism.



WTF? Is this more rhetoric nonsense?



The case of Creationism and ID is illogical. Evolution's case may seem weak at a glance, but this is coming from an ignoramus. The idea that near-microscopic transistors on chips can create the images, sounds, and experiences we have on a computer is pretty weak if generalized and misunderstood. Maybe you think the case of evolution is weak, but unless you can prove to us exactly why it's so weak and be specific (I'm so tired of religious people misunderstanding and thus misrepresenting evolution when they attack it) you need to accept that you have NO CASE.



Again, there's literally tons and tons of observations, methodology, logic and reason behind these claims, not just a casual thought. You act like some atheist loser thought this up while taking a crap.



Not all science claims God can't exist. It does assert that God is unknowable at current. Get that right.



Ridiculous. Science doesn't have to locate the root of evolution to prove that it exists. I see a ball rolling down the hill. Do I have to locate the total origin of it to conclude that it does roll down the hill? You're asking science to pop answers out of its figureative ass, and then accusing it of doing so at the same time. Science isn't claiming to have ALL the answers here; that's religion. Get it right.

Originally posted by joesha28
Well Where did the universal believe of God came from? Not from reason or argument. Belief of God is not a result of logical arguments. Not even from traditions for traditions can perpetuate only what has been originated.

The case of evolution itself is weak. it's take an organism to evole a million years? Did science had the time to witness it. So how can science say that evolution exist when it's fervent to say the God don't exist jus because they don see him? Evolution of something has to spring up out of something.... so show me the root of it. FFS, read something. Why don't you listen, god never existed. There's no evidence that proves god, no evidence that proves creation.




SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!

Originally posted by xyz revolution
FFS, read something. Why don't you listen, god never existed. There's no evidence that proves god, no evidence that proves creation.




SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! Though I do have to say they're is evidence that there is some kind of intelligence at work. Unseen forces....

Originally posted by debbiejo
Though I do have to say they're is evidence that there is some kind of intelligence at work. Unseen forces.... that's lack of evidence from the opposing aregument. If disproving god isn't allowed, then disproving science and evolution, isn't allowed. First post.

Originally posted by Wesker
How is it "universal"? Are you really so arrogant and ignorant as to believe that everyone believes in God, and that all believe in one God, and your God?



Which is exactly why they should be viewed with skepticism.



WTF? Is this more rhetoric nonsense?



The case of Creationism and ID is illogical. Evolution's case may seem weak at a glance, but this is coming from an ignoramus. The idea that near-microscopic transistors on chips can create the images, sounds, and experiences we have on a computer is pretty weak if generalized and misunderstood. Maybe you think the case of evolution is weak, but unless you can prove to us exactly why it's so weak and be specific (I'm so tired of religious people misunderstanding and thus misrepresenting evolution when they attack it) you need to accept that you have NO CASE.



Again, there's literally tons and tons of observations, methodology, logic and reason behind these claims, not just a casual thought. You act like some atheist loser thought this up while taking a crap.



Not all science claims God can't exist. It does assert that God is unknowable at current. Get that right.



Ridiculous. Science doesn't have to locate the root of evolution to prove that it exists. I see a ball rolling down the hill. Do I have to locate the total origin of it to conclude that it does roll down the hill? You're asking science to pop answers out of its figureative ass, and then accusing it of doing so at the same time. Science isn't claiming to have ALL the answers here; that's religion. Get it right. clapping

christians don't know the difference between religion and science.

Originally posted by xyz revolution
christians don't know the difference between religion and science.

No, it's more deliberate, they don't want a difference.

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracts-navigation.gif This is supposed to prove creation only one I've seen.

Originally posted by xyz revolution
This is supposed to prove creation only one I've seen.

If science agreed with them, they would embrace it. Sounds like a bunch of Hitters to me.


hitler hitler hitler hitler

National Geographic is absolutely erotic this month. I dare you to argue.

Observe the cover.

And observe the first page of the article.

And observe my wild-eyed, unreasoning joy.

Yes, it can be measured in the laboratory. Shut up.

Yes, there is fossil evidence. Shut up.

