This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for dariency
Dariency

9465

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#401 Dariency
Member since 2003 • 9465 Posts
[QUOTE="dog64"]

A theory is usually an idea that cannot be directly proven and has no concrete evidence, so it is possible for it to be disproven. In my mind, evolution is a theory. Although it's supporters give some evidence or point out some ideas that support evolution, so do creationists. To me, I think the idea of us being created and life having a purpose sounds better than us just being here because of a strange occurrence that slowly happened over a long number of years. The religious books like the bible are supposedly words from God himself. The bible does indeed have some interesting stories, and some prophecies that have indeed come true. But I'm sure that goes for the other religious books as well.

One thing for sure is that we all wonder how we got here, and why we are here. If there is a God, does he care about us? If there is no God, then does that mean life has no real purpose? Religion tries to answer these questions by looking at their religious books, studying them, and then (Christians) say "God has created us and he wants usto go to heaven and live forever". Sounds nice, but can they prove that? No, but they have a thing called faith. They have faith that God exists and that there is a real purpose in life. We just don't live our short lives from childhood to adulthood and then leave it all behind when we die. Death is a very sad thing, but at least religion offers hope. Evolutionists offer no hope for life after death.

Evolutionists say that creationists have no evidence. I think they do. Creationists offer their kind of evidence just like evolutionists do. They just immediatley reject their evidence because they're stuck on what they believe and what they've read. In the end, nobody really wins this arguement. It's just fighting fire with fire.

353535355353535

there are 2 primarythings in your argument that fail

1st thing: creationists have no evidence for their beliefs

2nd thing: evolutionists have mountains of evidence for evolution. like, DNA evidence, fossil evidence, the fact that we've seen evolution take place

Evolutionists evidence is usually from a scientific standpoint. Creationists evidence is usually from a religious standpoint. Since most evolutionists aren't religious (not all, but most) they immediately reject any evidence that creationists may offer. For example, a creationists may say that the earth is made just right for us. It has everything we need to live, and everything on the earth seems to work together in harmony. This proves that there is a creator. Otherwise, how could the earth know that were coming?

Now, evolutionists will immediately reject this idea as bogus. Why? Because it's not scientific. But creationists don't want scientific evidence. All the evidence they need is what's going on around them, and the words they read in the bible.

DNA and the fossil record basically say that some animals are made similar and share the same looking bones or body structure. This doesn't prove evolution. It justproves that some things are alike.

Avatar image for 353535355353535
353535355353535

4424

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#402 353535355353535
Member since 2005 • 4424 Posts
[QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="dog64"]

A theory is usually an idea that cannot be directly proven and has no concrete evidence, so it is possible for it to be disproven. In my mind, evolution is a theory. Although it's supporters give some evidence or point out some ideas that support evolution, so do creationists. To me, I think the idea of us being created and life having a purpose sounds better than us just being here because of a strange occurrence that slowly happened over a long number of years. The religious books like the bible are supposedly words from God himself. The bible does indeed have some interesting stories, and some prophecies that have indeed come true. But I'm sure that goes for the other religious books as well.

One thing for sure is that we all wonder how we got here, and why we are here. If there is a God, does he care about us? If there is no God, then does that mean life has no real purpose? Religion tries to answer these questions by looking at their religious books, studying them, and then (Christians) say "God has created us and he wants usto go to heaven and live forever". Sounds nice, but can they prove that? No, but they have a thing called faith. They have faith that God exists and that there is a real purpose in life. We just don't live our short lives from childhood to adulthood and then leave it all behind when we die. Death is a very sad thing, but at least religion offers hope. Evolutionists offer no hope for life after death.

Evolutionists say that creationists have no evidence. I think they do. Creationists offer their kind of evidence just like evolutionists do. They just immediatley reject their evidence because they're stuck on what they believe and what they've read. In the end, nobody really wins this arguement. It's just fighting fire with fire.

dog64

there are 2 primarythings in your argument that fail

1st thing: creationists have no evidence for their beliefs

2nd thing: evolutionists have mountains of evidence for evolution. like, DNA evidence, fossil evidence, the fact that we've seen evolution take place

Evolutionists evidence is usually from a scientific standpoint. Creationists evidence is usually from a religious standpoint. Since most evolutionists aren't religious (not all, but most) they immediately reject any evidence that creationists may offer. For example, a creationists may say that the earth is made just right for us. It has everything we need to live, and everything on the earth seems to work together in harmony. This proves that there is a creator. Otherwise, how could the earth know that were coming?

Now, evolutionists will immediately reject this idea as bogus. Why? Because it's not scientific. But creationists don't want scientific evidence. All the evidence they need is what's going on around them, and the words they read in the bible.

DNA and the fossil record basically say that some animals are made similar and share the same looking bones or body structure. This doesn't prove evolution. It justproves that some things are alike.

so, you just admitted that creationists just throw out all science? you just lost every ounce of credibility when you said that. BTW. the DNA of most living things is extremely similar. there are specific sets of genesthat are present in all living things. take for instance the banana. the banana is a plant. its DNA is 60% identical to our DNA

Avatar image for Zagrius
Zagrius

3820

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#403 Zagrius
Member since 2002 • 3820 Posts
The problem with your example is that according to evolution, life adapted to Earth, not the other way around. As such, there was no reason to specially design the planet "exaclty" for humans (you know, with places that are too hot, or too cold, or too deep, or too high, there's plenty of places on the planet where we couldn't survive without technology/science). As for your supposedly insufficient evidence for evolution, it still supports it.
Avatar image for Decessus
Decessus

5132

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: -5

#404 Decessus
Member since 2003 • 5132 Posts

Well, everybody has different ideas on what certain words mean. But when most people think of the word "theory" they think of some type of idea that has not really been proven. If it really was proved, then it wouldn't be called a theory. It would be called a fact, with evidence.

dog64

Ask a scientist what a theory is, and you'll get pretty much the same answer. It's a general explanation for some observed natural phenomena that is supported by scientific reasoning and experimental evidence.

It's also incorrect to say that if a theory has enough evidence, it becomes a fact. There is not a hierarchical structure of certainty ranging from a hypothesis at one end to a fact at the other end. A theory and a fact are two completely different things.

Facts are the data of the world. Theories are used to explain those facts.

It is a fact that when an apple falls from a tree, it will fall towards the center of the earth. It is the theory of gravity that explains why the apple falls towards the center of the earth and not drift off into outer space.

Avatar image for dariency
Dariency

9465

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#405 Dariency
Member since 2003 • 9465 Posts

n the scientific community, a theory is a well-established explanation of observed phenomena. For instance,

Observation: Evolution occurs (by the way, this isn't disputed in the scientific community, it's a fact)

Theory: Evolution occurs because of changes in allele frequency, etc' etc' (I don't know the exact wording here), as is evident by fossil records, DNA testings, and other evidence which this poster doesn't recall/know of.

What you call a theory is actually a hypothesis.

