sol740 Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 i never said it wasnt question i said it wasnt TOO questioned It is "too questioned". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
appn88 Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 So instead of some long complicated answer to who something evolved you prefer the follow answer: God did it ? Absolutely Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
appn88 Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 It is "too questioned". meaning not Severely Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nickey4271647545519 Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 science is a belief just as much as religion their are few if any absolutes billions(meaning more than one) Does that mean what I tell you how magnets work, you wont believe me? Fucking magnets, how do they work? Miracles...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sol740 Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 I didn't think this was suppose to devolve into a specifically Bible oriented discussion. Correct ? Perhaps we should should steer back into more ambiguous territory. meaning not Severely I knew exactly what you meant. It is severely questioned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorne Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 answer the second part about slavery. Do you use vaccines? Flu shot?? any of those things? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
appn88 Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Does that mean what I tell you how magnets work, you wont believe me? Fucking magnets, how do they work? Miracles...... no that doesnt mean than. science is done by a weighing of evidence it doesnt have to be 100 percent for you to believe it so science takes a little faith as well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
appn88 Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 2.1 billion christians that's not the BILLIONS you so declare. 1.5 billion muslims Here's the awesome part about my stance, It's based on science. It doesn't require anyone to believe . It requires you to understand . if 100 people believe that slavery is ok does that make it ok? what about 1000 what about 1million? How many people have to believe in something for it to be true? it doesnt make it true, it weighs it to be more than likely true Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorne Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Absolutely Ok so you accept that you turn a blind eye to science? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorne Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 it doesnt make it true, it weighs it to be more than likely true That's 100% not the case though. thought the slavery example was kinda trap. Since the old testement endorses slavery. It even dictates how you should beat your slave and what the punishment for killing your own slave is. How do you feel about slavery? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
appn88 Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Ok so you accept that you turn a blind eye to science? to the evolution part of science, Macro evolution and darwinism Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorne Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 :dumb:no that doesnt mean than. science is done by a weighing of evidence it doesnt have to be 100 percent for you to believe it so science takes a little faith as well I think that's why we have so many descriptions for various functions in science. Hypothesis Theory Law Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorne Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 to the evolution part of science, Macro evolution and darwinism BEcause your uneducated on the topic? You choose to ignore this topic and just say god did it. Wheres the rational in that other then being affraid of burning in hell???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
appn88 Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 BEcause your uneducated on the topic? You choose to ignore this topic and just say god did it. Wheres the rational in that other then being affraid of burning in hell???? i used to believe in evolution and i know alot about it, so im not uneducated in it, so sorry your wrong on that part im not ignoring it i just simply dont believe it anymore ive seen too many things that makes me not believe in it, ill do some research into the stuff so i dont sound like a rambling idiot and ill come back to you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorne Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 i used to believe in evolution and i know alot about it, so im not uneducated in it, so sorry your wrong on that part im not ignoring it i just simply dont believe it anymore ive seen too many things that makes me not believe in it, ill do some research into the stuff so i dont sound like a rambling idiot and ill come back to you Unlike my father in law you didn't stomp out of the room so I applaud you. I'm serious about the vaccines do you use them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
appn88 Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Unlike my father in law you didn't stomp out of the room so I applaud you. I'm serious about the vaccines do you use them? not in a long time but yes when i was in school Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
appn88 Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 http://myrondbranch.blogspot.com/2009/08/darwins-black-box-law-of-irreducible.html this is one of the reasons i dont believe in it, this guy is not the only one who has showed this ill come up with some more for you tonight or tommorow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sol740 Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 http://myrondbranch.blogspot.com/2009/08/darwins-black-box-law-of-irreducible.html this is one of the reasons i dont believe in it, this guy is not the only one who has showed this ill come up with some more for you tonight or tommorow Irreducible complexity is contradictory. I brought that up in my first post, you even quoted it. You can't apply it to evolution, then not apply it to god. Surely god is more complex than bacteria. Also the flaggellum argument has been mostly discounted, as most of it's "parts" appear to occur independantly, and as such appear to follow evolution. Not that I'm a strict evolutionist. Also making arguments against something is not proof of something else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hal Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Ok, y'all are starting a science thread. Please try to keep this on the subjects of philosophy and religion. We're not here to prove or disprove the theory of evolution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10_penn Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 for one thing their are over 5000 ancient manuscripts for the new testament to go by, in greek and hebrew so the accuracy of the bible is not too questioned i dont believe evolution works with the bible at all i believe the bible works perfectly fine all by itself (the bible) no but you were insulting my beliefs the tooth fairy is something for little kids their are BILLIONS of people who believe what i believe as adults So, just because billions of people believe in something