[Synnen]

For Saved:

http://enough_already.tripod.com/creation.htm

[Capuchin]

Debunking Evolution - problems, errors, and lies of evolution exposed as false and wrong

That website seems to be very confused. The person who wrote it seems to misunderstand evolutionary theory.

[albear]

ACK---KBC, my apologies. I have to spread the love first, but you're right. I was looking at what you wrote, and not who wrote it. I, too, play devil's advocate, so I apologize for taking your words out of context.

I still mean what I said...I just don't think that you, personally, are close-minded. I was going with the argument, and I should have paid better attention to who wrote it.

That's called being biased,

[asking]

Asking, you make an interesting point. I believe that every theory is entitled to some scientific investigation. It may well turn out that some theories are very obviously not fitting with the evidence, and some theories may blow open a whole new field of science, but both of these theories are, at the beginning, scientific and worthy of investigation.

For example, string theory, it fits no evidence and it makes no observable predictions, is this not a scientific theory?

I think you may be able to get me to agree with you on the falsifiability front, that the existence of a god is not falsifiable and so is not a scientific theory. But i'm not utterly convinced of that, at the moment, string theory is not falsifiable, although it may well be with the newer colliders coming in the next few years.

Hi Capuchin! I'd certainly be willing to consider granting Creationism status as a hypothesis that bears investigation, IF it were falsifiable. But it's not falsifiable as far as I know. What would it take to show it's not true?

And, for now, it is not a theory that explains how the world works like the three other ideas you mentioned--Newton's theory of gravity, Relativity, and Evolution. I'm not up on string theory enough to argue that point. But as for evolution, we have literally 150 years of research from thousands of scientists to support evolution. Whereas Creationism just doesn't have any scientific evidence to support it. If scientists could test Creationism and get government grants to do the work, you can bet they'd jump on it!
Asking

[silentrascal]

Why can't you compare one to another? I don't believe in a biblical god, but I can accept that one may exist. Do you just not respect people's right to have different beliefs than yourself?

I never said that I didn't. But comparing apples to dump trucks doesn't make a logical argument to the alternative.

[silentrascal]

I'll try this again.

See...it DOES make sense to some people that a gas and a god are equal in importance. Would you say that oxygen, which you breathe every day, has less importance than your god? I would say they're equal in importance, because without one, you would have no reason for the other. Or--if you gave a person who couldn't breathe the choice between accepting God as their saviour, or a gas that could save their life--which becomes the more immediately important "thing"?

What I'm trying to say is that your logic doesn't work. If god could always be, then gases could always be. How can you prove different? How can logic say that one thing can exist always, because it's a GOD, and another can't, because it's just a gas? How do you know that the gas isn't a god too?

And I'll try it again too. There is no logic and no rationale for believing that an animate being and an inanimate object are equal in importance. None. Now, people are allowed to believe what they want and have their own views, but it doesn't necessarily mean that said views are logical. Yes, I would say that oxygen has less importance than my God, because my God created said oxygen in order to sustain my life. And, in the second instance, I would expect the person who couldn't breathe to accept God as their savior because in the very word "savior" it specifies God as the one who can save or restore their very life. The God would be the more immediate important "thing". You're still wrong. Gases are inanimate and had to have come from some source. God, being all powerful and all intelligent and the creator of all things does NOT have to have come from anywhere. You can't prove otherwise. Let me see you worship oxygen or hydrogen, or carbon monoxide. Just because you give something worship doesn't make it a true god. People today worship money, does that mean it's a true god? God absolutely can always be... a gas doesn't have that option.

[asking]

Ive never believed in God, maybe thats to do with my parents telling me nothing like that exists. But some people genuinely belive and are quite often better peope for it. Religion and faith can be a good thing provided it doesnt get out of hand and infringe upon other peoples right to fait

My parents didn't teach me to believe either. They also didn't teach me NOT to believe. They told me it was up to me. When believing in something is optional, it's hard to take it seriously. So even when I tried to believe, I couldn't. When I was little, my friends were all Catholic and they told me I was going to go to Hell. So when I was 7 or 8, I tried hard to believe in God so I wouldn't go to Hell when I died. I was really scared. But I just couldn't honestly believe. So I decided not to believe in God or Hell and I felt better.

