this thread is now complete
I was just going off of what AussieReaper said. He claimed that it was still being tested.Jay wrote:
Who the fuck is challenging the theory of gravity? It's a fact. If you account for friction (i.e. a vacuum), an object will fall at ~9.81 meters per second on Earth at sea level.HaiBai wrote:
Ok, so people are still challenging the theory of gravity. People are still challenging the ideals put in the Bible. How many Christians do you know that believe EVERY SINGLE part of the bible? Not many, if not none. There are challenging parts of the Bible they do not agree with (No that doesn't make them a hypocrite, one does not have to agree with every premise to agree with an idea as a whole.) And if enough people challenge it, then the Church will reform (Council of Trent).AussieReaper wrote:
The theory of gravity can be proven by scientific experiment. Newtons Laws demonstrate the observable facts can be summed up into equations.
Even still, the theory is still tested. And is still incomplete as the sub-atomic force of gravity is not understood.
Just because it's been around for awhile, doesn't mean it is instantly accepted. And the theory of gravity is not accepted at the sub-molecular level.
The evidence to "dislodge" it, is ongoing. For religion, what experiment is there?
Like most religious folks you're caught up on the whole 'theory' bit. Stop being ignorant.
No. You cannot test religion. Because religion is based on "faith". If you can prove something, you don't need faith in it.HaiBai wrote:
1: There are different ways to test theories. You have to test this spiritually. If you don't want to, theres no way I can prove to you he exists.
Do you have faith in God? That's only because you have no evidence of God. Do you have faith in gravity? No. Because you don't need faith in gravity. Because you know it is there. You need faith in God because you don't know, and can't know and don't want to look. If you question God then your faith is therefore shaken. Religion is based on faith. And faith is always against understanding and knowledge. Because they are incompatible.
How does anyone know if stem cells research is good or bad? They research it. ffs You can't say well cancer research might be bad because some patients will die during the clinical trials, so we should stop the whole process.HaiBai wrote:
2: They're trying to stem (haha nice pun with the stem cell research) science because they view it as negative. How does anyone know if stem cells (which could've eventually become a human with thoughts and feelings) research is good or bad? Sure it's good to the people who are being hurt NOW, but what about the people who we are essentially killing to further this research? And yes, they would advocate not to use condoms or any contraceptives, since the point of humans were to procreate. Sex just to satisfy oneself is selfish and a sin.
Animals masturbate. When they do so, are the commiting sin too?HaiBai wrote:
Sex just to satisfy oneself is selfish and a sin.
What? There are plenty of positives that come with nuclear power. It's cleaner than coal, for one thing. And better for the environment. Just because there are alternatives doesn't mean we should halt research into nuclear power. You know what also came from research into nuclear power? Cancer treatments such as chemotherapy/radiation.HaiBai wrote:
3: Fire also had many, many positives. Positives that would be hard to do away with. Nuclear power, on the other hand, there's wind, solar, coal, water, etc.Fire also had many, many positives. Positives that would be hard to do away with. Nuclear power, on the other hand, there's wind, solar, coal, water, etc.
I already provided an example of the Earth revolves around the Sun. There were persecutions of scientific minds who fought against the Church which promopted to Earth is the center of the universe bullshit. Galileo, was prosecuted by Pope Urban VIII. Look it up.HaiBai wrote:
4: So, any and all knowledge is shot down by the church? Really? Can you provide a specific example? Because the church does NOT shoot down ALL knowledge. If I have my history right, monks were some of the first teachers during the dark ages and after. And they did not just teach religion, they taught the classics, vernacular and the Latin/Greek language, scripture, reading, etc.
