Originally posted by PlanoMM actually, from grade school all the way up through high school and college, evolution was indeed taught as fact where i live. i dont know how it is for you, but i believe most would agree with me on this one. and once again, (/sigh), creationism is just as much based on the facts that real science provide as evolution. and the flat earth deal wasnt and isnt Bible at all. read it. its in psalms. im not your sunday school teacher. im sure you have a Bible, whether you believe in it or not. im sure you know how to find Psalms and start reading in it. Oo, and lolollololololllolloloooolllolollllooloololllollool, VANGUARDS GONNA RULE!!!!!! YAHOOOOOOO!!!!!! hehe........lollolollollol, is that better, lol. by the way, youre the best at making me laugh, forgive me if i express that fact in me posts. like the fact that youre getting so pissy over something so small and stupid as typing lol too much.Ok. I'll quote some of the book I used in high school. The chapter starts off with:"Pasteur showed in an experiment in the nineteenth century that spontaneous generation of life from organic matter does not now take place - cells can only be formed from other cells. This is not surprising, as even the simplest prokaryotic cells are very complicated...""...Followers of many religions believe that God created life. This is called special creation.""If species do evolve, a mechanism must exist to cause this evolution. Two theories have been proposed"(counter-arguements for Lamarck's theory)"Despite many attempts, no significant cases of inheritance of aqcuired characteristics have been found. Also Lamarck's theory does not fit in with our knowledge of inheritance." "There is much evidence for evolution by natural selection, including modern examples of observed evolution.""Although it is not possible to prove using the scientific method that the organisms on Earth today are the results of evolution, there is much evidence that makes it very likely."(goes on to present the "evidence": extremely similar structure in prokaryotic cells, homologous anatomical structures, paleontology, geographical distributions)This stuff was taken from an english book, and I've studied finnish books as well with similar, if not even more subtle views on evolution. If I make you laugh, great. At least you're laughing, although knowing that you're laughing means you're reading my posts juuuust the way you want to. I am usually extremely critical and "preacher-like" when I talk about stuff. Even my "open-minded" friends are afraid of what spews from my mouth, though I'm a laid-back guy and have never gotten into a fight with anyone except my confrontational brother. Like I said. My text books have always mentioned creationism, panspermia, and mentioned that theories differing from these also have some evidence. It's not like you're a minority either, anywhere else than on this forum. 66% of the people of Finland believe in creationism of some kind instead of evolution. Once again I'll tell you. My mind is not set on the subject. I am closely attached to the issue because I study anatomy and biochemistry, and I do believe something as "complex" as life COULD HAVE appeared out of "nowhere" in ideal conditions. and like i said, the only place that creationism was ever taught where i lived is in sunday school and through AIG. thank you for saying that were not in the minority, but i do believe that we are in the minority. but Oo well. you might be right, idk.Here in Finland all people have the choice to send their kids to lutheran religion class (the main state religion*), ethics class, or a religion class of choice as long as there are enough pupils in the school to support it. I've attended both religion and ethics classes, these are the places most of the evolution/creationism stuff was taught.*Everyone who's a part of the church pays church taxes. We have two official state religions: Lutheran(~85% of the population) and Orthodox(~<5%).Also I do believe an even larger amount thatn 66% (somewhere around 85% or more) of americans believe in creation of some sort. But just because a lot of people believe it, doesn't make it true (especially in this case where governmental authorities have embedded the "knowledge" into our society through millenia). You're using a hyperbole again. All people who defy the teachings of creation are wrong to begin with? Everyone blindly believed the bible? Most people didn't even have time to think about these things since they were too busy trying to survive to that glorious average life span of ~30 due to being exploited by the government(which was closely tied to the church back in the day). Please give me examples, I'd love to hear them.well, if you really wanna play that average life span card, then what are our scientists doing wrong. Adam and several generations after lived for more than 800 years each. hmm.....wonder what kind of scientists they had? btw, your beloved science was also tied closely to the church and government. in fact, that flat earth example that you mentioned earlier. it was the scientists that rejected a round world model. the Bible in Psalms and Genesis both support a round earth.You're using something you can't prove (a sudden thwarting of the lifespan of man) as a fact. There is no factual evidence of any kind of quick change in life-cycles of flora or fauna. My beloved science was not founded on empiricism back then either, empiricism is just something that made people's points a bit clearer than the other "scientific" stuff. Modern science/science from 300+ years ago is like day/night. Also if the bible had been interpreted to support a round earth, a round earth it would have been and no scientist would have had any word in. An example of how adaptive religion is. Hahahaha, that's cool, hahahaha. I'm not denouncing the bible, hahahha, altogether, hahahah. I just trust things, hahahah, with a factual, hahahah, basis, hahaha, more. TRUST MORE =! believe. TRUST MORE =! think is 100% right. Please get this into your head.as soon as you get this through your head. belief in the Bible and creationism =! stupidity. there are numberous scientific facts found in the Bible. and belief in science =! more inteligence. especially when some of it is based on assumptions that arent proven.Belief in the Bible and creationism =~ Illogical at this stage. Relying on facts = logical. Empirical science = based on facts. Evolution != currently relying on empirical science alone. Evolution =~ illogical at this stage. Once again. I do not "believe" in evolution. I have discovered there are some empirical scientific facts behind evolution and that it is a tangible, if somewhat far-fetched concept.
Read it and you'll find out? Read the modern biology books I've been reading and say they treat evolution as a fact afterwards. Also, please quote some of your scientific basics from the bible and I'll tell you how accurate or misinterpretable they are.you mean you want me to read a modern biology book that teaches all of its truths based on an assumption that evolution is fact? because every modern biology book ive ever read or studied did. and ive already told you, im not going to hold your hand, its in there. if you wanna know, read the Bible. your statement of "please quote some of your scientific basics from the Bible and ill tell you how accurate or misinterpretable they are." is the equivalent of me telling you to quote entire articles from biology and chemistry and ill tell you how factual they are. care to put forth the effort? me either, i dont care if you believe me. im posting in this forum for the sake and fun of discussing this issue. not to make converts, lol. what you decide to do with the info in this post/thread/topic is your business. Yup. You're reading this just the way you want. As I stated about 5 times already: The science books I've read and the education I've recieved have not taught evolution as a fact, but as a theory.You're comparing empirical studies (scientific research), to non-empirical misinterpretable passages from a book made by supersticious men thousands of years ago. What the doctor is doing is based around trial and error. A doctor practices surgery with corpses, perhaps fails, perhaps doesn't(but his skills get better). The doctor learns about the things others have learned through trial and error and trusts the empirical statements of others. If the doctor fails at treating you with this knowledge, he can go on to write about it in his patient review and perhaps alter the way the treatment is done. Medicine is all about trial and error. You make your hypothesis about the patient, if your treatment works most of the time, you'll know you're doing the right thing, if it doesn't you'll know you have to find a different way. In times before clinical medicinal science the doctor didn't take the blame, he just said the case was in God's hands and forgot about it, treating consequetive patients in the same way.if a doctor told me, "im going to use trial and error on you," i think that id be finding a new doctor. i get your point, but still...... he never said that he doubted plate tectonics. think before you type, lol. I believe his exact words were:Mount Everest is flat, and then some clams die on it, and then shifts around due to plate techtonics to the point that it becomes the highest mountain in the world, and those fossilized clams remain intact after hundreds of millions of years of geological shifts.Am I the only one that finds this absurd?He doubts plate tectonics are capable of doing such "grand" things in such a "delicate" fashion. It's "absurd". Sentimental connotation in scientific context.wrong, he doesnt doubt plate tectonics at all. all he was saying is that it didnt happen the same way that evolution says it did. maybe he didnt word it quite right, but thats not what he was trying to convey.It's not what evolution says, but what plate tectonics says. If you think the information gathered from plate tectonics is biased towards evolution, and should be disqualified until it's pro-creation(omg, procreation), you're quite biased planoMM.
Ok. I'll quote some of the book I used in high school. The chapter starts off with: you care about this way more than i do, i aint quoting any books, lol. "Pasteur showed in an experiment in the nineteenth century that spontaneous generation of life from organic matter does not now take place - cells can only be formed from other cells. This is not surprising, as even the simplest prokaryotic cells are very complicated..." "...Followers of many religions believe that God created life. This is called special creation." "If species do evolve, a mechanism must exist to cause this evolution. Two theories have been proposed" (counter-arguements for Lamarck's theory)"Despite many attempts, no significant cases of inheritance of aqcuired characteristics have been found. Also Lamarck's theory does not fit in with our knowledge of inheritance."
"There is much evidence for evolution by natural selection, including modern examples of observed evolution." natural selection is a fact, but its not a mechinism for evolution. in order for evolution to take place, new info needs to be introduced into the DNA, natural selection is simply a selection of traits based on info that is already present in the DNA. this is fact. "Although it is not possible to prove using the scientific method that the organisms on Earth today are the results of evolution, there is much evidence that makes it very likely."(goes on to present the "evidence": extremely similar structure in prokaryotic cells, homologous anatomical structures, paleontology, geographical distributions) and that doesnt sound like leaning toward evolutionary teaching to you? you quoted that "special creation" is a idea that is put forth, but no "evidence" was ever quoted at all, but it goes on to quote evidences for evolution. that would be considered bias, IMO. This stuff was taken from an english book, and I've studied finnish books as well with similar, if not even more subtle views on evolution.
If I make you laugh, great. At least you're laughing, although knowing that you're laughing means you're reading my posts juuuust the way you want to. I am usually extremely critical and "preacher-like" when I talk about stuff. Even my "open-minded" friends are afraid of what spews from my mouth, though I'm a laid-back guy and have never gotten into a fight with anyone except my confrontational brother. im not taking offense to your posts, and im getting your points just fine. i just dont agree with them. sorry if that bothers you. Here in Finland all people have the choice to send their kids to lutheran religion class (the main state religion*), ethics class, or a religion class of choice as long as there are enough pupils in the school to support it. I've attended both religion and ethics classes, these are the places most of the evolution/creationism stuff was taught. here in the states we can go and send our children to private christian schools, but im talking about the public school system, not the private sector. *Everyone who's a part of the church pays church taxes. We have two official state religions: Lutheran(~85% of the population) and Orthodox(~<5%). ouch, you gotta pay church taxes? ive never even heard of that before. is it because the country is mainly religious? Also I do believe an even larger amount thatn 66% (somewhere around 85% or more) of americans believe in creation of some sort. But just because a lot of people believe it, doesn't make it true (especially in this case where governmental authorities have embedded the "knowledge" into our society through millenia). the exact same can be argued about science. You're using something you can't prove (a sudden thwarting of the lifespan of man) as a fact. There is no factual evidence of any kind of quick change in life-cycles of flora or fauna. My beloved science was not founded on empiricism back then either, empiricism is just something that made people's points a bit clearer than the other "scientific" stuff. Modern science/science from 300+ years ago is like day/night. Also if the bible had been interpreted to support a round earth, a round earth it would have been and no scientist would have had any word in. An example of how adaptive religion is. exactly what i would expect you to say. however, the Bible does say that the earth is round. science rejected it, until it was proven. Belief in the Bible and creationism =~ Illogical at this stage. Relying on facts = logical. Empirical science = based on facts. Evolution != currently relying on empirical science alone. Evolution =~ illogical at this stage. Once again. I do not "believe" in evolution. I have discovered there are some empirical scientific facts behind evolution and that it is a tangible, if somewhat far-fetched concept. you say that you dont believe in evolution, yet you cant believe in creationism. however, you are basing all info leading to evolution being right on "empirical science" which to you is factual. kk, heres something for you then. if all science is based on facts, is the "oorta cloud" a fact or what? what evidence is there to support such a thing. this is science. so its fact, right? is the "oorta cloud" a fact? if it is, what is the evidence of it? if you say that its a theory, then doesnt that mean that there isnt any evidence to support it? and if so, doesnt that mean that its speculation? and if its speculation, hows that factual or empirical science? until you can answer that empirically, dont bother answering at all. dont dodge the question. dont write it off as irrelavent, because its very relavent to science being "empirical" as you suggest. and if you admit that its a speculative science and not empirical, then you have to admit that its based on faith in a theory, which is no different than basing faith on the Bible. except that basing faith in the Bible makes more sense since its not based on speculation. and any attempt to dodge or downplay this very important issue will be called out. Yup. You're reading this just the way you want. As I stated about 5 times already: The science books I've read and the education I've recieved have not taught evolution as a fact, but as a theory. however, with much bias and leading. and im reading these posts exactly as your writing them, bias included. you are flat out saying that basing ones beliefs on the Bible and creationism is silly and "illogical". how exactly can i take that any other way? You're comparing empirical studies (scientific research), to non-empirical misinterpretable passages from a book made by supersticious men thousands of years ago. bias, much? like i said, until you answer question above, nothing else is gonna matter. It's not what evolution says, but what plate tectonics says. If you think the information gathered from plate tectonics is biased towards evolution, and should be disqualified until it's pro-creation(omg, procreation), you're quite biased planoMM. again, (/sigh), Draenor and i arent "disqualifing" plate tectonics. youre reading into something that isnt there. and i am pro-creation, lol, who isnt? and as far as being bias, as someone else has stated in this very thread. its impossible to not be bias at all. yes, im bias. that means nothing. i used to be an evolutionist, now im a creationist. your bias too. im not disqualifying your arguements based on your bias, if i did, this arguement would have ended pages ago. actually, im not disqualifying your arguements at all. ive yet to tell you that youre "illogical" for believing what you do. examine the way your posting. and again, if you dont have an answer for the above question, dont bother responding.
you care about this way more than i do, i aint quoting any books, lol.
