What religion do you beleive in?

[Xaenn]

Yeah, I agree that science can get a lot of things close to fact. But there's a difference between what science is proven, and what is theory.

In a way science is its own religion. Those who believe in big bang, evolution, etc.

Even though I believe in some form of evolution myself (a bit off topic).

I still have to say that mathematics are "proven" or concrete if you wish. Probably because their premise have no manifestation in this world.

[Huey Kruthas]

When I was about 5 I believed in re-incarnation...But that seems

just ridiculous to me now. I believe in evolution. I find it strange

that there has been so many religions before christianity (I am

mostly thinking Indians) and yet God exists, and their Gods don't

exist. I don't really know how to word it right. But I hope you got

my point.

[Kosmo Yagkoto]

I have a question about evolution and maybe you can answer it for me. If evolution in your eyes is the truth, then why are there still monkeys? Did some of them just not make it over the hump?

[Themikemachine]

Hmm well you know what? we will never know if there isnt a god because there are places that humanity will never discover, the space is sooo vast, and it keeps expanding faster than the speed of light, so that means that humanity will never know so many things, that makes me so sad. I always look at the stars and wonder how did all of this came to be? but my answer isnt god, because religious ppl say god made these things cuz if not then what made them? but then what made god? How the universe came to be, we will never know. so sad
Anyway if there is a god I really dont think he would put so much effort on a very meaningless being (compared to the vast outer space) and even create those laws of sin and stuff so that he could send us to hell. Why didnt he just leave us be? and that way ppl would be just more happy

[Huey Kruthas]

Well, you are all LOSERS, because me and god were talking last night, and he said that he was made because he was once a man, but then he was a dragon man, then he was a dragon, but he was still TROGDOR. Sorry got off track there.

[Xaenn]

Originally posted by falados
When I was about 5 I believed in re-incarnation...But that seems

just ridiculous to me now. I believe in evolution. I find it strange

that there has been so many religions before christianity (I am

mostly thinking Indians) and yet God exists, and their Gods don't

exist. I don't really know how to word it right. But I hope you got

my point.

Well, some religions believe in a natural order and sort. The way I look at it is these religions are very different in a lot of ways, but some have very similar teachings. Could it be possible many of them worship the same God yet don't know it?

[Kosmo Yagkoto]

I don't think that I understand what you are trying to say.

[Xaenn]

That they say they believe in different Gods but the different Gods are really the same one.

[Kosmo Yagkoto]

No, there is one god and many demons out there and just some they made up. Human sacrafices are bad

[EGGO]

Even though I believe in some form of evolution myself (a bit off topic).

Evolution is actually both fact and theory, and if you wish, I can get into detail of that.

Religions have actually proven scientist wrong on quite a few occasions...the age of the earth was once determined the amount of coal deposits that could be found in areas, but recently coal has been proven to be able to form at various temperatures at various speeds which could reduce the accuracy of this by 100,000 years or more Then the time since the split of Pangaea, from the hit of the meteorite that supposedly wiped out the dinosaurs is determined by how fast the continents are moving away from each other...scientist however stupidly assumed that the continents infact moved at a constant rate, later when the speed was remeasured it had reduce and they calculated the decceleration speed. They then used the decceleration speed to determine how long it has actually been since the hit...guess what? it's the same time period as the story of Noah's Ark!! Then of course there is consideration of the rate of increase in human reproduction...if humans have been around for millions of years there would be so many of us that, if packed in a giant ball we would be almost the size of the entire galaxy, take plagues natural disasters and other various things into consideration and it still wouldn't have a large enough effect for use to fit in the solar system...the time determined to reach 6 billion people is, yes, the same general time it's been since the Noah's Ark story!! So I would say something REALLY big happened at that time, it's quite possible it was a big flood being as, by the corrosion of mountain-tops the entire earth at some point has been submerged. So, now with all that religious evidence I will say, I believe I don't care if there is a god

Am I the only person here that called "bullshit" when I read the first few sentences?

Kind of interesting. First, he accuses scientists of being stupid for assuming constant drift rates for the continents (if this is right at all) - then he goes on and assumes a constant population growth rate.

They then used the decceleration speed to determine how long it has actually been since the hit...guess what? it's the same time period as the story of Noah's Ark!

Sounds like a new creationist claim - I have not heard it up to now. Would be interesting to see the actual calculations...

I suppose you wouldn't like to see my little essay on how the Ark is physically impossible, if you haven't already seen it on the Discovery Channel, History Channel, and probably everywhere else on the net.

The first mistake is in thinking that only one source of age determination (coal beds??) is used. Many techniques are used to doublecheck and validate the numbers.

I'm not sure on the claim of continental drift speed, but is he saying the dinosaur's asteroid hit was at the same period as Noah? That's rich...doesn't help the flood story at all, being a totally different type of disaster, plus, again, the age has been verified again and again by many methods.

