Staredit Network

[center]The only thing you can trust is yourself, your own beliefs.

As a side note, I'm your (wannabe) brother?[/center]

A theory is just something that explains something, that we use to explain other things we have nothing 'solid' to go on. Get over it.

They're paid professionals. It's their job to be objective.

You can't trust a media source alone... obviously it's biased. You have to use multiple, both within and OUTSIDE of your country, and then you can peice together evidence yourself. If you're too lazy to do that then you're not fulfilling your duty as a citizen.

So you believe people should state facts out of the blue? With nothing to back them up? What about Sun Tzu's Art of War? It may be tried and true now, but 2500 years ago it was just a theory, a brilliant one (because it was all within reason, hint hint), but not infalable.


So basically, we can't ignore the crack head's ramblings anymore? We should take his word with no skeptism, and heed it as valuable as the advice of a veteran (of their field)?


Where? Oh wait, that's right, I'm not allowed to question sources anymore =(

You have to be able to trust some things more then others via the probability they're the best solution, otherwise it's like playing craps with your life.

The Bible has never been refuted?

Ok. Lets look at this:

Adam and Eve had two sons, yes?
One of the sons killed the other son.
So there is one son left. Where did everyone else come from? Either this son managed to make himself have babies, or Adam and Eve had more babies who must have had incestual sex to have more babies.
Homosexuality, incest and masturbation are sins in the bible, right? Jeeze, something is wrong. Unless, of course, the Bible is allowed to contradict itself.
I DEMAND a reply from the author of this thread. DEMAND.

Next up: Evolution can, in fact, be proven true. How? People have babies. The babies are different from their parents in a few respects. This is called mutation. These babies grow up and have sex and have more babies. More mutation. Over extremely long periods of time, these mutations can drastically change a race.

I feel the force of intelligent falling pulling me down now.

BTW, goddidit.

Oh and this is biased too. (@:@'s post)

I refuse to accept what @:@ says until I see what CheeZe has to say as well.

Anyone who accepts the Old Testament as fact is stupid. The Old Testament was NOT written to be used as fact, and I keep saying that, but nobody understands it. The Roman Catholic church does not even dismiss the theory of evolution, yet for some reason you still insist that they won't believe it. Maybe instead of telling us how creationism is wrong all the time you should start listening, because we're AGREEING with you. The Bible is a RELIGIOUS document to find RELIGIOUS truths, not scientific truths.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c017.html
http://www.cuttingedge.org/n1034.html
http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=174
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/07/opinion/edschon.php

I agree with Moose.

Moose, I didn't read the whole article, but can you tell me in which part they prove the existence of a soul?

Hmm, and maybe even if christians who believe in design accept evolution as part of design, it still doesn't mean evolutionists believe in design at all or that evolution goes along with design and that god creates a human soul.

The existance of a soul cannot be proven. The soul exists only in belief of those who believe there is one. If you don't want to believe you do or do not have a soul, go right ahead. That has nothing to do with how life evolved.

But it has to do with how the Pope combines evolution with god doesn't it?

Well that doesn't even matter, because either way he's saying creationism is wrong. Which agrees with what you said:



But do you speak for all creationists?

The Pope is willing to accept that evolution creates the body so long as evolution accepts that God creates the soul. Whether or not souls and spirits EXIST doesn't matter, so long as IF they do, they are created by God. Look at it this way: I'm going to pay $500,000 for some gold bars that may or may not exist.

I believe that since evolution is based on the scientific method and such, that it cannot just accept god creating a soul. At least from a scientific standpoint.

Heh, if souls exists they might not have to be created by "god"

And btw, would acknowledging the fact that a god creates the soul also mean that since god exists then it must be a catholic or christian god with a heaven and hell and whatever else goes along with their religious beliefs? Just give me your definition of god.

My definition of God? The governer of existance itself. Whether or not he's what religion A, religion B, or my religion says, nobody can prove.

Okay, I can agree with that.

In fact micro evolution. (Nothing cross species.) Has been proven microbially in labs and I have never heard a priest argue with that.