Well if this is the case why do you keep on replying to these posts? You're making an arguement based on assumption. I could be wanking behind this screen to the awesomeness of what we've written.
natural selection is a fact, but its not a mechinism for evolution. in order for evolution to take place, new info needs to be introduced into the DNA, natural selection is simply a selection of traits based on info that is already present in the DNA. this is fact.
What we know and don't know about DNA does only goes to prove what we know about DNA. It doesn't go on to prove that God created the universe. We are not empirically capable of testing biological bottlenecks to the extent that evolution is believed to have happened. Until we can, I'm leaving this as undecided, after it I'll either take evolution by natural selection more seriously or disregard it. DNA is not understood far enough to decide what is fact or not. It cannot be tested empirically yet but to a small extent. Hopefully in the future with the advancement of technology we will be able to have a margin of error of less than 1% on these matters.
and that doesnt sound like leaning toward evolutionary teaching to you? you quoted that "special creation" is a idea that is put forth, but no "evidence" was ever quoted at all, but it goes on to quote evidences for evolution. that would be considered bias, IMO. Do you know why it is leaning toward evolutionary teaching? Because creationists have failed to produce consistent evidence on their behalf to match that of evolution(You can tell me all about the some random theories that make evolution less likely yet make creation as unlikely(and accumulatively even more unlikely than it was to begin with)). Plain and simple, people who are in this field of science have decided to lean towards a theory that makes more sense regarding the other matters that are handled in biology. I am willing to bet the people who have decided what to teach regarding the origins of our species have weighed all the options.
im not taking offense to your posts, and im getting your points just fine. i just dont agree with them. sorry if that bothers you.
I don't think you are getting my point when I have to repeat it five times over. I said my biology books have always mentioned creationism, panspermia, you name it. I had to quote the books and explain my background for you to even start to take me seriously. I take you seriously, because an attitude similar to yours can be found on many people I've met and I am not able to fully comprehend(of course I can label them as "just religious types" or "just stubborn" but I'd rather not).
The thing is creationism DOES NOT have unanomous or consistent (the things on the creationist sites are self-contradictory and their only goal is to deface evolutionary speculation forgetting to mention they're also disproving creation anywhere near to what the bible says) proof from the scientific community. Call them nazis but it's their field of study. They take into consideration everything that CAN be explained. And a deity can't.
here in the states we can go and send our children to private christian schools, but im talking about the public school system, not the private sector.
Yeh. I've lived in Atlanta and Savannah Georgia for 2,5 years and went to a public school. The education was far more distant to the matter of the origin of the species than what I've endured in Finland.
ouch, you gotta pay church taxes? ive never even heard of that before. is it because the country is mainly religious? Most our country is Lutheran. People not belonging to the church do not have to pay the taxes of course.
the exact same can be argued about science.
Do you mean that science has been embedded into society as a necessary tool? Modern science hasn't existed until the 16th century. What was called science before that was hardly scientific. Religion has needed no proof and has only needed to adapt to current conditions in societies. Empiricism wasn't really around 'til the 16th century.
exactly what i would expect you to say. however, the Bible does say that the earth is round. science rejected it, until it was proven.
The bible says a lot of things. Referring to the four corners of the earth and the ends of the earth. A lot of figures of speech are used and figures of speech are easily interpritable to your own ends.
you say that you dont believe in evolution, yet you cant believe in creationism. however, you are basing all info leading to evolution being right on "empirical science" which to you is factual. kk, heres something for you then. if all science is based on facts, is the "oorta cloud" a fact or what? what evidence is there to support such a thing. this is science. so its fact, right? is the "oorta cloud" a fact? if it is, what is the evidence of it? if you say that its a theory, then doesnt that mean that there isnt any evidence to support it? and if so, doesnt that mean that its speculation? and if its speculation, hows that factual or empirical science? until you can answer that empirically, dont bother answering at all. dont dodge the question. dont write it off as irrelavent, because its very relavent to science being "empirical" as you suggest. and if you admit that its a speculative science and not empirical, then you have to admit that its based on faith in a theory, which is no different than basing faith on the Bible. except that basing faith in the Bible makes more sense since its not based on speculation. and any attempt to dodge or downplay this very important issue will be called out.
I am not saying I can't believe in creationism. I'm just saying the very foundation of the theory is too shaky for me to take it seriously at this stage in time. The Oort cloud is a shaky theory created by astronomers. The Oort cloud emits no light, so it would be impossible to observe (I know, convenient). The Oort cloud is supported by what we do know about the amount and the nature of comets. Creation has no real explanation for comets. Astronomy is not going to be a completely imperical science in a long time due to it's scale and implications. Comets can, however, come from other places than the Oorta cloud or from an extremely young universe.
The Oort cloud is not faith, it is a logical explanation that astronomers are currently using as a model for trying to explain how things happen. They don't pray for the mighty Oort cloud to send comets at fundamental religious zealots who are destroying the fabrics of certain middle-eastern and western countries. Faith in the bible is not basing your research on a scientific model(one which many astronomers would be dieing to disprove).
And the bible is not speculation? How do you explain the countless different interpretations of it? Who's right and who's wrong?
however, with much bias and leading. and im reading these posts exactly as your writing them, bias included. you are flat out saying that basing ones beliefs on the Bible and creationism is silly and "illogical". how exactly can i take that any other way?
I haven't said silly have I? Illogical is what I think it is because I can't see the fundamental logic in it.
bias, much? like i said, until you answer question above, nothing else is gonna matter.
The question being the one about the Oort cloud or the one about all biology teachers telling you evolution is fact? As I said. Theories are not facts. Theories are models that have been based upon some (some theories more than others) facts.
I'm a bit confused about the big question that you hid inside your text. If I've missed the mark, please clarify.
Hey, I'll share the secret with you folks on what/who truly loses credibility. It's any person that posts on and off topic forum thinking they a point. Including me you special ed rejects.
Originally posted by lardmouth Hey, I'll share the secret with you folks on what/who truly loses credibility. It's any person that posts on and off topic forum thinking they a point. Including me you special ed rejects.
Yes anyone who speaks their mind should be shot in the head. We should all play charades and act like we're Steven Seagal.
Originally posted by lardmouth Hey, I'll share the secret with you folks on what/who truly loses credibility. It's any person that posts on and off topic forum thinking they a point. Including me you special ed rejects.
Yes anyone who speaks their mind should be shot in the head. We should all play charades and act like we're Steven Seagal.
Originally posted by lardmouth Hey, I'll share the secret with you folks on what/who truly loses credibility. It's any person that posts on and off topic forum thinking they a point. Including me you special ed rejects.
Originally posted by Babbuun Well if this is the case why do you keep on replying to these posts? You're making an arguement based on assumption. I could be wanking behind this screen to the awesomeness of what we've written. empirical science=facts, theories are not based on fact. oort cloud is theory. you completely ignored the facts with this post.
What we know and don't know about DNA does only goes to prove what we know about DNA. It doesn't go on to prove that God created the universe. We are not empirically capable of testing biological bottlenecks to the extent that evolution is believed to have happened. Until we can, I'm leaving this as undecided, after it I'll either take evolution by natural selection more seriously or disregard it. DNA is not understood far enough to decide what is fact or not. It cannot be tested empirically yet but to a small extent. Hopefully in the future with the advancement of technology we will be able to have a margin of error of less than 1% on these matters. so, you admit that we dont know enough to teach it as fact, but say that its ok to teach it as fact because, to you, it makes more sense then creationism.
Do you know why it is leaning toward evolutionary teaching? Because creationists have failed to produce consistent evidence on their behalf to match that of evolution(You can tell me all about the some random theories that make evolution less likely yet make creation as unlikely(and accumulatively even more unlikely than it was to begin with)). Plain and simple, people who are in this field of science have decided to lean towards a theory that makes more sense regarding the other matters that are handled in biology. I am willing to bet the people who have decided what to teach regarding the origins of our species have weighed all the options. we, creationists, base all of our beliefs of creation on facts and evidence. this is proof that you havent even check those creation sites. you prolly just skimmed them.
I don't think you are getting my point when I have to repeat it five times over. I said my biology books have always mentioned creationism, panspermia, you name it. I had to quote the books and explain my background for you to even start to take me seriously. I take you seriously, because an attitude similar to yours can be found on many people I've met and I am not able to fully comprehend(of course I can label them as "just religious types" or "just stubborn" but I'd rather not). repeating the same BS over and over doesnt mean that the person youre preaching at isnt getting it, or hasnt gotten it the first 4 times you said it. i wonder how many times ive had to repeat meself in this long and drawn out thread? and i believe that the biology and science books are required to at least "mention" creationism, but when they say stuff like evolution happened like this....... hmmmm....... and it sure seems like youre calling me "just religious types" or "just stubborn", you just admitted that you feel like im not getting it, and you had to "repeat" yourself. you know, i have a few names for people like you, but the difference is, until now, i havent even made referance to them. because to even make referance like that, can be taken as an insult. and im not here to insult you or anyone that doesnt believe like me, im here to discuss, because i love to discuss things with other adults. Oo and you quoted those books of your own accord, i never required anything of the sort. im sorry you felt you had to do it. btw, ive read all the evolutionary BS, i know what evolution is. youre not telling me anything i havent read/heard/seen before. nothing.
The thing is creationism DOES NOT have unanomous or consistent (the things on the creationist sites are self-contradictory and their only goal is to deface evolutionary speculation forgetting to mention they're also disproving creation anywhere near to what the bible says) proof from the scientific community. Call them nazis but it's their field of study. They take into consideration everything that CAN be explained. And a deity can't. again, proof that you never even looked at these creationism sites. if you had, you would know that the first statement you just made is completely false. and as such, i see no reason to continue this. sorry, but you gotta come up with better than that.
Yeh. I've lived in Atlanta and Savannah Georgia for 2,5 years and went to a public school. The education was far more distant to the matter of the origin of the species than what I've endured in Finland.
Most our country is Lutheran. People not belonging to the church do not have to pay the taxes of course.
Do you mean that science has been embedded into society as a necessary tool? Modern science hasn't existed until the 16th century. What was called science before that was hardly scientific. Religion has needed no proof and has only needed to adapt to current conditions in societies. Empiricism wasn't really around 'til the 16th century. no, i mean that science has always had backing and been treated as a means to find the truth. i have no quams at all with empirical science. science that teaches about the body and the workings of technology is great. hell, im fascinated by science. ive made this clear. you just keep bringing this out to try to convince others that im just a "religious type" that just says "God did it" or "God works in mysterious ways". which you and anyone that has actually read these posts knows is not true at all. so this little attempt to discredit me based on me faith in God is pitiful.
The bible says a lot of things. Referring to the four corners of the earth and the ends of the earth. A lot of figures of speech are used and figures of speech are easily interpritable to your own ends.
you say that you dont believe in evolution, yet you cant believe in creationism. however, you are basing all info leading to evolution being right on "empirical science" which to you is factual. kk, heres something for you then. if all science is based on facts, is the "oorta cloud" a fact or what? what evidence is there to support such a thing. this is science. so its fact, right? is the "oorta cloud" a fact? if it is, what is the evidence of it? if you say that its a theory, then doesnt that mean that there isnt any evidence to support it? and if so, doesnt that mean that its speculation? and if its speculation, hows that factual or empirical science? until you can answer that empirically, dont bother answering at all. dont dodge the question. dont write it off as irrelavent, because its very relavent to science being "empirical" as you suggest. and if you admit that its a speculative science and not empirical, then you have to admit that its based on faith in a theory, which is no different than basing faith on the Bible. except that basing faith in the Bible makes more sense since its not based on speculation. and any attempt to dodge or downplay this very important issue will be called out. this is the question that i wanted answered. you failed to answer it, in fact, you did exactly what i figured you would. dance around it and pretend its irrelavent. ill even highlight the important parts green so you can see what i want you to answer.
I am not saying I can't believe in creationism. I'm just saying the very foundation of the theory is too shaky for me to take it seriously at this stage in time. The Oort cloud is a shaky theory created by astronomers. The Oort cloud emits no light, so it would be impossible to observe (I know, convenient). The Oort cloud is supported by what we do know about the amount and the nature of comets. Creation has no real explanation for comets. Astronomy is not going to be a completely imperical science in a long time due to it's scale and implications. Comets can, however, come from other places than the Oorta cloud or from an extremely young universe. proof once again that you never checked those sites, creationism is not a theory. its based on the Bible. it came from somewhere. evolution came from nowhere, the minds of men and women that wanted to try to disprove the Bible. some of them have actually admitted that that was there ultimate goal. Oo and thats not an answer, that is dodging the question. the orange is the dodge. the red is admitting what i knew youd say. so, you admit that the oort cloud is a "shaky" theory (your words, not mine), then explain that its something that has no evidence. that sounds like speculation to me. then you go on to say that it makes more sense, even though you admitted that were pulling shyt out of our arses. but the Biblical model doesnt even have an explanation, lol, proof once again, that you didnt check the sites that have been put up here, because you would know that creationism does actually have a logical explanation of comets and such. and then you even admit that comets may be explained by a young universe. contradiction, much?
