lolScorpion0x17 wrote:
We have not even proved that gravity actually exists.
Must have been difficult to type with your keyboard floating about like that
Must have been difficult to type with your keyboard floating about like that
NO. We believe in gravity because when you let go of an apple it falls to the earth.PureFodder wrote:
NO. We believe in gravity because we have evidence for it.
We have no actual proof that there is any actual force acting between the apple and the earth.
It fits with our theory of how the universe works, therefore we accept it to be true.
All that glitters is not gold.
F=MAScorpion0x17 wrote:
NO. We believe in gravity because when you let go of an apple it falls to the earth.PureFodder wrote:
NO. We believe in gravity because we have evidence for it.
We have no actual proof that there is any actual force acting between the apple and the earth.
It fits with our theory of how the universe works, therefore we accept it to be true.
All that glitters is not gold.
There would be no A if there were no F.
Force of gravity proved.
Crap.
darwinists and creationists are friends!
*escapes*
*escapes*
You can't prove a physical theory like that. You can only disproof them or show them to be more likely to be correct.PureFodder wrote:
F=MAScorpion0x17 wrote:
NO. We believe in gravity because when you let go of an apple it falls to the earth.PureFodder wrote:
NO. We believe in gravity because we have evidence for it.
We have no actual proof that there is any actual force acting between the apple and the earth.
It fits with our theory of how the universe works, therefore we accept it to be true.
All that glitters is not gold.
There would be no A if there were no F.
Force of gravity proved.
This thread is very strange and I agree with everything topal has said in it.
Faith and knowledge are totally incompatible principles.
Topal makes some excellent logical points. However, the theory of evolution is exactly that, a THEORY. He makes a good number of scientific and logical arguments, but throws them all out the window in his first post!
Evolutionary theory has a lot of evidence for it, but still has some large gaps to be filled.
Evolutionary theory has a lot of evidence for it, but still has some large gaps to be filled.
Everytime you close your eyes god appears in front of you. However when you re open them he disapears just before you open them. Therefor you cant prove he wasn't there, because you never ever see him. Thus proving god exists.
^^ This sums up my feelings about this thread. Even if you couldnt prove evolution, doesnt mean that by its very nature its dis proven. All the facts point towards it being true. I mean if you closed your eyes in a empty room with a flat floor and took a step, you cant prove your foot will touch the ground just before you take the step, but you can bet your billions it will. I wouldnt however bet my billions on a theory presented by the same book that claims the earth is 10,000 years old and full of contradictory statements such as
"How else can one explain how the greatest god in heaven" ([ref001]Gen. 14:18-22)
became the
"only god in heaven" in the later versions
^^ This sums up my feelings about this thread. Even if you couldnt prove evolution, doesnt mean that by its very nature its dis proven. All the facts point towards it being true. I mean if you closed your eyes in a empty room with a flat floor and took a step, you cant prove your foot will touch the ground just before you take the step, but you can bet your billions it will. I wouldnt however bet my billions on a theory presented by the same book that claims the earth is 10,000 years old and full of contradictory statements such as
"How else can one explain how the greatest god in heaven" ([ref001]Gen. 14:18-22)
became the
"only god in heaven" in the later versions
That line alone shows how totally biased this so called "conversation" is. Where do people get the idea that scientists are all atheists, agnostics, or some sort of "faithless" people? Both my parents are scientists, PhDs, with allot of works published in genetic improvement, and still have their faith.righthandfork wrote:
DARWINIST: Scientists don’t have faith, we base our knowledge on facts.
If you want a REAL conversation between a skeptic and a scientist, take a look here. This is not some made up conversation, its a real interview on National Geographic with the head of the Human Genome Project. What you might find surprising is that the head of the worlds largest genectic research project is also a man of faith. And he's most definetely NOT a creationist...
Last edited by EVieira (2007-04-07 12:02:14)
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
I am always surprised at how many people just glance at my argument and then think they have me all figured out because I’m religious. I think if they really read what I was actually saying, and not just make assumptions about what they think I am saying, the whole dynamic of the debate would we different. I “cherry pick” examples because the playing field is not even. Religion is based on the concept that something exists beyond the physical world and that humans have the mental capacity to comprehend more than just the sensory information around them. Since the majority of this forum’s members do not accept this premise, it puts me at a great disadvantage in a debate. The same thing would happen if there was a forum where everyone believed we are living in a dream world and that the existence of anything outside of our minds cannot be proven. So I come to this forum and everyone circles me with apache attack helicopters, and all I have is a butter knife. All I can really do is find a crack to stick the knife in. This is not an indication that my views are so narrow, but that the field of possibilities members of this forum are willing to explore is so narrow. What surprises me is that religious people are stereotyped as “narrow-minded” yet from what I have seen so far, it is mostly atheists who say their views are the only valid ones and that anyone who disagrees is an idiot.mikeyb118 wrote:
OK i think we all understand your angle now. I for one am growing tired of your recycled rhetoric.