Zagrius

I was taught in science class, and sometimes math class, that a hypothesis is when you do an experiement and you guess on what the result is. According to Wikipedia, it comes from the hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose". Evolution is not an experiement. It's an idea on how life started and how it formed.

Wikipedia also agress with me when it says "The word theory has a number of distinctmeanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion".

So, basically, you take the word "theory" to mean what you think it means depending on your knowledge and what you believe.

Avatar image for 353535355353535
353535355353535

4424

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#406 353535355353535
Member since 2005 • 4424 Posts
[QUOTE="Zagrius"]

n the scientific community, a theory is a well-established explanation of observed phenomena. For instance,

Observation: Evolution occurs (by the way, this isn't disputed in the scientific community, it's a fact)

Theory: Evolution occurs because of changes in allele frequency, etc' etc' (I don't know the exact wording here), as is evident by fossil records, DNA testings, and other evidence which this poster doesn't recall/know of.

What you call a theory is actually a hypothesis.

dog64

I was taught in science class, and sometimes math class, that a hypothesis is when you do an experiement and you guess on what the result is. According to Wikipedia, it comes from the hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose". Evolution is not an experiement. It's an idea on how life started and how it formed.

Wikipedia also agress with me when it says "The word theory has a number of distinctmeanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion".

So, basically, you take the word "theory" to mean what you think it means depending on your knowledge and what you believe.

evolution is a fact. we've seen evolution. its on a small scale, but it is evolution nonetheless
Avatar image for dariency
Dariency

9465

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#407 Dariency
Member since 2003 • 9465 Posts

so, you just admitted that creationists just throw out all science? you just lost every ounce of credibility when you said that. BTW. the DNA of most living things is extremely similar. there are specific sets of genesthat are present in all living things. take for instance the banana. the banana is a plant. its DNA is 60% identical to our DNA353535355353535

I said that creations don't want scientific evidence. By that, I mean they don't want scientific evidence for evolution, just like evolutionists don't want religious proof for creation.

The point is that both sides have their kind of proof. But neither side accepts because it doesn't agree with what they believe.

Avatar image for jodamn
jodamn

893

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 47

User Lists: 0

#408 jodamn
Member since 2007 • 893 Posts
[QUOTE="Zagrius"]

n the scientific community, a theory is a well-established explanation of observed phenomena. For instance,

Observation: Evolution occurs (by the way, this isn't disputed in the scientific community, it's a fact)

Theory: Evolution occurs because of changes in allele frequency, etc' etc' (I don't know the exact wording here), as is evident by fossil records, DNA testings, and other evidence which this poster doesn't recall/know of.

What you call a theory is actually a hypothesis.

dog64

I was taught in science class, and sometimes math class, that a hypothesis is when you do an experiement and you guess on what the result is. According to Wikipedia, it comes from the hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose". Evolution is not an experiement. It's an idea on how life started and how it formed.

Wikipedia also agress with me when it says "The word theory has a number of distinctmeanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion".

So, basically, you take the word "theory" to mean what you think it means depending on your knowledge and what you believe.

It's a bit of a stretch to say wiki _agrees_ with you - I think it tries hard to not take sides. ;)

One more paragraph down (from theory@wiki) is what a theory means in science:

" In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. "

So, in terms of what scientists mean when discussing evolution and creationism, theory is pretty well flushed out. :D

Avatar image for 353535355353535
353535355353535

4424

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#409 353535355353535
Member since 2005 • 4424 Posts

[QUOTE="353535355353535"] so, you just admitted that creationists just throw out all science? you just lost every ounce of credibility when you said that. BTW. the DNA of most living things is extremely similar. there are specific sets of genesthat are present in all living things. take for instance the banana. the banana is a plant. its DNA is 60% identical to our DNAdog64

I said that creations don't want scientific evidence. By that, I mean they don't want scientific evidence for evolution, just like evolutionists don't want religious proof for creation.

The point is that both sides have their kind of proof. But neither side accepts because it doesn't agree with what they believe.

Im not going to argue with you, someone who will not accept facts as evidence for something. If we used superstition to explain everything around us, we'd be stuck in the dark ages
Avatar image for dainjah1010
dainjah1010

463

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#410 dainjah1010
Member since 2005 • 463 Posts
[QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="dog64"]

A theory is usually an idea that cannot be directly proven and has no concrete evidence, so it is possible for it to be disproven. In my mind, evolution is a theory. Although it's supporters give some evidence or point out some ideas that support evolution, so do creationists. To me, I think the idea of us being created and life having a purpose sounds better than us just being here because of a strange occurrence that slowly happened over a long number of years. The religious books like the bible are supposedly words from God himself. The bible does indeed have some interesting stories, and some prophecies that have indeed come true. But I'm sure that goes for the other religious books as well.

One thing for sure is that we all wonder how we got here, and why we are here. If there is a God, does he care about us? If there is no God, then does that mean life has no real purpose? Religion tries to answer these questions by looking at their religious books, studying them, and then (Christians) say "God has created us and he wants usto go to heaven and live forever". Sounds nice, but can they prove that? No, but they have a thing called faith. They have faith that God exists and that there is a real purpose in life. We just don't live our short lives from childhood to adulthood and then leave it all behind when we die. Death is a very sad thing, but at least religion offers hope. Evolutionists offer no hope for life after death.

Evolutionists say that creationists have no evidence. I think they do. Creationists offer their kind of evidence just like evolutionists do. They just immediatley reject their evidence because they're stuck on what they believe and what they've read. In the end, nobody really wins this arguement. It's just fighting fire with fire.

dog64

there are 2 primarythings in your argument that fail

1st thing: creationists have no evidence for their beliefs

2nd thing: evolutionists have mountains of evidence for evolution. like, DNA evidence, fossil evidence, the fact that we've seen evolution take place

Evolutionists evidence is usually from a scientific standpoint. Creationists evidence is usually from a religious standpoint. Since most evolutionists aren't religious (not all, but most) they immediately reject any evidence that creationists may offer. For example, a creationists may say that the earth is made just right for us. It has everything we need to live, and everything on the earth seems to work together in harmony. This proves that there is a creator. Otherwise, how could the earth know that were coming?

Now, evolutionists will immediately reject this idea as bogus. Why? Because it's not scientific. But creationists don't want scientific evidence. All the evidence they need is what's going on around them, and the words they read in the bible.

DNA and the fossil record basically say that some animals are made similar and share the same looking bones or body structure. This doesn't prove evolution. It justproves that some things are alike.

So basically creationists start with the conclusion and then look for evidence that supports their beliefs, and 'evolutionist' start with the evidence and try to draw a conclusion.

DNA evidence is much deeper than some animals look similar. Endogenous retroviruses for example...

