Scientific criticism has no nobler task than to shatter false beliefs.

[Gunny]

A statement used with the utmost dishonesty.

Science isn't used at all to dispel religion because quite simply, science cannot do so.

Scientific theory is used in an attempt to dispel religion when the factual reality is that most scientific theories of origin and/or used in an attempt to dispel religion have no more basis in fact than any religion. In fact, some scientific theories of origin are WAY more fantastic than any religious beliefs.

The "Big Bang" -- something from nothing. Violates a basic scientific tenet.

The "Expanding Universe" -- a joke. If one cannot pinpoint the center of the universe nor its frontier ... well ... 'nuff said there.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution -- a fairy tell if ever there is one. Most commonly used by the intellectually dishonest to cherrypick between actual scientific evolution and Darwinism as it suits their argument, the same as they attempt to play smoke and mirrors with science and scientific theory.

[Missileman]

A statement used with the utmost dishonesty.

Science isn't used at all to dispel religion because quite simply, science cannot do so.

Scientific theory is used in an attempt to dispel religion when the factual reality is that most scientific theories of origin and/or used in an attempt to dispel religion have no more basis in fact than any religion. In fact, some scientific theories of origin are WAY more fantastic than any religious beliefs.

The "Big Bang" -- something from nothing. Violates a basic scientific tenet.

The "Expanding Universe" -- a joke. If one cannot pinpoint the center of the universe nor its frontier ... well ... 'nuff said there.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution -- a fairy tell if ever there is one. Most commonly used by the intellectually dishonest to cherrypick between actual scientific evolution and Darwinism as it suits their argument, the same as they attempt to play smoke and mirrors with science and scientific theory.

Was your subconscious equation of "religion" and "false belief" a freudian slip?

[Gunny]

Was your subconscious equation of "religion" and "false belief" a freudian slip?

No more so than my equation of "scientific theory," "religion" and "false belief". The key to all 3 being "belief", rendering one no more or less valid than the other.

Trying to cloak junk scientific theory in the guise of actual proven science is nothing more than a lie.

[Missileman]

No more so than my equation of "scientific theory," "religion" and "false belief". The key to all 3 being "belief", rendering one no more or less valid than the other.

Trying to cloak junk scientific theory in the guise of actual proven science is nothing more than a lie.

So in your estimation, "OJ killed his ex-wife", "she was killed in a drug deal gone bad", or "she cut her own throat" are all exactly equally valid beliefs?

[Gunny]

So in your estimation, "OJ killed his ex-wife", "she was killed in a drug deal gone bad", or "she cut her own throat" are all exactly equally valid beliefs?

Another of your playing semantics red herrings?

All are equally valid theories as none were proven true. The only provable fact in all 3 assumptions is that OJ's wife was killed.

None of which has a thing to do with my point.

[Missileman]

Another of your playing semantics red herrings?

All are equally valid theories as none were proven true. The only provable fact in all 3 assumptions is that OJ's wife was killed.

None of which has a thing to do with my point.

There's a difference between the theories based on the amount of evidence to support each.

BTW, it appears that not only are you unfamiliar with the definition of semantics, but it also appears you have no idea what a red herring is either.

[J.T]

A statement used with the utmost dishonesty.

Science isn't used at all to dispel religion because quite simply, science cannot do so.

So when you hear 'false beliefs', you immediately think of your religion?

That's funny, since that's not what's being discussed in the text from which that quote is taken.

Good to hear you admit your religion is bullshit, though. You're making progress.


Scientific theory is used in an attempt to dispel religion

No, it's not. You don't even know what a scientific theory is. You probably meant to make a claim regarding the scientific method but, as usual, you have no idea what you're blabbering about.


The "Big Bang" -- something from nothing. Violates a basic scientific tenet.

TBBT doesn't say anything of the sort. It doesn't say anything about the origins of the universe. It simply describes the evolution of the universe going back to a period of rapid expansion and extreme localized heat, pressure, and density and proceeding to the current day.


The "Expanding Universe" -- a joke. If one cannot pinpoint the center of the universe nor its frontier ... well ... 'nuff said there.

So how would you describe a universe that is expanding in every direction if not by saying that it's expanding? I'd mention red shift, but that would involve words with more than a single syllable, so I know it'd be a futile exercise to attempt to make you less stupid when it comes to the matter.


Darwin's Theory of Evolution -- a fairy tell if ever there is one

How do you explain human evolution, nylonase, speciation... ?


Most commonly used by the intellectually dishonest to cherrypick between actual scientific evolution and Darwinism


:lol:

[J.T]

No more so than my equation of "scientific theory," "religion" and "false belief". The key to all 3 being "belief", rendering one no more or less valid than the other.

Trying to cloak junk scientific theory in the guise of actual proven science is nothing more than a lie.

