27 Jun 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerWe are discussing evolution, you however deny your first principle that all your arguments are based. Which is Genesis 1.
Same strategy. Change the subject. Are we discussing God or evolution?
.Your belief in that sillyness is why you can't accept the reality of evolution or any other parts of scientific knowlege that shows your first principle to be wrong. This being the case: you aren't able to make a rational judgement about the evidence.
You've built this reification of a stone age view into God , and everthing has to be seen as agreeing with that book or it's false.
The early Christians knew better ,but they were suppressed by people just like you.
27 Jun 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerTrueorigin.org is mostly based on religious arguments rather than scientific, and since this is a scientific debate this is not valid.
Please refer to the Trueorigin web page. It is a refutation of the talkorigins site.
See: www.trueorigin.org
If you wan't to have your eyes kept closed, then fine by me, but don't try to close other people's eyes. Religion is darkness and science is light.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
27 Jun 05
Originally posted by frogstompWhat makes Abiogenisis more scientific than Genisis 1?
We are discussing evolution, you however deny your first principle that all your arguments are based. Which is Genesis 1.
.Your belief in that sillyness is why you can't accept the reality of evolution or any other parts of scientific knowlege that shows your first principle to be wrong. This being the case: you aren't able t ...[text shortened]... lse.
The early Christians knew better ,but they were suppressed by people just like you.
Are you saying that nobody that believes in God can make a rational judgement about the evidence but all those that don't believe in God are rational?
Well with that presupposition I see that I have been wasting my time all along. I am afraid I shall not be able to offer you anything to remove you from your pit of deception. I shall not continue to waste my time on you.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
27 Jun 05
Originally posted by nickybuttWould you mind pointing out any religious arguments?
Trueorigin.org is mostly based on religious arguments rather than scientific, and since this is a scientific debate this is not valid.
If you wan't to have your eyes kept closed, then fine by me, but don't try to close other people's eyes. Religion is darkness and science is light.
27 Jun 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerTaken from: http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1e.asp#pred20
Would you mind pointing out any religious arguments?
Again, it is an unprovable theological assertion that God would not place the same nonfunctional sequences at the same locus in separate species. He may have a purpose for doing so that is beyond our present understanding. The objection that placing nonfunctional sequences at the same locus in separate species would make God guilty of deception is ill founded. God cannot be charged fairly with deception when we choose to draw conclusions from data that contradict what he has revealed in Scripture (see Gibson’s comments from the preceding section).
Sounds pretty Goddoneit to me...
Again, Science makes you think about why things are the way they are, whereas religion only tells you to do as you are told.
27 Jun 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerHey, probability cut 'n paste boy, do you care to stand behind the post you copied from http://creationsafaris.com/epoi_c02.htm#ec02f06
What makes Abiogenisis more scientific than Genisis 1?
Are you saying that nobody that believes in God can make a rational judgement about the evidence but all those that don't believe in God are rational?
Well with that presupposition I see that I have been wasting my time all along. I am afraid I shall not be able to offer you anything to remove you from your pit of deception. I shall not continue to waste my time on you.
in the OP? Or do you admit that not only is their analogy misplaced but also they couldn't even do the math in their made up problem correctly?
I demonstrated mathematically that the site was either ignorant or lying. Given the overall quality of the post, I'm going to go with the first possibility.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
27 Jun 05
Originally posted by nickybuttScience totally agrees with the Bible. Science was founded on the Bible. But obviously evolution was invented to try and disprove the Bible. Disagree?
Taken from: http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1e.asp#pred20
Again, it is an unprovable theological assertion that God would not place the same nonfunctional sequences at the same locus in separate species. He may have a purpose for doing so that is beyond our present understanding. The objection that placing nonfunctional sequences at the same locus i ...[text shortened]... nk about why things are the way they are, whereas religion only tells you to do as you are told.
If so please point out where the Bible and science disagree.
By the way, the belief of many people in evolution is based on religious predjudice. Your belief in evolution is just as "religious" as my belief in God.
BTW: The fact that the trueorigins website mentions God does not mean it is not scientific. Please go ahead and point out anything that is not scientific, but don't give my the non-sense that it is unscientific because they mention God.
27 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckermight be because abiogenesis isnt stolen Sumerian mythology.
What makes Abiogenisis more scientific than Genisis 1?
Are you saying that nobody that believes in God can make a rational judgement about the evidence but all those that don't believe in God are rational?
Well with that presupposi ...[text shortened]... ur pit of deception. I shall not continue to waste my time on you.
like genesis 1 is.
nope im saying your irrationality prevents you.
your bible aint God ,in fact the OT god was called Error by the early Christians and the Father that Christ spoke of was not the OT god.