Avatar image for 353535355353535
353535355353535

4424

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#411 353535355353535
Member since 2005 • 4424 Posts
[QUOTE="dog64"][QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="dog64"]

A theory is usually an idea that cannot be directly proven and has no concrete evidence, so it is possible for it to be disproven. In my mind, evolution is a theory. Although it's supporters give some evidence or point out some ideas that support evolution, so do creationists. To me, I think the idea of us being created and life having a purpose sounds better than us just being here because of a strange occurrence that slowly happened over a long number of years. The religious books like the bible are supposedly words from God himself. The bible does indeed have some interesting stories, and some prophecies that have indeed come true. But I'm sure that goes for the other religious books as well.

One thing for sure is that we all wonder how we got here, and why we are here. If there is a God, does he care about us? If there is no God, then does that mean life has no real purpose? Religion tries to answer these questions by looking at their religious books, studying them, and then (Christians) say "God has created us and he wants usto go to heaven and live forever". Sounds nice, but can they prove that? No, but they have a thing called faith. They have faith that God exists and that there is a real purpose in life. We just don't live our short lives from childhood to adulthood and then leave it all behind when we die. Death is a very sad thing, but at least religion offers hope. Evolutionists offer no hope for life after death.

Evolutionists say that creationists have no evidence. I think they do. Creationists offer their kind of evidence just like evolutionists do. They just immediatley reject their evidence because they're stuck on what they believe and what they've read. In the end, nobody really wins this arguement. It's just fighting fire with fire.

dainjah1010

there are 2 primarythings in your argument that fail

1st thing: creationists have no evidence for their beliefs

2nd thing: evolutionists have mountains of evidence for evolution. like, DNA evidence, fossil evidence, the fact that we've seen evolution take place

Evolutionists evidence is usually from a scientific standpoint. Creationists evidence is usually from a religious standpoint. Since most evolutionists aren't religious (not all, but most) they immediately reject any evidence that creationists may offer. For example, a creationists may say that the earth is made just right for us. It has everything we need to live, and everything on the earth seems to work together in harmony. This proves that there is a creator. Otherwise, how could the earth know that were coming?

Now, evolutionists will immediately reject this idea as bogus. Why? Because it's not scientific. But creationists don't want scientific evidence. All the evidence they need is what's going on around them, and the words they read in the bible.

DNA and the fossil record basically say that some animals are made similar and share the same looking bones or body structure. This doesn't prove evolution. It justproves that some things are alike.

So basically creationists start with the conclusion and then look for evidence that supports their beliefs, and 'evolutionist' start with the evidence and try to draw a conclusion.

DNA evidence is much deeper than some animals look similar. Endogenous retroviruses for example...

he just said he's not going to accept facts

were you brainwashed into that whole idea "god said it, I believe it, that settles it" as a kid?

Avatar image for Decessus
Decessus

5132

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: -5

#412 Decessus
Member since 2003 • 5132 Posts

I was taught in science class, and sometimes math class, that a hypothesis is when you do an experiement and you guess on what the result is. According to Wikipedia, it comes from the hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose". Evolution is not an experiement. It's an idea on how life started and how it formed.

Wikipedia also agress with me when it says "The word theory has a number of distinctmeanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion".

So, basically, you take the word "theory" to mean what you think it means depending on your knowledge and what you believe.

dog64

A hypothesis is a suggested explanation for an observed phenomena.

Also, evolution does not deal with how life started. It only deals with what happened to life once it was already here.

How life actually started is more chemistry and biochemistry.

Avatar image for killtactics
killtactics

5957

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#413 killtactics
Member since 2004 • 5957 Posts

[QUOTE="353535355353535"] so, you just admitted that creationists just throw out all science? you just lost every ounce of credibility when you said that. BTW. the DNA of most living things is extremely similar. there are specific sets of genesthat are present in all living things. take for instance the banana. the banana is a plant. its DNA is 60% identical to our DNAdog64

I said that creations don't want scientific evidence. By that, I mean they don't want scientific evidence for evolution, just like evolutionists don't want religious proof for creation.

The point is that both sides have their kind of proof. But neither side accepts because it doesn't agree with what they believe.

using observation and data is a bit different then "well the earth is perfect so there must be a God".... thats an assumption.... thats not evidence for anything....it's impossible to have evidence that supports God just like it's impossible to disprove God....
Avatar image for dariency
Dariency

9465

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#414 Dariency
Member since 2003 • 9465 Posts

he just said he's not going to accept facts

were you brainwashed into that whole idea "god said it, I believe it, that settles it" as a kid?

353535355353535

YOU believe what you say is fact. Creationists believe what they say is fact. They both have their own type of evidence. I'll leave it at that.

And for your information, I'm not religious but also don't believe in evolution. I'm willing to accept that there is a God and that life really does have a purpose. I'm willing to accept that there may behope after death, although there may not be.

Avatar image for 353535355353535
353535355353535

4424

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#415 353535355353535
Member since 2005 • 4424 Posts

dog64

he just said he's not going to accept facts

were you brainwashed into that whole idea "god said it, I believe it, that settles it" as a kid?

YOU believe what you say is fact. Creationists believe what they say is fact. They both have their own type of evidence. I'll leave it at that.

And for your information, I'm not religious but also don't believe in evolution. I'm willing to accept that there is a God and that life really does have a purpose. I'm willing to accept that there may behope after death, although there may not be.

sorry, but superstition, scripture, canon, or dogmanis not evidence. you need PHYSICAL evidence to prove something.

would you believe it ifI told you that i was in the same boat as you just a week ago?

Avatar image for Decessus
Decessus

5132

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: -5

#416 Decessus
Member since 2003 • 5132 Posts

YOU believe what you say is fact. Creationists believe what they say is fact. They both have their own type of evidence. I'll leave it at that.

And for your information, I'm not religious but also don't believe in evolution. I'm willing to accept that there is a God and that life really does have a purpose. I'm willing to accept that there may behope after death, although there may not be.

dog64

There are no "types" of evidence. Something either is evidence, or it is not. And creationists can believe whatever they want, but they are still wrong. Evolution has been happening since life began, and we are one of the results of that evolution. God didn't magically create us out of dust, or drops of blood, or ribs, or anything else like that. Seriously, if people who support religion want to be taken seriously by anybody other than the completely uneducated, they really need to reconsider many of their core beliefs.

Avatar image for dariency
Dariency

9465

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#417 Dariency
Member since 2003 • 9465 Posts

sorry, but superstition, scripture, canon, or dogmanis not evidence. you need PHYSICAL evidence to prove something.

would you believe it ifI told you that i was in the same boat as you just a week ago?

353535355353535

Yes, you need physical evidence to prove something......according to science. To a religious person who is just as defensive as you on their beliefs, they have all the evidence they need. They believe God loves them, he's helping them and answering their prayers, they read the bible like it's really God's message, they look at the earth and appreciate the creation they see before them. That's all they need to believe in a supreme being who created all.

