This is a SECULAR nation...practice y...
OKAY

Houston, TX

#264 Sep 17, 2012
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't agree (to say the least). But what exactly do you win? A 'cookie'?
HIGH FIVE! After blasting cp, I would say "crumbs".
Punisher

Brooklyn, NY

#265 Sep 17, 2012
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Nope! Not any more than when New Agers proclaim a call to "harmonize" for world peace. Do you feel imposed upon when New Agers proclaim a global "hummmmming"?
2. I'm not sure what you are talking about.
1. I don't feel imposition, just a really strong urge to laugh.

Now a global hummer...that's got my attention...
Punisher

Brooklyn, NY

#266 Sep 17, 2012
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
Because they wanted "freedom" of religion. What people can't seem to grasp,

1. is the idea that Christians honor personal choice.

I don't want to force anyone to believe what I believe. Apparently they didn't either.

1. Really? I would have to disagree - most especially today. This might have been true, might be true in the individual case - but as a group, Xtians resist the personal choices of others that conflict with what they think is the right choice. I think abortion is just such a case.

BTW, all of us in some sense do want others to believe as we do. Its pretty natural IMO.
HelloWorld

Frisco, TX

#267 Sep 24, 2012
Roland_Deschain wrote:
<quoted text>
The end result of being governed by any supernatural deity is a theocracy.
"government ruled by or subject to religious authority."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theocracy
This may sound absolutely fantastic to you. However, have you considered what would happen once the science haters, evolution deniers, homophobes, haters of women's rights, etc got control?
You know, people "Native" and all the other nut-jobs fundie Christians posting on Topix? Would you REALLY like to live in the American version of Afghanistan?
Wow, so if i don't agree with the evolutionary theory i'm a science hater? When did questioning a scientific theory become disdain for science? When did that become wrong? I believe that's what you're supposed to do with theories; question them, test them, poke holes in them. Its how better, more accurate theories are born.
Real science doesn't fear alternative theories or "fight" against them, it just lets the best theory win by subjecting them all to constant scrutiny.

Roland_Deschain

“Naturalism - Nature is Enough”

Since: Nov 07

UK

#268 Sep 25, 2012
HelloWorld wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, so if i don't agree with the evolutionary theory i'm a science hater?
No.
HelloWorld wrote:
<quoted text>
When did questioning a scientific theory become disdain for science?
Do you actually understand what a scientific theory is?
HelloWorld wrote:
<quoted text>
When did that become wrong? I believe that's what you're supposed to do with theories; question them, test them, poke holes in them. Its how better, more accurate theories are born.
Correct. However, one has to do this using science, not the supernatural.
HelloWorld wrote:
<quoted text>
Real science doesn't fear alternative theories or "fight" against them, it just lets the best theory win by subjecting them all to constant scrutiny.
Creationism is not science.
HelloWorld

Frisco, TX

#269 Sep 25, 2012
Roland_Deschain wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you actually understand what a scientific theory is?
<quoted text>
really? Argue your point, not someone else's knowledge of the subject. This is childish and everyone has Google if you want to know what a scientific theory is.
Roland_Deschain wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct. However, one has to do this using science, not the supernatural...Creationism is not science.<quoted text>
I'll agree with you there, creationism is not science, it is either a factual or fictitious event, untestable and incomprehensible by science. I don't think the business of trying to prove creation scientifically is one with an end. What IS science is scrutinizing the currently accepted theory, scientifically, based on observable evidence.

Since we cannot see the completion of a single instance of macroevolution (don't act like you don't know what this means) from one species to another - i.e. it takes millions of years -- it makes the theory of evolution very difficult to approach by observable, reproducible expirimentation. That's my main problem with proponents of the theory who hold it so tightly as truth. The best friend of these proponents is to describe small incremental changes WITHIN a species and try to prove the unprovable by this evidence. Would it hurt to admit there may be problems with the current theory? Or has science finally achieved it's first ever completely correct, immutable theory, which will now be considered infalible...like the Pope?

Please reply without insults, try to keep to the topic being discussed.

Roland_Deschain

“Naturalism - Nature is Enough”

Since: Nov 07

UK

#270 Sep 25, 2012
HelloWorld wrote:
<quoted text>
really? Argue your point, not someone else's knowledge of the subject. This is childish and everyone has Google if you want to know what a scientific theory is.
"As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts."

http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html
HelloWorld wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll agree with you there, creationism is not science, it is either a factual or fictitious event, untestable and incomprehensible by science. I don't think the business of trying to prove creation scientifically is one with an end. What IS science is scrutinizing the currently accepted theory, scientifically, based on observable evidence.
Yet you appear to be using an intelligent design / creationist approach to argue against evolution.
HelloWorld wrote:
<quoted text>
Since we cannot see the completion of a single instance of macroevolution (don't act like you don't know what this means)
I take it you are also going to stop with the insults in your future posts?
HelloWorld wrote:
<quoted text>
from one species to another - i.e. it takes millions of years -- it makes the theory of evolution very difficult to approach by observable, reproducible expirimentation. That's my main problem with proponents of the theory who hold it so tightly as truth. The best friend of these proponents is to describe small incremental changes WITHIN a species and try to prove the unprovable by this evidence.
So what is the cut off mechanism for micro evolution? At what point does it kick in? Is natural mutation inhibited somehow? Are parents suddenly prevented from passing on genetic information to their offspring?
HelloWorld wrote:
<quoted text>
Would it hurt to admit there may be problems with the current theory?
The theory of gravity attempts to explain the fact of gravity. The theory of evolution attempts to explain the fact of evolution. It does not matter if a theory is utterly wrong, partially wrong or totally accurate. The facts will not change.
HelloWorld wrote:
<quoted text>
Or has science finally achieved it's first ever completely correct, immutable theory, which will now be considered infalible...like the Pope?
Every single scientific theory is open to challenge. All the time. They will never be considered infallible. It'e not how science works.
HelloWorld wrote:
<quoted text>
Please reply without insults, try to keep to the topic being discussed.
I will reply how I see fit. After all, they are MY posts.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#271 Sep 26, 2012
Roland_Deschain wrote:
<quoted text>
Every single scientific theory is open to challenge. All the time. They will never be considered infallible.
Yet we are told repeatedly that evolution is an undisputable fact, not a theory. Many here also believe evolution is unguided. So I guess this is an infallible belief?

