Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
841

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Most Christians I know don’t believe that anything out of scripture belongs in a science classroom.

Science is about hunches and proof and evidence and theories. Religion is about faith–blind faith, faith without proof, faith in something even the face of evidence to the contrary. I sometimes envy people with the capacity to have that kind of faith, but there is no room for it in a science classroom.[/quote]

Why would you envy them? Faith is not a pathway to truth and if they’re ignoring evidence on top of having faith (which is already completely a bad idea) then I would say I definitely do not envy them.

Extreme faith in the face of evidence is extreme stupidity because at least before there was no other explanation but if there is another explanation and you’re STILL ignoring it and having “faith” in something else…well let’s just say I would not want a person with those decision making abilities working for me.[/quote]

You’re preachin’ to the choir brother. I am an agnostic, because anyone who says they know that God does or does not exist is lying. But when it comes to the great religions of the world I’m in Hitchens’ corner.

My point was simply that it would nice to see my loved ones again in some fairy-tale world and a very small part of me envies anyone who has that belief, however silly, to comfort them.

842

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
Please explain more what you mean by remission of sins and contrite prayer. If you tell me what that is then I guess I can probably explain how to falsify them. But the issue may be that they don’t need to be falsified because they aren’t shown to be true anyway.[/quote]

Sir, you implied that science had falsified contact with God. That human testing has shown that there is no contact. And that prayer doesn’t do ANYTHING. How was the forgiveness of sins, following a prayer of contrition, falsified? There’s nothing else to it.
[/quote]

Ok I see. Well it looks like there’s no way to test it…[/quote]

All you needed to say. This goes back to Thunderbolt’s comments. Enjoy your day.
[/quote]

Yup, no way to test it, no evidence that it exists, no reason to believe it exists, and if you do believe it exists without testing it’s existence using existing evidence then…speaks a lot about your mental state.
[/quote]

I can only imagine you’re implying an abnormal mental state. Surely you didn’t mean to compliment me. So, have the psychological/neural sciences shown it to be abnormal? One of the most widespread practices of humanity? Do you have a link for that?

I always enjoy my days, but thank you.[/quote]

I didn’t mean you specifically, but people in general.

Anywho I’m saying anyone who believes something without evidence isn’t making sense because faith is without evidence and people honestly don’t use faith for anything else in life (Seriously try and think of one thing) so why should we use it to answer one of the most interesting and important questions there is? (How we came to be)

[/quote]

You’re pretty far off the reservation. Science doesn’t prove anything absolutely to be true either. It just says things are probable.

At the basis of science there is an element of faith. You have faith that the universe is as you perceive it to be. You assume this to be true. It is your base premise that all of your probable beliefs rest upon.(This is what I believe as well, but I am aware of it and you seem to not be)

Please prove to me that you know with 100 percent certainty that the universe is exactly as you perceive it to be and that you are not just assuming this is the case. Having some faith as it were.
[/quote]

Give me a break. Faith that the universe is as I perceive it to be? You’re saying there’s no evidence for that? There’s obviously lots of evidence that we live and feel everyday that supports the idea of our perception being real. How about if I smash my head into a brick wall then my face bleeds? That’s evidence for the universe being real.

And yes science isn’t 100 certainty but I think you know what I mean when I say faith isn’t a pathway to truth because it obviously means ZERO evidence and THAT would be ridiculous to go the route with which there is no supporting reason and/or evidence.

The point is that Religion/Faith offers no evidence for any of the supernatural claims it makes.

843

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
Please explain more what you mean by remission of sins and contrite prayer. If you tell me what that is then I guess I can probably explain how to falsify them. But the issue may be that they don’t need to be falsified because they aren’t shown to be true anyway.[/quote]

Sir, you implied that science had falsified contact with God. That human testing has shown that there is no contact. And that prayer doesn’t do ANYTHING. How was the forgiveness of sins, following a prayer of contrition, falsified? There’s nothing else to it.
[/quote]

Ok I see. Well it looks like there’s no way to test it…[/quote]

All you needed to say. This goes back to Thunderbolt’s comments. Enjoy your day.
[/quote]

Yup, no way to test it, no evidence that it exists, no reason to believe it exists, and if you do believe it exists without testing it’s existence using existing evidence then…speaks a lot about your mental state.
[/quote]

I can only imagine you’re implying an abnormal mental state. Surely you didn’t mean to compliment me. So, have the psychological/neural sciences shown it to be abnormal? One of the most widespread practices of humanity? Do you have a link for that?