'Scientific theory' = 'false belief'?

So... how, exactly, do we have satellite communications if the General Theory of Relativity (a scientific theory) is as you claim?

[ConHog]

'Scientific theory' = 'false belief'?

So... how, exactly, do we have satellite communications if the General Theory of Relativity (a scientific theory) is as you claim?

What in the blue bloody hell does the theory of relativity have to do with radio communications?

[J.T]

What in the blue bloody hell does the theory of relativity have to do with radio communications?

Who's talking about radio? We're talking about the time effects experienced by orbiting satellites and general relativity's role in allowing us to compensate for this, thereby making GPS and advanced satellite communications possible.

Try googling it. Perhaps you'll learn something and become less stupid.

[ConHog]

Who's talking about radio? We're talking about the time effects experienced by orbiting satellites and general relativity's role in allowing us to compensate for this, thereby making GPS and advanced satellite communications possible.

Try googling it. Perhaps you'll learn something and become less stupid.



Unlike you I have a life and thus don't really have the time to Google oddities to try to stretch into some sort of argument on the internet that doesn't even matter.

[J.T]

I take your blind insults as an admission that you had no idea what you were babbling about and look like an idiot for trying to lie about what I said. Par for the course with you.

[KarlMarx]

'Scientific theory' = 'false belief'?

So... how, exactly, do we have satellite communications if the General Theory of Relativity (a scientific theory) is as you claim?

Time Dilation due to high speeds. A body that is traveling at a speed that is an appreciably fraction of the speed of light will experience time dilation. This affects satellites, e.g. GPS, that need to use time in order to accurately track bodies on earth.

It is a practical application of the special theory of Relativity.

That having been said.

Another truth that I see is that atheists seem to like to evangelize to those who believe in God. They accuse Christians of trying to push their beliefs on others, then do it themselves. I've seen this happen at least twice on this board. They become very indignant and frustrated when believers refuse to abandon their beliefs because of their logic.

Oh, and by the way, just because you don't believe in God doesn't make you better than those of us who do.

If you don't want to believe in God, go right ahead. Just keep your lack of faith to yourself. No one here is pounding you over the head with a Bible, so do us a favor and don't pound us over the head with Einstein (or Sagan, or Hawkings, etc)

[ConHog]

Time Dilation due to high speeds. A body that is traveling at a speed that is an appreciably fraction of the speed of light will experience time dilation. This affects satellites, e.g. GPS, that need to use time in order to accurately track bodies on earth.

It is a practical application of the special theory of Relativity.

That having been said.

Another truth that I see is that atheists seem to like to evangelize to those who believe in God. They accuse Christians of trying to push their beliefs on others, then do it themselves. I've seen this happen at least twice on this board. They become very indignant and frustrated when believers refuse to abandon their beliefs because of their logic.

Oh, and by the way, just because you don't believe in God doesn't make you better than those of us who do.

If you don't want to believe in God, go right ahead. Just keep your lack of faith to yourself. No one here is pounding you over the head with a Bible, so do us a favor and don't pound us over the head with Einstein (or Sagan, or Hawkings, etc)

Just another case of people only caring about THEIR rights, not the rights of those they wish to trample on.

[Missileman]

Just another case of people only caring about THEIR rights, not the rights of those they wish to trample on.

Oh, I don't know...I consider it a public service to refute something so patently ignorant as saying scientific theories are false beliefs. If allowed to stand unchallenged, some simple-minded, impressionable individual might accept such a bogus statement as gospel...then another, and another and before you know it, you've got a full blown religion on your hands.

[KartRacerBoy]

Time Dilation due to high speeds. A body that is traveling at a speed that is an appreciably fraction of the speed of light will experience time dilation. This affects satellites, e.g. GPS, that need to use time in order to accurately track bodies on earth.

It is a practical application of the special theory of Relativity.

That having been said.

Another truth that I see is that atheists seem to like to evangelize to those who believe in God. They accuse Christians of trying to push their beliefs on others, then do it themselves. I've seen this happen at least twice on this board. They become very indignant and frustrated when believers refuse to abandon their beliefs because of their logic.

Oh, and by the way, just because you don't believe in God doesn't make you better than those of us who do.

If you don't want to believe in God, go right ahead. Just keep your lack of faith to yourself. No one here is pounding you over the head with a Bible, so do us a favor and don't pound us over the head with Einstein (or Sagan, or Hawkings, etc)

I'm an atheist who doesn't understand why religion is perceived as entirely antiethical to science.

There are things science can try to explain. There seems to be things that I don't see science ever explaining (if you believe in the Big Bang, what was before it and why did it happen).

To me, I don't see why God needs to be the explanation for those things, but others think God is the explanation. Frankly, it doesn't affect how I live my life, so while I'm curious, I won't die from not knowing.