Your god comes to you VIA the goon squads that persecuted the real Christians so the OT god could be reinstated.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
27 Jun 05
Originally posted by frogstompYou obviously don't know the God of the Bible...
might be because abiogenesis isnt stolen Sumerian mythology.
like grnesis 1 is.
nope im saying your irrationality prevents you.
your bible aint God ,in fact the OT god was called Error by the early Christians and the Father that Christ spoke of was not the OT god.
Your god comes to you VIA the goon squads that persecuted the real Christians so the OT god could be reinstated.
27 Jun 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerI obviously dont wanna know a god that orders genocide.
You obviously don't know the God of the Bible...
that reminds me: Do you guys at the mission teach the Zulus its ok to kill everybody thats living on the land God gave you. If you don't you haven't taught them about that OT god.
27 Jun 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerScience totally agrees with the Bible. Science was founded on the Bible. But obviously evolution was invented to try and disprove the Bible. Disagree?
Science totally agrees with the Bible. Science was founded on the Bible. But obviously evolution was invented to try and disprove the Bible. Disagree?
If so please point out where the Bible and science disagree.
By the way, the belief of many people in evolution is based on religious predjudice. Your belief in evolution is just as "religious" as my ...[text shortened]... t scientific, but don't give my the non-sense that it is unscientific because they mention God.
What do you think? Of course I disagree. Evolution is not trying to disprove the Bible because the Bible is wrong in so many ways, there doesn't need to be invented a scientific field to prove that.
If so please point out where the Bible and science disagree.
The Bible says the Earth is flat, science disagrees. The Bible says the Earth is young, science disagrees. The Bible says Earth was created before the Sun, science disagrees. The Bible says plants were created before the Sun, science disagrees. And the list goes on, but I'm not going to look up more examples
By the way, the belief of many people in evolution is based on religious predjudice. Your belief in evolution is just as "religious" as my belief in God.
Remember how I directed you to talkorigins whenever you had an idiotic claim? Pick either, or both.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA612.html
BTW: The fact that the trueorigins website mentions God does not mean it is not scientific. Please go ahead and point out anything that is not scientific, but don't give my the non-sense that it is unscientific because they mention God.
The example I gave is quite valid. Pseudogenes can be explained from a scientific point of view as a part of the Theory of Evolution, whereas trueorigins just ends up explaining it with the good old Goddidit answer. That is NOT scientific, since it can't be disproven. Any scientific claim has to be disproven scientifically otherwise it's not science.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
27 Jun 05
Originally posted by frogstompYour short mindedness and inability to grasp and understand scriputure is astounding. I will not answer such a silly question. All I can say is come and see for yourself.
I obviously dont wanna know a god that orders genocide.
that reminds me: Do you guys at the mission teach the Zulus its ok to kill everybody thats living on the land God gave you. If you don't you haven't taught them about that OT god.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
27 Jun 05
Originally posted by nickybuttSee:http://www.bibleandscience.com/science/bibleandscience.htm
[b]Science totally agrees with the Bible. Science was founded on the Bible. But obviously evolution was invented to try and disprove the Bible. Disagree?
What do you think? Of course I disagree. Evolution is not trying to disprove the Bible because the Bible is wrong in so many ways, there doesn't need to be invented a scientific field to prove th ...[text shortened]... isproven. Any scientific claim has to be disproven scientifically otherwise it's not science.
[/b]
What makes you so sure that science needs to be able to explain everything? Is science not simply human effort? What makes you sure that science is superior to the Bible? Can science explain everything?
27 Jun 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerThe Bible and science don't disagree, if we read the Bible as it was meant to be read. Genesis is an allegorical story and is accepted as such by the vast majority of Christians throughout the world. Your view is not mandated by the Bible, but is a perverse reading. Evolution, like any scientific theory, was created to explain observed natural phenomena; it is utterly neutral on the Bible or any other religious texts. This has been explained to you over and over and over again, but you choose to believe a tiny group of fanatics who truly believe that evolution is some sort of conspiracy against God. This is utter nonsense and you should know that by now.
Science totally agrees with the Bible. Science was founded on the Bible. But obviously evolution was invented to try and disprove the Bible. Disagree?
If so please point out where the Bible and science disagree.
By the way, the belief of many people in evolution is based on religious predjudice. Your belief in evolution is just as "religious" as my ...[text shortened]... t scientific, but don't give my the non-sense that it is unscientific because they mention God.