Staredit Network

Hey, Nuclearrabbit.. hehe, you joined up with SEN right about when I was retiring... you seemed to have a great interest in Starcraft and Macs in general, same as me. Moreover, don't think its a mutual brothership. =P


A christian scientist is not going to help another scientist prove that evolution is true because he already knows it is not and cannot be proven.


Oh, so all paid professionals that are objective do not lie... durrr, Scientific Evolution is a lie?


So on top of working 50 hours a week and attending four college classes, in able for me to be a U.S citizen, I have to look up sources on a topic in different countries to find out the truth. -----
That statement is totally irrelevant to this thread


Actually, I was hoping that everyone would accept christian sources.


...If what the crack head's ramblings are false then they would easily be proven as false.



I can give you evidence without using a source. Has anyone ever found any skeletal remains of ANY cross-specie lifeform? Nope.



You have to know by now, with all the stuff thats going on in the middle east, the women are not looked on so highly as the men. They are repeating the same traditions their forefathers taught them all the way up to Adam and Eve. Women are RARELY mentioned in the Bible, if at all and only if they have some important significance. Also, Adam and Eve lived 800ish years after their incident in the garden, how much sex do you think they had?

Incest is wrong,but only because of the negative gene effects associated with it. However, Adam and Eve's DNA was perfect so gene mutation could be done to an extent.


Thats called micro-evolution, which is true and can/has been proven in labs. However, macro-evolution has NOT been proven. Which is, one specie changing into an entirely new specie



Actually, I totally agree. The Old Testament was for people's ignorance of science. Example, they were not allowed to eat pork because they could not clean it well enough to get all the diseases out of it.

CheeZe, I stand by everything I said to be true, you basically twist words for your own benefit. I'm talking about religious background in general like you said...

Thus, you won't accept anything that has christian in it from a website unless its reviewed by at least one secular co-scientist.


No I'm not talking about combining science and religion. God, you "misinterpret me too much", you don't accept sources from christian scientists based on their religious background.


The THEORY of evolution has been proven true, however, scientifically it has never been proven.


Agreed. You can't use "sources please" as a refute any longer.



This is exactly your problem. You will totally disregard what I said because you know my political and religious preference. However, there is not one thing I said regarding those two positions. All I want is for the debates to be as fair as possible, and up to this point, eliminating christian sources is not fair-play.

Teehee.

A strong sense of hypocrisy I see here. So evolution has not been disproven? Can you prove it first? He who asserts must prove, since you're asserting that evolution is law, not theory you must prove it.

(I'm talking macro evolution.)

Where did he say evolution was a law? Saying evolution hasn't been disproven doesn't make it a law and not a theory.

Macro-evolution, eh? Ever hear of... dun dun... THE GALAPAGOS ISLANDS? It's practically an exhibit of macro evolution.

Anyways, PROVE THEIR GENES WERE SO PERFECT. PROVE THEY LIVED 800 YEARS AFTER THE GARDEN.

You CAN'T. Why? You have a BOOK, a dainty little BOOK. You don't have skeletons, you don't have fossils, you don't have DNA samples. YOU HAVE NO PROOF AT ALL, your arguments are based on NOTHING.

Second of all, the Bible was not meant to be taken litterally. It was meant to be a book to teach you morality (the words in the book) and give you hope for a better life (god and heaven)

I've never seen any positive evidence for creationism. I don't care how many times you attack evolution, unless you can positively prove creation, then I'm not accepting it. To say that if evolution is wrong then creation is right is a fallacy.

Plus fossils, the Galapogos islands, the moth experiments, and transitional fossils, as well as the fact that natural selection has been observed, and species, when isolated, coupled with natural selection, will cause speices to change beynd the limit of reproducing with their "parent" species.

I was never advocating the bible, I barely believe a word of the old testement. Nothing remains clean after 6000 years. The worlds oldest game of broken telephone if you will. The galapagos islands are simply subspecies of the same animal. That a similar argument as saying that the fact whites and blacks and mexicans all exist also proves macro evolution. That's micro.

It's not the same. You can't combine science with something that has no relation with science. Do we add math with english to produce mathglish? No. They two have nothing to do with each other.

Likewise, religion is not science, the two cannot be combined and thus should not be together. What you're trying to say is to combine them or something about accepting people despite their background.

I do accept their proposals even if they have a religious background; so long as what they're proposing has undergone the scientific method and been accepted. Otherwise, it's "guilty until proven innocent".


That's where you're wrong.

There are two types of science, experimentable and observable.

Astronomy is observational science.

Chemistry is experimental.

Evolution is observational. We have evidence from fossils showing small changes that lead up to the modern human. Yes, we have them. To deny their age and the small changes that go through it or to deny that is an evolutionary process is absurd.

Scientifically, it has been proven. You're just too blinded by religion to see it.


All right. I'll use logic and you use logic.

I will argue all of your premises based on logic.

P.S. That is what I have been doing from the very beginning of debate.



Tell me how religion is qualified to explain science. If you can succeed, then I will accept them. Until then, I'm not going to.

I even told you that if the "fact" you gave me is so well known, then surely it must be on wikipedia or hundreds of other websites. You gave me none. Do you not remember that during our discussion? Or are you purposely disregarding it (cough cough)?

I believe scientists because you could, if you had the tools, replicate any science experiment and get similar results. If they don't turn out similar than the theory is changed. Results are what they use to prove how the world works.

You can't replicate god, so I don't think he makes a very good explaination for everything.

Ever hear of the Archaeopteryx?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/bird...haeopteryx.html
http://www.nature.ca/notebooks/english/archaeo.htm

Yes, but it is about combining science and religion. Your trying so hard to stay on topic you forgot what the topic was.

Did you not read what I said?

I don't care about their preference in religion. So long as their proposal is accepted by the scientific community, I will accept it. Read:





Stop ignoring what I say and repeating what you've already declared.

No no no, multiple christian sources are accepted only if their ideas are accepted in the scientific community. This can be proven simply by giving me an amount of sites that state the same thing and give no relation to religion.

The only reason I ask you for this source is to prove that the idea is accepted as a fact and not just biased opinion.

i think that humans did not have the same comprehension when we were first created and that our brains or thoughts developed further over the years, that's why we didnt know everything that we do now in one day

So your against the uniteing of religions, @ : @?

According to a liberal, you have to prove everything, but they have to prove nothing.

You'll notice it time and time again.

According to a <insert random off topic group of people>, you have to prove everything, but they have to prove nothing.

You'll notice it time and time again.

No, that doesn't quite work.

Of course it does.

No he's right, most people are afraid to say they're wrong. I.E. Sun revolves around the earth, how long did that last?

So you're saying christian sources can only be accepted if athiests approve them?

How about NO? How about ATHIEST SOURCES CAN ONLY BE ACCEPTED IF A RELIGIOUS SOURCE APPROVES IT?

Bud, I support Evolution, but you are suggesting that we just close our minds to christian scientists. So why shouldn't christians close their minds to athiest scientists?

meanie.

How does science have anything to do with being an atheist?

Also, you're making the same mistake @:@ did in understanding what I said.

All of the sources he gave me were based on the bible; why should I trust a religious group for science?


The reason it's not like this has something to do with Occam's Razor.