No, no one claims we evolved from present-day apes. Shut up.

And yes, it's just a theory. And so is that whole "the Earth orbits the Sun" thing. Time out to look up the scientific definition of the word "theory," okay? Go on. I'll wait here.

Got it? All done?

Good. Shut up.

The article didn't tell me anything I didn't already know, but I don't think it was written for me. It was written for the 44 percent of Americans who, through force of will, misinformation, or simple ignorance, don't actually understand evolution, or refuse to understand it. It's for the special class. This issue's for that kid who shit in the study hall garbage can. It's for the Young Earth Creationists among us going through their homeschooled kid's textbooks with black Sharpies, crossing out the blasphemy. This one's for the snake-handlers picketing the Harvey Milk school in New York, and the hysterical Baptists rolling around on the cement in front of courthouses while Ten Commandments monuments are jackhammered out of the lobby floor.

I hope every Billy-Bawb in Dogpatch lets this issue sneak into the trailer, just for the cover. I just wish I could see all their faces when they sit down to read it.

Sciences that support evolution: Biology, History, Geography, Psychology, Psychiatry, Physics, Chemisty, Technology, Child Development, Geology, Astronomy and many more.

Sciences that support creationism: ...

Originally posted by xyz revolution
Sciences that support evolution: Biology, History, Geography, Psychology, Psychiatry, Physics, Chemisty, Technology, Child Development, Geology, Astronomy and many more.

Sciences that support creationism: ... Hmmmmmm good question there. Though there are some simulates in some fields.

Here's a website if anybody is interested

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

http://www.qwantz.com/fanart/creationism.gif

this makes me laugh

^ Is that really what they believe?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
^ Is that really what they believe?

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/1607/creationism7pe.jpg

Originally posted by finti
have the faithful had time to witness creation?

well at least, we can witness creation of our owns hands. So believing that the universe been created is logical enough. Evolution has yet to be seen both big and small.

Originally posted by Wesker
How is it "universal"? Are you really so arrogant and ignorant as to believe that everyone believes in God, and that all believe in one God, and your God?

universal=A general or widely held principle, concept, or notion.
I did state that there is a minority like you that don believe in God.


Originally posted by Wesker
Which is exactly why they should be viewed with skepticism.
If a Supreme Being can be proven by insignificant methods compared to Himself by an intelligent but Insignificant being than that Supreme Being does not deserve to be called God.

Originally posted by Wesker
WTF? Is this more rhetoric nonsense?
Only because you don't understand.


Originally posted by Wesker
The case of Creationism and ID is illogical. Evolution's case may seem weak at a glance, but this is coming from an ignoramus. The idea that near-microscopic transistors on chips can create the images, sounds, and experiences we have on a computer is pretty weak if generalized and misunderstood. Maybe you think the case of evolution is weak, but unless you can prove to us exactly why it's so weak and be specific (I'm so tired of religious people misunderstanding and thus misrepresenting evolution when they attack it) you need to accept that you have NO CASE.
I don't see a reason to accept neither you shld force me too. Here something from an article.

The foundation of science: the scientific method:
It is difficult to comprehend any aspect of science without first understanding the scientific method. This is a very important problem solving technique which has been extensively used by scientists in their quest to build their knowledge base and gradually gain insight into the workings of nature. The scientific method has general application throughout human life as well. 2 It typically involves a number of steps:

Observing something that is unexpected or unusual. Perhaps something that has been detected for the first time.
Gathering as much evidence as possible about the phenomenon.
Creating one or more hypotheses that might explain the observation(s), using intuition, analytical methods, trial and error, etc. The hypothesis is based upon the assumption that only natural forces are at work. That is, there are no supernatural forces intruding into the world causing unpredictable results at random times. If such forces did exist, it would make the study of science impossible.
Designing a test that will give predictable results if the hypothesis is true. (Sometimes the opposite is done: a test is designed to attempt to prove that a hypothesis is false, in order to eliminate it from consideration.)
Conducting the test; check the results. Determine if the hypothesis has merit.
Restarting, if the hypothesis has no merit.
If successful, publishing the results in a peer-reviewed journal.
Independent duplication of the above steps by others to confirm that the conclusions are reproducible.
At this point, a theory has been discovered. If the theory gains general acceptance in competition with others, then it may become an established theory. Its credibility is improved if it leads to the development of other theories and ultimately to a general advance in scientific knowledge. Established theories are sometimes called "laws," as in Ohms law, Newton's laws and the laws of thermodynamics.