makes it right? You are Christian, no? According to your argument, if billions of people believe something, it must be right. What about the billions of Muslims in the world? science is a belief just as much as religion their are few if any absolutes There is a difference. The claims made by science are supported by evidence. If you had the time, money, and will, anything claimed by science can be tested by yourself and you can prove or disprove anything that science can claim. Religion... well... I guess it's all faith. i used to believe in evolution and i know alot about it, so im not uneducated in it, so sorry your wrong on that part im not ignoring it i just simply dont believe it anymore ive seen too many things that makes me not believe in it, ill do some research into the stuff so i dont sound like a rambling idiot and ill come back to you So, what things have you seen to make you believe in it? I'm genuinely interested. I hate to come off like an ass, but with your responses and apparent lack of education on these issues, I wonder if it is even worth my time to reply. If you can come back with logical arguments, so that you actually sound like something other than a rambling idiot, then please do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sol740 Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Ok, y'all are starting a science thread. Please try to keep this on the subjects of philosophy and religion. We're not here to prove or disprove the theory of evolution. I tried to semi-steer the thread away from a specifically biblical frame of reference to avoid such a discussion(hence the PM), then I got sucked in . However I will say you sort of set the precedent for some degree of scientific discussion by originally including a question about the pseudoscientific practice of so-called Intelligent Design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinHawk1647545499 Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Richard Dawkins tackles this same watchmaker analogy in his book The Blind Watchmaker. He offers explanations based on his observations and experiences as an evolutionist. Towards the end of the book, he critiques the circular reasoning that theists often ignore, that if there were a god to create and design the intricacies and complexities of life, say specifically humans, then that god would have to have had a creator or designer as well (if not, where would he have come from?) which begs the question of where god's designer came from, then where god's designer's designer came from, and the endless cycle would continue. It could be argued that each pre-designer would logically be more and more complex than those that he designed. if you go into the paradoxical loop of who created the creator, or what created the raw materials and what created the creator of the raw materials you will find no logic or end, just this paradoxical loop. with this you must conclude that something had to be there without time or before time so to say (though most people cannot grasp any concept without time as it is to ingrained in humans)(i do believe we humans know little of time) there has to be something that is always there. and that by definition is what I consider God to be, the thing that has always been there. and there is just as much proof that a man named Jesus Christ existed as any other man in history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hal Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 I tried to semi-steer the thread away from a specifically biblical frame of reference to avoid such a discussion(hence the PM), then I got sucked in . However I will say you sort of set the precedent for some degree of scientific discussion by originally including a question about the pseudoscientific practice of so-called Intelligent Design. There's a difference between some degree of scientific discussion and debating what the Big Bang was and if evolution is correct, and why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRed05 Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14135523 http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/54049000/jpg/_54049868_hl_fuehrerschein_110712.jpg An Austrian atheist has won the right to be shown on his driving-licence photo wearing a pasta strainer as "religious headgear". Niko Alm first applied for the licence three years ago after reading that headgear was allowed in official pictures only for confessional reasons. Mr Alm said the sieve was a requirement of his religion, pastafarianism. The Austrian authorities required him to obtain a doctor's certificate that he was "psychologically fit" to drive. The idea came into Mr Alm's noodle three years ago as a way of making a serious, if ironic, point. A self-confessed atheist, Mr Alm says he belongs to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a light-hearted faith whose members call themselves pastafarians. http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/54052000/jpg/_54052148_fsm_strahlenhaube-1.jpg A medical interview established the self-styled 'pastafarian' was mentally fit to drive The group's website states that "the only dogma allowed in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the rejection of dogma". In response to pressure for American schools to teach the Christian theory known as intelligent design, as an alternative to natural selection, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote to the Kansas School Board asking for the pastafarian version of intelligent design to be taught to schoolchildren, as an alternative to the Christian theory. Straining credulity In the same spirit, Mr Alm's pastafarian-style application for a driving licence was a response to the Austrian recognition of confessional headgear in official photographs. The licence took three years to come through and, according to Mr Alm, he was asked to submit to a medical interview to check on his mental fitness to drive but - straining credulity - his efforts have finally paid off. It is the police who issue driving licences in Austria, and they have duly issued a laminated card showing Mr Alm in his unorthodox item of religious headgear. The next step, Mr Alm told the Austrian news agency APA, is to apply to the Austrian authorities for pastafarianism to become an officially recognised faith. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10_penn Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 and there is just as much proof that a man named Jesus Christ existed as any other man in history. This statement is simply not true. The evidence for a mortal man named Jesus is very lacking. Of all the historians and scholars who lived at the same time as Jesus, there is no evidence that any one of them referenced him or even knew about him. Flavius Josephus is often cited as proof, but the fact is, he wasn't even born until 37 AD, 4 years after Jesus' supposed crucifixion. By the time he would come of age to actually remember names and places, it would have been a decade after. This is if you completely ignore the fact that Josephus mention of Jesus (Testimonium Flavianum) is considered by many to be a forgery. Even with this forgery, Josephus only mentions Jesus twice in all his writings. On the contrary, many other significant people of ancient history, around the same time as Jesus, do have historical records. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.