Avatar image for 353535355353535
353535355353535

4424

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#418 353535355353535
Member since 2005 • 4424 Posts

[QUOTE="353535355353535"]

sorry, but superstition, scripture, canon, or dogmanis not evidence. you need PHYSICAL evidence to prove something.

would you believe it ifI told you that i was in the same boat as you just a week ago?

dog64

Yes, you need physical evidence to prove something......according to science. To a religious person who is just as defensive as you on their beliefs, they have all the evidence they need. They believe God loves them, he's helping them and answering their prayers, they read the bible like it's really God's message, they look at the earth and appreciate the creation they see before them. That's all they need to believe in a supreme being who created all.

wow.....just.....wow:shock: I wonder where I can find a drug that would make one so delusional
Avatar image for dariency
Dariency

9465

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#419 Dariency
Member since 2003 • 9465 Posts
[QUOTE="dog64"]

[QUOTE="353535355353535"]

sorry, but superstition, scripture, canon, or dogmanis not evidence. you need PHYSICAL evidence to prove something.

would you believe it ifI told you that i was in the same boat as you just a week ago?

353535355353535

Yes, you need physical evidence to prove something......according to science. To a religious person who is just as defensive as you on their beliefs, they have all the evidence they need. They believe God loves them, he's helping them and answering their prayers, they read the bible like it's really God's message, they look at the earth and appreciate the creation they see before them. That's all they need to believe in a supreme being who created all.

wow.....just.....wow:shock: I wonder where I can find a drug that would make one so delusional

And I'm sure they're wondering the same thing about people who believe in evolution. It's your word against theirs, and both sides are SO convinced that they're right.

Avatar image for 353535355353535
353535355353535

4424

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#420 353535355353535
Member since 2005 • 4424 Posts
[QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="dog64"]

[QUOTE="353535355353535"]

sorry, but superstition, scripture, canon, or dogmanis not evidence. you need PHYSICAL evidence to prove something.

would you believe it ifI told you that i was in the same boat as you just a week ago?

dog64

Yes, you need physical evidence to prove something......according to science. To a religious person who is just as defensive as you on their beliefs, they have all the evidence they need. They believe God loves them, he's helping them and answering their prayers, they read the bible like it's really God's message, they look at the earth and appreciate the creation they see before them. That's all they need to believe in a supreme being who created all.

wow.....just.....wow:shock: I wonder where I can find a drug that would make one so delusional

And I'm sure they're wondering the same thing about people who believe in evolution. It's your word against theirs, and both sides are SO convinced that they're right.

its not just my word against theirs. its my word and loads of physical evidence against their word and book
Avatar image for Zagrius
Zagrius

3820

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#421 Zagrius
Member since 2002 • 3820 Posts
Really, when you put physical evidence on the same level as no evidence, it's impossible to argue with you. Do you have a point that doesn't just boil down to 'religion and logic don't go together'?
Avatar image for Decessus
Decessus

5132

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: -5

#422 Decessus
Member since 2003 • 5132 Posts

And I'm sure they're wondering the same thing about people who believe in evolution. It's your word against theirs, and both sides are SO convinced that they're right.

dog64

So, you don't believe that evolution happens, correct?

Avatar image for UssjTrunks
UssjTrunks

11299

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#423 UssjTrunks
Member since 2005 • 11299 Posts

Wow, the TC is a n00b.

The theory goes like this:

Carbon atom > Fish >Amphibian > Reptile >Mammal > Human.

You can't forget the long words that go in between each stage either, they help add the 'scientific' to the theory.

Avatar image for Atrus
Atrus

10422

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#424 Atrus
Member since 2002 • 10422 Posts

Yes, you need physical evidence to prove something......according to science. To a religious person who is just as defensive as you on their beliefs, they have all the evidence they need. They believe God loves them, he's helping them and answering their prayers, they read the bible like it's really God's message, they look at the earth and appreciate the creation they see before them. That's all they need to believe in a supreme being who created all.

dog64

So by that standard you would accept any lunatic and fringe idea as not ony being true, but acceptable to teach and make valid projections on?

If a stranger came up to you and said "Don't enter your house! There's an invisible giant dragon waiting to eat you inside!" You would assume that what he's saying is correct? Would you be calling the police or army to kill it?

You also believe that religious believers actually have evidence of their own kind. Then why is it that religion is hereditary for the vast majority? That would infer that such evidence is passed on between parent and child, yet there is no evidence being presented. People change and lose their respective beliefs all the time, and you'd be hard pressed to find two people with exactly the same beliefs in the same religion.

The idea that religious people have their own supernatural kind of evidence has no basis, and they certainly don't have any natural evidence.

Avatar image for dariency
Dariency

9465

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#425 Dariency
Member since 2003 • 9465 Posts
[QUOTE="dog64"]

And I'm sure they're wondering the same thing about people who believe in evolution. It's your word against theirs, and both sides are SO convinced that they're right.

Decessus

So, you don't believe that evolution happens, correct?

I can't disprove it, so to say that it definitely doesn't happen wouldn't be right. For allI know, it may very well be the truth. I've heard the evidence for evolution, but as a raised Christian I also know the evidence and truths of the bible.

Like said, I'm not religious and am no part of any religion. But I also want to believe in the possibility of a God, because that would be better then life simply just....being here. I hope you and every other evolutionists also doesn't outright reject the possibility of a God, because deep down inside, we really don't know the answers. I'm not trying to disprove evolution in any way, because I'm willing to accept that there is a possibility that it may be right. But the idea of a God is also possible.

Avatar image for Headbanger88
Headbanger88

5023

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#426 Headbanger88
Member since 2004 • 5023 Posts

Wow, the TC is a n00b.

The theory goes like this:

Carbon atom > Fish >Amphibian > Reptile >Mammal > Human.

You can't forget the long words that go in between each stage either, they help add the 'scientific' to the theory.

UssjTrunks

Mre like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_life

Avatar image for Zagrius
Zagrius

3820

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#427 Zagrius
Member since 2002 • 3820 Posts
You can't put the burden of proof on the skeptics. For instance, I claim that you owe me 1,000,000 of your country's currency. Now, by your logic, unless you can provide evidence that you don't owe me that sum, then you must seriously consider sending me that money. Of course, in the real world, if I don't provide evidence that you indeed owe me what I say you do, I'll be laughed out of any courtroom in the world.
Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#428 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts

[QUOTE="353535355353535"]

sorry, but superstition, scripture, canon, or dogmanis not evidence. you need PHYSICAL evidence to prove something.

would you believe it ifI told you that i was in the same boat as you just a week ago?

dog64

Yes, you need physical evidence to prove something......according to science. To a religious person who is just as defensive as you on their beliefs, they have all the evidence they need. They believe God loves them, he's helping them and answering their prayers, they read the bible like it's really God's message, they look at the earth and appreciate the creation they see before them. That's all they need to believe in a supreme being who created all.