I always enjoy my days, but thank you.[/quote]

I didn’t mean you specifically, but people in general.

Anywho I’m saying anyone who believes something without evidence isn’t making sense because faith is without evidence and people honestly don’t use faith for anything else in life (Seriously try and think of one thing) so why should we use it to answer one of the most interesting and important questions there is? (How we came to be)

[/quote]

We all go to bed every day with the belief/faith that we’re going to wake up in the morning, and live our lives accordingly. We believe. We have no proof.

I think there are plenty of instances in our lives we resort to faith.

[/quote]

WRONGGGG!

The evidence that we will wake up is because we as humans have witnessed/observed animals/people/whatevers going to sleep and waking up over the past thousand of years sleep has been documented and we know a lot about going to sleep there is plenty of evidence out there so that is definitely 100% NOT FAITH!

844

[quote]smh23 wrote:
My point was simply that it would nice to see my loved ones again in some fairy-tale world and a very small part of me envies anyone who has that belief, however silly, to comfort them.[/quote]

Okey Dokey then partner. I too hope there is something after but at this point it’s tough to believe that.

845

To be science you must use the premise that the natural world is rational, observable, and can be described using natural processes. What happens when you try to use science to prove the soundness and validity of science?

846

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
Please explain more what you mean by remission of sins and contrite prayer. If you tell me what that is then I guess I can probably explain how to falsify them. But the issue may be that they don’t need to be falsified because they aren’t shown to be true anyway.[/quote]

Sir, you implied that science had falsified contact with God. That human testing has shown that there is no contact. And that prayer doesn’t do ANYTHING. How was the forgiveness of sins, following a prayer of contrition, falsified? There’s nothing else to it.
[/quote]

Ok I see. Well it looks like there’s no way to test it…[/quote]

All you needed to say. This goes back to Thunderbolt’s comments. Enjoy your day.
[/quote]

Yup, no way to test it, no evidence that it exists, no reason to believe it exists, and if you do believe it exists without testing it’s existence using existing evidence then…speaks a lot about your mental state.
[/quote]

I can only imagine you’re implying an abnormal mental state. Surely you didn’t mean to compliment me. So, have the psychological/neural sciences shown it to be abnormal? One of the most widespread practices of humanity? Do you have a link for that?

I always enjoy my days, but thank you.[/quote]

I didn’t mean you specifically, but people in general.

Anywho I’m saying anyone who believes something without evidence isn’t making sense because faith is without evidence and people honestly don’t use faith for anything else in life (Seriously try and think of one thing) so why should we use it to answer one of the most interesting and important questions there is? (How we came to be)

[/quote]

We all go to bed every day with the belief/faith that we’re going to wake up in the morning, and live our lives accordingly. We believe. We have no proof.

I think there are plenty of instances in our lives we resort to faith.

[/quote]

WRONGGGG!

The evidence that we will wake up is because we as humans have witnessed/observed animals/people/whatevers going to sleep and waking up over the past thousand of years sleep has been documented and we know a lot about going to sleep there is plenty of evidence out there so that is definitely 100% NOT FAITH![/quote]

If you say so in caps it must be true.

Of course, all those people that die nightly in their sleep must have had some kind of evidence they were going to wake up. And then, they didn’t. So did they have knowledge or faith?

847

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
Please explain more what you mean by remission of sins and contrite prayer. If you tell me what that is then I guess I can probably explain how to falsify them. But the issue may be that they don’t need to be falsified because they aren’t shown to be true anyway.[/quote]

Sir, you implied that science had falsified contact with God. That human testing has shown that there is no contact. And that prayer doesn’t do ANYTHING. How was the forgiveness of sins, following a prayer of contrition, falsified? There’s nothing else to it.
[/quote]

Ok I see. Well it looks like there’s no way to test it…[/quote]

All you needed to say. This goes back to Thunderbolt’s comments. Enjoy your day.
[/quote]

Yup, no way to test it, no evidence that it exists, no reason to believe it exists, and if you do believe it exists without testing it’s existence using existing evidence then…speaks a lot about your mental state.
[/quote]

I can only imagine you’re implying an abnormal mental state. Surely you didn’t mean to compliment me. So, have the psychological/neural sciences shown it to be abnormal? One of the most widespread practices of humanity? Do you have a link for that?

