I'm from Western Canada, next door neigbors to the US(about 3 hours). *cries* ooh...when will this end? Lol, both since they're synonyms. As far as I know, we don't know what's on the other side of the universe, so what's to believe or disbelieve? Hmm, yes, I'm sure he can do anything logical or not...*sigh* but that wasn't the point. I meant it isn't logical for him to claim something and do another. I suppose not. So how do you say the earth came about? But there're a lot of people who like murder, rape and suicide. They're not a majority but I'm sure you'd agree that being able to think independantly is in your better interest than following popular belief. Things that help me believe usually start with the truth lol I'm pretty sure the majority of religions believe in hell. Nevertheless, a promise of heaven is also a comfort to many people. I had a hard time giving it up. Ok, but my question was in regards to whether or not you believed cavemen existed, since you brought them up as possible proof that religion has lasted longer than any other idea. A meme that just happens to last longer than other ones, doesn't make it true or usefull or good.
How did you come to that conclusion? You really shouldn't make that argument if you want to be taken seriously. Creationists have been kicked to death thousands of times on this forum by evolutionists using evidence, and when you say something like that it basically translates as "i'm an ignorant, scientifically illiterate, moron" to the rest of us. If you believe that to be the case you either don't know what faith is or don't have the first clue about evolution.
I have never come across a book named "fact of evolution", evolution is just a theory, not a fact, sorry to disappoint you atheists but you guys are not so special as you thought. Â
they are not synonyms in the english language. so you are saying it's justifiable to not believe that there is something beyond the universe?  then what is the point of saying that it isn't logical for him to...., when he can do anything logical or not. that's like saying it's inappropriate for michael jordan to get rebounds because he is a guard, but he can get rebounds whether it's appropriate or not, so why say it like the way you said it?     the grandious nature of the first several chapters of genesis could be like broad brush strokes on a canvas.  in one of these threads recently i mentioned that the book of 2 peter in the new testament says something like a day is like a thousand years to God, the earth took 7 days to make for God, so those 7 days could add up to 7,000 years.  that's me appreciating the story-like approaches in the bible. but yeah the dinosaur bones were in the ground and all of this fossil fuel came from decomposed life matter.  i also like plate tectonics where you can clearly see how south america and africa fit together like a jig-saw puzzle.  all the science stuff about the earth being 4.4 billion years old is acceptable.  following a popular belief doesn't mean you can not think independently.  why do you think the religious do not think independently?   isn't it true that most people do not kill each other?  isn't it true that most people do not steal? that's a start. after you mentioned this, i looked up hell in the bible and found the famous verse from john 3:16 and the verse from john 3:36 about believing in the son so you can get eternal life and not perish.  i haven't though about the after-life much as a mentioned in one of these threads but reading john 3:16 after you mentioned this made me begin thinking about it.  it says you get eternal life but what if you get it will it be in damnation or not?  there is fossil evidence of cavemen, as a scientist i accept the facts. it's useful, good enough and truthful enough for many people on this planet.Â
So you're really that dumb, I thought previously that you were just angry, for insulting me out of the blue, but no, you're dumb.. Well I have never come across a book named "fact of gravity", gravity is just a theory, not a fact, sorry blablabla (translation: I'm a dumb guy and it shows..)
And the moon is made out of cheese, it's true because it says so here: the moon is made out of cheese.
What you don't understand, and no-one is blaming you for not understanding anything, it's ok, don't panic.. Is that saying "evolution is JUST a theory, not a fact" to discard it as just a matter of faith, is simply dumb... I know you don't understand why I would say that to you, maybe I'm just mean? Don't worry, everybody is your friend, go back to play with your toys..
Of-course evolution (depending on how you define it) is a fact, but Darwinism isn't, it's a theory. You pretend to be superior to others because you think the facts are with you, when all you do is follow theories. Â
There are two basic Western thoughts about how we got here, which are creation/evolution. The scientific method, which is trashed these days, has in it something called the "gathering facts" phase. According to real science, evolution nor creation is happening. No facts can be gathered. Evolutionism/creationism are so broad in their "theories" LINK that both cover everything automatically. No "proof" is needed.... but ... that is not real, true science. Real science is repeatable. For example : Ask an evolutionist about variation in a species, he attributes it to his belief in evolution. Ask an evolutionist about the similarty in a species, he attributes it to his belief in evolution. But... Ask a creationist about variation in a species, he attributes it to his belief in creation. Then, ask a creationist about the similarity in a species, he attributes it to his belief in creation. Both do it without facts... The creationist and evolutionist both point to the world and say... "See, I am right !" The scientific community lies about their findings ( Piltdown man, human-caused global warming ) and can not be trusted, while the religious community are so corrupt who would ever trust them ? But to get back to it... where is the undisputable facts that are demonstrable ? That is ANOTHER requirement in the scientific method, that before something can be presented as facts, it must be repeatable... ooops... on both sides. Creationists are particularly lacking in this... as it does not look like any new creations are happening or going to be happening anytime soon. They both operate out of faith, but since religion is pretty much the realm of creationists, they morally seem to be closer to the "reality". After all, here we are, right ? They can not prove it though, just like evolutionists can not prove evolution is real. Again, it is not demonstrable. One thing I think is ironic about the evolutionist thinking is that it claims we got here by time and chance. If that is true, then at any moment we could all just poof ! ...disappear, thanks to the same time and chance. They ( the evolutionists ) have absolutely no hope for the future with such a belief. Human DNA is deteriorating, not improving with age. We are not getting "better and better" as evolution would preach. The creationist/evolution fight is a smokescreen, just like the democrat/republican soap opera. Which means I have written this post wasting some valuable time... right ? I hope it helped someone to get over the evolution/creation debate. It is a complete waste of time.