The point of the matter is your ideas are flawed on logic it self.. Put it this way, we can all say that man is imperfect, infact we know nothing that is perfect.. Perfection can only be explained by mathmatics and the constants around us.. Taking that in mind how can you take the Bible as anything but a possibility at best? Because it has been rewritten hundreds of times over by a imperfect being.. Regardless if the Bible was perfect in the beginning, hell even that is a stretch because such a powerful and perfect message could surely not be accurately depicted in a language such as man by a long shot.. We have trouble defining our own feelings as human beings, let alone being capable of correctly providing the perfect message from a all powerful being from which we can never understand.

Then on top that the Bible isn't even in the original language form once it has printed.. Thousands of languages are different from one another where words can mean completely different things from on language to the next or a correct comparison can not be made what so ever because one language does not simply have the word... This make the bible far from persuasive of being the perfect text to mankind when it has already went through such transformations.. This is already on the long stretch that the bible was from god and that the people translating it or reprinting it were not bias and did not omitt or add anything to their own liking (which some one most assuredly has, from one time or another)..

This idea alone shows just how flawed taking the bible as 100% fact is, this is by using no science to contridict it either.

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#429 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts
[QUOTE="Decessus"][QUOTE="dog64"]

And I'm sure they're wondering the same thing about people who believe in evolution. It's your word against theirs, and both sides are SO convinced that they're right.

dog64

So, you don't believe that evolution happens, correct?

I can't disprove it, so to say that it definitely doesn't happen wouldn't be right. For allI know, it may very well be the truth. I've heard the evidence for evolution, but as a raised Christian I also know the evidence and truths of the bible.

Like said, I'm not religious and am no part of any religion. But I also want to believe in the possibility of a God, because that would be better then life simply just....being here. I hope you and every other evolutionists also doesn't outright reject the possibility of a God, because deep down inside, we really don't know the answers. I'm not trying to disprove evolution in any way, because I'm willing to accept that there is a possibility that it may be right. But the idea of a God is also possible.

You do know the science community sees evolution as fact, right? There is solid evidence that it has happened, what is being argued is the how , and why it did happen. Now to at very least look at is as a strong possibility would seem very logical due to the fact its the same science community that pushs everything forward in genetics, biology and just about every related field including medicines. If not then you should look at every thing that you use thats done by research of this community with a skeptical eye.. If you don't then your a hypocrit.

Avatar image for middito
middito

955

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#430 middito
Member since 2003 • 955 Posts

flame me for this one, idc if you call me uneducated.

but i dont see how both cant coexist, if i were a superior being giving birth to a new species in my mirror image, wouldnt the natural mechanism of evolution be more efficient than constant divine intervention?

Avatar image for pianist
pianist

18900

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#431 pianist
Member since 2003 • 18900 Posts

I cant believe some people think that we come from monkeys! It's absolutely ridiculus! How can they teach this thoery (which is a thoery is a guess) in schools? Who agrees with me it should not be taught?

EDIT: Bad spelling

Slepanandiaz

The edit makes me giggle.

Avatar image for MattUD1
MattUD1

20715

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#432 MattUD1
Member since 2004 • 20715 Posts
[QUOTE="Slepanandiaz"]

I cant believe some people think that we come from monkeys! It's absolutely ridiculus! How can they teach this thoery (which is a thoery is a guess) in schools? Who agrees with me it should not be taught?

EDIT: Bad spelling

pianist

The edit makes me giggle.

It made everyone giggle in more ways that one.
Avatar image for Headbanger88
Headbanger88

5023

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#433 Headbanger88
Member since 2004 • 5023 Posts
[QUOTE="Slepanandiaz"]

I cant believe some people think that we come from monkeys! It's absolutely ridiculus! How can they teach this thoery (which is a thoery is a guess) in schools? Who agrees with me it should not be taught?

EDIT: Bad spelling

pianist

The edit makes me giggle.

Haha, the irony!

Avatar image for Darthmatt
Darthmatt

8970

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#434 Darthmatt
Member since 2002 • 8970 Posts
Theory is the 4 letter word of science. I have an untested theory. For now, I can only believe that I can pick my nose with my little toe. Plausable, yes, but un-tested, un-measured, but just a belief. Now let me apply some research..... Yup, it worked. My theory just moved from belief to acceptance by applying research, and gaining facts on how, and why my theory is possible. Now my theory, like evolution has documented evidence to support it. However, many variable always exist. What if my toenails are very long, or I lost my little toe? More extensive research would be needed than the old tried and true method, but I would still be able to make a logical deduction in any case.
Avatar image for diz360
diz360

1504

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#435 diz360
Member since 2007 • 1504 Posts
[QUOTE="diz360"]AndyB,

You contradict yourself by saying there is no violence in the khoran, the quoting some! I can disount anything Bush says as he's a born again christian - not the sort of rational being I'd like to see in power in the USA.

Pascal's wager states that your view on following life for a test at the end is a bad decision. For example, if you believe in the wrong god, many religions would see that as a terrible sin, so you may be cast into "damnation" if they are right and you are wrong. If you live your life being a good person, then this "fabled" test at the end should see you though as you say, so what is the point in believing in any gods?

You may argue that our good behaviour is moddeled on the bible or khroan. I'd say that's crap, as societies in pre-christian eras had the same social constructs and morals that we see today.

There were problems before organised religion, but organised religion has solved none of them - in fact its made things worse!

You seem to encapsulate all christian and mohammadian views globally, but this is a falsehood. There are many conflicting varieties of christianity and of islam, so there is no general concensus between them. For example, some extreme catholics would disagree entirely with anglicans over the content of the bible and how its been interpreted.

I believe things that sound reasonanble. Bible stories sound entirely unreasonable and when I question them, I'm met with derision rather than proof.

I do know lots about the khoran, as I do continually question my own views and do compare them to religious doctrine. The khoran states that if you want to question your mohammadan religion, ask an imaam (religious leader). It goes on to say that you should not disuss your religious doubts with infidels. What more evidence of a self-perpetuating littany of lies do you need? Not to mention the outright oppression of women and the refusal to participate in democracy and fairness in preference to sharia (religious) law.

andyb1205

Oppression of woman? Are you kidding me?

Let's see. At the time of the Babylonians, if a Man murdered someone, his "wife" was to be the one punished.

In Greek time, woman were seen as a source of pleasure or entertainment. Before Islam came, the Arabs were sex beasts. Islam brought rights to woman, don't judge a religion based on its people. People are people, they're useless. Base a religion on its text (aka book).

Does Bible have its flaws? Yes. But it's still got some moral values.

Now..does the Koran have any flaws, contradictions, scientific errors, or anything that goes against humanity? No.

Do you know what an infidel is? An unbeliever. Do you know what the Koran verse was refering to when it said to "kill the infidels"? It was refering to a Pagan tribe that was harassing them, therefore were at war with them. Let's not generalize, of course they weren't supposed to discuss their religious doubts with those "pagans". lol.