The Oort cloud is not faith, it is a logical explanation that astronomers are currently using as a model for trying to explain how things happen. They don't pray for the mighty Oort cloud to send comets at fundamental religious zealots who are destroying the fabrics of certain middle-eastern and western countries. Faith in the bible is not basing your research on a scientific model(one which many astronomers would be dieing to disprove). wrong, it is faith. i already proved that. read above. if its speculation, its not empirical science based on facts. which means its based on faith. your arguement is null and void. and i already pointed out that scientists want to disprove the Bible. so wouldnt it stand to reason that they might look at evidence with the intent to work the Bible out of the equation? hmmmm.......
And the bible is not speculation? How do you explain the countless different interpretations of it? Who's right and who's wrong? differing interpretations are the result of different peoples reading it with differing ideals and goals. nothing to do with speculation. how would you interpret, "He sits upon the CIRCLE of the earth, and power is with Him." how many differing speculations can you come up with from that?
I haven't said silly have I? Illogical is what I think it is because I can't see the fundamental logic in it. i apologize, the silly was implied by the statements of how faith in the Bible is illogical.
The question being the one about the Oort cloud or the one about all biology teachers telling you evolution is fact? As I said. Theories are not facts. Theories are models that have been based upon some (some theories more than others) facts.
hopefully, its more clear which question i meant now. if not, sorry, but i cant make it much more clear. oo and in the red, this was me point. how can you call it "empirical" which you did many many times, when its not based on fact.
I'm a bit confused about the big question that you hid inside your text. If I've missed the mark, please clarify.
im pretty sure you didnt miss the question, you dodged it.
Draenor. The empirical science = religion arguement was just pulled off the top of your head. Just tell me how empirical science = religion if I think about it? Religion isn't empirical (to me: empirical = observable trial & error in controlled conditions). Please think before you type. Oh boy...please think before I type? /sigh...it's like this Babbuun(I thought that this thread was over but since others insist on keeping it going)...I don't consider Evolution to be science...do you know why? Because it isn't based on any solid observable evidence...that's not science, it's guess work. Evolution isn't based on observable facts, it's based on things that people observed and then made guesses about. This is my opinion about evolutionary "science" And my opinion is that being a Christian is no more of a religion than being an evolutionist. Empirical evidence as you are putting it, isn't science, it's guess work based on minimal observations and a whole lot of assumptions...and please, I've never given you the "think before you type" crap..so don't give it to me. I don't post about this topic without giving thought to my words.
You doubt plate tectonics. How do you explain earthquakes? How do you explain Iceland and the mountainous islands forming near it? Why do you think the Appalachians are covered by vegetation and the Rocky Mountains are as rocky as ever? he never said that he doubted plate tectonics. think before you type, lol.
I believe his exact words were: Mount Everest is flat, and then some clams die on it, and then shifts around due to plate techtonics to the point that it becomes the highest mountain in the world, and those fossilized clams remain intact after hundreds of millions of years of geological shifts. Am I the only one that finds this absurd? He doubts plate tectonics are capable of doing such "grand" things in such a "delicate" fashion. It's "absurd". Sentimental connotation in scientific context. You are making radical assumptions about the meanings of my words...If you are going to accuse Plano of making hyperbole statements, please don't do so yourself. By saying that I find the reasoning that evolutionists give for the sea shells on mount everest is absurd, I'm not saying that there is no such thing as plate techtonics, I'm saying that I don't believe that it is possible for that explanation to be feasable. Think about it for a second...seashells die and are presumably burried where mount everest is now...and then over hundreds millions of years, earthquakes and planetary shift cause mount everest to rise to a magnificent height, meanwhile those seashells remain intact? Sorry but the explanation of a global flood and God causing the mountains to rise about the water is more feasable to me than this.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Quite a few different conversations going on here! Wow.
The OP, or at least the editorial quoted there, is right in that Leviticus is full of silly laws. I think it's all bogus, but for people to selectively follow/enforce them based on personal preference is hypocritical and despicable. If one can tell me they believe in something in particular and stick to it, I might have a shred of respect and understanding, but if they believe in something only to justify bigotry and hatred, I hold a mixture of contempt for their intolerance and sympathy for their lack of ability to understand the greater picture.
I understand the viewpoint of most evangelical Christians: they honestly believe they are helping people by saving them from hell. Heck, a Christian _has_ to be evangelical or otherwise he's not a very kind person at all. A non-evangelical Christian is like, "Yeah, you're driving without your seatbelt down the highway at 200 mph while trying to read a map to find out where you're going, but I respect you so keep on trucking!" They know another human being is very likely to go to hell, but they don't do anything! If they really believed in their dogma, which is that hell is so bad, and that they must love (help) their fellow man, they have to be evangelical, or they really don't believe one of those 2 principles.
I do not understand the viewpoint of the hate-mongering gays-are-second-class-citizens type people. They try and justify their hatred using laws from a book of supersition that they only hold these people to, and not themselves. If they really followed those laws themselves, then they are respectable. Their goal may not be, but they think they are doing the right thing and can be educated better. The people that don't follow these laws either do it knowingly, or really don't know any better and don't even try to know any better.
Originally posted by Mylon Quite a few different conversations going on here! Wow.
The OP, or at least the editorial quoted there, is right in that Leviticus is full of silly laws. I think it's all bogus, but for people to selectively follow/enforce them based on personal preference is hypocritical and despicable. If one can tell me they believe in something in particular and stick to it, I might have a shred of respect and understanding, but if they believe in something only to justify bigotry and hatred, I hold a mixture of contempt for their intolerance and sympathy for their lack of ability to understand the greater picture.
I understand the viewpoint of most evangelical Christians: they honestly believe they are helping people by saving them from hell. Heck, a Christian _has_ to be evangelical or otherwise he's not a very kind person at all. A non-evangelical Christian is like, "Yeah, you're driving without your seatbelt down the highway at 200 mph while trying to read a map to find out where you're going, but I respect you so keep on trucking!" They know another human being is very likely to go to hell, but they don't do anything! If they really believed in their dogma, which is that hell is so bad, and that they must love (help) their fellow man, they have to be evangelical, or they really don't believe one of those 2 principles.
So, no other kind of christian tries to convert anyone? Evangelicals do not have the most agressive recruiting program on the planet, in fact, last I checked, they were losing people. Not too surprising there, most I've met are comeplete nutjobs.
I do not understand the viewpoint of the hate-mongering gays-are-second-class-citizens type people. They try and justify their hatred using laws from a book of supersition that they only hold these people to, and not themselves. If they really followed those laws themselves, then they are respectable. Their goal may not be, but they think they are doing the right thing and can be educated better. The people that don't follow these laws either do it knowingly, or really don't know any better and don't even try to know any better.
You are vilifying a lot of people with this statement, I doubt it is true for all of them. Although I do agree with you on the ones that it does apply to.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Hemingway
Originally posted by Mylon Quite a few different conversations going on here! Wow.
The OP, or at least the editorial quoted there, is right in that Leviticus is full of silly laws. I think it's all bogus, but for people to selectively follow/enforce them based on personal preference is hypocritical and despicable. If one can tell me they believe in something in particular and stick to it, I might have a shred of respect and understanding, but if they believe in something only to justify bigotry and hatred, I hold a mixture of contempt for their intolerance and sympathy for their lack of ability to understand the greater picture.
I understand the viewpoint of most evangelical Christians: they honestly believe they are helping people by saving them from hell. Heck, a Christian _has_ to be evangelical or otherwise he's not a very kind person at all. A non-evangelical Christian is like, "Yeah, you're driving without your seatbelt down the highway at 200 mph while trying to read a map to find out where you're going, but I respect you so keep on trucking!" They know another human being is very likely to go to hell, but they don't do anything! If they really believed in their dogma, which is that hell is so bad, and that they must love (help) their fellow man, they have to be evangelical, or they really don't believe one of those 2 principles. So, no other kind of christian tries to convert anyone? Evangelicals do not have the most agressive recruiting program on the planet, in fact, last I checked, they were losing people. Not too surprising there, most I've met are comeplete nutjobs.
I do not understand the viewpoint of the hate-mongering gays-are-second-class-citizens type people. They try and justify their hatred using laws from a book of supersition that they only hold these people to, and not themselves. If they really followed those laws themselves, then they are respectable. Their goal may not be, but they think they are doing the right thing and can be educated better. The people that don't follow these laws either do it knowingly, or really don't know any better and don't even try to know any better. You are vilifying a lot of people with this statement, I doubt it is true for all of them. Although I do agree with you on the ones that it does apply to.
while i respect both of your opinions, ive met me share of "nutjobs" that werent christians. and yes, some people to do willingly ignore some facts, its not true of everyone. and call me a bad person, but i couldnt care less where any of you go when all is said and done. lol. not much of a recruiter, eh? meh, oO well. w/e.
Stopped reading at page 12, but will go back and finish all the posts but wanted to chime in with something that is mentioned through pages 11 and 12 of this thread.
I'm no expert by any means, but I do watch/read anything and everything I can get my hands on that deals with science proving or disproving the Bible. Reading the debate between the two of you has been very interesting, but I do see some errors.
As for Moses, Moses did exist. As you both know, Biblical location names differ from the names known today. The "Red Sea" was misinterpretted. The sea Moses "parted" would have actually have been called "The Sea of Reeds," not The Red Sea.
I encourage you both to look it up as the scientific data is astounding, right down to what event transpired "physically" parting the sea (and yes, the layers of silt have been examined and it has been proven that during the time of Moses, the sea water did part from a strip of land that connects the two continents Moses was traveling through). It will be up to both of you to determin whether or not it was merely good timing on Moses to be at this particular place just in time for a natural event, or if the natural event occurred because Moses was there.
As for Noah, there is scientific research that questions if Noah was an ancient Sumarian, history suggests he was. And even more on the "Great Flood," that assertains that at "Noah's" time, there was a large flood (can't recall the name of the body of water), that would have been so large that it, if out on it in a boat, you would not be able to see land and it would seem that the entire Earth would have been flooded. And another that shows how the story of Noah exists is numerous cultures, even in some that are extremely primative, outside of main stream society and influence. With that, they are now searching new areas for the arc.
I think what science lacks that faith doesn't is that science is less giving. If you state a box is 4 x 4 and it actually measure 4 x 3 3/4, science immedietly dismisses it as inaccurate and "wrong." Those who have faith make an allowance for the innacuracy of man, the human mistake. There is a slight bit of irony in that, especially when you see how many mistakes science has made.
I watched an interview (wish I could recall his name) by a respectable scientist who stated he was driven to disprove the Bible, but all he learned while trying to do so was that it contained more information that simply could not be disputed than anything he ever learned in science. Perhaps he was smart enough to know that humans exagerate events and did not penalize the Bible as a whole based on that, but merely went with the concrete substance of the Bible instead.
Originally posted by Aelfinn Originally posted by Mylon Quite a few different conversations going on here! Wow.
The OP, or at least the editorial quoted there, is right in that Leviticus is full of silly laws. I think it's all bogus, but for people to selectively follow/enforce them based on personal preference is hypocritical and despicable. If one can tell me they believe in something in particular and stick to it, I might have a shred of respect and understanding, but if they believe in something only to justify bigotry and hatred, I hold a mixture of contempt for their intolerance and sympathy for their lack of ability to understand the greater picture.
I understand the viewpoint of most evangelical Christians: they honestly believe they are helping people by saving them from hell. Heck, a Christian _has_ to be evangelical or otherwise he's not a very kind person at all. A non-evangelical Christian is like, "Yeah, you're driving without your seatbelt down the highway at 200 mph while trying to read a map to find out where you're going, but I respect you so keep on trucking!" They know another human being is very likely to go to hell, but they don't do anything! If they really believed in their dogma, which is that hell is so bad, and that they must love (help) their fellow man, they have to be evangelical, or they really don't believe one of those 2 principles.So, no other kind of christian tries to convert anyone? Evangelicals do not have the most agressive recruiting program on the planet, in fact, last I checked, they were losing people. Not too surprising there, most I've met are comeplete nutjobs."Evangelical" is not a sect. It's what a person does. The act of trying to convert someone is evangelizing. Someone who actively converts other is evangelical. Regardless of sect. Oh, and not all evangelical Christians stand in large crowds shouting at everyone telling them they're going to hell.
I do not understand the viewpoint of the hate-mongering gays-are-second-class-citizens type people. They try and justify their hatred using laws from a book of supersition that they only hold these people to, and not themselves. If they really followed those laws themselves, then they are respectable. Their goal may not be, but they think they are doing the right thing and can be educated better. The people that don't follow these laws either do it knowingly, or really don't know any better and don't even try to know any better.You are vilifying a lot of people with this statement, I doubt it is true for all of them. Although I do agree with you on the ones that it does apply to.Life is hard enough. We don't need to start shouting and hating at each other. If these people really thought gays were committing such a horrible act, they'd try and guide them, not beat them up, throw rocks at them, engage in any other kind of discrimination, or actively pass legislation that gets in their way. There is no excuse for being mean.