I always enjoy my days, but thank you.[/quote]

I didn’t mean you specifically, but people in general.

Anywho I’m saying anyone who believes something without evidence isn’t making sense because faith is without evidence and people honestly don’t use faith for anything else in life (Seriously try and think of one thing) so why should we use it to answer one of the most interesting and important questions there is? (How we came to be)

[/quote]

You’re pretty far off the reservation. Science doesn’t prove anything absolutely to be true either. It just says things are probable.

At the basis of science there is an element of faith. You have faith that the universe is as you perceive it to be. You assume this to be true. It is your base premise that all of your probable beliefs rest upon.(This is what I believe as well, but I am aware of it and you seem to not be)

Please prove to me that you know with 100 percent certainty that the universe is exactly as you perceive it to be and that you are not just assuming this is the case. Having some faith as it were.
[/quote]

Give me a break. Faith that the universe is as I perceive it to be? You’re saying there’s no evidence for that? There’s obviously lots of evidence that we live and feel everyday that supports the idea of our perception being real. How about if I smash my head into a brick wall then my face bleeds? That’s evidence for the universe being real.

And yes science isn’t 100 certainty but I think you know what I mean when I say faith isn’t a pathway to truth because it obviously means ZERO evidence and THAT would be ridiculous to go the route with which there is no supporting reason and/or evidence.

The point is that Religion/Faith offers no evidence for any of the supernatural claims it makes.

[/quote]

I am not saying the universe isn’t real just that its not necessarily exactly as you perceive it. Prove that it is.(In fact you couldn’t necessarily prove that you’re hitting the brick and bleeding and the subsequent recovery was anything but a dream either but we’ll just move away from philo101) Its an area that science can’t address. It has been delved into quite a bit by philosophy however.

How would you prove that the material world exists as anything other than some type of mental construct. And if it does that your perceptions are accurate and not just the perceptions of a madman? Or a drunkard? Or someone that is in some type of drug induced haze? Their perceptions seem accurate to them. We just disagree that they are we have a faith that ours are accurate and true representations.

848

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
How about if I smash my head into a brick wall then my face bleeds? That’s evidence for the universe being real.
[/quote]

Weeeellll…

Look, I usually don’t bother with this line of argument, even though it’s a doozy. Seriously, it’s just not my favorite little debate within the debate. But, you have faith that your senses are accurate. Ultimately you perceive within what you think of as your brain (if it even exists in the way you’ve come to accept). You trust your senses actually reflect your head (if it exists) moving (if there actually was movement), and ultimately striking (if there was even an actual impact) a wall (if their actually was one). You have faith that you accurately sense and observe a real universe.

849

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
Please explain more what you mean by remission of sins and contrite prayer. If you tell me what that is then I guess I can probably explain how to falsify them. But the issue may be that they don’t need to be falsified because they aren’t shown to be true anyway.[/quote]

Sir, you implied that science had falsified contact with God. That human testing has shown that there is no contact. And that prayer doesn’t do ANYTHING. How was the forgiveness of sins, following a prayer of contrition, falsified? There’s nothing else to it.
[/quote]

Ok I see. Well it looks like there’s no way to test it…[/quote]

All you needed to say. This goes back to Thunderbolt’s comments. Enjoy your day.
[/quote]

Yup, no way to test it, no evidence that it exists, no reason to believe it exists, and if you do believe it exists without testing it’s existence using existing evidence then…speaks a lot about your mental state.
[/quote]

I can only imagine you’re implying an abnormal mental state. Surely you didn’t mean to compliment me. So, have the psychological/neural sciences shown it to be abnormal? One of the most widespread practices of humanity? Do you have a link for that?

I always enjoy my days, but thank you.[/quote]

I didn’t mean you specifically, but people in general.

Anywho I’m saying anyone who believes something without evidence isn’t making sense because faith is without evidence and people honestly don’t use faith for anything else in life (Seriously try and think of one thing) so why should we use it to answer one of the most interesting and important questions there is? (How we came to be)

[/quote]

We all go to bed every day with the belief/faith that we’re going to wake up in the morning, and live our lives accordingly. We believe. We have no proof.