Everything is always being tested and retested. No one in the realm of science ever concludes that things are permanently stable. Is it likely that gravity will remain a constant between today and tomorrow? Yes. Is it likely to change in the geologic future? Yes. So it's not something that gets checked and rechecked on a daily basis. There is no need.HaiBai wrote:
I was just going off of what AussieReaper said. He claimed that it was still being tested.Jay wrote:
Who the fuck is challenging the theory of gravity? It's a fact. If you account for friction (i.e. a vacuum), an object will fall at ~9.81 meters per second on Earth at sea level.HaiBai wrote:
Ok, so people are still challenging the theory of gravity. People are still challenging the ideals put in the Bible. How many Christians do you know that believe EVERY SINGLE part of the bible? Not many, if not none. There are challenging parts of the Bible they do not agree with (No that doesn't make them a hypocrite, one does not have to agree with every premise to agree with an idea as a whole.) And if enough people challenge it, then the Church will reform (Council of Trent).
Like most religious folks you're caught up on the whole 'theory' bit. Stop being ignorant.
None of this detracts from the fact that gravity is a fact and your use of the word theory in regards to science is false. Evolution is a fact too even though it has that dreaded phrase 'theory of' in front of it.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/scien … amp;src=mvHaiBai wrote:
I was just going off of what AussieReaper said. He claimed that it was still being tested.Jay wrote:
Who the fuck is challenging the theory of gravity? It's a fact. If you account for friction (i.e. a vacuum), an object will fall at ~9.81 meters per second on Earth at sea level.
Like most religious folks you're caught up on the whole 'theory' bit. Stop being ignorant.
Look into the research by CERN and the LHC. The theory of gravity is not complete because the theory does not work at the sub-atomic level. Hence string theory, etc
1: I would not call faith in God "blind faith." As you're hinting. They have faith in him because they have a reason to. Be that reason: it's better than the alternative, I've had a revelation, etc. Faith and knowledge are not inherently against each other. Faith and knowledge go hand in hand. Before you have any knowledge, you need to have faith. Even after you test something and gain knowledge, you need to have faith that your results are correct.
2: I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that the Church is discouraging it because they view it as negative. Therefore, people exercise more caution when dealing with stem cells.
3: Religion goes on the premise that humans and animals are different.
4: No, nuclear power is not necessarily better for the environment. You have a bunch of left over nuclear waste that is hard to dispose of. Also, just because it has a few positives doesn't mean we should just ignore the negatives and research it at will, unbounded by restraints.
5: You said that the Church was against ALL knowledge. I provided an example of how they weren't. Are you now arguing that they're against SOME knowledge?
2: I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that the Church is discouraging it because they view it as negative. Therefore, people exercise more caution when dealing with stem cells.
3: Religion goes on the premise that humans and animals are different.
4: No, nuclear power is not necessarily better for the environment. You have a bunch of left over nuclear waste that is hard to dispose of. Also, just because it has a few positives doesn't mean we should just ignore the negatives and research it at will, unbounded by restraints.
5: You said that the Church was against ALL knowledge. I provided an example of how they weren't. Are you now arguing that they're against SOME knowledge?
Also, I'm not religious. I just don't see why people believe the Church/religion is inherently evil and should be abolished.
I'm quite aware of what "theory" means. What was your point of saying this again?Jay wrote:
Everything is always being tested and retested. No one in the realm of science ever concludes that things are permanently stable. Is it likely that gravity will remain a constant between today and tomorrow? Yes. Is it likely to change in the geologic future? Yes. So it's not something that gets checked and rechecked on a daily basis. There is no need.HaiBai wrote:
I was just going off of what AussieReaper said. He claimed that it was still being tested.Jay wrote:
Who the fuck is challenging the theory of gravity? It's a fact. If you account for friction (i.e. a vacuum), an object will fall at ~9.81 meters per second on Earth at sea level.
Like most religious folks you're caught up on the whole 'theory' bit. Stop being ignorant.
None of this detracts from the fact that gravity is a fact and your use of the word theory in regards to science is false. Evolution is a fact too even though it has that dreaded phrase 'theory of' in front of it.