Originally posted by Draenor that's an interesting take on evangelicals from a non Christian view sorry, I'm assuming that you aren't an evangelical christian due to the way you wrote that...if I'm wrong then I appologize.
Yeah, I'm a non-Christian. But I understand the point of evangelizing. By knowing someone's viewpoints, it's somewhat easier to discuss with them... I still don't quite get the whole god viewpoint. I think it has a lot to do with love, and love isn't very rational. And yes, people can love even fictional beings.
Originally posted by PlanoMM while i respect both of your opinions, ive met me share of "nutjobs" that werent christians. and yes, some people to do willingly ignore some facts, its not true of everyone. and call me a bad person, but i couldnt care less where any of you go when all is said and done. lol. not much of a recruiter, eh? meh, oO well. w/e.
Haha, I thought from your posts that you were an atheist like myself? I figure there's no where to go but the grave after death, but that means I also believe that the life here and now is all we have, and we have to cherish it while we can. Which means getting people away from silly dogmas that breed hate and discrimination.
I mean, Christians think that these other people are going to hell and lash out or whatever, but if we all got along, we might not even need heaven because Earth would be a nice place to be too.
As for the comments on being gay and lesbian, it is next to impossible to take the "God made me this way" attitude. If you believe in God, then you would know you are a spiritual being. The spirit/soul is not a sexual entity, human flesh is. It is a choice. You choose to allow the human flesh to have more dominance in your life than the non-sexual spirit/soul. That's on you.
For atheists and agnostics....I don't believe there is such a thing. If you put even the worst atheist in a life death situation, they will and do pray even if in sheer desperation. I'd refer you to some to ask, but they're all dead.
Quite frankly, while the science/faith debate was very interesting, the whole gay topic miffs me to no end. I am so sick of having gay rights shoved down my throat. To toss it in with religion is a huge insult. I don't care if you want to be gay, straight, have three-somes or do it with your cousin while your daddy watches. Sex is a private matter and should remain private (you can go answer for what you've been up to, don't ask me to stand beside you on that day and say, "I said it was ok" because I sure as hell won't).
Which brings me to something you should seriousely consider. Why should I respect your rights when your treading all over mine? You don't see me running around with "PROUD TO BE STRAIGHT" stickers on my car. Why should I have to be subjected to your rainbows (which offend me as the rainbow represents God's promise not to flood the world and destory mankind, not your right to be gay). That in itself tells me that what you're doing is NOT appropriate, at least have more respect and chose a different "Hey, I'm gay" emblem. Makes me wonder who the mastermind was behind it.
Oh boy...please think before I type? /sigh...it's like this Babbuun(I thought that this thread was over but since others insist on keeping it going)...I don't consider Evolution to be science...do you know why? Because it isn't based on any solid observable evidence...that's not science, it's guess work. Evolution isn't based on observable facts, it's based on things that people observed and then made guesses about. This is my opinion about evolutionary "science" And my opinion is that being a Christian is no more of a religion than being an evolutionist. Empirical evidence as you are putting it, isn't science, it's guess work based on minimal observations and a whole lot of assumptions...and please, I've never given you the "think before you type" crap..so don't give it to me. I don't post about this topic without giving thought to my words.
PlanoMM. The above post by Draenor is dodging something. I ask him how religion is empirical and he goes on to say evolution is just a loosely based model/theory(something which I've said myself) that comes together from some factual (similarities in organisms, adaptability, geographical distribution, limited paleontology) and a lot of speculative evidence (bringing it all together to mean evolution and filling in enormous gaps) from science. He doesn't say anything about religion being empirical although that was the original subject. He also tries to move the subject elsewhere by implying I'm a bad person due to me telling him somewhat arrogantly to "think before he types"(while you on the other hand practically laughed in my face ).
you say that you dont believe in evolution, yet you cant believe in creationism. however, you are basing all info leading to evolution being right on "empirical science" which to you is factual. kk, heres something for you then. if all science is based on facts, is the "oorta cloud" a fact or what? what evidence is there to support such a thing. this is science. so its fact, right? is the "oorta cloud" a fact? if it is, what is the evidence of it? if you say that its a theory, then doesnt that mean that there isnt any evidence to support it? and if so, doesnt that mean that its speculation? and if its speculation, hows that factual or empirical science? until you can answer that empirically, dont bother answering at all. dont dodge the question. dont write it off as irrelavent, because its very relavent to science being "empirical" as you suggest. and if you admit that its a speculative science and not empirical, then you have to admit that its based on faith in a theory, which is no different than basing faith on the Bible. except that basing faith in the Bible makes more sense since its not based on speculation. and any attempt to dodge or downplay this very important issue will be called out.
this is the question that i wanted answered. you failed to answer it, in fact, you did exactly what i figured you would. dance around it and pretend its irrelavent. ill even highlight the important parts green so you can see what i want you to answer.
I am not saying I can't believe in creationism. I'm just saying the very foundation of the theory is too shaky for me to take it seriously at this stage in time. The Oort cloud is a shaky theory created by astronomers. The Oort cloud emits no light, so it would be impossible to observe (I know, convenient). The Oort cloud is supported by what we do know about the amount and the nature of comets. Creation has no real explanation for comets. Astronomy is not going to be a completely imperical science in a long time due to it's scale and implications. Comets can, however, come from other places than the Oorta cloud or from an extremely young universe.
proof once again that you never checked those sites, creationism is not a theory. its based on the Bible. it came from somewhere. evolution came from nowhere, the minds of men and women that wanted to try to disprove the Bible. some of them have actually admitted that that was there ultimate goal. Oo and thats not an answer, that is dodging the question. the orange is the dodge. the red is admitting what i knew youd say. so, you admit that the oort cloud is a "shaky" theory (your words, not mine), then explain that its something that has no evidence. that sounds like speculation to me. then you go on to say that it makes more sense, even though you admitted that were pulling shyt out of our arses. but the Biblical model doesnt even have an explanation, lol, proof once again, that you didnt check the sites that have been put up here, because you would know that creationism does actually have a logical explanation of comets and such. and then you even admit that comets may be explained by a young universe. contradiction, much?
I never said I can't believe in creationism. I said I don't currently consider it a viable option due to it's shaky background. After all people centuries, not to mention millenia, ago had very different perceptions of the world. To me the empirical science I consider "true"(and by true I don't mean blind, it's possible everything we know can be proven wrong), is the stuff that I've observed to be reality in laboratory experiments or random trials in real life(basic physics, chemistry, biology). I do not consider the Oort cloud or evolution to be anything more than models based around trusting that same basic empirical science. The gaps may be filled with utter bullcrap, or very accurate speculation. All I know is, over time, these theories will either gain or lose credibility and be replaced or reinforced.
I also didn't say the Oort cloud didn't have any evidence. It does (a bit too conveniently, I agree) explain the factual evidence we have gathered from comets and asteroids.
I do not consider not having a black/white, true/false hyperbolised vision of the origins of our existence to be dodging a question. The only thing I dodged was giving a FINAL opinion on the subject. After all I'm not an astronomer with unlimited knowledge about the universe(not saying that astronomers have unlimited knowledge but that I would need to have unlimited knowledge to make a FINAL opinion).
The bible came from somewhere, the minds of men. Who put it in the minds of men can be debated, but the minds of men that it came from were very different in terms of logic and reasoning than what the minds of men are today (much thanks to public education which you so ardently bash for being completely biased towards evolution). I do not hold a grudge against anyone who wants to disprove anything, be it a bible, the fundamentals of science, the fact that I should not be executed on sight. If they come up with enough empirical evidence to support their claim, and the empirical evidence can be tested by others under controlled conditions, I'll have to agree with them(even if it leads to me being executed on sight). Scientists usually don't disprove things out of spite. Or at least it is looked down upon in the scientific community. If someone goes on to present valid information about how the bible is or could be mistaken, you'd do best to listen. At least the major churches of today have, and they're keeping up with our technological society just fine.
I said comets may be explained by a young universe. It's not supported by the bulk, or even a sizeable minority of the information gathered up 'til now, but I'm not closing out the possibility. Again I see no contradicition in this. And I do think the creationist sites are self-contradictory, and I'm not the only one (read kaibigan's posts).
Think about it for a second...seashells die and are presumably burried where mount everest is now...and then over hundreds millions of years, earthquakes and planetary shift cause mount everest to rise to a magnificent height, meanwhile those seashells remain intact?
This is your assumption of how it happened. A planetary shift is not really a "shift" as you assume. Shift is a movement that has an unfortunate connotation towards speed. The continental plate forming Mt.Everest will have suffered in the gradual (and by gradual I mean extremely slow.. millions of years(except you don't believe in millions of years, how unfortunate)) shifting of plates, however in the formation of mountains, it is not the top of the continental plate that suffers, but the bottom, which did not contain the fossils in question. To clarify a bit more, continental plates are extremely thick(~100km). Somehow I doubt the dig on mount everest was this deep. Also the seashells were NOT buried where mount everest is now, they were buried in a place that moved along with the continental plate that formed mount everest.
I hope I've dodged your points and questions as well as my skill allows me to, again.
Originally posted by PlanoMM while i respect both of your opinions, ive met me share of "nutjobs" that werent christians. and yes, some people to do willingly ignore some facts, its not true of everyone. and call me a bad person, but i couldnt care less where any of you go when all is said and done. lol. not much of a recruiter, eh? meh, oO well. w/e.
Haha, I thought from your posts that you were an atheist like myself? I figure there's no where to go but the grave after death, but that means I also believe that the life here and now is all we have, and we have to cherish it while we can. Which means getting people away from silly dogmas that breed hate and discrimination.
I mean, Christians think that these other people are going to hell and lash out or whatever, but if we all got along, we might not even need heaven because Earth would be a nice place to be too.
the fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. im no fool. btw, religion is not the driving force behind hate. human nature is. athiests lead violent protests too. athiests kill and rob people too. to say that its all religion based is foolish, IMO. i do however, agree that if we all took a step back and gave this life more credit and lived it like its the only one we get and loved everyone and respected everyone, it would be a great place.
Originally posted by Babbuun PlanoMM. The above post by Draenor is dodging something. I ask him how religion is empirical and he goes on to say evolution is just a loosely based model/theory(something which I've said myself) that comes together from some factual (similarities in organisms, adaptability, geographical distribution, limited paleontology) and a lot of speculative evidence (bringing it all together to mean evolution and filling in enormous gaps) from science. He doesn't say anything about religion being empirical although that was the original subject. He also tries to move the subject elsewhere by implying I'm a bad person due to me telling him somewhat arrogantly to "think before he types"(while you on the other hand practically laughed in my face ).
not really sure why you addressed this to me when clearly this was a debate between you and Draenor. and frankly, i read both sides, i wouldnt say he dodged anything. he answered your questions as well if not more on topic than you have yet to answer mine. also, i pointblank asked you to not dodge me question. i see nowhere in your post to him where you asked him not to dodge the question. so even if you feel that he did. so what? not relevant to the topic at hand.
you say that you dont believe in evolution, yet you cant believe in creationism. however, you are basing all info leading to evolution being right on "empirical science" which to you is factual. kk, heres something for you then. if all science is based on facts, is the "oorta cloud" a fact or what? what evidence is there to support such a thing. this is science. so its fact, right? is the "oorta cloud" a fact? if it is, what is the evidence of it? if you say that its a theory, then doesnt that mean that there isnt any evidence to support it? and if so, doesnt that mean that its speculation? and if its speculation, hows that factual or empirical science? until you can answer that empirically, dont bother answering at all. dont dodge the question. dont write it off as irrelavent, because its very relavent to science being "empirical" as you suggest. and if you admit that its a speculative science and not empirical, then you have to admit that its based on faith in a theory, which is no different than basing faith on the Bible. except that basing faith in the Bible makes more sense since its not based on speculation. and any attempt to dodge or downplay this very important issue will be called out.
i never said I can't believe in creationism. I said I don't currently consider it a viable option due to it's shaky background. After all people centuries, not to mention millenia, ago had very different perceptions of the world. To me the empirical science I consider "true"(and by true I don't mean blind, it's possible everything we know can be proven wrong), is the stuff that I've observed to be reality in laboratory experiments or random trials in real life(basic physics, chemistry, biology). I do not consider the Oort cloud or evolution to be anything more than models based around trusting that same basic empirical science. The gaps may be filled with utter bullcrap, or very accurate speculation. All I know is, over time, these theories will either gain or lose credibility and be replaced or reinforced.
not considering it a "viable" option, to me, is saying you dont and cant believe in it. dont see how thats such a stretch. the highlighted orange is the dodge. how can you say that? what evidence is there for the oort cloud. its pure speculation based on what we think we know about the nature of comets. speculation based on what we believe we know...... get this yet? what we think we know. thats not empirical, even by your measurements. so therefore, its logical to say that, the oort cloud is a theory that has no evidence to support it. thats a faith. i honestly cant understand why this is that hard to grasp. see the highlighted yellow. so this is your blanket statement. we dont know and cant prove it. so we make ASSumptions based on what we believe to be true. this is not empirical science. btw, your blanket statement of faith in science are no different then if i were to use the "God said it, so i believe it." arguement. which by now, you should be very aware of the fact that i havent used that statement once.