I think there are plenty of instances in our lives we resort to faith.

[/quote]

WRONGGGG!

The evidence that we will wake up is because we as humans have witnessed/observed animals/people/whatevers going to sleep and waking up over the past thousand of years sleep has been documented and we know a lot about going to sleep there is plenty of evidence out there so that is definitely 100% NOT FAITH![/quote]

If you say so in caps it must be true.

Of course, all those people that die nightly in their sleep must have had some kind of evidence they were going to wake up. And then, they didn’t. So did they have knowledge or faith?[/quote]

They likely had knowledge that when you sleep there is a high percentage chance you wake up and a small percentage chance you die. Deaths in sleep have been observed too yes so what’s your point? There’s no faith involved anywhere…?

850

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:<<< Every living thing is a transitional form. >>>[/quote]Are you sure?
[/quote]

Yup. Evolution isn’t a hypothesis, it’s a fact! :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Evolution is a theory, look it up.

I believe evolution to be a good theory, and strong theory, but it’s just a theory and nothing more.[/quote]

I don’t think you understand what Theory means when used in a Scientific context. Here let me give ya a lesson kid:

"In everyday usage, “theory” often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, “I have a theory about why that happened,” they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence." http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

"A scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.” Scientific theory - Wikipedia

So now do you understand why it’s wrong to say “it’s just a theory and nothing more.”???
[/quote]
You are the one who is mistaken. It is a theory and nothing more and you have no ground on which to say any different. You know why? Because it’s called “The Theory of Evolution”, not the fact. The fact that there is evidence lending to it’s credibility does not lift it out of theory status because the body of evidence very far from complete to completely validate it. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong, it means that their is not enough evidence to substantiate the theory. It’s a good theory, it’s a sound theory, but it’s still only a theory and it never will be anything more. the reason is because it’s impossible to gather all the evidence needed to push it into being a law of science. There are simply to many missing variables that cannot be substantiated. We don’t have enough historical evidence to tie all the missing variables together and it’s likely we never will. Further, it’s not a perfect theory. It’s doesn’t explain everything. For it to be a fact, it has to.
[/quote]

The way you are speaking it sounds like you’re still confused. It sounds like you’re still under the impression that a Theory is the same thing as a Hypothesis.

You say it has to be “Lifted out of theory status” but for it to even get to theory status requires a very high amount of evidence: Hypothesis becomes Theory when there is crap loads of evidence to support the hypothesis. Evolution graduated from Hypothesis to Theory based on crap loads of evidence.

So when you say “Evolution is Theory and nothing more”, what you are saying is:

“Evolution is an explanation which is based on several consistent facts and is supported by a very large body of tested and confirmed scientific evidence, and nothing more.”

You’re getting mixed up with the everyday usage of the word Theory.[/quote]

What you think you are some kind of jedi? I know what the fuck a theory is. The bottom line, is that a theory is not a fact. It seems that you are the one confused. Sure there is evidence for evolution. Evidence compelling enough to agree with most of it. What it is not is scientific fact. It is a not a law of science. There is not enough evidence to move it from theory to law.

The very basic fact you are missing, is that it is a theory and still has a chance to be proven wrong, period. There is evidence for lots of things, but it’s all correlation not deduction. It’s a damn compelling theory, it’s got some good evidence for support, but it’s not a slam dunk. It still has issues that make it an incomplete theory. It will never be complete because it’s impossible to compile all the evidence because it simply isn’t all there. What keeps it a theory is that nobody knows how it works. Based on observations, we can see something like evolution theory is happening, but the mechanism is not known.
It’s a theory and nothing more. If you can make it a fact, a scientific law, then I will pen the letter to the Nobel committee myself.

851

[quote]groo wrote:
I am not saying the universe isn’t real just that its not necessarily exactly as you perceive it. Prove that it is.(In fact you couldn’t necessarily prove that you’re hitting the brick and bleeding and the subsequent recovery was anything but a dream either but we’ll just move away from philo101) Its an area that science can’t address. It has been delved into quite a bit by philosophy however.

How would you prove that the material world exists as anything other than some type of mental construct. And if it does that your perceptions are accurate and not just the perceptions of a madman? Or a drunkard? Or someone that is in some type of drug induced haze? Their perceptions seem accurate to them. We just disagree that they are we have a faith that ours are accurate and true representations.