There is something I completely agree with.HaiBai wrote:
Also, I'm not religious. I just don't see why people believe the Church/religion is inherently evil and should be abolished.
Edit: triple post wasn't necessary, Haibai.
Last edited by War Man (2011-04-24 21:04:24)
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
Haha sorry, I'm not really familiar with this forum. I'm actually HaiBai's friend, he asked me to help him argue his points.War Man wrote:
There is something I completely agree with.HaiBai wrote:
Also, I'm not religious. I just don't see why people believe the Church/religion is inherently evil and should be abolished.
Edit: triple post wasn't necessary, Haibai.
Because it makes them different and thus scary. Many people will attempt to control the actions of others if given the chance. In this case, being an aggressive atheist makes them feel intellectually superior. They look down upon the religious because they think they've found some hidden truth to life. The religious are bumpkins and atheists are the intellectually enlightened.HaiBai wrote:
Also, I'm not religious. I just don't see why people believe the Church/religion is inherently evil and should be abolished.
Whatever, it's just pretension. It's not like god can be either proven or disproven anyway so don't let it bother you.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Oh ok, tell HaiBai you are cooler than him.HaiBai wrote:
Haha sorry, I'm not really familiar with this forum. I'm actually HaiBai's friend, he asked me to help him argue his points.War Man wrote:
There is something I completely agree with.HaiBai wrote:
Also, I'm not religious. I just don't see why people believe the Church/religion is inherently evil and should be abolished.
Edit: triple post wasn't necessary, Haibai.
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
Haha yeah I can understand that. That's why I don't like to use strong words/get too emotional in a religious argument. Still, it's interesting to see what people have to say. Learn something new everyday, like how I didn't know that gravity was being questioned till today.Jay wrote:
Because it makes them different and thus scary. Many people will attempt to control the actions of others if given the chance. In this case, being an aggressive atheist makes them feel intellectually superior. They look down upon the religious because they think they've found some hidden truth to life. The religious are bumpkins and atheists are the intellectually enlightened.HaiBai wrote:
Also, I'm not religious. I just don't see why people believe the Church/religion is inherently evil and should be abolished.
Whatever, it's just pretension. It's not like god can be either proven or disproven anyway so don't let it bother you.
Lol I will. Or rather, he can just read this.War Man wrote:
Oh ok, tell HaiBai you are cooler than him.HaiBai wrote:
Haha sorry, I'm not really familiar with this forum. I'm actually HaiBai's friend, he asked me to help him argue his points.War Man wrote:
There is something I completely agree with.
Edit: triple post wasn't necessary, Haibai.
Expect him to say I'm an idiot and such.HaiBai wrote:
Lol I will. Or rather, he can just read this.War Man wrote:
Oh ok, tell HaiBai you are cooler than him.HaiBai wrote:
Haha sorry, I'm not really familiar with this forum. I'm actually HaiBai's friend, he asked me to help him argue his points.
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
Do you need faith in gravity? Why do you need faith in God? If you have no faith in gravity, it will still be there. If you have no faith in God, there is no God. And religion does not exist. There is no way they go "hand in hand."HaiBai wrote:
I would not call faith in God "blind faith." As you're hinting. They have faith in him because they have a reason to. Be that reason: it's better than the alternative, I've had a revelation, etc. Faith and knowledge are not inherently against each other. Faith and knowledge go hand in hand. Before you have any knowledge, you need to have faith. Even after you test something and gain knowledge, you need to have faith that your results are correct.
No. The reason scientists test a hypothesis is to disprove that hypothesis. And then refine and enhance that hypothesis for further testing. If a scientist has faith in the results, they wouldn't be very good scientists. Researchers attempt to prove or disprove a theory. Not to show faith in it and then convince others to show faith. They present facts and logicay arguments. Not the "hope" that the results are true and not to be tested because you need faith in them.HaiBai wrote:
Even after you test something and gain knowledge, you need to have faith that your results are correct.
