More Religious Nuts

[So_Cynical]

Gravity is a precise meausre. Dropping yourself off a building only proves you accelerated faster than a speed of 0. It doesn't prove gravity.

You can't tell me gravity has been proven to be 100% correct, becuase it's impossible. We can only assume by many observations that it is there and will continue to exist for as long as our observations of gravity are continually proven to be correct.

I reckon that if u throw your self off a building 100 times u will end up believing 100% in gravity.

 

[Bobby]

I'm an Evangelical Christian, if that means anything to you.

If it doesn't, it means I only believe what is written in the bible, and not the teachings of the church.

The church, like any other long lived organisation is full of terrible stories of abuse of it's power over its congregants and going against the very values it purportedly stands for, in the name of religion, but truly in the name of greed and power, because inherently, humans are sinful.

Thanks for the response , I won't bag you for your beliefs , your guide posts
all set out for you as a Evangelical , you are all trained up correct .

Mine are so different to you , hope you can respect my atheism then ?

 

[GumbyLearner]

Here's another great South Park - All About the Mormons?

http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103933

 

[bellenuit]

Gravity is a precise meausre. Dropping yourself off a building only proves you accelerated faster than a speed of 0. It doesn't prove gravity.

It's just one example of something that can't be 100% proven, such as the existance or non-existance of god. You can either accept that he exists, using whatever you believe in, or accept that he doesn't exist becuase of science. Neither is known 100% to be correct until one is proven.

You can't tell me gravity has been proven to be 100% correct, becuase it's impossible. We can only assume by many observations that it is there and will continue to exist for as long as our observations of gravity are continually proven to be correct.

Beamstas,

You really have got this wrong. You can prove that something exists, but you cannot prove that something doesn't exist.

One instance is sufficient to prove something exists, but a gazillion non-instances doesn't prove something doesn't exist. To take a trivial example: Just because no one has ever seen a naturally pink elephant does not prove that pink elephants do not exist. There could be colonies of them in undiscovered parts of the world, and if not found there they could be in other planets in our galaxy, and if not found there etc. etc. However, if one naturally pink elephant were to emerge from a rain forest tomorrow, that would be sufficient proof that they exist.

The other argument that many use (not you) against science is that something "is just a theory". The most common example being "that evolution is just a theory". The word "just" being used to suggest that it is no better an explanation than any other theory of how life came to be what it is today.

There are 2 important points that they do not understand (or in many cases deliberately choose to ignore). Firstly, the theory is the explanation of HOW the phenomenon occurs, not THAT the phenomenon occurs. Secondly, a "theory" is the best explanation that science has come up with for HOW the phenomenon occurs and it is an explanation that science has not yet found a fault in. If faults are found in the theory, then it is no longer accepted as the theory of how the phenomenon occurs and is replaced by the new theory that supersedes it, or if there is no new theory, the phenomenon goes back to becoming "not understood".

When scientists talk about the theory of evolution, they are talking about the best explanation for the phenomenon they know as species evolving. They know species evolve. Evolution is a fact. Viruses that are at one stage treatable but eventually morph into super viruses that are immune to drugs are one proof of evolution. There are hundreds of examples of evolution in medicine alone. Much of modern medicine is based on the ACTUALITY of evolution. But when science talks about the theory of evolution, what they are talking about is the best explanation of how this known phenomenon occurs. That's where you get into Darwin's natural selection etc.

The same goes for Gravity. Gravity exists. We know bodies attract each other and baring other factors will move towards each other. The theory part is an explanation of why this occurs.

 

[beamstas]

Even Scientists are starting to turn their back on Darwin. Watched a dvd on it the other week, they are starting to find some serious flaws in his theory.

 

[trainspotter]

And Darwin's theory is? I'm gonna do a Pauline Hanson ... "Please explain?"

The fundamental principle of evolution by natural selection is even more solid today than when it was proposed by Darwin. Today we have supporting evidence from molecular biology and genetics that Darwin did not have.

What Darwin did not get right was the mechanism of the transmission of genetic information. Nevertheless, the transmission of random changes to the next generation and the non-random selection processes based on strictly local conditions is still the fundamental principle of natural selection. This is the most central principle of biology, and all of the evidence supports it.

Swine flu can cross from animals to humans and mutates to survive ...as an example that might be relevant.

I just love it when Creationists come out with their speil about some omniscient God that made the world/universe/and all the known black holes in 6 days and rested on the 7th. Go and read psalm 137 and tell me how wonderful a God is that celebrates dashing the heads of babies against rocks. Pfffffffffffffftttt

 

[wayneL]

Whoa there trainspotter... a huge non-sequitur there.

A doubter of the Darwinian model of evolution may not be a creationist in the Abrahamic/Christian/whatever model.

Refer to my post re "Attitude Polarization" of a few days ago.

Darwinian evolution relies on the principle of natural selection. There is science that ponders the possibility of another reality that does not include standard creationist dogma.