Added: the measurement of the magnetic pole flips on the seabeds may not help the age calculation, but they do validate the regular expansion, instead of the claim of super acceleration/deceleration that the Noah story would need.

The human population argument if I recall correctly assumes an exponential reproduction, like with a colony of bacteria. It discounts any realistic numbers of death rates or population trends through history.

Of course it can be proven, even the existance of a God. Wether or not you choose to accept it/beleive it is a different story. Science is based on assumptions of other theories that have been proved repeatedly(gravity, universal gravitation, Newton's principles(basically all macroscopic physics), intermolecular forces, theory of relativity(you cant get your hands on a linear accelerator though)and so on).

Prove to me that God exists, and don't give me anectdotal evidence or confirmation bias (like the cross formed when the twin towers fell means that Jesus happened to save the cross while thousands died for a steel skeleton that has crossings). The sky, also, is not blue. If the sky was blue, then the astronauts looking down at the earth would see nothing but blue. Take Venus or Jupiter for example, we're very sure we're not looking at their surface, just their atmosphere.

I met a closed-minded bloke that wouldnt accept the existence of atoms since its not something directly visible.

Perhaps, then, if they don't exist, you can take away any and almost all metals he's wearing and using, it's thanks to that and knowing how potassium/sodium/francium/etc... reacts to water that it's pretty much well proven atoms do exist.

Now all of you bow down to the invisible pink unicorn (known as IPU among the atheists).

[Xaenn]

Originally posted by EGGO
Evolution is actually both fact and theory, and if you wish, I can get into detail of that.

Please do, and i'm sure there are 10 claims that could refute each one of those.

Originally posted by EGGO
Prove to me that God exists, and don't give me anectdotal evidence or confirmation bias (like the cross formed when the twin towers fell means that Jesus happened to save the cross while thousands died for a steel skeleton that has crossings). The sky, also, is not blue. If the sky was blue, then the astronauts looking down at the earth would see nothing but blue. Take Venus or Jupiter for example, we're very sure we're not looking at their surface, just their atmosphere.

Prove anything to me...please do. Outside of the realm of mathematics its impossible. Unless you're gonna say Cogito Ergo Sum.

[Kosmo Yagkoto]

Prove anything to me...please do. Outside of the realm of mathematics its impossible. Unless you're gonna say Cogito Ergo Sum. [/B][/QUOTE]

I love people who use latin

[Xaenn]

Originally posted by leatherman
I love people who use latin

I think, therefore I am XD

[Toto]

Well, I don't believe in the existence of a God, but on the other hand, I don't believe in Sciene either.
Science is fast becoming the new religion of the world. If there's a problem, Science will fix it :O And Sciene, though I can't think of any way so far, could be used in to perpetrate the injustices of a religion as well.

[EGGO]

Please do, and i'm sure there are 10 claims that could refute each one of those.

On evolution is both fact and theory, straight from an essay.

The Fact

Life evolves. That is a fact. One of the simplest definitions of evolution is the change in the frequency of genes in a species over time.

For example, imagine if you will a rabbit farm high on a mountain. The farmer buys a thousand rabbits, some have longer fur and some have shorter fur - it's a quite mixed group of rabbits. The length of the fur on the rabbits is determined by their genetic makeup. Some have genes for long fur, some for shorter. Now, this farm (or ranch, if you prefer) is in an area that gets extremely cold for most of the year. The rabbits survival depends upon having enough fur to keep them warm. Those with short fur will freeze to death and die (our fictional farmer doesn't have much business sense).

Because of the situation these unfortunate creatures are in, they are subject to natural selection. There is a selection pressure for longer fur. More baby rabbits are born than can possibly survive in the environment. This is an important part of the process. Their genetic makeup is a determining factor in their survival. Rabbits that die of cold will not pass on their short-fur genes to their offspring (as they won't have any), whereas rabbits with long fur will be more resistant to the cold and therefore much more likely to reproduce, passing on their genes for long fur.

Over many generations, the farm will consist almost entirely of long-fur rabbits. The frequency of genes for short fur has decreased, and the frequency of genes for long fur has increased. Far fewer short-haired rabbits, and eventually none at all, will be born - their genes will have been lost from the gene-pool.

Some rabbits may have developed genetic mutations which further increase the length of their fur. These mutations will clearly give those rabbits an advantage in their environment, and those beneficial mutations will spread through the gene pool of the population. Mutations that are detrimental to the survival rate will clearly be lost quickly, as those unfortunate rabbits will have a reduced chance of surviving long enough to mate. In this way, useful mutations stay on in the population. It's a positive feedback loop - this is the second important thing to remember.

These rabbits have evolved. It's really that simple.