I also didn't say the Oort cloud didn't have any evidence. It does (a bit too conveniently, I agree) explain the factual evidence we have gathered from comets and asteroids.
care to give any examples of evidence to support the oort cloud? btw, you actually did say that its impossible to observe any evidence of an oort cloud. reread some of your previous posts.
I do not consider not having a black/white, true/false hyperbolised vision of the origins of our existence to be dodging a question. The only thing I dodged was giving a FINAL opinion on the subject. After all I'm not an astronomer with unlimited knowledge about the universe(not saying that astronomers have unlimited knowledge but that I would need to have unlimited knowledge to make a FINAL opinion).
im not talking about hyperbolised visions of the origins of our existence. im talking about you stating emphaticly that evolution is based on empirical science. that you have dodged several times now. and then you issue a blanket statement with the "giving a FINAL opinion on the subject." you liken it to having unlimited knowledge, lol. that is a blanket statement, not an answer. all im asking for here is true or false. is the oort cloud based on empirical science or not? thats what im looking for. i know ill never get the straight answer out of you about this. but that just reinforces me points, not destroys them. see, basing me beliefs on the Bible and a young universe, i have a very simple and logical explanation of the comets issue. and it certainly fits into what we actually do know and observe about comets. and we dont even have to make up fictitous oort clouds to explain it away.
The bible came from somewhere, the minds of men. Who put it in the minds of men can be debated, but the minds of men that it came from were very different in terms of logic and reasoning than what the minds of men are today (much thanks to public education which you so ardently bash for being completely biased towards evolution). I do not hold a grudge against anyone who wants to disprove anything, be it a bible, the fundamentals of science, the fact that I should not be executed on sight. If they come up with enough empirical evidence to support their claim, and the empirical evidence can be tested by others under controlled conditions, I'll have to agree with them(even if it leads to me being executed on sight). Scientists usually don't disprove things out of spite. Or at least it is looked down upon in the scientific community. If someone goes on to present valid information about how the bible is or could be mistaken, you'd do best to listen. At least the major churches of today have, and they're keeping up with our technological society just fine.
the orange i somewhat agree with. however, maybe you already know this, but the minds of the men that wrote the Bible are even very different from each other. it was written by 46 different men over a span of centuries. albeit, they flow as if they were written by the same man at different stages of his life. strange, isnt it? now read two scientific papers written during the same year using the same equipment doing the same experiment by two different scientists. similar? yes. its so funny how very different they can be. yes, i have examples. im not arguing that there arent descrepencies in the writing styles of the men of the Bible. but then again, that could just be chalked up to your own admission that there are multiple translations of the same text. but even at that, it all fits together and flows. and never once has the Bible ever had to be rewritten to account for new findings. its still as accurate as it was 1000s of years ago. the highlighted text in red is completely false. history proves this. i dont even need to justify this false statement with proof. read your history. the text highlighted in blue is just funny. the catholic church adopted the big bang theory in the 1950s, and now the scientific community is moving away from that theory as more and more evidence comes forth to prove it false. how has the catholic church benefited from accepting a theory that is being rejected 50 years later by the very people that purposed it. lol. kinda looks to me like that might reflect worse on the church than if they would have just rejected it in the 1950s and not come out looking like idiots.
I said comets may be explained by a young universe. It's not supported by the bulk, or even a sizeable minority of the information gathered up 'til now, but I'm not closing out the possibility. Again I see no contradicition in this. And I do think the creationist sites are self-contradictory, and I'm not the only one (read kaibigan's posts).
Think about it for a second...seashells die and are presumably burried where mount everest is now...and then over hundreds millions of years, earthquakes and planetary shift cause mount everest to rise to a magnificent height, meanwhile those seashells remain intact?
really dont see how that proves that the creationism sites are self-contradictory, lol. i could quote every poster that agrees with me as proof that your wrong, but that doesnt make you wrong, does it? if it does, then i can do it. but i dont think it will matter. dont see why you would have thought that this proves anything. then again, if i couldnt figure out how to argue me own beliefs, i might bring in someone elses posts to prove and back me arguement. still only shows that your dodging instead of answering. and most everyone on this site are smart enough to see it for what it is. so i dont think i need to dwell on it much.
This is your assumption of how it happened. A planetary shift is not really a "shift" as you assume. Shift is a movement that has an unfortunate connotation towards speed. The continental plate forming Mt.Everest will have suffered in the gradual (and by gradual I mean extremely slow.. millions of years(except you don't believe in millions of years, how unfortunate)) shifting of plates, however in the formation of mountains, it is not the top of the continental plate that suffers, but the bottom, which did not contain the fossils in question. To clarify a bit more, continental plates are extremely thick(~100km). Somehow I doubt the dig on mount everest was this deep. Also the seashells were NOT buried where mount everest is now, they were buried in a place that moved along with the continental plate that formed mount everest.
no, the point of Draenors arguement is that after millions of years of shifting and sifting and such, its doubtful that the clams that died then would still be right on top. they would buried so deep. plus youre missing the obvious. the clams were of the same type that we find today and in our time. so unless youre going to suggest that clams are the only creature that never evolved over millions of years. then that arguement makes no sense.
I hope I've dodged your points and questions as well as my skill allows me to, again. and yes, youve bested yourself in this post. you should go pro.
not really sure why you addressed this to me when clearly this was a debate between you and Draenor. and frankly, i read both sides, i wouldnt say he dodged anything. he answered your questions as well if not more on topic than you have yet to answer mine. also, i pointblank asked you to not dodge me question. i see nowhere in your post to him where you asked him not to dodge the question. so even if you feel that he did. so what? not relevant to the topic at hand.
I posted it since I wanted to show you what dodging an arguement/question really is. I told him he was talking utter bull about religion being empirical. He didn't reply to this, but went on to say evolution is on a loose basis and that I was being rude when I told him to "think about what you type".
not considering it a "viable" option, to me, is saying you dont and cant believe in it.
Can't is too strong an expression. I would like to think there's nothing I CAN'T believe. I shove creationism aside because it is a very hypothetical theory that doesn't agree with certain empirical science. I'm not saying it isn't true. I'm saying it is very unlikely by my logic(I'm one man and my logic isn't infallible, that's a given).
I do not consider the Oort cloud or evolution to be anything more than models based around trusting that same basic empirical science. not considering it a "viable" option, to me, is saying you dont and cant believe in it. dont see how thats such a stretch. the highlighted orange is the dodge. how can you say that? what evidence is there for the oort cloud. The Oort cloud is based around empirical (as empirical as we can acquire with modern technology, probes, telescopes and such) observation of the universe. It is a model used by scientists to explain the observations they've made. It makes sense to people in that field of science, and until it doesn't (empirical evidence shows something else as a more plausible solution) it will be used.
how can you say that? what evidence is there for the oort cloud. its pure speculation based on what we think we know about the nature of comets. speculation based on what we believe we know...... get this yet? what we think we know.
It's speculation based on the physics and chemistry we know. Those two are empirically proven(not infallible but empirically proven). I get what you're getting at. It's speculative and highly likely untrue. Yes it is.
thats not empirical, even by your measurements.
It is based on what we know of empirical science. No part of the theory assumes the laws of physics or chemistry to change. Holy books do.
so therefore, its logical to say that, the oort cloud is a theory that has no evidence to support it. thats a faith. i honestly cant understand why this is that hard to grasp. see the highlighted yellow. so this is your blanket statement. we dont know and cant prove it. so we make ASSumptions based on what we believe to be true. this is not empirical science.
You should by now have realized my point about empirical scientists. They assume things in order to organize their studies. The assumptions(assumption not belief, not faith, not "knowledge") fit with what has been proven in the past. This IS a part of empirical science. The end result may not match our assumption. It's called trial and error and it's a core method of any empirical science. The only thing with evolution and astronomy is they're such gargantuan fields that the trial lasts a whole lot longer . At the meantime parallel trials are also being pursued. With evolution and the Oort cloud, they're the most plausible trials that are currently being investigated. Their error margins are fluctuating through findings and research. When the error margin of some other theory becomes less than them, the other theory will become the prevalent theory concerning the fields of astronomy or origins of the species.
care to give any examples of evidence to support the oort cloud? btw, you actually did say that its impossible to observe any evidence of an oort cloud. reread some of your previous posts.
Visual evidence is not the only type of evidence. In case you haven't noticed, blind people also exist on the planet. And I said if the Oort cloud is not visible, it's not visible because it's a bunch of particles that don't emit light. It's a physical explanation instead of an occult explanation. Although I still do think it's far-fetched and convenient it's still plausible considering we don't have much else to go on concerning comets.
im not talking about hyperbolised visions of the origins of our existence. im talking about you stating emphaticly that evolution is based on empirical science. that you have dodged several times now. and then you issue a blanket statement with the "giving a FINAL opinion on the subject." you liken it to having unlimited knowledge, lol. that is a blanket statement, not an answer. all im asking for here is true or false. is the oort cloud based on empirical science or not? thats what im looking for. i know ill never get the straight answer out of you about this. but that just reinforces me points, not destroys them. see, basing me beliefs on the Bible and a young universe, i have a very simple and logical explanation of the comets issue. and it certainly fits into what we actually do know and observe about comets. and we dont even have to make up fictitous oort clouds to explain it away.
I'm not dodging anything. Evolution is based on empirical science and the speculation brought by the unexplained gaps in the information we are currently able to acquire. The unexplained gaps are subsequently explained by hypotheses of what we know from empirical science. The model of evolution abides by the laws of physics, chemistry and biology. Once these disprove it, it will be no more. Evolution is based on empirical science, but it isn't empirical science. It's a MODEL based on empirical science. How many times must I repeat it? Based on empirical science =! empirical science.
I have a simple solution? Well isn't that convenient? I don't have to think about anything because I have a simple solution. The Oort cloud explains astronomy in similar way to the Bible, except the bible does not follow the current observed laws of physics, chemistry and biology nor has it been proven by empirical methods to be anything near what it claims to be.
albeit, they flow as if they were written by the same man at different stages of his life. strange, isnt it?
It isn't strange. Especially when you can't make a statement like this not having spoken archaic (the language and it's interpretation has changed) languages from 2000 years ago. However the people who translate bibles do follow a similar trail of thought, strange, isn't it?
but even at that, it all fits together and flows. Also "flow as if"... Come on... "It all fits together". These are personal emotional opinions. I can read some Truman Capote, Stephen King and Terry Pratchett in a row and say "it all fits together" because in my mind the reading session was a success and I was highly amused. You do realize the lingo you use has sentimental connotations don't you(well the fact that you used lol a lot in the beginning should at least prove this to you)? You are the one attaching emotion to subject matters where it shouldn't exist. A lot of the things you say are strongly emotional, something which scientists should not exhibit in their studies. Scientists do not prove things out of spite. If this were the case, scientists would have proven politicians to be brainless monkeys and scientists to be the ultimate golden boy of paranormal evolution(a place like heaven) where god told them to rule the world. Scientists(at least in medicine and microbiology) have codes/oaths to remain unbiased and pursue knowledge, not personal gain.
then again, if i couldnt figure out how to argue me own beliefs, i might bring in someone elses posts to prove and back me arguement. still only shows that your dodging instead of answering. and most everyone on this site are smart enough to see it for what it is. so i dont think i need to dwell on it much.
Well I've already said the bulk of the scientific community don't lean towards creationist beliefs, and they've probably had the creationists bringing in the big guns for them. Just thought I'd mention kaibigan's posts since they're here on the thread and he has delved into the matter. He believes in a higher power too, so it makes his posts easily approachable(although you guys were quick to dismiss his viewpoints since the videos he watched weren't "the right ones". The videos and statements aimed to confuse and misdirect people who don't have the time to delve into empirical science. They're extremely populistic hyperboles with a hell of a lot of sentimental statements.). You accuse me of dodging, but I've yet to hear any proof of me doing such a thing. You're distorting my statements to appear as such and reading them like you want to.
no, the point of Draenors arguement is that after millions of years of shifting and sifting and such, its doubtful that the clams that died then would still be right on top. they would buried so deep. plus youre missing the obvious. the clams were of the same type that we find today and in our time. so unless youre going to suggest that clams are the only creature that never evolved over millions of years. then that arguement makes no sense. Easy answer. Erosion. Erosion is what happens to mountains. Mountains don't gather sediment, instead they erode. The Appalachian mountains are an example of a high mountain range that has eroded. The Himalayas are made from limestone. What happens to limestone when it rains? Certain creatures have been observed through paleontology to have habited the earth for extremely long amounts of time, so the existence of clams of the same structure as modern ones wouldn't be a surprise to me. Some species are more succesful than others.
and yes, youve bested yourself in this post. you should go pro.