The academic environment in the Western U.S. is much more open to the idea that there are many different world views and they don’t have to be labeled as “not conforming to physical evidence and therefore invalid.” Maybe it is because we have a large population of Native Americans. I’m sure most of you would say the Hopis are ignorant and stupid. They are a desert agrarian society that depend on rain for their very survival. They believe that spirits live on the San Francisco peaks in Arizona called “Kachinas” and control the rain. So the Hopis’ entire way of life is centered around trying to please these spirits. They have elaborate ceremonies and rituals for this purpose. But the point is people around here, especially those in the academic community, do not see them as backward or irrational. Why? Not because we are all into new age philosophy and acceptance for the differences around us—but because as crazy as all this sounds—what I have just described actually works! For thousands of years Hopis and their Anasazi ancestors have been able to survive in this most hostile of climates. So however foolish it may sound, it has assured their survival. Sometimes I wonder if science will assure our survival or just destroy us all. Only time will tell, but historically speaking, the Hopis' track record is better than ours.
Religion is based on ignorance "faith".
Darwinism (like most science) is based on hundreds of proven experiments.
I like facts, I don't like priests.
my two cents.
Darwinism (like most science) is based on hundreds of proven experiments.
I like facts, I don't like priests.
my two cents.
All in all, nice work.righthandfork wrote:
I am always surprised at how many people just glance at my argument and then think they have me all figured out because I’m religious. I think if they really read what I was actually saying, and not just make assumptions about what they think I am saying, the whole dynamic of the debate would we different. I “cherry pick” examples because the playing field is not even. Religion is based on the concept that something exists beyond the physical world and that humans have the mental capacity to comprehend more than just the sensory information around them. Since the majority of this forum’s members do not accept this premise, it puts me at a great disadvantage in a debate. The same thing would happen if there was a forum where everyone believed we are living in a dream world and that the existence of anything outside of our minds cannot be proven. So I come to this forum and everyone circles me with apache attack helicopters, and all I have is a butter knife. All I can really do is find a crack to stick the knife in. This is not an indication that my views are so narrow, but that the field of possibilities members of this forum are willing to explore is so narrow. What surprises me is that religious people are stereotyped as “narrow-minded” yet from what I have seen so far, it is mostly atheists who say their views are the only valid ones and that anyone who disagrees is an idiot.mikeyb118 wrote:
OK i think we all understand your angle now. I for one am growing tired of your recycled rhetoric.
The academic environment in the Western U.S. is much more open to the idea that there are many different world views and they don’t have to be labeled as “not conforming to physical evidence and therefore invalid.” Maybe it is because we have a large population of Native Americans. I’m sure most of you would say the Hopis are ignorant and stupid. They are a desert agrarian society that depend on rain for their very survival. They believe that spirits live on the San Francisco peaks in Arizona called “Kachinas” and control the rain. So the Hopis’ entire way of life is centered around trying to please these spirits. They have elaborate ceremonies and rituals for this purpose. But the point is people around here, especially those in the academic community, do not see them as backward or irrational. Why? Not because we are all into new age philosophy and acceptance for the differences around us—but because as crazy as all this sounds—what I have just described actually works! For thousands of years Hopis and their Anasazi ancestors have been able to survive in this most hostile of climates. So however foolish it may sound, it has assured their survival. Sometimes I wonder if science will assure our survival or just destroy us all. Only time will tell, but historically speaking, the Hopis' track record is better than ours.
Evolution is practically fact now.