In Sharia Law, there's some absurd stuff. But think about it. If someone raped your sister or mother, what would you do? You'd want to kill the motherf.... Now if someone raped someone else's woman, what would you say? You'd say the death penalty is ridiculous! Why double standards.

Btw, don't base opinions based on Imaams. Muslims should follow the Koran, respect the Prophets and those associated with them (family,etc).

You know why there's been war in the world? War is a clash of opinions. It can be religious, or political. But far more have died from political reasons. You think the Christians gave a crap about the Bible during the Crusades? It was used as a propaganda tool to gain back Jerusalem, and I think we all know who the nicest person was during Crusades, Saladin, he was a Muslim. While the Christians butchered every jew and muslim when they took the city, he did not.

Every religion has its moments. Right now Islam has its moments, but that's a different issue because honestly USA is the reason of this uprise. Settings up the Shah in Iran (brutal murderous dictator), backing up Saddham, that's a diff story.

When Islam ruled Spain, they didn't convert everyone. India was ruled by Muslims, but why isn't India mostly a Muslim-country today? The Jews "Golden Age" was when they were ruled by Muslims. Look, you can't judge a religion based on people. Back in those days Christianity would be the so called "terrorist", today it's Islam. Tomorrow it'll be something else.

Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, Zoroasterism, and probably some more that I missed all believe that there is One God "generally" (debatable for Christianity). Now why would they fight eachother if they believe in the same God? Political reasons...one side would use propaganda by pulling out small differences.

I think most of Gamespot can agree, from what I've seen, that without religion the world would not have been any better.

If most people followed the Islamic view of "if you do good deeds, you will be rewarded", would that be better than "do whatever you want but believe in Mr. Jesus"? Infact, most people, even if they're atheist, are really nice people. There's nice Christians, Muslims, whatever. Doesn't matter what religion you follow or if you follow one at all, it's about being a good person. But there's always bad people. With or without religion, there's always bad people. Get what I'm saying?

Of course islam is oppressive to women. Of course islamic script can be interpreted as violent. You have just quoted some, then drawn your own inference as to what it means. Other mohammadans would disagree with you. Its there in the khoran and plain to see for all. The reason why there are so many different islamic viewpoints is that there is so much room for interpretation.

Your "one god" statement is quite untrue. If you have a look at the BBC survey, you'll find that the idea of an intercahageable god is not a widely held belief, especially as you go further east.

Why don't you speak for yourself, rather than assuming that everyone agrees with you. Form reading the forums here, I'd say the majority don't believe in the religious hokum you spout. Why not just speak for your own views?

The "good deeds" view is part of rational moral society and existed a long time before islam or christianity started.

About Imaams, I was just reading from the khoran there. Would you ignore certain parts of it? According to the khoran, if you are a muslim, you are going against the word of the book in constructing a debate with me! If someone raped my wife, I'd want to see them punished to the fullest extent of the law. For me to rape him in revenge would be entirely unfitting in the society I choose to live in. I don't need religion to tell me that 2 wrongs don't make a right. I'm amazed that you seem to know how I'd react and think.

History can show you lessons from the past so you don't repeat them, or it can foster ideas of vengance and hate. I think your post indicates you draw the latter option.

Avatar image for ninjacat11
ninjacat11

5008

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#436 ninjacat11
Member since 2004 • 5008 Posts

flame me for this one, idc if you call me uneducated.

but i dont see how both cant coexist, if i were a superior being giving birth to a new species in my mirror image, wouldnt the natural mechanism of evolution be more efficient than constant divine intervention?

middito

Actually, both can coexist.

Avatar image for erc500
erc500

235

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#437 erc500
Member since 2003 • 235 Posts

Theory is the 4 letter word of science. I have an untested theory. For now, I can only believe that I can pick my nose with my little toe. Plausable, yes, but un-tested, un-measured, but just a belief. Now let me apply some research..... Yup, it worked. My theory just moved from belief to acceptance by applying research, and gaining facts on how, and why my theory is possible. Now my theory, like evolution has documented evidence to support it. However, many variable always exist. What if my toenails are very long, or I lost my little toe? More extensive research would be needed than the old tried and true method, but I would still be able to make a logical deduction in any case.Darthmatt

whats your point? are you saying science isunreliable or am i getting this completely backwards?

Avatar image for Articangel2007
Articangel2007

144

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#438 Articangel2007
Member since 2007 • 144 Posts
[QUOTE="Articangel2007"]

FACT:

Evolution is false.

the world was created in 7 days just like the bible read.

Look up Kent Hovind as he explains with great detail how this happend why evolution is false and he does use science to explain his theory.

353535355353535

kent hovind? kent hovind the tax evader? I sincerly hope you are joking

BTW, if the laws of physics are true (which they are), the universe cannot in any possibility be 6000 years old

if the universe were 6000 years old, we would not be able to see the andromeda galaxy.

I like how people attack his tax problems and completly avoid the arguements he makes because they know he's right.

Avatar image for 353535355353535
353535355353535

4424

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#439 353535355353535
Member since 2005 • 4424 Posts
[QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="Articangel2007"]

FACT:

Evolution is false.

the world was created in 7 days just like the bible read.

Look up Kent Hovind as he explains with great detail how this happend why evolution is false and he does use science to explain his theory.

Articangel2007

kent hovind? kent hovind the tax evader? I sincerly hope you are joking

BTW, if the laws of physics are true (which they are), the universe cannot in any possibility be 6000 years old

if the universe were 6000 years old, we would not be able to see the andromeda galaxy.

I like how people attack his tax problems and completly avoid the arguements he makes because they know he's right.

well, im at work, but if you can give us some evidence that the earth is 6000 years old, I'm all ears
Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#440 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts

[QUOTE="Darthmatt"]Theory is the 4 letter word of science. I have an untested theory. For now, I can only believe that I can pick my nose with my little toe. Plausable, yes, but un-tested, un-measured, but just a belief. Now let me apply some research..... Yup, it worked. My theory just moved from belief to acceptance by applying research, and gaining facts on how, and why my theory is possible. Now my theory, like evolution has documented evidence to support it. However, many variable always exist. What if my toenails are very long, or I lost my little toe? More extensive research would be needed than the old tried and true method, but I would still be able to make a logical deduction in any case.erc500

whats your point? are you saying science isunreliable or am i getting this completely backwards?

Backwards.. He is saying Theory is more or less fact in the science community.. He then goes about how these are made.. While at the same time showing religious belief can not use the logical line of scientific process to prove it.

Avatar image for Silver_Dragon17
Silver_Dragon17

6205

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#441 Silver_Dragon17
Member since 2007 • 6205 Posts

I like how people attack his tax problems and completly avoid the arguements he makes because they know he's right.

Articangel2007

Actually. . .Kent Hovind is a disgrace. He has such a poor view of evolution. He does not even know the way evolution is presented, and he confuses it with cosmology. He is very stupid, and I say this as a creationist.