The Church has no moral authority over stem cells. And they shouldn't claim to be a force of morality. What scientific understanding does a Priest have? What about using the bible or God as a source for morality? "Why should I allow that same God to tell me how to raise my kids, who had to drown His own?"HaiBai wrote:
2: I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that the Church is discouraging it because they view it as negative. Therefore, people exercise more caution when dealing with stem cells.
No kidding. It goes so far as to argue that premise that it fights the theory of evolution. Man is related to the great apes. We share a common ancestor. This has been proven. Yet religion still argues that animals and humans are different. That the fossil record is "incomplete". We know otherwise, we know evolution is true because the theory can be tested and shown to be true. Thank you Charles Darwin. The Church would have you believe that there is no common ancestry.HaiBai wrote:
3: Religion goes on the premise that humans and animals are different.
Hard to dispose of? Do you think coal is better when coal produces pollution? I like how you narrow down cancer treatment into " just because it has a few positives".HaiBai wrote:
4: No, nuclear power is not necessarily better for the environment. You have a bunch of left over nuclear waste that is hard to dispose of. Also, just because it has a few positives doesn't mean we should just ignore the negatives and research it at will, unbounded by restraints.
The Church is against all knowledge. As I stated, a lack of knowledge is great for the God of the gaps to fill. And the Chruch pushes that if you can't explain it, God did it.HaiBai wrote:
5: You said that the Church was against ALL knowledge. I provided an example of how they weren't. Are you now arguing that they're against SOME knowledge?
Last edited by AussieReaper (2011-04-24 21:14:35)
Um, if you have no faith in God. That doesn't necessarily mean you don't believe he exists. Nor does it mean that he doesn't exist if he actually does exist. Just means you don't care for him much.
Edit: Kidding me? Advancing is what I care deeply for. It may end up looking depressing because it looks strange in the present. Anyway, explain to me what exactly have darwinist scientists have achieved besides trying to prove their beliefs to be correct?
Edit: Kidding me? Advancing is what I care deeply for. It may end up looking depressing because it looks strange in the present. Anyway, explain to me what exactly have darwinist scientists have achieved besides trying to prove their beliefs to be correct?
Last edited by War Man (2011-04-24 21:15:14)
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
You need faith because there is no scientific evidence. Anywhere. Ever. None. Zip. Zilch. Zero.War Man wrote:
Um, if you have no faith in God. That doesn't necessarily mean you don't believe he exists. Nor does it mean that he doesn't exist if he actually does exist. Just means you don't care for him much.
Doesn't mean there is any scientific evidence that suggests darwinist evolution exists. Where is that monkey we humans and primates all come from now? Still having difficulty finding the missing link?
Last edited by War Man (2011-04-24 21:17:19)
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
Mapping the human genome. DNA research. Genetically modified foods. Breeds of every animal can be traced back to an earlier common ancestor. Human behaviour and memes can be correlated to survival of the fittest models.War Man wrote:
Anyway, explain to me what exactly have darwinist scientists have achieved besides trying to prove their beliefs to be correct?
I can list countless points of Darwin's legacy. Shall I continue?
What missing link?War Man wrote:
Doesn't mean there is any scientific evidence that suggests darwinist evolution exists. Where is that monkey we humans and primates all come from now? Still having difficulty finding the missing link?
Here's a few fossils you can look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hu … on_fossils
Last edited by AussieReaper (2011-04-24 21:24:08)
you see it every time you look in the mirrorWar Man wrote:
Where is that monkey we humans and primates all come from now? Still having difficulty finding the missing link?
but seriously, hope everyone had a good easter..whether you celebrate it or not
lol, it says homo.AussieReaper wrote:
What missing link?War Man wrote:
Doesn't mean there is any scientific evidence that suggests darwinist evolution exists. Where is that monkey we humans and primates all come from now? Still having difficulty finding the missing link?
http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/6397/apes.gif
http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/6021/hominidae.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … n-wiki.jpg