Originally posted by Babbuun not really sure why you addressed this to me when clearly this was a debate between you and Draenor. and frankly, i read both sides, i wouldnt say he dodged anything. he answered your questions as well if not more on topic than you have yet to answer mine. also, i pointblank asked you to not dodge me question. i see nowhere in your post to him where you asked him not to dodge the question. so even if you feel that he did. so what? not relevant to the topic at hand.
I posted it since I wanted to show you what dodging an arguement/question really is. I told him he was talking utter bull about religion being empirical. He didn't reply to this, but went on to say evolution is on a loose basis and that I was being rude when I told him to "think about what you type".
still dont see how you think this proves anything. and it was kinda rude for you to say that. you have been veiling your subtle insults toward the Bible and creationism since we started this convo. so it doesnt surprise me in the least.
not considering it a "viable" option, to me, is saying you dont and cant believe in it.
Can't is too strong an expression. I would like to think there's nothing I CAN'T believe. I shove creationism aside because it is a very hypothetical theory that doesn't agree with certain empirical science. I'm not saying it isn't true. I'm saying it is very unlikely by my logic(I'm one man and my logic isn't infallible, that's a given).
you cant/dont/w/e, it all means the same thing. you dont believe in creationism. why the nitpicking on each word? btw, creationism is not a "hypothetical theory" at all. you can think that all you want, but its not.
I do not consider the Oort cloud or evolution to be anything more than models based around trusting that same basic empirical science. not considering it a "viable" option, to me, is saying you dont and cant believe in it. dont see how thats such a stretch. the highlighted orange is the dodge. how can you say that? what evidence is there for the oort cloud. The Oort cloud is based around empirical (as empirical as we can acquire with modern technology, probes, telescopes and such) observation of the universe. It is a model used by scientists to explain the observations they've made. It makes sense to people in that field of science, and until it doesn't (empirical evidence shows something else as a more plausible solution) it will be used.
the oort cloud is not based around empirical observations. there are no observations of it. show me where its a "plausible" solution. its a convienent solution based on pure fiction. and since there is no way to prove or disprove it, it sticks. such is the way with speculative science.
how can you say that? what evidence is there for the oort cloud. its pure speculation based on what we think we know about the nature of comets. speculation based on what we believe we know...... get this yet? what we think we know.
It's speculation based on the physics and chemistry we know. Those two are empirically proven(not infallible but empirically proven). I get what you're getting at. It's speculative and highly likely untrue. Yes it is.
so you admit that its speculative? finally. thats what i needed as an answer. what lab tests have been conducted to prove the existence of the oort cloud? cant use that as empirical science if you cant prove it. remember, empirical=fact.
thats not empirical, even by your measurements.
It is based on what we know of empirical science. No part of the theory assumes the laws of physics or chemistry to change. Holy books do.
see, veiled insult to those who believe in the "Holy book". honestly, if you cant have an adult convo without the veiled insults, then maybe were done here. you dont see me insulting you or your beliefs, unless you consider me defending me beliefs an insult. and just so i know, where in the "Holy book" does it say that the laws of physics and chemistry change? just so i know where youre getting that.
so therefore, its logical to say that, the oort cloud is a theory that has no evidence to support it. thats a faith. i honestly cant understand why this is that hard to grasp. see the highlighted yellow. so this is your blanket statement. we dont know and cant prove it. so we make ASSumptions based on what we believe to be true. this is not empirical science.
You should by now have realized my point about empirical scientists. They assume things in order to organize their studies. The assumptions(assumption not belief, not faith, not "knowledge") fit with what has been proven in the past. This IS a part of empirical science. The end result may not match our assumption. It's called trial and error and it's a core method of any empirical science. The only thing with evolution and astronomy is they're such gargantuan fields that the trial lasts a whole lot longer . At the meantime parallel trials are also being pursued. With evolution and the Oort cloud, they're the most plausible trials that are currently being investigated. Their error margins are fluctuating through findings and research. When the error margin of some other theory becomes less than them, the other theory will become the prevalent theory concerning the fields of astronomy or origins of the species.
yes, i got your point several pages ago. i dont share your opinion. so of course im going to argue with it. this is a discussion. youre on one side of the debate and im on the other side. you can repeat yourself till youre blue in the face that the only thing you will have acomplished is amusing me. me point is that if the scientists that are practicing empirical science are ASSUMING, then they have moved from empirical to speculation. speculation is not empirical. you said it yourself. oO and assumption is faith/belief. "The only thing with evolution and astronomy is they're such gargantuan fields that the trial lasts a whole lot longer " and in the meantime we teach our children that its based solely on facts. so they grow up believing that evolution and the oort cloud is fact. so all of their empirical sciences are based on this assumption. so then the next thing they study they use this "fact" to base their new assumptions on. see where that leads? this is where we are now.
care to give any examples of evidence to support the oort cloud? btw, you actually did say that its impossible to observe any evidence of an oort cloud. reread some of your previous posts.
Visual evidence is not the only type of evidence. In case you haven't noticed, blind people also exist on the planet. And I said if the Oort cloud is not visible, it's not visible because it's a bunch of particles that don't emit light. It's a physical explanation instead of an occult explanation. Although I still do think it's far-fetched and convenient it's still plausible considering we don't have much else to go on concerning comets.
youre right, there is many different types of evidence. ironic, that there is none that support the theory of the oort cloud. its pure fiction.
im not talking about hyperbolised visions of the origins of our existence. im talking about you stating emphaticly that evolution is based on empirical science. that you have dodged several times now. and then you issue a blanket statement with the "giving a FINAL opinion on the subject." you liken it to having unlimited knowledge, lol. that is a blanket statement, not an answer. all im asking for here is true or false. is the oort cloud based on empirical science or not? thats what im looking for. i know ill never get the straight answer out of you about this. but that just reinforces me points, not destroys them. see, basing me beliefs on the Bible and a young universe, i have a very simple and logical explanation of the comets issue. and it certainly fits into what we actually do know and observe about comets. and we dont even have to make up fictitous oort clouds to explain it away.
I'm not dodging anything. Evolution is based on empirical science and the speculation brought by the unexplained gaps in the information we are currently able to acquire. The unexplained gaps are subsequently explained by hypotheses of what we know from empirical science. The model of evolution abides by the laws of physics, chemistry and biology. Once these disprove it, it will be no more. Evolution is based on empirical science, but it isn't empirical science. It's a MODEL based on empirical science. How many times must I repeat it? Based on empirical science =! empirical science.
if evolution was based on empirical sciences, there would be no need for speculation, the fossil record is there. new fossils are found everyday. none of them explain the gaps in the info. the Bible does. but then you dont wanna hear about that. "model of evolution abides by the laws of physics, chemistry and biology". completely false statement. you ever seen anything change species? do we have any.....ANY evidence that it has ever happened? we have none. and dont site Natural selection, because that is a fact that supports adaption, not evolution. evolution is very illogical. it assumes that an incredible set of coincidences all worked perfectly in perfect timing to set up precise conditions to be abolutely perfect to not only support life, but to evolve from a single cell organism to multicell organisms to finally evolve into perfectly suited beings with inteligence that can actually determine their own origins. wow, what a coincidence, if its true. in our vast universe, you argue that its probable. sorry but i dont see it. and doubt that i ever will. thats just too many perfect coincidences. this is your version of logical?
I have a simple solution? Well isn't that convenient? I don't have to think about anything because I have a simple solution. The Oort cloud explains astronomy in similar way to the Bible, except the bible does not follow the current observed laws of physics, chemistry and biology nor has it been proven by empirical methods to be anything near what it claims to be.
simple solution !=convenient. fiction that cant be proven(oort cloud) = convenient. again, show me where the Bible doesnt follow the observed laws of physics, chemistry, and biology. here, ill help. biology-Bible says "life is in the blood", thats a true statement. seems to me that you may not know much about the Bible that you bash so much. im not insulting you, idk, maybe you do. but when you make comments like that, it makes me think that you havent ever read the Bible.
albeit, they flow as if they were written by the same man at different stages of his life. strange, isnt it?
It isn't strange. Especially when you can't make a statement like this not having spoken archaic (the language and it's interpretation has changed) languages from 2000 years ago. However the people who translate bibles do follow a similar trail of thought, strange, isn't it?
so now, youre assuming (by empirical methods, no doubt, sarcasm intentional) that instead of accurately translating the Bible, all the translaters have conspired together to make it seem as if it flows. so i cant assume that scientists that admit that they want to disprove the Bible are bias and possibly falsifying info, but you can imply conspiracy with the translation of the best selling book in history. even though there have been literally thousands upon thousands of people involved in translating the original text. ironic, if you ask me. and before you say it, yes, the differing translations arent perfectly aligned with each other. but they never contradict one another. and you can start reading in one version and finish reading in another version and the only thing that you will notice is the difference in writing style. the message is exactly the same in each and every version. also, some of the translations of the Bible were done by nonchristians. hmmmm.........
but even at that, it all fits together and flows. Also "flow as if"... Come on... "It all fits together". These are personal emotional opinions. I can read some Truman Capote, Stephen King and Terry Pratchett in a row and say "it all fits together" because in my mind the reading session was a success and I was highly amused. You do realize the lingo you use has sentimental connotations don't you(well the fact that you used lol a lot in the beginning should at least prove this to you)? You are the one attaching emotion to subject matters where it shouldn't exist. A lot of the things you say are strongly emotional, something which scientists should not exhibit in their studies. Scientists do not prove things out of spite. If this were the case, scientists would have proven politicians to be brainless monkeys and scientists to be the ultimate golden boy of paranormal evolution(a place like heaven) where god told them to rule the world. Scientists(at least in medicine and microbiology) have codes/oaths to remain unbiased and pursue knowledge, not personal gain.
highlighted text in orange is.....wow, i dont know what to say. except that that is the stupidest thing i have ever read. not at all relevant. the Bible is a history of the Jewish people through and upto Christs time. when i said it all fits together, its obvious what i was getting at. if youre not going to take this discussion seriously, then maybe we should just end it. im seriously answering you now, because you wanted to discuss it, or so i thought. i left me "emotional" responses a couple pages ago. Oo and i am very emotional. dont see the relevance of it, tbh. if you were trying to dismiss valid arguements based on me "emotional" responses, its lost on me. emotional !=wrong. btw, ive already stated that im not a scientist. really dont understand your critizism there. youre not a scientist, are you? Oo and i saw an article the other day, scientists have proven that politicians are brainless monkeys. you didnt see it? and scientists do believe that they are the ultimate golden boys of paranormal evolution. as evidenced by the attitude of condesending that most scientist exhibit and those that believe they know something.
then again, if i couldnt figure out how to argue me own beliefs, i might bring in someone elses posts to prove and back me arguement. still only shows that your dodging instead of answering. and most everyone on this site are smart enough to see it for what it is. so i dont think i need to dwell on it much.
Well I've already said the bulk of the scientific community don't lean towards creationist beliefs, and they've probably had the creationists bringing in the big guns for them. Just thought I'd mention kaibigan's posts since they're here on the thread and he has delved into the matter. He believes in a higher power too, so it makes his posts easily approachable(although you guys were quick to dismiss his viewpoints since the videos he watched weren't "the right ones". The videos and statements aimed to confuse and misdirect people who don't have the time to delve into empirical science. They're extremely populistic hyperboles with a hell of a lot of sentimental statements.). You accuse me of dodging, but I've yet to hear any proof of me doing such a thing. You're distorting my statements to appear as such and reading them like you want to.
kaibigans been out of the discussion for many pages, he and i decided to agree to disagree. so it kinda looked like you were trying to bring him back in or something. "The videos and statements aimed to confuse and misdirect people who don't have the time to delve into empirical science." see this is your opinion of creationists. all creationists. this is you dismissing it like you accuse us of doing. the difference is i actually check all the links that evolutionists post. i dont skim it, i dont dismiss it. i check it without bias. yes, i believe what i believe, but i dont dismiss other info contrary. kai and i were talking yesterday, i watched a program on National Geographics called Exodus Revealed. it pretty much stated that the miracles and other things that the Bible says happened prolly didnt happen like the Bible says. but i watched the whole thing, i gleaned from it what i could. and im using direct quotes from you, so i dont see where you think im distorting anything. and ive already pointed out several times where you definitely dodged. so i guess youre going to take this the way you want. w/e.
no, the point of Draenors arguement is that after millions of years of shifting and sifting and such, its doubtful that the clams that died then would still be right on top. they would buried so deep. plus youre missing the obvious. the clams were of the same type that we find today and in our time. so unless youre going to suggest that clams are the only creature that never evolved over millions of years. then that arguement makes no sense. Easy answer. Erosion. Erosion is what happens to mountains. Mountains don't gather sediment, instead they erode. The Appalachian mountains are an example of a high mountain range that has eroded. The Himalayas are made from limestone. What happens to limestone when it rains? Certain creatures have been observed through paleontology to have habited the earth for extremely long amounts of time, so the existence of clams of the same structure as modern ones wouldn't be a surprise to me. Some species are more succesful than others. i dont agree, but this wasnt even me arguement. so ok, you believe what you believe, ill believe whats true, lol. j/k ill believe what i believe. Oo and lastly, no creature has been observed to have evolved.
and yes, youve bested yourself in this post. you should go pro.