Evolution is a directly observable phenomenon. There is no debate among scientists as to whether or not evolution occurs, any more than there is debate about the Earth orbiting the Sun. Gene pools change - evolution happens. This is obviously a rather contrived example, but it serves to demonstrate some of the basic principles.

Now, objectors will say "Ah, but they're still rabbits, aren't they? That's not the same as amphibians turning into reptiles, and then mammals, is it? That still doesn't explain how a human can evolve from an ape-like ancestor, does it?"

Yes, it does. The change from mixed-fur rabbits to long-fur rabbits (in this example) is often referred to as micro-evolution - a minor change within a species. Larger changes are known as macro-evolution, and take far longer to occur, but the process involved is exactly the same - genes changing over time. It is a cumulative process - the minor changes build up over many generations into major changes. Given time, the descendants of these rabbits could become an entirely novel species of rabbit, and eventually a creature that can no longer be called a rabbit.

To say that you accept micro-evolution but not macro-evolution is akin to saying that it is possible to walk to the end of your street, but it is somehow impossible to walk to the next town. The process involved, putting one foot in front of the other, a single step at a time, is exactly the same although the end results may be completely different.

Evolution is a fact. This is not open to debate.

The Theory

Darwin's Theory Of Evolution is not evolution. In the same way, the theory that the Earth orbits the Sun is not the Earth orbiting the Sun - it is a description and explanation of it.

The theory of evolution is an explanation of the facts of evolution.

If nobody had ever developed the theory, it would not change that fact that living things evolve over time - evolution happens whether there is a theory or not.

Furthermore, Darwin's theory of evolution may be totally, hopelessly and utterly wrong. Even if it were, and Darwin and every biologist who had contributed to the theory since were incorrect, evolution would still exist and continue. Evolution is totally independent of the theory of evolution. The theory is simply an attempt to explain the observed facts of nature that we call "evolution".

If another theory came along to replace the theory of evolution, it would have to explain the facts at least as well as Darwin's theory has done for the last 150 years. No such replacement has ever been produced.

If there is a debate or controversy within the scientific community about the theory of evolution, creationists see this as evidence that "evolution is in crisis". Nonsense - it is merely that scientists disagree (often bitterly) over details of the theory of evolution. That evolution actually happens is beyond question, but the theory of evolution is - and always should be, like every other scientific theory - probed, tested and scrutinised. Again, even if the theory were to collapse, that would still not magically disprove evolution or cause species to cease evolving.

Evolution is not

-Evolution is not about the origins of life on Earth. Evolution is about the development of living things over time. The study of the origins of life is known as "abiogenesis" and any web search engine will find you many examples of current literature on the subject.

-Evolution is not about the Big Bang theory, nor the formation of the Sun and Earth. These are subjects for cosmology, not biology. Some creationist websites like to put up list of supposedly tricky questions for evolutionists - if you read them carefully you often find lots of questions that actually have nothing at all to do with biological evolution.

-Random. Evolution is often mistakenly compared to "a hurricane blowing through a junkyard and building a fully functional Boeing 747". This is incorrect, as evolution is a very slow, gradual process directed by the actions of natural selection (as shown above in the rabbit farm). Mutations may indeed be random events, but whether or not they remain in the gene pool is certainly not random, as it depends on how those genes affect the creature's survival in the environment. It works as a positive feedback loop.

-Evolution is not about attempting to prove that the Bible, Qu'ran, or any other holy book is false. It is simply the study of living things and how they develop over time. Whether or not that conflicts with a particular interpretation of a particular scripture is not a consideration. There is no conspiracy amongst scientists to disprove the teachings of any of the thousands of religions who happen to make claims about the processes of life.

-Evolution is not about monkeys turning into men, or showing that humans are "merely" animals. Evolution does show that humans developed from an ape-like ancestor, along with other modern apes such as the chimpanzee. We did not develop from apes, but alongside them, in the same way that different branches grow from the same trunk of a tree. The development of humans is one minor aspect of the study of evolution, but most biologists will find more interesting creatures to study.

-Evolution is not "Oh look, water is coming, I think I'll sprout fins," it's more like, "Help! I'm drowning! Save me finboy save me!"

And so on into ad infinitum.

[edit] and if you wish, you can make any arguments of whatever you want over at our place where we worship the IPU. http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=66

Prove anything to me...please do. Outside of the realm of mathematics its impossible. Unless you're gonna say Cogito Ergo Sum.

Well I would say since people say that divine intervention is happening, I would be hoping to see them prove it. Since what we normally see is what we call confirmation bias, if we look into their story in an objective sense, it's not really strong. I went to my girlfriend's church, for example, and a guy said that God cured his cancer after he visited the doctor's office and they didn't garuantee him recovery. Perhaps he's missing the obvious, but I'm sure you can already tell where I am going from there.