[/quote]

I’m not saying you need proof I’m saying you need at a MINIMUM: SOME evidence.

852

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]groo wrote: As I said to the fundamentalist such issues are well fundamental. If you don’t believe in YEC then he’d say you are not a Christian. [/quote] The evolution of man is a direct full frontal assault on the gospel of Jesus Christ including His very words. It is the worship of man made constructs right in the face of the God of the universe. Of course people who deny other crystal clear declarations of the scriptures shouldn’t shock us when they embrace evolution as well.
[/quote]

If the Christian God of the Bible was real then he must be either stupid or intentionally trying to confuse us because he left behind a lot of evidence to support Evolution. And to support Christianity he decided to share only a few texts with a select few individuals and then I suppose his intentions were for the rest of us to rely on copies of translations of these texts while ignoring all the evidence for evolution.

Genius![/quote]

You not understanding God with in the context of scripture is your own fault. Don’t pretend to know things you don’t. If you think you know better than God than fix it the way it should be. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s wrong, or that God doesn’t exist. It’s simply something you do not understand and that’s your own fault.

853

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
Please explain more what you mean by remission of sins and contrite prayer. If you tell me what that is then I guess I can probably explain how to falsify them. But the issue may be that they don’t need to be falsified because they aren’t shown to be true anyway.[/quote]

Sir, you implied that science had falsified contact with God. That human testing has shown that there is no contact. And that prayer doesn’t do ANYTHING. How was the forgiveness of sins, following a prayer of contrition, falsified? There’s nothing else to it.
[/quote]

Ok I see. Well it looks like there’s no way to test it…[/quote]

All you needed to say. This goes back to Thunderbolt’s comments. Enjoy your day.
[/quote]

Yup, no way to test it, no evidence that it exists, no reason to believe it exists, and if you do believe it exists without testing it’s existence using existing evidence then…speaks a lot about your mental state.
[/quote]

I can only imagine you’re implying an abnormal mental state. Surely you didn’t mean to compliment me. So, have the psychological/neural sciences shown it to be abnormal? One of the most widespread practices of humanity? Do you have a link for that?

I always enjoy my days, but thank you.[/quote]

I didn’t mean you specifically, but people in general.

Anywho I’m saying anyone who believes something without evidence isn’t making sense because faith is without evidence and people honestly don’t use faith for anything else in life (Seriously try and think of one thing) so why should we use it to answer one of the most interesting and important questions there is? (How we came to be)

[/quote]

We all go to bed every day with the belief/faith that we’re going to wake up in the morning, and live our lives accordingly. We believe. We have no proof.

I think there are plenty of instances in our lives we resort to faith.

[/quote]

WRONGGGG!

The evidence that we will wake up is because we as humans have witnessed/observed animals/people/whatevers going to sleep and waking up over the past thousand of years sleep has been documented and we know a lot about going to sleep there is plenty of evidence out there so that is definitely 100% NOT FAITH![/quote]

If you say so in caps it must be true.

Of course, all those people that die nightly in their sleep must have had some kind of evidence they were going to wake up. And then, they didn’t. So did they have knowledge or faith?[/quote]

They likely had knowledge that when you sleep there is a high percentage chance you wake up and a small percentage chance you die. Deaths in sleep have been observed too yes so what’s your point? There’s no faith involved anywhere…?[/quote]

Probability is not fact. It’s an expectation of likely outcome. no more no less. So you don’t know you’re going to wake up. But you behave and live your life as if it’s a given.

What would you call that?

Does Schrodinger’s cat ring any bells?

854

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

You’re way too vague mon ami! Please dumb it down for my old brain!

For example what are the tools you’re talking about!?[/quote]

Science uses tools to try and prove things (i.e., natural phenomena) based on observational evidence.

Things exist that we can’t prove - i.e., we don’t (and in some cases likely won’t ever) have observational evidence. But just because we can’t prove them doesn’t mean they don’t exist, and so, we have to spent some inquiry on those things.[/quote]

You’re saying we should spend time on things that have no observational evidence? OK nope you lost me. That doesn’t make any sense to me at all.