As for the Earth being 6000 years old, that's another story all together. The age of the Earth isn't relevant to evolution vs. creation; An old Earth is just an icon of evolution.

Avatar image for Gamer556
Gamer556

3846

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#442 Gamer556
Member since 2006 • 3846 Posts
[QUOTE="borris_1"]

Free will does not exist if God knows everything.

Rhazakna

The way I understand it, just because it's known what you'll do, doesn't mean you're forced to do it. You could've chosen differently, you just didn't.

Wrong. If it's pre-destined, it's not free will. You can't "choose" to do something that is already set in stone.

Avatar image for andyb1205
andyb1205

612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#443 andyb1205
Member since 2007 • 612 Posts
[QUOTE="andyb1205"][QUOTE="diz360"]AndyB,

You contradict yourself by saying there is no violence in the khoran, the quoting some! I can disount anything Bush says as he's a born again christian - not the sort of rational being I'd like to see in power in the USA.

Pascal's wager states that your view on following life for a test at the end is a bad decision. For example, if you believe in the wrong god, many religions would see that as a terrible sin, so you may be cast into "damnation" if they are right and you are wrong. If you live your life being a good person, then this "fabled" test at the end should see you though as you say, so what is the point in believing in any gods?

You may argue that our good behaviour is moddeled on the bible or khroan. I'd say that's crap, as societies in pre-christian eras had the same social constructs and morals that we see today.

There were problems before organised religion, but organised religion has solved none of them - in fact its made things worse!

You seem to encapsulate all christian and mohammadian views globally, but this is a falsehood. There are many conflicting varieties of christianity and of islam, so there is no general concensus between them. For example, some extreme catholics would disagree entirely with anglicans over the content of the bible and how its been interpreted.

I believe things that sound reasonanble. Bible stories sound entirely unreasonable and when I question them, I'm met with derision rather than proof.

I do know lots about the khoran, as I do continually question my own views and do compare them to religious doctrine. The khoran states that if you want to question your mohammadan religion, ask an imaam (religious leader). It goes on to say that you should not disuss your religious doubts with infidels. What more evidence of a self-perpetuating littany of lies do you need? Not to mention the outright oppression of women and the refusal to participate in democracy and fairness in preference to sharia (religious) law.

diz360

Oppression of woman? Are you kidding me?

Let's see. At the time of the Babylonians, if a Man murdered someone, his "wife" was to be the one punished.

In Greek time, woman were seen as a source of pleasure or entertainment. Before Islam came, the Arabs were sex beasts. Islam brought rights to woman, don't judge a religion based on its people. People are people, they're useless. Base a religion on its text (aka book).

Does Bible have its flaws? Yes. But it's still got some moral values.

Now..does the Koran have any flaws, contradictions, scientific errors, or anything that goes against humanity? No.

Do you know what an infidel is? An unbeliever. Do you know what the Koran verse was refering to when it said to "kill the infidels"? It was refering to a Pagan tribe that was harassing them, therefore were at war with them. Let's not generalize, of course they weren't supposed to discuss their religious doubts with those "pagans". lol.

In Sharia Law, there's some absurd stuff. But think about it. If someone raped your sister or mother, what would you do? You'd want to kill the motherf.... Now if someone raped someone else's woman, what would you say? You'd say the death penalty is ridiculous! Why double standards.

Btw, don't base opinions based on Imaams. Muslims should follow the Koran, respect the Prophets and those associated with them (family,etc).

You know why there's been war in the world? War is a clash of opinions. It can be religious, or political. But far more have died from political reasons. You think the Christians gave a crap about the Bible during the Crusades? It was used as a propaganda tool to gain back Jerusalem, and I think we all know who the nicest person was during Crusades, Saladin, he was a Muslim. While the Christians butchered every jew and muslim when they took the city, he did not.

Every religion has its moments. Right now Islam has its moments, but that's a different issue because honestly USA is the reason of this uprise. Settings up the Shah in Iran (brutal murderous dictator), backing up Saddham, that's a diff story.

When Islam ruled Spain, they didn't convert everyone. India was ruled by Muslims, but why isn't India mostly a Muslim-country today? The Jews "Golden Age" was when they were ruled by Muslims. Look, you can't judge a religion based on people. Back in those days Christianity would be the so called "terrorist", today it's Islam. Tomorrow it'll be something else.

Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, Zoroasterism, and probably some more that I missed all believe that there is One God "generally" (debatable for Christianity). Now why would they fight eachother if they believe in the same God? Political reasons...one side would use propaganda by pulling out small differences.

I think most of Gamespot can agree, from what I've seen, that without religion the world would not have been any better.

If most people followed the Islamic view of "if you do good deeds, you will be rewarded", would that be better than "do whatever you want but believe in Mr. Jesus"? Infact, most people, even if they're atheist, are really nice people. There's nice Christians, Muslims, whatever. Doesn't matter what religion you follow or if you follow one at all, it's about being a good person. But there's always bad people. With or without religion, there's always bad people. Get what I'm saying?

Of course islam is oppressive to women. Of course islamic script can be interpreted as violent. You have just quoted some, then drawn your own inference as to what it means. Other mohammadans would disagree with you. Its there in the khoran and plain to see for all. The reason why there are so many different islamic viewpoints is that there is so much room for interpretation.

Your "one god" statement is quite untrue. If you have a look at the BBC survey, you'll find that the idea of an intercahageable god is not a widely held belief, especially as you go further east.

Why don't you speak for yourself, rather than assuming that everyone agrees with you. Form reading the forums here, I'd say the majority don't believe in the religious hokum you spout. Why not just speak for your own views?

The "good deeds" view is part of rational moral society and existed a long time before islam or christianity started.

About Imaams, I was just reading from the khoran there. Would you ignore certain parts of it? According to the khoran, if you are a muslim, you are going against the word of the book in constructing a debate with me! If someone raped my wife, I'd want to see them punished to the fullest extent of the law. For me to rape him in revenge would be entirely unfitting in the society I choose to live in. I don't need religion to tell me that 2 wrongs don't make a right. I'm amazed that you seem to know how I'd react and think.

History can show you lessons from the past so you don't repeat them, or it can foster ideas of vengance and hate. I think your post indicates you draw the latter option.

Dude, Islam brought more rights to Women than anything before it. You need to research more.

Where are these violent verses? Please read them out. There's none, if there are, bring them out, do it.

Muslim's (not mine, I'm not Muslim, I was agnostic, now a bit theist but I'll defend something no doubt if people misinterpret it) version of God is flawed? There's One God, according to them, and Mohammed is his "prophet". Worshipping Mohammed or any prophet is a sin.

On other hand, Christianity can't be monotheist because Jesus was not the Son of God and still people worship him or pray through him. You know who Richard Dawkins is? He's a wide-known biologist/evolutionist. He is a atheist, and he had a a Book and discussion (found on video on youtube) on God (of course he only mentioned Christianity since that is the main religion in U.S.) and lol the conclusion was that it's not even monotheist.