I've heard scientists that believe in God say that God set in motion the rules that our universe follows. I think in infinite multiverses, we just got lucky. Whatever. Noone will know in my lifetime (or probably any other). Why get all heated about it? If it was or wasn't God that set the rules, isn't it good to learn what the rules are? Did God or chance set it up on the earth so man evolved?

On the other hand, if you believe the bible is the literal truth about how the world was created, I think you and I will disagree...

[KarlMarx]

I'm an atheist who doesn't understand why religion is perceived as entirely antiethical to science.

There are things science can try to explain. There seems to be things that I don't see science ever explaining (if you believe in the Big Bang, what was before it and why did it happen).

To me, I don't see why God needs to be the explanation for those things, but others think God is the explanation. Frankly, it doesn't affect how I live my life, so while I'm curious, I won't die from not knowing.

I've heard scientists that believe in God say that God set in motion the rules that our universe follows. I think in infinite multiverses, we just got lucky. Whatever. Noone will know in my lifetime (or probably any other). Why get all heated about it? If it was or wasn't God that set the rules, isn't it good to learn what the rules are? Did God or chance set it up on the earth so man evolved?

On the other hand, if you believe the bible is the literal truth about how the world was created, I think you and I will disagree...

It goes way beyond the argument of how the world and the universe was created. It goes to how man behaves....

Voltaire once said "If there were no God, it would then be necessary to invent Him". God does not need man, but Man does need God or, at the very least, the belief in God. Considering how much evil has been committed by atheistic Communism in the world, one can see my point.

I'm not saying all atheists are bad. However, atheism running a society is not a good thing.

[KartRacerBoy]

It goes way beyond the argument of how the world and the universe was created. It goes to how man behaves....

Voltaire once said "If there were no God, it would then be necessary to invent Him". God does not need man, but Man does need God or, at the very least, the belief in God. Considering how much evil has been committed by atheistic Communism in the world, one can see my point.

I'm not saying all atheists are bad. However, atheism running a society is not a good thing.

I don't believe that man needs a god at all. I haven't checked them, but I'd bet crime stats generally would show Europe (much less religious on the whole than the US) has lower crime rates than the USA. If that's true, it's a little ironic, wouldn't you think?

Religion has had it's fair share of barbarism, too. A much longer history, I think.

But back OT. Science and stuff...

[fj1200]

Religion has had it's fair share of barbarism, too.

Sure, some, but when government gets into the act... watch out!

[KartRacerBoy]

Sure, some, but when government gets into the act... watch out!

Or worse. Govt cloaking itself in religion.

I love quoting Hugh Blumenfeld, my favorite jewish folksinger, in this context. "What could've save Jesus from his terrible fate? You guessed it! Separation of church and state!"

And fj shouldn't you be in church? I'm in mine right now. Multitasking and watching Formula One on tv, using live timing/scoring, and arguing with a reasonable person. All while on my favorite couch!!!

[fj1200]

Or worse. Govt cloaking itself in religion.

Debatable


I love quoting Hugh Blumenfeld, my favorite jewish folksinger, in this context. "What could've save Jesus from his terrible fate? You guessed it! Separation of church and state!"

:facepalm: Yes, you do. And who was it who took apart that song? I repped him. :)


And fj shouldn't you be in church? I'm in mine right now. Multitasking and watching Formula One on tv, using live timing/scoring, and arguing with a reasonable person. All while on my favorite couch!!!

Yes... I should...

[Gunny]

There's a difference between the theories based on the amount of evidence to support each.

BTW, it appears that not only are you unfamiliar with the definition of semantics, but it also appears you have no idea what a red herring is either.

I'm quite up to snuff on semantics and the playing dishonest games with. If for no other reason, I've been reading your posts off and on for the better part of 7 years. Always the SOS with you. As usual, you come in here with some off the wall BS analogy attempting to derail the thread into something it's not.

I presented the fallacy and intellectual dishonesty of a mindset, where both "theories", "religions" ... what-have-you ... have the same basis in actual fact and/or evidence. If you want to push YOUR line of reasoning -- presenting unequal probabilities -- I'd say intelligent design/religious origin trumps that far-fetched scientific theory crap EVERY time.

I'd be more than happy to argue the difference in the "evidence" in the OJ case in a thread designed to do just that. For the purposes of this thread, that discussion is irrelevant.

As I keep saying ad nauseum .... back to grade school with you. Try again.

[KartRacerBoy]

:facepalm: Yes, you do. And who was it who took apart that song? I repped him. :)

You, sir, are happily delusional. No one reps the jewish folk singer!