The importance of falsification of theories and laws:
At any step in the scientific method, falsification is possible:

The hypothesis may not be confirmed.
Other scientists may not be able to duplicate the results.
Some new, better, more inclusive theory might come along that replaces the current one.

Implicit in the scientific method is the belief that nothing is absolutely proven for all time. Scientists hold that all truly scientific theories are capable of being falsified. That is, they must always be prepared for some future experiment or investigation that will prove that an existing theory is invalid. The scientific method is thus a self-correcting process; errors will eventually be detected and corrected.

The theory of evolution could theoretically be falsified at any time. Finding absolute evidence of a screwdriver, or the remains of a camp fire, or a human burial site imbedded in a rock layer with trilobite fossils would suggest that major revisions to biological evolutionary beliefs might necessary. Such a discovery would show that some intelligent life forms existed at the same time as trilobites did. Finding a verified human footprint in the middle of a fossilized dinosaur footprint would also throw the theory of evolution into question, unless an alternate explanation could be found. (Many such footprints have been found, but all have been shown to be non-human: either pious hoaxes manually carved into rocks to support the faith of believers, or weathered footprints of other animals.)

Originally posted by Wesker
Again, there's literally tons and tons of observations, methodology, logic and reason behind these claims, not just a casual thought. You act like some atheist loser thought this up while taking a crap.

Observations, methodology, logic that can be falsified. You seem a little too zealous to make such comments. Well sometime such theory that deserve to be countered while taking a crap.


Originally posted by Wesker
Not all science claims God can't exist. It does assert that God is unknowable at current. Get that right.
If you been reading my post u'll know i'm talking Evolution. I will be specific for you the next time round.


Originally posted by Wesker
Ridiculous. Science doesn't have to locate the root of evolution to prove that it exists. I see a ball rolling down the hill. Do I have to locate the total origin of it to conclude that it does roll down the hill? You're asking science to pop answers out of its figureative ass, and then accusing it of doing so at the same time. Science isn't claiming to have ALL the answers here; that's religion. Get it right.

Oh well it does to locate the root of evolution to prove that it exists and it's desperately trying to. If not the theory will die.

Originally posted by joesha28
well at least, we can witness creation of our owns hands. So believing that the universe been created is logical enough. Evolution has yet to be seen both big and small.
explain antibiotic resistant bacteria, new viruses, cross species viruses, radiation/toxin resistant cockroaches, color blindness, sickle cell anemia, left-handedness/ambidextrity, the increase in tuskless elephants, the fossil record, monotremes, the domain archea, and every other piece of evidence of evolution.
oh, and "god's will" is a copout, not an explaination.

Has there really been an increase in tuskless elephants?

You've forgotten rats and superrats.

yeah, due to poaching, the survival rate of tusked elephants has decreased so more and more male elephants are being born without tusks. The trait may disappear all together within 200 years.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
explain antibiotic resistant bacteria, new viruses, cross species viruses, radiation/toxin resistant cockroaches, color blindness, sickle cell anemia, left-handedness/ambidextrity, the increase in tuskless elephants, the fossil record, monotremes, the domain archea, and every other piece of evidence of evolution.
oh, and "god's will" is a copout, not an explaination.

Are they a whole new bacteria? tuskless elephants...a totally new creature that evolved from the Elephants? New viruses...were scientist sure that they did not exist b4? What got left-handedness/ambidextrity, color blindness got to do with evolution? Fossil record...for your info human footprints were found with dino-fossil too. oh yeah immurnity in creatures are God's creation and so are many thing. Supreme Being...Supreme Intelligence.

copout. There were never any footprints found with dino bones fred flintstone.
and lefty/colorblindness, etc. are specifically adapted human traits for certain tasks.