Babbuun, I'm done debating you, I have tried to answer your questions, but apparently my answers aren't good enough for you and therefore I must be trying to dodge something. If you're trying to trap me in some sort of inconsistancy in my belief, then you aren't going to find any. I've done nothing but act quite nicely and genuine towards you, despite our difference in beliefs, and yet, for everything that I say, you accuse me of ducking or dodging questions. It is an internet forum, if I wanted to duck and dodge your questions, I would simply refrain from posting.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Comments
______________________________
Well if this is the case why do you keep on replying to these posts? You're making an arguement based on assumption. I could be wanking behind this screen to the awesomeness of what we've written.
natural
selection is a fact, but its not a mechinism for evolution. in order
for evolution to take place, new info needs to be introduced into the
DNA, natural selection is simply a selection of traits based on info
that is already present in the DNA. this is fact.
What we know and don't know about DNA does only goes to prove what we know about DNA. It doesn't go on to prove that God created the universe. We are not empirically capable of testing biological bottlenecks to the extent that evolution is believed to have happened. Until we can, I'm leaving this as undecided, after it I'll either take evolution by natural selection more seriously or disregard it. DNA is not understood far enough to decide what is fact or not. It cannot be tested empirically yet but to a small extent. Hopefully in the future with the advancement of technology we will be able to have a margin of error of less than 1% on these matters.
and
that doesnt sound like leaning toward evolutionary teaching to you?
you quoted that "special creation" is a idea that is put forth, but no
"evidence" was ever quoted at all, but it goes on to quote evidences
for evolution. that would be considered bias, IMO.
Do you know why it is leaning toward evolutionary teaching? Because creationists have failed to produce consistent evidence on their behalf to match that of evolution(You can tell me all about the some random theories that make evolution less likely yet make creation as unlikely(and accumulatively even more unlikely than it was to begin with)). Plain and simple, people who are in this field of science have decided to lean towards a theory that makes more sense regarding the other matters that are handled in biology. I am willing to bet the people who have decided what to teach regarding the origins of our species have weighed all the options.
im
not taking offense to your posts, and im getting your points just
fine. i just dont agree with them. sorry if that bothers you.
I don't think you are getting my point when I have to repeat it five times over. I said my biology books have always mentioned creationism, panspermia, you name it. I had to quote the books and explain my background for you to even start to take me seriously. I take you seriously, because an attitude similar to yours can be found on many people I've met and I am not able to fully comprehend(of course I can label them as "just religious types" or "just stubborn" but I'd rather not).
The thing is creationism DOES NOT have unanomous or consistent (the things on the creationist sites are self-contradictory and their only goal is to deface evolutionary speculation forgetting to mention they're also disproving creation anywhere near to what the bible says) proof from the scientific community. Call them nazis but it's their field of study. They take into consideration everything that CAN be explained. And a deity can't.
here
in the states we can go and send our children to private christian
schools, but im talking about the public school system, not the private
sector.
Yeh. I've lived in Atlanta and Savannah Georgia for 2,5 years and went to a public school. The education was far more distant to the matter of the origin of the species than what I've endured in Finland.
ouch, you gotta pay church taxes? ive never even heard of that before. is it because the country is mainly religious?
Most our country is Lutheran. People not belonging to the church do not have to pay the taxes of course.
the exact same can be argued about science.
Do you mean that science has been embedded into society as a necessary tool? Modern science hasn't existed until the 16th century. What was called science before that was hardly scientific. Religion has needed no proof and has only needed to adapt to current conditions in societies. Empiricism wasn't really around 'til the 16th century.
exactly
what i would expect you to say. however, the Bible does say that the
earth is round. science rejected it, until it was proven.
The bible says a lot of things. Referring to the four corners of the earth and the ends of the earth. A lot of figures of speech are used and figures of speech are easily interpritable to your own ends.
you
say that you dont believe in evolution, yet you cant believe in
creationism. however, you are basing all info leading to evolution
being right on "empirical science" which to you is factual. kk, heres
something for you then. if all science is based on facts, is the
"oorta cloud" a fact or what? what evidence is there to support such a
thing. this is science. so its fact, right? is the "oorta cloud" a
fact? if it is, what is the evidence of it? if you say that its a
theory, then doesnt that mean that there isnt any evidence to support
it? and if so, doesnt that mean that its speculation? and if its
speculation, hows that factual or empirical science? until you can
answer that empirically, dont bother answering at all. dont dodge the
question. dont write it off as irrelavent, because its very relavent
to science being "empirical" as you suggest. and if you admit that its
a speculative science and not empirical, then you have to admit that
its based on faith in a theory, which is no different than basing faith
on the Bible. except that basing faith in the Bible makes more sense
since its not based on speculation. and any attempt to dodge or
downplay this very important issue will be called out.
I am not saying I can't believe in creationism. I'm just saying the very foundation of the theory is too shaky for me to take it seriously at this stage in time. The Oort cloud is a shaky theory created by astronomers. The Oort cloud emits no light, so it would be impossible to observe (I know, convenient). The Oort cloud is supported by what we do know about the amount and the nature of comets. Creation has no real explanation for comets. Astronomy is not going to be a completely imperical science in a long time due to it's scale and implications. Comets can, however, come from other places than the Oorta cloud or from an extremely young universe.
The Oort cloud is not faith, it is a logical explanation that astronomers are currently using as a model for trying to explain how things happen. They don't pray for the mighty Oort cloud to send comets at fundamental religious zealots who are destroying the fabrics of certain middle-eastern and western countries. Faith in the bible is not basing your research on a scientific model(one which many astronomers would be dieing to disprove).
And the bible is not speculation? How do you explain the countless different interpretations of it? Who's right and who's wrong?
however,
with much bias and leading. and im reading these posts exactly as your
writing them, bias included. you are flat out saying that basing ones
beliefs on the Bible and creationism is silly and "illogical". how
exactly can i take that any other way?
I haven't said silly have I? Illogical is what I think it is because I can't see the fundamental logic in it.
bias, much? like i said, until you answer question above, nothing else is gonna matter.
The question being the one about the Oort cloud or the one about all biology teachers telling you evolution is fact? As I said. Theories are not facts. Theories are models that have been based upon some (some theories more than others) facts.
I'm a bit confused about the big question that you hid inside your text. If I've missed the mark, please clarify.
Now you're just going for shock value.
/ignore
what a tard, lol.
______________________________
______________________________
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
The OP, or at least the editorial quoted there, is right in that Leviticus is full of silly laws. I think it's all bogus, but for people to selectively follow/enforce them based on personal preference is hypocritical and despicable. If one can tell me they believe in something in particular and stick to it, I might have a shred of respect and understanding, but if they believe in something only to justify bigotry and hatred, I hold a mixture of contempt for their intolerance and sympathy for their lack of ability to understand the greater picture.
I understand the viewpoint of most evangelical Christians: they honestly believe they are helping people by saving them from hell. Heck, a Christian _has_ to be evangelical or otherwise he's not a very kind person at all. A non-evangelical Christian is like, "Yeah, you're driving without your seatbelt down the highway at 200 mph while trying to read a map to find out where you're going, but I respect you so keep on trucking!" They know another human being is very likely to go to hell, but they don't do anything! If they really believed in their dogma, which is that hell is so bad, and that they must love (help) their fellow man, they have to be evangelical, or they really don't believe one of those 2 principles.
I do not understand the viewpoint of the hate-mongering gays-are-second-class-citizens type people. They try and justify their hatred using laws from a book of supersition that they only hold these people to, and not themselves. If they really followed those laws themselves, then they are respectable. Their goal may not be, but they think they are doing the right thing and can be educated better. The people that don't follow these laws either do it knowingly, or really don't know any better and don't even try to know any better.
that's an interesting take on evangelicals from a non Christian view
sorry, I'm assuming that you aren't an evangelical christian due to the way you wrote that...if I'm wrong then I appologize.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Hemingway
while i respect both of your opinions, ive met me share of "nutjobs" that werent christians. and yes, some people to do willingly ignore some facts, its not true of everyone. and call me a bad person, but i couldnt care less where any of you go when all is said and done. lol. not much of a recruiter, eh? meh, oO well. w/e.
______________________________
Stopped reading at page 12, but will go back and finish all the posts but wanted to chime in with something that is mentioned through pages 11 and 12 of this thread.
I'm no expert by any means, but I do watch/read anything and everything I can get my hands on that deals with science proving or disproving the Bible. Reading the debate between the two of you has been very interesting, but I do see some errors.
As for Moses, Moses did exist. As you both know, Biblical location names differ from the names known today. The "Red Sea" was misinterpretted. The sea Moses "parted" would have actually have been called "The Sea of Reeds," not The Red Sea.
I encourage you both to look it up as the scientific data is astounding, right down to what event transpired "physically" parting the sea (and yes, the layers of silt have been examined and it has been proven that during the time of Moses, the sea water did part from a strip of land that connects the two continents Moses was traveling through). It will be up to both of you to determin whether or not it was merely good timing on Moses to be at this particular place just in time for a natural event, or if the natural event occurred because Moses was there.
As for Noah, there is scientific research that questions if Noah was an ancient Sumarian, history suggests he was. And even more on the "Great Flood," that assertains that at "Noah's" time, there was a large flood (can't recall the name of the body of water), that would have been so large that it, if out on it in a boat, you would not be able to see land and it would seem that the entire Earth would have been flooded. And another that shows how the story of Noah exists is numerous cultures, even in some that are extremely primative, outside of main stream society and influence. With that, they are now searching new areas for the arc.
I think what science lacks that faith doesn't is that science is less giving. If you state a box is 4 x 4 and it actually measure 4 x 3 3/4, science immedietly dismisses it as inaccurate and "wrong." Those who have faith make an allowance for the innacuracy of man, the human mistake. There is a slight bit of irony in that, especially when you see how many mistakes science has made.
I watched an interview (wish I could recall his name) by a respectable scientist who stated he was driven to disprove the Bible, but all he learned while trying to do so was that it contained more information that simply could not be disputed than anything he ever learned in science. Perhaps he was smart enough to know that humans exagerate events and did not penalize the Bible as a whole based on that, but merely went with the concrete substance of the Bible instead.
*goes back to reading the remaining posts*
Haha, I thought from your posts that you were an atheist like myself? I figure there's no where to go but the grave after death, but that means I also believe that the life here and now is all we have, and we have to cherish it while we can. Which means getting people away from silly dogmas that breed hate and discrimination.
I mean, Christians think that these other people are going to hell and lash out or whatever, but if we all got along, we might not even need heaven because Earth would be a nice place to be too.
Two cents:
As for the comments on being gay and lesbian, it is next to impossible to take the "God made me this way" attitude. If you believe in God, then you would know you are a spiritual being. The spirit/soul is not a sexual entity, human flesh is. It is a choice. You choose to allow the human flesh to have more dominance in your life than the non-sexual spirit/soul. That's on you.
For atheists and agnostics....I don't believe there is such a thing. If you put even the worst atheist in a life death situation, they will and do pray even if in sheer desperation. I'd refer you to some to ask, but they're all dead.
Quite frankly, while the science/faith debate was very interesting, the whole gay topic miffs me to no end. I am so sick of having gay rights shoved down my throat. To toss it in with religion is a huge insult. I don't care if you want to be gay, straight, have three-somes or do it with your cousin while your daddy watches. Sex is a private matter and should remain private (you can go answer for what you've been up to, don't ask me to stand beside you on that day and say, "I said it was ok" because I sure as hell won't).
Which brings me to something you should seriousely consider. Why should I respect your rights when your treading all over mine? You don't see me running around with "PROUD TO BE STRAIGHT" stickers on my car. Why should I have to be subjected to your rainbows (which offend me as the rainbow represents God's promise not to flood the world and destory mankind, not your right to be gay). That in itself tells me that what you're doing is NOT appropriate, at least have more respect and chose a different "Hey, I'm gay" emblem. Makes me wonder who the mastermind was behind it.
*growls and walks away from this topic*
-Ashyn
type? /sigh...it's like this Babbuun(I thought that this thread was
over but since others insist on keeping it going)...I don't consider
Evolution to be science...do you know why? Because it isn't based on
any solid observable evidence...that's not science, it's guess work.
Evolution isn't based on observable facts, it's based on things that
people observed and then made guesses about. This is my opinion about
evolutionary "science" And my opinion is that being a Christian is no
more of a religion than being an evolutionist. Empirical evidence as
you are putting it, isn't science, it's guess work based on minimal
observations and a whole lot of assumptions...and please, I've never
given you the "think before you type" crap..so don't give it to me. I
don't post about this topic without giving thought to my words.