[Missileman]

I'm quite up to snuff on semantics and the playing dishonest games with. If for no other reason, I've been reading your posts of and on for the better part of 7 years. Always the SOS with you. As usual, you come in here with some off the wall BS analogy attempting to derail the thread into something it's not.

I'd be more than happy to argue the difference in the "evidence" in the OJ case in a thread designed to do just that. For the purposes of this thread, that discussion is irrelevant.

As I keep saying ad nauseum .... back to grade school with you. Try again.

The analogy goes directly to the plausibility of theories. For you to equate theories based solely on whether they've been 100% proven is bullshit and you know it. Of course, based on the evidence available, you have no other alternative to support yours.

Congrats also for being half way there...you still haven't a clue what semantics are, but you did learn the difference between an analogy and a red herring.

[darin]

Am very glad Christians, throughout time, challenged the 'scientific minds' of the day - to bring truth to the 'scientific' superstitions. Christian scientists brought for amazing theory and law which point to a designer Kepler, Boyle, Kelvin, etc.

[Missileman]

Am very glad Christians, throughout time, challenged the 'scientific minds' of the day - to bring truth to the 'scientific' superstitions. Christian scientists brought for amazing theory and law which point to a designer Kepler, Boyle, Kelvin, etc.

ROFL How about posting some of these historical triumphs of religion over science? This should be reall hoot!

FYI, scientists police themselves.

[fj1200]

Am very glad Christians, throughout time, challenged the 'scientific minds' of the day...

I think it was mostly the other way around. The church retained the knowledge of the day and accepted observed explanations until science and its tools evolved ;) to a point that allowed church "science" to be challenged.

[J.T]

Man does need God or, at the very least, the belief in God

The masses need someone to rule over them and tell them what to do. They need a master or group of masters to govern them and guide the world. They need to be given orders and rules to follow, lest they be forced to determine for themselves what is good or ill. That's why democracy can never work in any form on any large scale. It's why the American people never wanted freedom, but merely the illusion of liberty. It's why they worship the two parties and refuse to consider looking elsewhere. It's why they turn to the federal government instead of turning to eachother to govern their own affairs. It is why we have always had priests, kings, and aristocrats. It is why a society must always have superiors to be obeyed and why the masses must always be obedient. It is why Jesus tells the slaves to obey their masters and Romans 13 tells the masses to never question their masters.

[J.T]

I'm quite up to snuff on semantics and the playing dishonest games with.

Indeed. In fact, I wonder whether you know how to do anything else.

[KartRacerBoy]

. It's why they worship the two parties and refuse to consider looking elsewhere.

Actually, I think modern Americans have had enough glimpses at the parlimentary system. That's why they like the stability of a 2 party system. It may be good or ill, but that is why risk adverse American choose the present system. Look to the present debt debate and how difficult it is to get TWO parties to agree. Three or four? Perish the thought.

It may be an illusory difference (since each party had its various difficult to control factions), but in politics, the illusions seems to trump reality on a regular basis. Sadly.

[J.T]

Actually, I think modern Americans have had enough glimpses at the parlimentary system. That's why they like the stability of a 2 party system. It may be good or ill, but that is why risk adverse American choose the present system. Look to the present debt debate and how difficult it is to get TWO parties to agree. Three or four? Perish the thought.

It may be an illusory difference (since each party had its various difficult to control factions), but in politics, the illusions seems to trump reality on a regular basis. Sadly.

:lol:

You think their 'inability to agree' has to do with any real difference in policy position? It's all theatre, you idiot.

The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy.
- Carrol Quigley, Tragedy and Hopehttp://www.debatepolicy.com/image/gif;base64,R0lGODlhAQABAIAAAAAAAP///yH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAIBRAA7


Just ask yourself what meaningful changes we have seen following any recent election.

[KartRacerBoy]

:lol:

You think their 'inability to agree' has to do with any real difference in policy position? It's all theatre, you idiot.

.

Yes. It's ALL theatre. Kind of like you.

[fj1200]

Actually, I think modern Americans have had enough glimpses at the parlimentary system. That's why they like the stability of a 2 party system. It may be good or ill, but that is why risk adverse American choose the present system.

I don't think it was a choice, I think it was the inevitable outcome of our system.

[KartRacerBoy]

I don't think it was a choice, I think it was the inevitable outcome of our system.

Inevitable? I don't know. That might be worth a thread of its own. I'd be interested in why you think that.

[darin]

I think it was mostly the other way around. The church retained the knowledge of the day and accepted observed explanations until science and its tools evolved ;) to a point that allowed church "science" to be challenged.

Naw - actually...The "scientific" minds of the day often chastised Christians for things like "Round Earth", etc.

[Missileman]

Naw - actually...The "scientific" minds of the day often chastised Christians for things like "Round Earth", etc.

For your reading displeasure:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth

What else ya got?