Btw he was on Fox owning Bill O'Reilly, who said that atheists are the biggest bane to society cause of Hitler (who wasn't atheist) and that einstein/stephen hawkings/and richard dawkin haven't found out the truth of how the universe began because the answer is only the Bible. LOL. (how is this guy on Fox???? dissing the smartest people from the past century)

Anyways, yah, in Islam, there is only One God. Jesus was a prophet, Mohammed was a prophet, and it says that besides the one's mentioned in the Koran, there have been 300 000 (number was in the hundred thousands, forgot correct number) of other prophets, and that every nation that has lived has had a prophet. That's more believable than Jesus is the only one and if you don't believe in him you go to Hell, meaning Abraham,etc were sitting in Hell til he came.

Man you got to know more of your damn history! Just cause they dress in Burqas (btw the Koran does not say to cover your face, actually your face and hands should be clearly exposed so that's culture issues aka oppression of women but it's cause of man not the koran).

At least put a good argument man. Btw are you atheist, Christian, or ognostic, or what?

Btw in Islam God can't do anything He wants, therefore we do have free will. He may know when your life will end but not what you will do it, otherwise He'd know if a newborn child will go to Hell or not LOL.

From Christian's point of view, before Christianity everyone went to Hell and Jesus is the savior. Oh...yah...COINCIDENTLY in your life-time Christianity is there to save you, yah ok there.

My belief is that perhaps God cannot alter the Universe after he made it, since it has to stay under the Laws of Science. Perhaps he must be outside the Universe itself, so that He is not constrained by these laws. I'm undecided on if Man came from Apes or from a pair (Adam&Eve) but we can't debate that because neither of them are facts. But.. the Earth being older than 6000 years is a fact.

Avatar image for Rhazakna
Rhazakna

11022

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#444 Rhazakna
Member since 2004 • 11022 Posts
[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="borris_1"]

Free will does not exist if God knows everything.

Gamer556

The way I understand it, just because it's known what you'll do, doesn't mean you're forced to do it. You could've chosen differently, you just didn't.

Wrong. If it's pre-destined, it's not free will. You can't "choose" to do something that is already set in stone.

I am not stating my philosophy, I am merely presenting what Christians believe.

Avatar image for Silver_Dragon17
Silver_Dragon17

6205

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#445 Silver_Dragon17
Member since 2007 • 6205 Posts
[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="borris_1"]

Free will does not exist if God knows everything.

Gamer556

The way I understand it, just because it's known what you'll do, doesn't mean you're forced to do it. You could've chosen differently, you just didn't.

Wrong. If it's pre-destined, it's not free will. You can't "choose" to do something that is already set in stone.

Knowing what will happen and pre-determining what will happen are two very different things. God may or may not know what will happen next, but does He pre-determine it? I doubt that, considering that free will is a big part of Christianity.

Avatar image for dnuggs40
dnuggs40

10484

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#446 dnuggs40
Member since 2003 • 10484 Posts
[QUOTE="Gamer556"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="borris_1"]

Free will does not exist if God knows everything.

Silver_Dragon17

The way I understand it, just because it's known what you'll do, doesn't mean you're forced to do it. You could've chosen differently, you just didn't.

Wrong. If it's pre-destined, it's not free will. You can't "choose" to do something that is already set in stone.

Knowing what will happen and pre-determining what will happen are two very different things. God may or may not know what will happen next, but does He pre-determine it? I doubt that, considering that free will is a big part of Christianity.

If he knows what will happen, then your destiny is already pre-determined. If you say "you could change your mind", then you would have to assume god knew you were going to change your mind as well, and this would still be destiny.

"God may or may not know what will happen next, but does He pre-determine it?"

If he knows what will happen, that means it's already determined (whether by his hand or not). Otherwise, how could you know?

Avatar image for CptJSparrow
CptJSparrow

10898

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#447 CptJSparrow
Member since 2007 • 10898 Posts

I like how people attack his tax problems and completly avoid the arguements he makes because they know he's right.

Articangel2007
Kent Hovind is a dumbass. I downloaded a speech by him, and it's utter garbage. He is a careful speaker; I'll give him that, but his speeches are much more making fun of evolution and much less giving anything but assumptions and quoting bible passages to fit what he wants people to believe.
Avatar image for Gamer556
Gamer556

3846

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#448 Gamer556
Member since 2006 • 3846 Posts
[QUOTE="Gamer556"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="borris_1"]

Free will does not exist if God knows everything.

Silver_Dragon17

The way I understand it, just because it's known what you'll do, doesn't mean you're forced to do it. You could've chosen differently, you just didn't.

Wrong. If it's pre-destined, it's not free will. You can't "choose" to do something that is already set in stone.

Knowing what will happen and pre-determining what will happen are two very different things. God may or may not know what will happen next, but does He pre-determine it? I doubt that, considering that free will is a big part of Christianity.

"Knowing what will happen and pre-determining what will happen are two very different things."

To absolutely know something is going to happen, that event must be pre-determined. Period. Otherwise you are just guessing.

If God is all knowing, there is no free will.

Avatar image for CptJSparrow
CptJSparrow

10898

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#449 CptJSparrow
Member since 2007 • 10898 Posts

"Knowing what will happen and pre-determining what will happen are two very different things."

To absolutely know something is going to happen, that event must be pre-determined. Period. Otherwise you are just guessing.

If God is all knowing, there is no free will.

Gamer556
My friend has a choice of whether or not to divorce his wife. I know that he will not divorce her because he is a fool and literally believes that things will always work out good in the end. Therefore free will must not exist because I know what choice he will make.
Avatar image for Silver_Dragon17
Silver_Dragon17

6205

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#450 Silver_Dragon17
Member since 2007 • 6205 Posts
[QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="Gamer556"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="borris_1"]

Free will does not exist if God knows everything.

dnuggs40

The way I understand it, just because it's known what you'll do, doesn't mean you're forced to do it. You could've chosen differently, you just didn't.

Wrong. If it's pre-destined, it's not free will. You can't "choose" to do something that is already set in stone.

Knowing what will happen and pre-determining what will happen are two very different things. God may or may not know what will happen next, but does He pre-determine it? I doubt that, considering that free will is a big part of Christianity.

If he knows what will happen, then your destiny is already pre-determined. If you say "you could change your mind", then you would have to assume god knew you were going to change your mind as well, and this would still be destiny.

"God may or may not know what will happen next, but does He pre-determine it?"

If he knows what will happen, that means it's already determined (whether by his hand or not). Otherwise, how could you know?

No, it means He knows everything.:| God lives in all times at once, past present and future, so God would see what is happening in the future WHILE IT IS HAPPENING, even though for us, the future hasn't happened yet. So God knows, but doesn't pre-determine.

God would know that you would change your mind, but that doesn't mean God said "Okay, in five years he's going to change his mind." More like "Huh. He just changed his mind."