The immediate straw man fallacy is that someone who questions natural selection is therefore a young earth creationist. That is an unintelligent supposition that may or may not be accurate.

 

[Timmy]

I just love it when Creationists come out with their speil about some omniscient God that made the world/universe/and all the known black holes in 6 days and rested on the 7th.

This is such B/S.

On the 7th day he created Holdens, or Harleys, or something.

Don't question me on this, I've seen the stickers.

 

[spooly74]

Even Scientists are starting to turn their back on Darwin. Watched a dvd on it the other week, they are starting to find some serious flaws in his theory.

hmmmmmmm. What DVD? What scientists and what serious flaws?

If your going to start questioning scientific claims your going to have to do more than talk opinion, you going to have to put in some hard work.
Ready?

Still waiting for some answers on gravity. Ready?

 

[Old Mate]

Sunder, I agree with you, our society is better off because of Christian origins. The church used to act as a sort of law keeping body and kept people in line. Now with police and the legal system (as pathetic as it is) I do not believe it is needed anymore.

People believe what they want to believe. Is it a coincedence that most people in America and Aus are Christians and that most people in the middle east are Muslims? People grow up with these religious beliefs around them and as such just accept them as correct and normal. Like sheep. But if you take an outside view at any religion you can see how ridiculous it is. It's like if we look back at Greek Mythology. We'll say, "pffft, why did they think there were so many Gods? Gee they were stupid back then." And we say that to any religion that isn't our own.

To me it comes back to the question: why do you have to believe in anything? Just do what you want, do what is right, not for anyone/anything else, just for yourself.

 

[trainspotter]

This is such B/S.

On the 7th day he created Holdens, or Harleys, or something.

Don't question me on this, I've seen the stickers.

I kneel in the presence of greatness ... all hail Timmy !!

That was one of the best ice breakers I have seen in awhile.

 

[trainspotter]

Whoa there trainspotter... a huge non-sequitur there. That is an unintelligent supposition that may or may not be accurate.

Sorry WayneL .. I was drawing a long bow on that one wasn't I ?? I offer this euphenism instead .... I love it when instead of using logic and science to prove or disprove a valid point that we revert to an omnisicient being or just plain faith to shoulder our case point exchange of views and neither the twain shall meet.

 

[beamstas]

I'll get the name of the DVD, it was borrowed.

Darwins theory has some serious flaws, many scientists and teachers are refusing the teach it,

Don't get me wrong, i believe natural selection occurs. It has to happen, survival of the fittest. Darwins theory has serious flaws, though.

Those birds darwin examined, a core part of his theory, their beaks change in 5 year cycles depending on weather cycles. He managed to ignore this and claimed it was evolution occuring. Also those neat little diagrams in text books of unformed feutus, they are completely false and do not represent a real life example in any case.

Scientists are also finding that Darwins theory is backwards. Instead of less and less "creatures" appearing as fossils (which would support evolution) we are finding that the pyramid is actually backwards, and there were more species existant long ago than there is now. This does not support darwins theory of evolution.

Im fine with Natural selection, it is quite obvious from simple observations that it occurs in nature, what i have a problem with is Darwins theory.

Im not going to do all the research for you, if you want to research it go ahead, if you want to remain ignorant to the facts and claim you know everything then you are simply adopting the attitude of those you have come to argue with. Don't close off your mind to other things, as an atheist feels they can't open their mind to relegion, or as a religious person feels they can't open their mind to science.

 

[trainspotter]

I am an ignorant quidnunc ...

 

[Julia]

This is such B/S.

On the 7th day he created Holdens, or Harleys, or something.

Don't question me on this, I've seen the stickers.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

This is such B/S.

On the 7th day he created Holdens, or Harleys,
or something.

Don't question me on this, I've seen the stickers.

On the 7th day mate, he rested, on a Triumph.

gg

 

[Timmy]

GG - I'm not conceding anything, but if this guy is prepared to wear the T-shirt then you may have a point.

 

[pacestick]

hmmmmmmm. What DVD? What scientists and what serious flaws?
I dont know what video he was referring to but a good read on the subject is on the seventh day which is 40 scientists with phds giving the reasons behind their belief that evolution is not a good theory for explaining the origin of the species. The book is written by dr john ashton lecturer at Newcastle University. Many of the scientists are physists and use the arguement that evolution breaks the second law of thermodynamics which is i thinkthat one substance cannot become another although it may take different forms e.g. h20 can be water mist or ice I do not have a scence degree and therefore do not fully understand it
What amazed me when i began to investigate it was that quite a few nobel prize winners in sciences were creationists not necessarily christian of course but creationist,

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

GG - I'm not conceding anything, but if this guy is prepared to wear the T-shirt then you may have a point.

Well spotted mate. What a legend.

gg

 

[beamstas]

What amazed me when i began to investigate it was that quite a few nobel prize winners in sciences were creationists not necessarily christian of course but creationist,

Exactly

It's not

A) You believe in religion
B) You believe in the theory of evolution

It's not as black and white, you'd be ignorant to think it is.