If something has no observational evidence, then that means we have no reason to believe it exists. [/quote]

Well, more specifically, I was referring to empirical proof - observational evidence could be inductive or anecdotal.

But, in any event, let’s have some fun - do you believe that murder is universally wrong? Yes, or no?

855

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:<<< And, in the greatest irony of them all - or Divine Practical Joke, depending on how you look at it - is that God endows Man with the incredible gift of Reason, but apparently, according to some, you aren’t supposed to use it. >>>[/quote]I have loudly and directly proclaimed the diametric opposite of this for years now here. Nobody embraces science with more zeal than I do.

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The evolution of man is a direct full frontal assault on the gospel of Jesus Christ including His very words. It is the worship of man made constructs right in the face of the God of the universe.
[/quote]
Now you made me curious. What are those words you refer to? [/quote]I don’t usually like to link to other people’s work, but this girl is razor sharp and addresses what we’re talkin about. http://creation.com/genesis-new-testament The affirmation of the evolution of man is by definition to call the new testament writers and Jesus himself liars. This article simply demonstrates that point. She doesn’t try to make you believe the bible per se, but only shows that claiming to take it seriously while embracing macro bio evolution is a manifestly impossible position. If somebody wants to believe in evolution? Go right ahead, but do yourself a favor and leave Jesus out of it. For your own good.

[quote]groo wrote:<<< As to point 3 Trib is correct about one thing. You either put your faith in the supernatural or you put it in the belief(I’d call it a fact) that our perceptions reflect the universe as it truly is. >>>[/quote]You haven’t paid attention to a single thing I’ve said. I do hereby reserve the right to correct these misrepresentations as we go. The problem is not the universe or it’s reflection. The problem is man’s sin marred perception. You DO see the universe as it truly is and then believe in evolution anyway to escape what you see. I have quoted Romans 1 at least 25 times here where the apostle plainly states that that’s what you, and every other unbeliever does and will continue to do until raised in Christ. I know you do not believe Romans 1 is true. I do though and what you are ascribing to me is NOT what I believe.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:<<< I guess I have a strange concept of God. I believe he exist within the universe, but also apart from the universe. [/quote]I have feeling you don’t mean the same thing by this that the bible does, but on it’s face? This IS the Christian conception of the omnipresent God. He fills the immensity of space, directly sustains every atom every millisecond AND is ontologically distinct from everything except Himself on the most absolute level.

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:<<< OMJ, you’re on some really shaky ground. [/quote]Did you see where he’s left me hangin? Unbelievable. I was gearin up for a challenge too after his triumphant self exalting entrance.

Where are my definitions Dr. Joe? I see your lips beatin the air like a hummingbird, but no sign of those definitions. I’m askin HIM. Not anybody else… Again. He bursts in here wavin a PHD around like Jehovah God delivering the Decalogue to Moses and then throws a childish tantrum when I simply ask him to define his terms.

856

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
Please explain more what you mean by remission of sins and contrite prayer. If you tell me what that is then I guess I can probably explain how to falsify them. But the issue may be that they don’t need to be falsified because they aren’t shown to be true anyway.[/quote]

Sir, you implied that science had falsified contact with God. That human testing has shown that there is no contact. And that prayer doesn’t do ANYTHING. How was the forgiveness of sins, following a prayer of contrition, falsified? There’s nothing else to it.
[/quote]

Ok I see. Well it looks like there’s no way to test it…[/quote]

All you needed to say. This goes back to Thunderbolt’s comments. Enjoy your day.
[/quote]

Yup, no way to test it, no evidence that it exists, no reason to believe it exists, and if you do believe it exists without testing it’s existence using existing evidence then…speaks a lot about your mental state.
[/quote]

I can only imagine you’re implying an abnormal mental state. Surely you didn’t mean to compliment me. So, have the psychological/neural sciences shown it to be abnormal? One of the most widespread practices of humanity? Do you have a link for that?

I always enjoy my days, but thank you.[/quote]

I didn’t mean you specifically, but people in general.

Anywho I’m saying anyone who believes something without evidence isn’t making sense because faith is without evidence and people honestly don’t use faith for anything else in life (Seriously try and think of one thing) so why should we use it to answer one of the most interesting and important questions there is? (How we came to be)

[/quote]

We all go to bed every day with the belief/faith that we’re going to wake up in the morning, and live our lives accordingly. We believe. We have no proof.

I think there are plenty of instances in our lives we resort to faith.

[/quote]

WRONGGGG!

The evidence that we will wake up is because we as humans have witnessed/observed animals/people/whatevers going to sleep and waking up over the past thousand of years sleep has been documented and we know a lot about going to sleep there is plenty of evidence out there so that is definitely 100% NOT FAITH![/quote]

If you say so in caps it must be true.

Of course, all those people that die nightly in their sleep must have had some kind of evidence they were going to wake up. And then, they didn’t. So did they have knowledge or faith?[/quote]

They likely had knowledge that when you sleep there is a high percentage chance you wake up and a small percentage chance you die. Deaths in sleep have been observed too yes so what’s your point? There’s no faith involved anywhere…?[/quote]

Probability is not fact. It’s an expectation of likely outcome. no more no less. So you don’t know you’re going to wake up. But you behave and live your life as if it’s a given.

What would you call that?

Does Schrodinger’s cat ring any bells?

[/quote]

You’re right! There is absolutely NO difference between the faith you need to believe you’re going to wake up tomorrow and the faith required to believe a 1st century Jew resurrected 2000 odd years ago.

Faith is faith! Amirite?

857

The whole “you can’t prove anything” argument is a tired and cowardly copout, a rehashing of ideas that neither useful nor terribly interesting even in the 17th century. One may never be actually sure of anything in a philosophical sense, but you and I both operate under the assumption that we perceive with reasonable accuracy, that we are not mad, and that the basic physical workings of the world will be the same tomorrow as they were yesterday.

Evidence for different conclusions exists in different amounts. The evidence, for me, that I myself exist is as near to incontrovertible as evidence can be. The evidence that man evolved from monkeys is less sturdy than that but it is a fuckton sturdier than the talking snake scenario.

Recycled philosophical acrobatics will do nothing to change the fact that the Christian Bible is a collection of fairy tales gathered together by desert-dwelling primitives and lacking anything that could remotely be considered credibility as we understand it today (indeed, it is so full of so much nonsense that it contradicts itself numerous times).

Snakes do not talk, and it takes more than some words on a page to convince a thinking man or woman to believe otherwise. Whether or not that thinking man will ever know for sure that his perception of the world is pure and true, he knows not to mistake the uncertainty inherent in human life with a license to believe in anything at all.

858

Eh sorry to misinterpret you however

You haven’t paid attention to a single thing I’ve said. I do hereby reserve the right to correct these misrepresentations as we go. The problem is not the universe or it’s reflection. The problem is man’s sin marred perception. You DO see the universe as it truly is and then believe in evolution anyway to escape what you see. I have quoted Romans 1 at least 25 times here where the apostle plainly states that that’s what you, and every other unbeliever does and will continue to do until raised in Christ. I know you do not believe Romans 1 is true. I do though and what you are ascribing to me is NOT what I believe.

If my perception is marred then you believe I am not seeing it as it is. I don’t think my perception is marred. Its not really twisting what you say at least not intentionally. You say your perception is accurate and the non saved have a perception marred by sin. I say my perception is accurate.

I say we’ll both know when we die but that’s a bit of cold comfort there.

859

[quote]smh23 wrote:
The whole “you can’t prove anything” argument is a tired and cowardly copout, a rehashing of ideas that neither useful nor terribly interesting even in the 17th century. One may never be actually sure of anything in a philosophical sense, but you and I both operate under the assumption that we perceive with reasonable accuracy, that we are not mad, and that the basic physical workings of the world will be the same tomorrow as they were yesterday.[/quote]

Isn’t this the point of the ‘cowardly copout?’ That we ultimately have to resign ourselves to an ‘assumption.’ I mean, if someone says in a thread that acting on faith is always stupid, then how is it a cowardly copout to point out what you actually ended up saying yourself? That we have to operate on faith that our senses accurately reflect a universe? If you can begrudgingly say as much, why can’t others simply say it? Why attack people over something you concede (even if angrily)?

860

[quote]groo wrote:Eh sorry to misinterpret you however >>>[/quote]No problem man. You were one of the people I REALLY wanted to continue with Groo, but this is not the thread. Although epistemology absolutely governs every last word of what’s goin here. So far Cortes is the only one who gets that. He needs to talk our friend right above you.