Its called miss-translations. The bible wasnt written in english dumb-asstip700 wrote:
"How else can one explain how the greatest god in heaven" ([ref001]Gen. 14:18-22)
became the
"only god in heaven" in the later versions
The bible has been translated and rewritten so many times by whoever, whenever 1000 years back, I would question much it's authenticity nowadays .jimmanycricket wrote:
Its called miss-translations. The bible wasnt written in english dumb-asstip700 wrote:
"How else can one explain how the greatest god in heaven" ([ref001]Gen. 14:18-22)
became the
"only god in heaven" in the later versions
The problem is not your viewpoint. The problem is that you repeatedly use flawed logic and reason to support your claims.righthandfork wrote:
I am always surprised at how many people just glance at my argument and then think they have me all figured out because I’m religious. I think if they really read what I was actually saying, and not just make assumptions about what they think I am saying, the whole dynamic of the debate would we different. I “cherry pick” examples because the playing field is not even. Religion is based on the concept that something exists beyond the physical world and that humans have the mental capacity to comprehend more than just the sensory information around them. Since the majority of this forum’s members do not accept this premise, it puts me at a great disadvantage in a debate. The same thing would happen if there was a forum where everyone believed we are living in a dream world and that the existence of anything outside of our minds cannot be proven. So I come to this forum and everyone circles me with apache attack helicopters, and all I have is a butter knife. All I can really do is find a crack to stick the knife in. This is not an indication that my views are so narrow, but that the field of possibilities members of this forum are willing to explore is so narrow. What surprises me is that religious people are stereotyped as “narrow-minded” yet from what I have seen so far, it is mostly atheists who say their views are the only valid ones and that anyone who disagrees is an idiot.mikeyb118 wrote:
OK i think we all understand your angle now. I for one am growing tired of your recycled rhetoric.
The academic environment in the Western U.S. is much more open to the idea that there are many different world views and they don’t have to be labeled as “not conforming to physical evidence and therefore invalid.” Maybe it is because we have a large population of Native Americans. I’m sure most of you would say the Hopis are ignorant and stupid. They are a desert agrarian society that depend on rain for their very survival. They believe that spirits live on the San Francisco peaks in Arizona called “Kachinas” and control the rain. So the Hopis’ entire way of life is centered around trying to please these spirits. They have elaborate ceremonies and rituals for this purpose. But the point is people around here, especially those in the academic community, do not see them as backward or irrational. Why? Not because we are all into new age philosophy and acceptance for the differences around us—but because as crazy as all this sounds—what I have just described actually works! For thousands of years Hopis and their Anasazi ancestors have been able to survive in this most hostile of climates. So however foolish it may sound, it has assured their survival. Sometimes I wonder if science will assure our survival or just destroy us all. Only time will tell, but historically speaking, the Hopis' track record is better than ours.
As for your opinion about the academic environment in the Western U.S., well its exactly that - an opinion.
Please Creationists post your arguments here http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=69124.
The problem is exactly because I have a different viewpoint. No one has been able to show flawed logic in my hypothetical discussion on faith. Topal63 tries to be intimidating with his ambiguous speech making, and then says "it would be to dull" to show how I'm wrong. Einstein said if you can’t explain a concept so a grade-schooler can understand it, then you really don’t understand it yourself. Here is my very simple, real-to-life illustration:KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
The problem is not your viewpoint. The problem is that you repeatedly use flawed logic and reason to support your claims.
DARWINIST: The first known fossil was already a fully flying animal and very similar to modern bats. In fact, there are no bat fossils from the entire Paleocene period.
CREATIONIST: But you believe bats had un-winged ancestors even though there is no physical proof?
DARWINIST: Of course, for the reasons I already stated.
CREATIONIST: When you believe something exists even though you’ve never actually seen it, isn’t that called faith?
DARWINIST: No, it’s called common sense. Why would Perissodactyls evolve and not Chiropterans?
CREATIONIST: I never said your reasoning was flawed, just that it sounds a lot like Paul’s definition of faith, “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
My whole argument. Scientists believe in things that are reasonable but have never been seen. This is the classic definition of faith. Why is this not a reasonable argument?
I believe the relationship between faith and knowledge is this: If you want to believe something, you will try to find all possible supporting proof of it, trusting that what you believe is true. You therefore acquire knowledge to justify your faith. Some faiths are more justifiable than others, as some have more proof than others.
On another note, I'm getting really tired of all these "ooh, no, god is totally better than science" threads. Can you just drop it? You've made about three already, and they seem to be very similar.
-konfusion
On another note, I'm getting really tired of all these "ooh, no, god is totally better than science" threads. Can you just drop it? You've made about three already, and they seem to be very similar.
-konfusion
Oh, and you're forgetting the paucity of the fossil record. Between Vietnam and Iraq there is a total of ONE fossil. That's greater than the size of the United states, and there's just one fossil.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
are you stonedSpark wrote:
Oh, and you're forgetting the paucity of the fossil record. Between Vietnam and Iraq there is a total of ONE fossil. That's greater than the size of the United states, and there's just one fossil.
Hands up who knows the difference between "faith" and "cause and effect".
I said, Hands up..... oh fuck it, why bother..........
I said, Hands up..... oh fuck it, why bother..........
Are you? Or are you just trolling?herrr_smity wrote:
are you stonedSpark wrote:
Oh, and you're forgetting the paucity of the fossil record. Between Vietnam and Iraq there is a total of ONE fossil. That's greater than the size of the United states, and there's just one fossil.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman