Please provide 100% proof of gravity.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
|
Please provide 100% proof of gravity.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
So you are judging me for something you yourself are guilty of? I don't want to fight with you.. I tried to explain to you that I did not care what Credo believed but I did care that he was harassing believers damanding that they give "objective evidence" and calling our beliefs, and I quote, "unsupported religous babble"Quote:
And Sassy I never said that I didn't fight fire with fire. I was rude also. But took great offense to the fact that you implied I was ignorant simply because I questioned you. So I threw the mud right back. It wasn't right but I did it. And i am admitting it. And I am ending it.
So all I was doing was demanding from credo the same objective evidence he was demanding from us and then you just came from no where accusing me of taking offense to Credo's beliefs. I will say it again, I couldn't care less what you, credo or anyone else believes. I respect that. But don't come on religious forum like credo does and make condescending remarks about what people believe as if your own are superior. ALL beliefs on Origin are based on Faith Because NO one can provide 100% evidence of the origin of the universe.
[QUOTE=sassyT][QUOTE]
You "know" humans evolved over time based on your faith in an unproven theory.
And just so you don't further twist my words. I said "Because like I stated previously we start out as embryo's with tails and evolve into a baby(or maybe fetus suits you better). Frogs do the same thing."
I "KNOW" because I have seen it on all 5 of my kids inside my very own uterus. And I "KNOW" because it is a PROVEN FACT.
Check out this site and you shall have your proof SASSYT.
Multi-dimensional Human Embryo, Atlas
Or maybe this post would be better since it CLEARLY STATES THAT EMBRYO HAS A TAIL!
Fetal Development - Month 2
Hey De Maria,Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
All this lady achampio has done is posted quotes from me convieniently taken out of context and with complete disregard to what I was responding to. I was just using the same verbage Credo was using against us believers and I agree with you. We don't care what he believes but he needs to provide the "objective eviendence" for his beliefs that he demands from the rest of us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
How funny it is that you say I took your quotes out of context. Isn't that what you did with my quotes and everyone else's on this board? De Maria can go back over this whole thread if she wants to and see exactly what those posts where referenced to.
I have admitted to being rude. You obviously cannot even do that. So that in itself shows what you are all about.
Keep it up sassy, because you are only proving yourself to be a liar.
[QUOTE=achampio21][QUOTE=sassyT]This all the your website said...Quote:
You "know" humans evolved over time based on your faith in an unproven theory.
And just so you don't further twist my words. I said "Because like I stated previously we start out as embryo's with tails and evolve into a baby(or maybe fetus suits you better). Frogs do the same thing."
I "KNOW" because I have seen it on all 5 of my kids inside my very own uterus. And I "KNOW" because it is a PROVEN FACT.
Check out this site and you shall have your proof SASSYT.
Multi-dimensional Human Embryo, Atlas
Or maybe this post would be better since it CLEARLY STATES THAT EMBRYO HAS A TAIL!
Fetal Development - Month 2
"Carnegie stages are a system used by embryologists to describe the apparent maturity of embryos. An embryo is assigned a Carnegie stage (numbered from 1 to 23) based on its external features. This staging system is not dependent on the chronological age nor the size of the embryo. The stages, are in a sense, arbitrary levels of maturity based on multiple physical features. Embryos that might have different ages or sizes can be assigned the same Carnegie stage based on their external appearance because of the natural variation which occurs between individuals.
Postovulatory age is frequently used by clinicians to describe the maturity of an embryo. It refers to the length of time since the last ovulation before pregnancy. Postovulatory age is a good indication of embryonic age because the time of ovulation can be determined and fertilization must occur close to the time of ovulation. The terms "gestation", "pregnancy", and "conception" are usually avoided in describing embryonic age because fertilization is not universally accepted as the commencement of development (some consider implantation as the beginning of development)"
I don't get it? What does this prove? What evidence is there to prove that we all evolved from a one cell creature that crawled out of a soup?
[QUOTE=sassyT][QUOTE=achampio21]Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
That is why I gave the other post. The first one shows you a picture of the tail. Should have known you wouldn't get it. I'm guessing you don't have kids.
AND I NEVER SAID THIS PROVED WE CRAWLED OUT OF A SOUP!! I SAID( let's quote this one more time for you, even though I am the slow one and I am the one that twists words, and I am the one that takes quotes out of context) "Because like I stated previously we start out as embryo's with tails and evolve into a baby(or maybe fetus suits you better). Frogs do the same thing."
DO YOU SEE ANYWHERE IN THAT QUOTE THAT I CLAIMED TO BE PROVING WE CAME FROM SINGLE CELL ORGANISMS THAT CRAWLED OUT OF A SOUP?
PLEASE DO NOT TWIST MY WORDS OR TAKE MY MEANINGS OR QUOTES OUT OF CONTEXT AGAIN.
If you are interested in having an intelligent debate with me then you need to quit with your personal attacks on me. Seriously... you are getting out of hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by achampio21
[[QUOTE]QUOTE=achampio21][QUOTE=sassyT]Yes but how does that prove the Theory of evolution that is what I don't get.Quote:
Originally Posted by achampio21
You said evolution is a Fact and Evolution claims that we ALL (animals, fish, birds, flowers, trees) evolved form a single cell creature that crawled out of the promodial soup so that is why I am asking how this embryo stuff you posted proves the evolutionary theory.Quote:
DO YOU SEE ANYWHERE IN THAT QUOTE THAT I CLAIMED TO BE PROVING WE CAME FROM SINGLE CELL ORGANISMS THAT CRAWLED OUT OF A SOUP?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
Whatever sassy. You have 100% proven to me on this thread that you cannot HAVE an intelligent debate. And if pointing out that you aren't mature enough to admit your wrongs is a personal attack than you need to stop with your own personal attacks against everyone else. You are telling me to stop attacking you and telling DeMaria that you didn't attack anyone I just took your words out of context. You aren't even worth wasting the effort of typing, because you lash out and then sit back and whine when you get lashed at.
[QUOTE=sassyT][[QUOTE]QUOTE=achampio21]SHOW ME WHERE I SAID THAT. And show me where it says evolution is exactly that.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
Ok, I can agree with his having a right to hold his position. However, if he demands objective evidence, he should know what it means first and he should be prepared to provide his own evidence for his position.Quote:
Originally Posted by achampio21
Great! So do I. I'm Catholic. We believe in Theistic Evolution.Quote:
But I believe in evolution and I believe in God.
Theistic evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Our last three Popes have essentially admitted that Evolution is likely to be true.
Article: EVOLUTION AND THE POPE
Having said that, I also understand that my belief in evolution does not make it so. It remains a theory not a fact.
Correct. But that isn't the same idea as the theory of evolution introduced by Charles Darwin. And that is what these guys are discussing.Quote:
I kow for a fact that humans evolve all the time.
Sassy is distinguishing between micro and macro evolution. Micro evolution, the changes of an individual within a species, do not prove macro evolution, the changes of the species from one to another.Quote:
Because like I stated previously we start as embryo's with tails and evolve into a baby. Frogs do the same thing. And in a previous post by miss sassyt she demands 100% proof of evolution.
And again, I believe we've provided that.Quote:
NOT ONCE did anyone demand 100% proof from believers. Just a little objective evidence.
OK, lets compare my stance on evolution with Creed's stance on the existence of God.
Believers in evolution have provided evidence, the archaeological finds which I've examined. I agree it makes evolution probable, but in my opinion it is not enough to prove that evolution is absolute fact. It remains a theory in my opinion.
On the other hand, we have presented nature as objective evidence of God's existence. I have examined that evidence and I have come to the conclusion that God exists. Creed doesn't even admit that we presented any evidence however. He simply says we have presented no objective evidence for our beliefs.
Now, he has a right to have any position he wants, but if he's going to say that we have no objective evidence then he needs to explain why the evidence of nature which we can all examine is not objective. Otherwise he should say that there is not enough objective evidence to lead him to that conclusion or that the objective evidence leads him to a different conclusion, but we have presented evidence.
Bottom line, as far as I know, no one here has said that proponents of evolution have not presented ANY evidence. We simply don't believe it is enough to come to the conclusion that evolution is a fact.
I'm sorry to hear about those things. But I'm happy that those things you suffered through have not led you to disavow God.Quote:
So like I said before. Whatever. I don't think anyone is wrong on this board.
Okay one more edit... Just an FYI sassy said her 100% proof of God is that someone she knew was healed. Well, IF I wanted to argue that, my point would be this... my father died in Jan of 2007 from cancer. 3 months prior to that he had been healed from the cancer. I lost 2 babies in between the 3 that I have. And my youngest was diagnosed IUGR and I was told he had 0% chance of survival. And you know what... he was the biggest of my three kids and is the healthiest of all today. But I quit my job and went on bed rest for 3 months and force fed myself. So you could say God did it or you caould say I did it. Either way, THERE Isn't 100% proof of ANYTHING!
No. If I look at it strictly with my mind, I have to agree that there is not 100% proof of anything. But there is some evidence. I no longer believe that can be denied.
And when I look at it through the eyes of faith which were opened to me 21 years ago when my first child was conceived in my wife's womb, I have to factor that in as very convincing evidence for me. I know I can't use that to make anyone else believe, but I offer it up as my witness that God does exist. Only He can do such marvelous works!
God bless you Champ. In your life and struggles you are expressing your love of God through your love for your children. Your sacrifices will not go unrewarded.Quote:
No one will know the truth until we die. So I have lost and I have won. I stated in a previous post on a different board that I believe in God because of my 3 kids. I make sacrifices EVERYDAY for my kids and I pay taxes and I work full time and I never see my husband and I have lived a pretty rough and unfair life. ALL OF THOSE THINGS could be argued as "proof" that God doesn't exist. But I still believe. And I have NEVER once said anyone is wrong. I just think "fair" would be that no one says anyone is wrong. Unless you are talking about things that CAN be proven.
Thanks Champ. Be at peace.Quote:
Anyway, De Maria we have spoken and we have agreed and I have learned many things from you. And I respect you for respecting my questions. I just wish everyone could act the way you did with me.
Sincerely,
De Maria
So god should be praised for his marvelous achievements but never disavowed for his horrible actions? I'll never understand that about the religious.
Interesting sites. So weird how so many differences can ALWAYS find a common ground somewhere. But I am done with the "debate" with sassy. I was proving MY own idea of evolution and she took my speakings in context with everyone else. When in reality I am by no means even remotely qualified to talk about all the things everyone is talking about on this site. I only know what I have lived, what I live now, and what I have come to believe because of those things. If I had not had a baby, I prob would not have raised the argument that I raised, simply because I prob would not have known.
I am going to stay away from the religious boards. As far as I am concerned, I believe the way I want and in what I want. And I don't care what anyone says about it or how anyone feels about it. If I have a religious question I have several people I feel I could turn to for answers or a place to find the answers by way of PM so as not to have this occur again for me.
Thank you again.
Always~
Champ
It's a very difficult question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skell
Would you like to deal with it here or would you rather start a thread on the subject?
Sincerely,
De Maria
Demands for support for Evolution is an irrelevant subject here. There is ample objective supporting evidence for Evolution around. Note : not everything is supported, but all the great lines are supported.Quote:
Originally Posted by achampio21
The same goes for the origin of the universe : there is ample objective supporting evidence for what astronomy and cosmology teaches us in that respect. Note : not everything is supported, but all the great lines are supported.