I try to be fair and listen to each person posting on this thread, but I'm sorry, I find myself shaking my head at every defense a theist gives. It's like talking to 8 year olds who just make things up on the fly and get all the facts wrong. So far in this thread we've had arguments from theists such as: - "So if you two are so high and mighty i got a question for you . Why not kill for profit ?" - Natural selection should have claimed more lives than it has. - God created everything therefor he can do whatever he wants(including murder) and not think there's anything immoral with it. - *waa waa* I'm offended that you insult my intellegence for believing in something utterly crazy. Your only strength is behind your ability to mock me. - God created both good and evil so that He may test the believers.(what??? Can't God read your mind and know from the inside out? Why does he need to test you? He knows what choices you're going to make before you make them? What gives?) - 2.5% of the world are Atheists.(implying religion must be true, otherwise how could so many people be wrong?) - If you search for the truth, Allah will guide you to the right path. - There are those that want to be "God-like", are they not logical? or is not a logical issue? illogical or implausible? (me: Lol, both since they're synonyms.) his reply: they are not synonyms in the english language. - There was an archiological find that showed cavemen buried there dead, possibly demonstrating that they believed in an after-life. - I have never come across a book named "fact of evolution", evolution is just a theory, not a fact, sorry to disappoint you atheists but you guys are not so special as you thought. Look down the list, it looks like a bunch of 8 year olds high jacked the thread! Like seriously! We've been over and have taken care of these arguments pretty well. Now, the thread seems to be turning to mush. I feel like I'm arguing against the hopelessly convinced. Let me quote(I forget who said it): "Never underestimate the power of denial." I'm frustrated with how damned convinced so many of you are to stay in denial and not use the facalties you posses between your ears. I find it hard to see how you could let a wanting to believe something stand in your way of logic and common sense. Seriously people, all pet beliefs aside, this stuff isn't hard to comprehend.
You're nice about 8 years old, I was tempted to assimilate IsraeI to a 3 years old, that's why I didn't want to argue with him anymore, it's totally pointless. But maybe that's because I don't have kids, I don't know if 3 years old can really deny things or even reason. Surely 8 years old is closer from the truth. It's quite clear to us that we're right about one thing it is that any religion is false and only myths. After for the rest it's open to debating, but this one thing is for sure, out of the way. Also clinton you're very well placed to understand that the problem of those in denial comes from the early brainwashing they've been submitted to. You understand that when the mind is forming it needs some fundations to base itself on. After many years passes, the resulting mind is built upon layers and layers of new knowledge, but the fundations are still the same. And when you've been submitted to a "religious education" removing the belief in God is like removing the fundations replacing them with something else, without destroying the rest of the building: pretty difficult and time consuming task. When others who have not been submitted to "religious education" don't have to do this work, and so don't lose time over this. Now imagine you have to do this work when you're 40 or something.. the building is so developped now, it becomes again more difficult and especially as your body is getting older it's not as strong as before so this task will require you even more time.. So instead you choose to keep with this fundation and you end up on a forum looking like a 8 years old on this particular topic, even if on other topics you are very knowledgable and professional. It's easy to understand them, and see where their coming from. I can only sympathize with them and tell that they've been victim of the "religious education" which they, as kids, should have been protected from by law just like they're supposed to be protected from "sexual education".. But even understanding them doesn't mean I have to submit to their non sense belief or even pretend respecting those beliefs because I don't and there's no reason to respect them other than fear of stupid people acting violent.
Yes it is.. It takes a lot of reasoning, logic and will power to understand and see through such wide spread lies and years of brainwashing.
i am disappointed clinton about this sum up post, i am a biochemist and i think that religion is something. Â you set me back from my wondering about being an atheist myself.
I've heard this common mistake many times before. Only those who don't understand the words "theory" and "fact" make this ill assumption. A theory requires facts. The definition of theory you're pushing is taught in primary schools. If you'd paid attention in GCSE science you'd know the above. You're confusing the words "theory" and "hypothesis". How embarrassing! So as we can see evolution is both theory and fact. Note: evolution has been observed, however common ancestor descendancy cannot be observed, which does not contradict the former point. Do you understand a little better now?
First of all I was referring to Darwinism, particularly the idea that we evolved from apes. Secondly, what do you call something that is not a fact? Â
Ahhhh! I got you! You referred explicitly to evolution. Now that you're red faced you're trying to back peddle, well we have the ability to quote so that's not a good idea
It's quite obvious I was referring to Darwinism, nobody can deny that evolution is a fact, I made it clear in post #88, see for yourself.
Then in the post in question why did you use the word evolution and not Darwinism? Why did you question factual basis of evolution and not Darwinism? By the way, Darwinism - which is one of several and one of the oldest variants of evolutionary theory - has been changed throughout the years as it originally had few errors, which is expected of course, since Einstein's theories have also seen changes. As with evolutionary process, the core tenets have survived rigorous scientific experimentation and scrutiny. Being a theory it still relies on facts. Natural selection is the mechanism of evolution and is therefore a subset. In other words, evolution encompasses natural selection and is therefore also theory and fact. You're trying to nit pick issues which don't exist. Also your post #88 is flawed. Of course we follow theories, they rely on facts, like I've said. If we were to follow mere hypotheses, then you'd have a point. You must be quite embarrassed now that you realise this.
Because when I use "evolution" in a thread like this, usually it is understood as referring to Darwinism. Facts like the Piltdown man?Â