[logroller]

Naw - actually...The "scientific" minds of the day often chastised Christians for things like "Round Earth", etc.
Do have support for this? There's ample evidence to religious condemnation of science, most notably Galileo, considered by many to be the father of modern science.

eventually denounced him[Galileo] to the Roman Inquisition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Inquisition)early in 1615. In February 1616, although he had been cleared of any offence,the Catholic Church nevertheless condemned heliocentrism as "false and contrary to Scripture",[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#cite_note-contrary_to_scripture-9) and Galileo was warned to abandon his support for ithttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

.

[fj1200]

Naw - actually...The "scientific" minds of the day often chastised Christians for things like "Round Earth", etc.

Which "day"?

[fj1200]

Inevitable? I don't know. That might be worth a thread of its own. I'd be interested in why you think that.

I think it comes down to mostly being a winner-take-all system (at each level) and 3rd party votes are basically wasted in the grand scheme. Add in the advantages of a national party to support the local level and to consolidate local votes into national power. Opposed to the parliamentary system where 3rd party results allow some representation nationally and possibly a seat at the table to influence policy.

[Gunny]

The analogy goes directly to the plausibility of theories. For you to equate theories based solely on whether they've been 100% proven is bullshit and you know it. Of course, based on the evidence available, you have no other alternative to support yours.

Congrats also for being half way there...you still haven't a clue what semantics are, but you did learn the difference between an analogy and a red herring.

Incorrect. Forensic (as in actual scientific) evidence supports the plausibility or lack thereof of your three red herrings (sorry, but analogies are of like items, not some non sequitur pulled out of your backside ).

Nothing but faith supports either scientific theories of origin, or intelligent design/a creator ...

Based on the evidence presented, you're floundering.

[Gunny]

ROFL How about posting some of these historical triumphs of religion over science? This should be reall hoot!

FYI, scientists police themselves.

Thanks for proving the point in my OP. Scientific theory doesn't triumph over religion. When science steps outside the bounds of actual science attempting to refute anything not scientific, it not only is woefully inaedquate, but doesn't police jack.

Science PERIOD is bound by the limits of Man's intellect. The universe is not limited by space, time, NOR Man. To presume you can just concoct a theory and call it "science" doesn't pass muster when the veneer is stripped. It's just guessing, and THAT is not science.

[Missileman]

Thanks for proving the point in my OP. Scientific theory doesn't triumph over religion. When science steps outside the bounds of actual science attempting to refute anything not scientific, it not only is woefully inaedquate, but doesn't police jack.

Tell that to the ancient Greeks, or maybe you think the sun is dragged across the sky by some dude in a flying chariot.


Science PERIOD is bound by the limits of Man's intellect. The universe is not limited by space, time, NOR Man. To presume you can just concoct a theory and call it "science" doesn't pass muster when the veneer is stripped. It's just guessing, and THAT is not science.

You've obviously got no clue at all what science is and therefore aren't qualified to critique it.


Incorrect. Forensic (as in actual scientific) evidence supports the plausibility or lack thereof of your three red herrings (sorry, but analogies are of like items, not some non sequitur pulled out of your backside ).

LOL...can't refute, so stick your fingers in your ears and holler LALALALA. Only willful ignorance would prevent someone from seeing the correlation between two sets of theories(beliefs) where there is a mountain of evidence supporting one and absolutely NONE supporting the other.



Nothing but faith supports either scientific theories of origin, or intelligent design/a creator ...


More willful ignorance.

[darin]

For your reading displeasure:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth

What else ya got?

Really? Wikipedia? Hrm. Weaksauce.

Since the days of Columbus the 'scientists' scoffed at teh Christian bible's account of 'round earth' and the descriptions of the stars, etc. Yet men of Faith, perhaps spurred on by their faith, went on to prove those descriptions as accurate - in the face of what "everybody KNEW was true' back then.

[J.T]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVusPTM0P9o

[darin]

^^ Do you have a point with that video?

Look, JT - Simply spamming the board with one-line topics, or videos without introduction or analysis furthers the idea you are a troll who is in no mental condition to actually debate - just a big fat mind-dump kinda guy who spends his free time hunting the interwebs for places to stir shit up. It's like you're the kind of guy who hasn't even spoken to a woman without having to give your credit card number.

[KartRacerBoy]

^^ Do you have a point with that video?

Look, JT - Simply spamming the board with one-line topics, or videos without introduction or analysis furthers the idea you are a troll who is in no mental condition to actually debate - just a big fat mind-dump kinda guy who spends his free time hunting the interwebs for places to stir shit up. It's like you're the kind of guy who hasn't even spoken to a woman without having to give your credit card number.

:clap:

[Missileman]

Really? Wikipedia? Hrm. Weaksauce.