However : here on the religious discussions board (and anywhere else also) there is not a single iota of objective supporting evidence for any of all the many religious claims.
So it is not support for evolution or the universe that should be provided first. It is support for the entire load of religious claims !
Champ : do not let you be drowned into all these demands for objective supporting evidence for that what already carries that support. Specially as that is demanded by people who can not provide any support for their own wild religious claims ! It is up to them to support their claim, or admit that what they claim is what they believe to be true!!
;)
But you still provide nothing but subjective opinion as support for your beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
There is ample objective supporting evidence for both evolution and origin of the universe available to everyone who spend a minimum of time to get him/her self introduced into that matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Totally unlike religious claims for which - notwithstanding how much energy and effort one spends on that matter - only subjective support is available - even after many thousands of years of discussions, debate, and research.
Of course I provide you and all other theists once more the opportunity to react with providing objective supported evidence for their religious claims. So I am looking forward to that evidence in your next reaction.
Once you have done that, we can compare both objective supported evidences, and discuss the validity of either. Till that time the onus of evidence is not on proving the ins and outs of evolution or the origin of the universe, but on that of religious claims.
:rolleyes:
Note : all one has to do is adding "I believe" to wild religious claims to validate them...
.
I'm not sure there is even "subjective" evidence for religious claims about the nature of the universe. I thought the whole point of believing in a monotheistic god was NOT to have any evidence whatever but to believe everything as a matter of faith, perhaps even despite all evidence to the contrary. It seems to me that you are asking fundamentalists to think in a way that is contrary to how they think and want to think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
I agree that some people are awfully persistent about denying there is any objective evidence for a finite universe or common descent (evolution), obviously without having any idea one way or the other, but I think that is because they assume that scientific information, like the material in the Bible and other religious "facts," are just a matter of strenuous assertion, "my belief over yours." To me, it seems hopeless to try to coerce such people into thinking with scientific rigor about objective evidence, which is as mysterious to them as faith may be to me. My impression is that they don't even acknowledge the existence of such a thing as objective evidence and certainly won't acknowledge it when it's in front of them, as we have seen.
This may sound harsh, but I think it's true of some people who post at this site and I think at some level they are in agreement with what I am saying--though they would phrase it differently, maybe saying they reject a materialistic, or mechanistic, understanding of the world. To me, that means they reject objective evidence right out of the box. So there's really no way to have a meaningful conversation when we only accept objective evidence and they reject exactly that and only accept inspired truth. Have you watched Jesus Camp? I recommend it.
Asking
Asking,Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Just from a believer's point of view and not to get into the heated part of the debate.
I have already said this before and I don't mind repeating it.
The belief in a Higher Almighty Power that created the whole universe and all that is beyond is not going to proved ever in a lab test like we could do with the materials of this universe.
Rocks from other planets,samples from plants,animals,fossils etc are all within our physical reach to have and to hold and test and compare as much as we want.
I have read and seen a documentary on how volcanic ash from one end of the world seems to have spread far across the globe during an eruption long ago.This we are able to test because the earth has layers of particles and this ash layer was preserved for so many years.
Unlike such materials,the Almighty I believe in is not human nor animal and is not available in bits and pieces for a lab test just to prove to those who do not believe in His existence.As for believers like me all that science offers are support for my belief in an Almighty All knowing Divine being.
All that exists in and around us are proof enough for me to believe in an Almighty and even if someone else thinks it is subjective it makes no difference to my beliefs because I believe them to be true.
I believe that the universe was one before it separated and that it is ever expanding and that the moon and the sun has its own path of travel across the universe.I believe that all living things came from water.I believe there was a time when humans did not exist.
All this I believe because it says so in the book I believe and it has been proven by science.
I am not saying the book I believe in is a book of science but it is a book of signs for believers who wish to have the guidance to follow and obey the rules mentioned in the book.
Just my two cents.:)
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:08 PM. |