PlanoMM. The above post by Draenor is dodging something. I ask him how religion is empirical and he goes on to say evolution is just a loosely based model/theory(something which I've said myself) that comes together from some factual (similarities in organisms, adaptability, geographical distribution, limited paleontology) and a lot of speculative evidence (bringing it all together to mean evolution and filling in enormous gaps) from science. He doesn't say anything about religion being empirical although that was the original subject. He also tries to move the subject elsewhere by implying I'm a bad person due to me telling him somewhat arrogantly to "think before he types"(while you on the other hand practically laughed in my face
you
say that you dont believe in evolution, yet you cant believe in
creationism. however, you are basing all info leading to evolution
being right on "empirical science" which to you is factual. kk, heres something for you then. if all science is based on facts, is the "oorta cloud" a fact or what? what evidence is there to support such a thing. this is science. so its fact, right? is the "oorta cloud" a fact? if it is, what is the evidence of it? if you say that its a theory, then doesnt that mean that there isnt any evidence to support it? and if so, doesnt that mean that its speculation? and if its speculation, hows that factual or empirical science? until you can answer that empirically,
dont bother answering at all. dont dodge the question. dont write it
off as irrelavent, because its very relavent to science being
"empirical" as you suggest. and if you admit that its a speculative
science and not empirical, then you have to admit that its based on
faith in a theory, which is no different than basing faith on the
Bible. except that basing faith in the Bible makes more sense since
its not based on speculation. and any attempt to dodge or downplay
this very important issue will be called out.
this is
the question that i wanted answered. you failed to answer it, in fact,
you did exactly what i figured you would. dance around it and pretend
its irrelavent. ill even highlight the important parts green so you
can see what i want you to answer.
I am not saying I can't believe in creationism. I'm just saying the very foundation of the theory is too shaky for me to take it seriously at this stage in time. The Oort cloud is a shaky theory created by astronomers. The Oort cloud emits no light, so it would be impossible to observe (I know, convenient). The Oort cloud is supported by what we do know about the amount and the nature of comets.
Creation has no real explanation for comets. Astronomy is not going to
be a completely imperical science in a long time due to it's scale and
implications. Comets can, however, come from other places than the
Oorta cloud or from an extremely young universe.
proof
once again that you never checked those sites, creationism is not a
theory. its based on the Bible. it came from somewhere. evolution
came from nowhere, the minds of men and women that wanted to try to
disprove the Bible. some of them have actually admitted that that was
there ultimate goal. Oo and thats not an answer, that is dodging the
question. the orange is the dodge. the red is admitting what i knew
youd say. so, you admit that the oort cloud is a "shaky" theory (your
words, not mine), then explain that its something that has no
evidence. that sounds like speculation to me. then you go on to say
that it makes more sense, even though you admitted that were pulling
shyt out of our arses. but the Biblical model doesnt even have an
explanation, lol, proof once again, that you didnt check the sites that
have been put up here, because you would know that creationism does
actually have a logical explanation of comets and such. and then you
even admit that comets may be explained by a young universe.
contradiction, much?
I never said I can't believe in creationism. I said I don't currently consider it a viable option due to it's shaky background. After all people centuries, not to mention millenia, ago had very different perceptions of the world. To me the empirical science I consider "true"(and by true I don't mean blind, it's possible everything we know can be proven wrong), is the stuff that I've observed to be reality in laboratory experiments or random trials in real life(basic physics, chemistry, biology). I do not consider the Oort cloud or evolution to be anything more than models based around trusting that same basic empirical science. The gaps may be filled with utter bullcrap, or very accurate speculation. All I know is, over time, these theories will either gain or lose credibility and be replaced or reinforced.
I also didn't say the Oort cloud didn't have any evidence. It does (a bit too conveniently, I agree) explain the factual evidence we have gathered from comets and asteroids.
I do not consider not having a black/white, true/false hyperbolised vision of the origins of our existence to be dodging a question. The only thing I dodged was giving a FINAL opinion on the subject. After all I'm not an astronomer with unlimited knowledge about the universe(not saying that astronomers have unlimited knowledge but that I would need to have unlimited knowledge to make a FINAL opinion).
The bible came from somewhere, the minds of men. Who put it in the minds of men can be debated, but the minds of men that it came from were very different in terms of logic and reasoning than what the minds of men are today (much thanks to public education which you so ardently bash for being completely biased towards evolution). I do not hold a grudge against anyone who wants to disprove anything, be it a bible, the fundamentals of science, the fact that I should not be executed on sight. If they come up with enough empirical evidence to support their claim, and the empirical evidence can be tested by others under controlled conditions, I'll have to agree with them(even if it leads to me being executed on sight). Scientists usually don't disprove things out of spite. Or at least it is looked down upon in the scientific community. If someone goes on to present valid information about how the bible is or could be mistaken, you'd do best to listen. At least the major churches of today have, and they're keeping up with our technological society just fine.
I said comets may be explained by a young universe. It's not supported by the bulk, or even a sizeable minority of the information gathered up 'til now, but I'm not closing out the possibility. Again I see no contradicition in this. And I do think the creationist sites are self-contradictory, and I'm not the only one (read kaibigan's posts).
Think
about it for a second...seashells die and are presumably burried where
mount everest is now...and then over hundreds millions of years,
earthquakes and planetary shift cause mount everest to rise to a
magnificent height, meanwhile those seashells remain intact?
This is your assumption of how it happened. A planetary shift is not really a "shift" as you assume. Shift is a movement that has an unfortunate connotation towards speed. The continental plate forming Mt.Everest will have suffered in the gradual (and by gradual I mean extremely slow.. millions of years(except you don't believe in millions of years, how unfortunate)) shifting of plates, however in the formation of mountains, it is not the top of the continental plate that suffers, but the bottom, which did not contain the fossils in question. To clarify a bit more, continental plates are extremely thick(~100km). Somehow I doubt the dig on mount everest was this deep. Also the seashells were NOT buried where mount everest is now, they were buried in a place that moved along with the continental plate that formed mount everest.
I hope I've dodged your points and questions as well as my skill allows me to, again.
I mean, Christians think that these other people are going to hell and lash out or whatever, but if we all got along, we might not even need heaven because Earth would be a nice place to be too.
the fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. im no fool. btw, religion is not the driving force behind hate. human nature is. athiests lead violent protests too. athiests kill and rob people too. to say that its all religion based is foolish, IMO. i do however, agree that if we all took a step back and gave this life more credit and lived it like its the only one we get and loved everyone and respected everyone, it would be a great place.
______________________________
______________________________
not really sure why you addressed this to me when clearly this was a debate between you and Draenor. and frankly, i read both sides, i wouldnt say he dodged anything. he answered your questions as well if not more on topic than you have yet to answer mine. also, i pointblank asked you to not dodge me question. i see nowhere in your post to him where you asked him not to dodge the question. so even if you feel that he did. so what? not relevant to the topic at hand.
I posted it since I wanted to show you what dodging an arguement/question really is. I told him he was talking utter bull about religion being empirical. He didn't reply to this, but went on to say evolution is on a loose basis and that I was being rude when I told him to "think about what you type".
not considering it a "viable" option, to me, is saying you dont and cant believe in it.
Can't is too strong an expression. I would like to think there's nothing I CAN'T believe. I shove creationism aside because it is a very hypothetical theory that doesn't agree with certain empirical science. I'm not saying it isn't true. I'm saying it is very unlikely by my logic(I'm one man and my logic isn't infallible, that's a given).
I do not consider the Oort cloud or evolution to be anything more than models based around trusting that same basic empirical science.
not considering it a "viable" option, to me, is saying you dont and cant believe in it. dont see how thats such a stretch. the highlighted orange is the dodge. how can you say that? what evidence is there for the oort cloud.
The Oort cloud is based around empirical (as empirical as we can acquire with modern technology, probes, telescopes and such) observation of the universe. It is a model used by scientists to explain the observations they've made. It makes sense to people in that field of science, and until it doesn't (empirical evidence shows something else as a more plausible solution) it will be used.
how can you say that? what evidence is there for the oort cloud. its pure speculation based on what we think we know about the nature of comets. speculation based on what we believe we know...... get this yet? what we think we know.
It's speculation based on the physics and chemistry we know. Those two are empirically proven(not infallible but empirically proven). I get what you're getting at. It's speculative and highly likely untrue. Yes it is.
thats not empirical, even by your measurements.
It is based on what we know of empirical science. No part of the theory assumes the laws of physics or chemistry to change. Holy books do.
so therefore, its logical to say that, the oort cloud is a theory that has no evidence to support it. thats a faith. i honestly cant understand why this is that hard to grasp. see the highlighted yellow. so this is your blanket statement. we dont know and cant prove it. so we make ASSumptions based on what we believe to be true. this is not empirical science.
You should by now have realized my point about empirical scientists. They assume things in order to organize their studies. The assumptions(assumption not belief, not faith, not "knowledge") fit with what has been proven in the past. This IS a part of empirical science. The end result may not match our assumption. It's called trial and error and it's a core method of any empirical science. The only thing with evolution and astronomy is they're such gargantuan fields that the trial lasts a whole lot longer
care to give any examples of evidence to support the oort cloud? btw, you actually did say that its impossible to observe any evidence of an oort cloud. reread some of your previous posts.
Visual evidence is not the only type of evidence. In case you haven't noticed, blind people also exist on the planet. And I said if the Oort cloud is not visible, it's not visible because it's a bunch of particles that don't emit light. It's a physical explanation instead of an occult explanation. Although I still do think it's far-fetched and convenient it's still plausible considering we don't have much else to go on concerning comets.
im not talking about hyperbolised visions of the origins of our existence. im talking about you stating emphaticly that evolution is based on empirical science. that you have dodged several times now. and then you issue a blanket statement with the "giving a FINAL opinion on the subject." you liken it to having unlimited knowledge, lol. that is a blanket statement, not an answer. all im asking for here is true or false. is the oort cloud based on empirical science or not? thats what im looking for. i know ill never get the straight answer out of you about this. but that just reinforces me points, not destroys them. see, basing me beliefs on the Bible and a young universe, i have a very simple and logical explanation of the comets issue. and it certainly fits into what we actually do know and observe about comets. and we dont even have to make up fictitous oort clouds to explain it away.
I'm not dodging anything. Evolution is based on empirical science and the speculation brought by the unexplained gaps in the information we are currently able to acquire. The unexplained gaps are subsequently explained by hypotheses of what we know from empirical science. The model of evolution abides by the laws of physics, chemistry and biology. Once these disprove it, it will be no more. Evolution is based on empirical science, but it isn't empirical science. It's a MODEL based on empirical science. How many times must I repeat it? Based on empirical science =! empirical science.
I have a simple solution? Well isn't that convenient? I don't have to think about anything because I have a simple solution. The Oort cloud explains astronomy in similar way to the Bible, except the bible does not follow the current observed laws of physics, chemistry and biology nor has it been proven by empirical methods to be anything near what it claims to be.
albeit, they flow as if they were written by the same man at different stages of his life. strange, isnt it?
It isn't strange. Especially when you can't make a statement like this not having spoken archaic (the language and it's interpretation has changed) languages from 2000 years ago. However the people who translate bibles do follow a similar trail of thought, strange, isn't it?
but even at that, it all fits together and flows.
Also "flow as if"... Come on... "It all fits together". These are personal emotional opinions. I can read some Truman Capote, Stephen King and Terry Pratchett in a row and say "it all fits together" because in my mind the reading session was a success and I was highly amused. You do realize the lingo you use has sentimental connotations don't you(well the fact that you used lol a lot in the beginning should at least prove this to you)? You are the one attaching emotion to subject matters where it shouldn't exist. A lot of the things you say are strongly emotional, something which scientists should not exhibit in their studies. Scientists do not prove things out of spite. If this were the case, scientists would have proven politicians to be brainless monkeys and scientists to be the ultimate golden boy of paranormal evolution(a place like heaven) where god told them to rule the world. Scientists(at least in medicine and microbiology) have codes/oaths to remain unbiased and pursue knowledge, not personal gain.
then again, if i couldnt figure out how to argue me own beliefs, i might bring in someone elses posts to prove and back me arguement. still only shows that your dodging instead of answering. and most everyone on this site are smart enough to see it for what it is. so i dont think i need to dwell on it much.
Well I've already said the bulk of the scientific community don't lean towards creationist beliefs, and they've probably had the creationists bringing in the big guns for them. Just thought I'd mention kaibigan's posts since they're here on the thread and he has delved into the matter. He believes in a higher power too, so it makes his posts easily approachable(although you guys were quick to dismiss his viewpoints since the videos he watched weren't "the right ones". The videos and statements aimed to confuse and misdirect people who don't have the time to delve into empirical science. They're extremely populistic hyperboles with a hell of a lot of sentimental statements.). You accuse me of dodging, but I've yet to hear any proof of me doing such a thing. You're distorting my statements to appear as such and reading them like you want to.
no, the point of Draenors arguement is that after millions of years of shifting and sifting and such, its doubtful that the clams that died then would still be right on top. they would buried so deep. plus youre missing the obvious. the clams were of the same type that we find today and in our time. so unless youre going to suggest that clams are the only creature that never evolved over millions of years. then that arguement makes no sense. Easy answer. Erosion. Erosion is what happens to mountains. Mountains don't gather sediment, instead they erode. The Appalachian mountains are an example of a high mountain range that has eroded. The Himalayas are made from limestone. What happens to limestone when it rains? Certain creatures have been observed through paleontology to have habited the earth for extremely long amounts of time, so the existence of clams of the same structure as modern ones wouldn't be a surprise to me. Some species are more succesful than others.
and yes, youve bested yourself in this post. you should go pro.
Thank you very much.
______________________________
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
lol
/agrees
______________________________