Since the days of Columbus the 'scientists' scoffed at teh Christian bible's account of 'round earth' and the descriptions of the stars, etc. Yet men of Faith, perhaps spurred on by their faith, went on to prove those descriptions as accurate - in the face of what "everybody KNEW was true' back then.

The Greeks proved the earth was spherical before there even was a Christ. Your post smacks of evangelical wishful-thinking, especially with the gross lack of detail, like maybe some names of these "scientists".

[darin]

The Greeks proved the earth was spherical before there even was a Christ. Your post smacks of evangelical wishful-thinking, especially with the gross lack of detail, like maybe some names of these "scientists".

Proved to whom? I'm not talking about one group finding the scientific evidence to back up much of what the Bible claims - I'm talking about Christian explorers, scientists and others giving our world Solid breaking-the-norm type contributions. When 'science' told us the world was flat, some christians proved otherwise.

[Missileman]

Proved to whom? I'm not talking about one group finding the scientific evidence to back up much of what the Bible claims - I'm talking about Christian explorers, scientists and others giving our world Solid breaking-the-norm type contributions. When 'science' told us the world was flat, some christians proved otherwise.

Again with the un-named "scientists". If the truth of what the Greeks had proven was unknown to the Europeans of the middle-ages, it was a direct result of religion's persecution of science as it contradicted the "teachings" of the churches of the day. No doubt there have been millions of Christian scientists that have made ground-breaking discoveries, but you can't point to a single scientific discovery derived from the Bible, from belief in God, or from being Christian. Your claim that religion has triumphed over science remains a load of baloney.

[Gunny]

Tell that to the ancient Greeks, or maybe you think the sun is dragged across the sky by some dude in a flying chariot.



You've obviously got no clue at all what science is and therefore aren't qualified to critique it.



LOL...can't refute, so stick your fingers in your ears and holler LALALALA. Only willful ignorance would prevent someone from seeing the correlation between two sets of theories(beliefs) where there is a mountain of evidence supporting one and absolutely NONE supporting the other.




More willful ignorance.

Oh I totally agree. Every post you've made in this thread has smacked of nothing else.

Got news for you, there is no "mountain of evidence" to support scientific theories of creation. Science itself states such. If there was evidence, it would be scientific FACT, not THEORY.

Try again.

[Missileman]

Oh I totally agree. Every post you've made in this thread has smacked of nothing else.

Got news for you, there is no "mountain of evidence" to support scientific theories of creation. Science itself states such. If there was evidence, it would be scientific FACT, not THEORY.

Try again.

Firstly, creation is a religious theory, not a scientific one.

Secondly, the theory of evolution is not a theory of the origin of life on earth.

To date, there hasn't been anything at all ever found that refutes the theory of evolution.

You're totally confused about the concepts of evidence and proof. You can deny its existence, but there is indeed a mountain of evidence that supports the theory of evolution, so much so that it is accepted as fact. There's not even a molehill of evidence that supports your fairy tale of creation.

[darin]

Again with the un-named "scientists". If the truth of what the Greeks had proven was unknown to the Europeans of the middle-ages, it was a direct result of religion's persecution of science as it contradicted the "teachings" of the churches of the day. No doubt there have been millions of Christian scientists that have made ground-breaking discoveries, but you can't point to a single scientific discovery derived from the Bible, from belief in God, or from being Christian. Your claim that religion has triumphed over science remains a load of baloney.


I claim Christians, acting in concert with their faith in Scripture have shaking the 'popular scientific beliefs' throughout time. I'm saying in the middle ages when the greeks supposedly told the rest of the world what they found, 'science' in Europe believed in things like flat-earth. I'm claiming the bible, scientifically, makes sense and has been at odds with what "science" used to think.

[PostmodernProphet]

Firstly, creation is a religious theory, not a scientific one.

Secondly, the theory of evolution is not a theory of the origin of life on earth.

To date, there hasn't been anything at all ever found that refutes the theory of evolution.

You're totally confused about the concepts of evidence and proof. You can deny its existence, but there is indeed a mountain of evidence that supports the theory of evolution, so much so that it is accepted as fact. There's not even a molehill of evidence that supports your fairy tale of creation.

and yet, while acknowledging that evolution does nothing to explain the origin of life, you continue to pose this as a creation/evolution dichotomy.......one can scientifically examine all of the evidence for evolution and still conclude that mankind and sequoia do not have a common ancestor......

[Missileman]

I claim Christians, acting in concert with their faith in Scripture have shaking the 'popular scientific beliefs' throughout time. I'm saying in the middle ages when the greeks supposedly told the rest of the world what they found, 'science' in Europe believed in things like flat-earth. I'm claiming the bible, scientifically, makes sense and has been at odds with what "science" used to think.