I tried to believe again when I was about 14. I went with my friends to Sunday school, but I kept asking lots of questions and the Sunday school teacher asked me not to come anymore. I was NOT disruptive. I was always a good student, quiet, shy kid in school. So it's not like I was making trouble. She just didn't like my questions. Many people tried to convert me when I was a teenager and in my early 20s, and I got tired of that. I didn't feel like they treated me very respectfully. They would dismiss my own thoughts and not listen to anything I said and tell me I was wrong. I was unpersuaded and bored by them after a while.
Asking

[Capuchin]

Just because you give something worship doesn't make it a true god.

Good point, maybe one day you'll realise that.

[Synnen]

Darn it! I have to spread the love again!

Bravo, Cappy! Bravo! I'd give you a standing ovation for that if I could.

[silentrascal]

Although an object can be destroyed it's energy can not be. At least as far as we know right now. So you are right gasses haven't always existed but the energy contained in those gases has. An atom is stored energy. You can destroy an atom but in the process you release energy. That energy could then used to form a different atom. That energy will always be and it always has been. Maybe your religion isn't that different from science after all. Shame you won't study it.

Nice try, but no. As far as anything that's gone into the creation of the gas, any particle, any energy, any anything, it has not always been, it went into existence with the creation of the gas.

[silentrascal]

Good point, maybe one day you'll realise that.

And maybe you will as well.

[silentrascal]

Like i said, evolution explains the order of animals and plants. Anything that is not ordered enough to live just dies and does not pass on the disorder. Evolution is anything but random.

Evolution explains nothing. The sooner you realize that, the better.

[asking]

Even Darwin agreed that if there was one thing that proved him wrong he'd throw out the theory. He was always puzzled by the complexity of the eye and the peacock's feather. He wrote an essay stating that he could not account for these things, yet this is not common knowledge.

Like all good scientists, Darwin was happy to entertain contrary evidence. All (good) scientists consider that their hypothesis may be wrong and they look for facts that could prove it wrong. But while Darwin spent years looking for holes in his own theory, he believed that it was fundamentally correct, which it was. It has been confirmed over and over again. Darwin wanted to know how inheritance works--because DNA and genes hadn't been discovered yet. But he did not think the peacock's tail or the eye disproved his theory. That's a myth.
Asking

[retsoksirhc]

I never said that I didn't. But comparing apples to dump trucks doesn't make a logical argument to the alternative.

I agree. Comparing the matter that the big bang and the universe was born from with a fictional character doesn't make sense. I guess I'll just start acting like some of the people here and refuse to see that while something isn't important to me, it may be to someone else.

Hey I can think of other people who saw things they didn't like as inferior. They were called nazis.

[asking]

Even Darwin agreed that if there was one thing that proved him wrong he'd throw out the theory. He was always puzzled by the complexity of the eye and the peacock's feather. He wrote an essay stating that he could not account for these things, yet this is not common knowledge.

Like all good scientists, Darwin was happy to entertain contrary evidence. All (good) scientists consider that their hypothesis may be wrong and they look for facts that could prove it wrong. But while Darwin spent years looking for holes in his own theory, he believed that it was fundamentally correct, which it was. It has been confirmed over and over again. Darwin wanted to know how inheritance works--because DNA and genes hadn't been discovered yet. But he did not think the peacock's tail or the eye disproved his theory. If you are saying he doubted his own theory, that's not true.

Asking

[albear]

Evolution explains nothing. The sooner you realize that, the better.

The sooner you realise that it does make sense when you think about it the better, but I think we both know that you won't even consider the possibility, tell me I'm wrong

[Capuchin]

And maybe you will as well.

Sorry, I don't worship anything. What am I meant to realise about worshipping nothing? That nothing is not a true God? What are you trying to tell me?

[asking]

Have you ever read the origin of species? He goes on to suggest a way that the eye could have evolved a few pages after suggesting that it might be puzzling. He uses the same kind of asking a question then giving an answer throughout the whole book, it's the way he wrote. He was not puzzled by the eye.

Good answer!
Asking

[silentrascal]

Sorry, I don't worship anything. What am I meant to realise about worshipping nothing? That nothing is not a true God? What are you trying to tell me?

Obviously your blind devotion to science as the end-all/be-all of answers is a form of worship. So now you're saying science is nothing?

[silentrascal]

the sooner you realise that it does make sence when you think about it the better, but i think we both know that you wont even consider the possibility, tell me im wrong

And the same can apply to you, once you consider how little sense it actually makes.