Moose seems to be the only intelligent Christian I've heard.
Just for courtesy, I'm removing my avatar.

Fine, perhaps christian science sources are O.K, but not when your supporting a theory such as creation and you a.quote out of context or b. ignore the statements of evolutionists or non-christian scientists. You need to have multiple biases or sources without significant biases, sources that do not benefit by advancing their theory. The Creation Research Institute is obviously strongly biased in favor of the Bible.

So the Bible has not been disproven? Can you prove it first? He who asserts must prove,
and since you are asserting that the Bible is true you must prove it.

Evolution has never been conclusively proven wrong, post one example.

Why cant evolution and intelligent design be combined? Maybe God designed evolution. Not each creature, but he designed how evolution works. Thats a theory that should work for both sides.

Well then it's a good thing I didn't come to that conclusion. Anyway, you misinterpret me too much. I said I won't accept the source because it comes from religious background.

I specifically said I don't care what the scientists's religion is, so long as it goes through the scientific method and is accepted by peer-review, I will accept it.

Thus, influence has nothing to do with this. But at least you kept it honest by admitting it was your thought and not what I actually said.


Well, I never said this. Refer to reply above.


If we're talking about science, then of course not. Religion is not science.
I do accept the existance of religion; but not whether or not the existance is justified.


I don't accept anything religiously related. "Spiritual guidance" is not science. Evolution has evidence. Evolution has been observed. The very foundation for evolution has been proven. If we look at evolution through logic, then it's easily seen to be true.

Premises --> True.
Inference --> True.

Thus, Evolution --> True.

Once more knowledge comes in through premises and inference, we can negate evolution if there are contridictions. Thus far, there has been none.


Point addressed, read above.


The best option is to not let any option in except logic. If we cannot prove something with logic, we must limit the amount of information allowed still, so we allow some in based on barriers.

Oh wait, we already have this. The scientific method! Duh.


No it hasn't. If anything, evolution has been proven.

The following is not an arguement (because it's a logical fallacy) but please at least consider.

Is it a coincidence that almost all the smartest people in the world are supporters of evolution?

Everything else you said was irrelevant. It's also quite obvious you're taking the stand from an extremely biased view based on your "republican" inferences and biblical "truths".

Yes, two sons, not two kids. Back when Genesis was written, women were of very low status, and probably weren't worth mentioning (unless it's someone really important like Mary or something). So although Adam and Eve gave birth to two sons, they probably also gave birth to one or two girls. Genesis 4:17 begins by saying that Cain laid with his wife and gave birth to Enoch and Enoch gave birth to Irad and so on (again, the Bible mostly only mentions males, not females.)

That's still incest.

Incest isn't a sin. It never said that anywhere in the Bible, unless someone shows me the passage that implies that incest is a sin. Homosexuality, I'm not sure, but mostly catholics deem it as a very bad sin (and seeing how they love to exaggerate and add their own rules and stuff, I'm not surprised.)
Masturbation, I'm not sure about that either.

Indeed, I also mentioned the incestual possibility in my post.

EDIT: Incest isn't a sin? Yeah right! The Church has a VERY big impact on the taboos of society. Incest is viewed as a very bad thing in america atleast, and I sure as hell bet its in the bible that incest is bad. Even if incest wasn't a sin, we would all be degenerative and screwed up from all the inbreeding.

No it wouldn't work.

meanie. Don't just say "It wouldn't work". This is SERIOUS discussion. Tell me WHY it wouldn't work.

Don't listen to him, in theory, it could work. The problem is Occam's Razor.

You're referring to the Catholic Church, not the Christian Church as a whole. Although it's the largest (but probably not most correct) form of Christianity, Catholicism isn't the only form of christianity in this world you know (just like how not everyone on SEN is American.) So becareful when you start blaming christianity for certain things.

Incest is a thing that we, humans, made, not what God made. But then again, I'm not too sure so really I want someone, who is sure that it's a sin, to show me where it does say it's a sin, if it's there.