Until you actually post some examples with names, places, specific scientific principle, etc, your "claim" requires so much faith as to be incredible.

[Gunny]

Firstly, creation is a religious theory, not a scientific one.

Secondly, the theory of evolution is not a theory of the origin of life on earth.

To date, there hasn't been anything at all ever found that refutes the theory of evolution.

You're totally confused about the concepts of evidence and proof. You can deny its existence, but there is indeed a mountain of evidence that supports the theory of evolution, so much so that it is accepted as fact. There's not even a molehill of evidence that supports your fairy tale of creation.

Firstly: a deflection. A theory is a theory.

Secondly: Darwin's Theory of Evolution IS most certainly a theory of origin. No one has to refute Darwin's Theory of Evolution. To date, nothing has proven it.

Thirdly: When in doubt, break out the "you're confused ..." line.

And lastly, Darwin's theory of evolution is NOT accepted as fact except by ignorant, wannabe eggheads grasping at straws trying to disprove something they cannot.

You claim it's fact, PROVE it with EVIDENCE. Your statement puts the burden of proof on YOU.

Disprove my theory with evidence. Your accusation puts the burden of proof on YOU, again.

You will fail at both. As usual. And as usual, I await the usual non sequitur deflections from you.

[PostmodernProphet]

Secondly: Darwin's Theory of Evolution IS most certainly a theory of origin.

???.....obviously not.....evolution is the process of going FROM something TO something.....where is there room for origin in that theory?........

[Gunny]

???.....obviously not.....evolution is the process of going FROM something TO something.....where is there room for origin in that theory?........

Obviously, anyone that believes man evolved from monkeys is most certainly saying man originated from monkeys. How hard is this to do without playing word games? The intent of this thread and the topic is clear. I am damned sure not the one who runs around stating man coming from monkeys is a fact.

[PostmodernProphet]

Obviously, anyone that believes man evolved from monkeys is most certainly saying man originated from monkeys. How hard is this to do without playing word games? The intent of this thread and the topic is clear. I am damned sure not the one who runs around stating man coming from monkeys is a fact.

so then....what did the first living creature evolve FROM?.......it's not a word game......evolution does nothing to explain origin of life......

[Gunny]

so then....what did the first living creature evolve FROM?.......it's not a word game......evolution does nothing to explain origin of life......

Yeah, it's a word game. I've never contended Darwin's theory of evolution explained the origin of life. I'm not a dork who tries to negate the religion of others with my own.

Who said the first living creatures evolved? That too is an assumption.

[Missileman]

Firstly: a deflection. A theory is a theory.

Wrong! There is a difference between a theory and a scientific theory...get a 4th grader to explain it to you if you can't figure it out on your own.


Secondly: Darwin's Theory of Evolution IS most certainly a theory of origin. No one has to refute Darwin's Theory of Evolution. To date, nothing has proven it.

Wrong again! The theory is that all life on earth is descended from a single organism. It offers no claim of where that single organism came from.


And lastly, Darwin's theory of evolution is NOT accepted as fact except by ignorant, wannabe eggheads grasping at straws trying to disprove something they cannot.

Why ruin a perfect record...you're wrong yet again.


You claim it's fact, PROVE it with EVIDENCE. Your statement puts the burden of proof on YOU.

Disprove my theory with evidence. Your accusation puts the burden of proof on YOU, again.

You will fail at both. As usual. And as usual, I await the usual non sequitur deflections from you.

Now you want to break out the elementary school arguments. If you scroll up to the first post, you'll notice that it was YOU who made a claim that evolution is BS...quit acting like a fucking liberal and follow your own rule...PROVE IT.

[Missileman]

Yeah, it's a word game. I've never contended Darwin's theory of evolution explained the origin of life. I'm not a dork who tries to negate the religion of others with my own.

Who said the first living creatures evolved? That too is an assumption.

Really sucks when another poster who's on your side thinks your argument is stupid...:poke:

[Gunny]

Really sucks when another poster who's on your side thinks your argument is stupid...:poke:

Sucks even worse when a dumbass who's had his ass handed to him every time since 2004 is STILL a dumbass and keeps coming back for more. When you grow up and get some maturity in your argument, feel free to respond. Otherwise you're just a repetitive, know nothing bag of wind.

[Missileman]

Sucks even worse when a dumbass who's had his ass handed to him every time since 2004 is STILL a dumbass and keeps coming back for more. When you grow up and get some maturity in your argument, feel free to respond. Otherwise you're just a repetitive, know nothing bag of wind.

I never took you for a chickenshit. Trying to transfer your loss to me is truly pathetic.

[Gunny]

I never took you for a chickenshit. Trying to transfer your loss to me is truly pathetic.

I may have lost an argument, but not to you and definitely not on this topic. Odd isn't it that the goobs touting science defy all its laws with their lame arguments?:laugh:

[Missileman]

Odd isn't it that the goobs touting science defy all its laws with their lame arguments?:laugh:

How the fuck would you know? You're as clueless about science as clueless gets.

[LuvRPgrl]

Firstly, creation is a religious theory, not a scientific one.

Secondly, the theory of evolution is not a theory of the origin of life on earth.

To date, there hasn't been anything at all ever found that refutes the theory of evolution. ..

Nobody has to prove evolution didnt happen since nobody has yet proven it did happen


You're totally confused about the concepts of evidence and proof. You can deny its existence, but there is indeed a mountain of evidence that supports the theory of evolution,.
which in fact means it hasnt been PROVEN.

so much so that it is accepted as fact..[/QUOTE]
Accepted?? You mean like its accepted the earth is round, viruses cause illnesses,,,,



There's not even a molehill of evidence that supports your fairy tale of creation.

If there was any, you woulld never see it or acknowledge it, cuz you start with your conclusion, then you work the facts to try and fit it

[LuvRPgrl]

???.....obviously not.....evolution is the process of going FROM something TO something.....where is there room for origin in that theory?........

How about from non living matter to living matter. Its called micro evolution,

[PostmodernProphet]

How about from non living matter to living matter. Its called micro evolution,

lol.....no, it isn't......that theory is actually called abiogenesis.......you would have flunked high school level biology.....

micro evolution explains why we have 37,000 kinds of beetle.......

[PostmodernProphet]

I've never contended Darwin's theory of evolution explained the origin of life.

yet that is the "origin" we were talking about.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Really sucks when another poster who's on your side thinks your argument is stupid...:poke:

lest there be any undue cause for celebration, your argument is still worse.....

[Missileman]

How about from non living matter to living matter. Its called micro evolution,

You have the scientific prowess of a turnip.

[LuvRPgrl]

You have the scientific prowess of a turnip.

your arguement is still worse

[LuvRPgrl]

lol.....no, it isn't......that theory is actually called abiogenesis.......you would have flunked high school level biology.....

micro evolution explains why we have 37,000 kinds of beetle.......

Yea, I missed that one by a mile :)

But teach, do you really have to flunk me?

[PostmodernProphet]

Yea, I missed that one by a mile :)

But teach, do you really have to flunk me?

I will give you a chance for to make up the grade......get Missileman to try to explain the scientific superiority of abio-Genesis over Genesis.....

I would try myself, but he never answers my posts....(he's afraid of getting his butt kicked).......

[LuvRPgrl]

[QUOTE=PostmodernProphet;482398]I will give you a chance for to make up the grade......get Missileman to try to explain the scientific superiority of abio-Genesis over Genesis.....

I would try myself, but he never answers my posts....(he's afraid of getting his butt kicked).......[/QUOE]r u tlaking about biblical genesis?

[PostmodernProphet]

[QUOTE=PostmodernProphet;482398]I will give you a chance for to make up the grade......get Missileman to try to explain the scientific superiority of abio-Genesis over Genesis.....

I would try myself, but he never answers my posts....(he's afraid of getting his butt kicked).......[/QUOE]r u tlaking about biblical genesis?

I wasn't aware there was another Genesis........

[LuvRPgrl]

[QUOTE=LuvRPgrl;482425]I wasn't aware there was another Genesis........I am surprised that you of all people would think the three words, Missleman, explain and religion, would actually be able to work in the same sentence

[Missileman]

[QUOTE=PostmodernProphet;482582]I am surprised that you of all people would think the three words, Missleman, explain and religion, would actually be able to work in the same sentence

So now it's not enough that I have to explain basic scientific principles to "Mr. Micro-Evolution" but you need me to explain your religion to you also?

[J.T]

???.....obviously not.....evolution is the process of going FROM something TO something.....where is there room for origin in that theory?........

He confuses the theory of evolution with the theory of common descent. Always has. Always will. He has no desire to acknowledge the distinction. It;s a matter of faith for him. Facts are unimportant to him.

[J.T]

I am damned sure not the one who runs around stating man coming from monkeys is a fact.

Who is? Ray 'Banana Man' Comfort?

[J.T]

How about from non living matter to living matter. Its called micro evolution,

Fail. That's abiogenesis.

[LuvRPgrl]

Fail. That's abiogenesis.

You;'re a little late to the party.
Three posts and you stated absolutely nothing on the topic.
Werent you banned?

[kowalskil]

... The "Big Bang" -- something from nothing. Violates a basic scientific tenet. ...

Which tenet is being violated?

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

[Missileman]

Which tenet is being violated?

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

It's funny isn't it? He calls science a bunch of hooey and then uses science as his proof that science is hooey.