Roland_Deschain

“Naturalism - Nature is Enough”

Since: Nov 07

UK

#272 Sep 26, 2012
Pilgrim_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet we are told repeatedly that evolution is an undisputable fact, not a theory.
It's both. Just like gravity. The theory of gravity is an attempt to explain the fact of gravity. The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain the fact of evolution. Theories can change, facts cannot.
Pilgrim_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Many here also believe evolution is unguided.
I don't understand what you mean by unguided.
Pilgrim_ wrote:
<quoted text>
So I guess this is an infallible belief?
Natural selection, inheritance, etc are all part of the theory of evolution.

Roland_Deschain

“Naturalism - Nature is Enough”

Since: Nov 07

UK

#273 Sep 26, 2012
Pilgrim_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet we are told repeatedly that evolution is an undisputable fact, not a theory. Many here also believe evolution is unguided. So I guess this is an infallible belief?
Just in case you missed it.

"As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts."

http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html
Big Al

Springfield, MO

#274 Sep 26, 2012
Pilgrim_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet we are told repeatedly that evolution is an undisputable fact, not a theory. Many here also believe evolution is unguided. So I guess this is an infallible belief?
Scientists always allow for error only "believers" claim absolute inerrant knowlege.

“In everyday usage,‘theory’ often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say,‘I have a theory about why that happened,’ they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence. The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.…the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence.”– U.S. National Academy of Sciences

"A religious creed differs from a scientific theory in claiming to embody eternal and absolutely certain truth, whereas science is always tentative, expecting that modification in its present theories will sooner or later be found necessary, and aware that its method is one which is logically incapable of arriving at a complete and final demonstration." - Bertrand Russell

Cookie_Parker

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#275 Sep 26, 2012
Pilgrim_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet we are told repeatedly that evolution is an undisputable fact, not a theory. Many here also believe evolution is unguided. So I guess this is an infallible belief?
Many of the theories have been proven in evolution. It's the progress of the theory and what develops that changes it.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#276 Sep 26, 2012
Cookie_Parker wrote:
<quoted text>
Many of the theories have been proven in evolution. It's the progress of the theory and what develops that changes it.
Many supposed evidences have been found to be either just wrong (Australopithecines) or intentional hoaxes (Piltdown man). I'd like to see what you believe is an example of a proven theory, and what that proof is.
Cheers :)
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#277 Sep 27, 2012
"Evolution is both a scientific fact and a scientific theory....The fossil record is the primary factual evidence for evolution in times past,..." - The Paleontological Society
(representing palentologists from 40 countries)

"The fossil record of vertebrates unequivocally supports the hypothesis that vertebrates have evolved through time..." - Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (the science of the forms of life existing in former geologic periods, as represented by their fossils)

"The principles of evolution have been tested repeatedly and found to be valid according to scientific criteria." - American Anthropological Association

"99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution" - Brian J. Alters, Chair in Science Education McGill University

"Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority, whose objections are based not on reasoning but on doctrinaire adherence to religious principles." - James D. Watson (molecular biologist, geneticist, and zoologist, best known as one of the co-discoverers of the structure of DNA)
FSM

Calamvale, Australia

#278 Sep 27, 2012
Pilgrim_ wrote:
Yet we are told repeatedly that evolution is an undisputable fact, not a theory. Many here also believe evolution is unguided. So I guess this is an infallible belief?
Why does evolutionary theory require a deity?

Cookie_Parker

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#279 Sep 27, 2012
Hello-World wrote:
<quoted text>
Many supposed evidences have been found to be either just wrong (Australopithecines) or intentional hoaxes (Piltdown man). I'd like to see what you believe is an example of a proven theory, and what that proof is.
Cheers :)
You first...you make a claim these evolutionary theories are false claims not proven. YOu show the evidence. Or admit you're just talking to your preacher man and have no evidence to show.

And where did I say that the theory of evolution has been proven? I said there were proven elements in theory...
Punisher

Yonkers, NY

#280 Sep 27, 2012
HelloWorld wrote:
<quoted text>
really? Argue your point, not someone else's knowledge of the subject. This is childish and everyone has Google if you want to know what a scientific theory is.
<quoted text>

1. I'll agree with you there, creationism is not science, it is either a factual or fictitious event, untestable and incomprehensible by science. I don't think the business of trying to prove creation scientifically is one with an end. What IS science is scrutinizing the currently accepted theory, scientifically, based on observable evidence.

Since we cannot see the completion of a single instance of macroevolution (don't act like you don't know what this means) from one species to another - i.e. it takes millions of years -- it makes the theory of evolution very difficult to approach by observable, reproducible expirimentation. That's my main problem with proponents of the theory who hold it so tightly as truth. The best friend of these proponents is to describe small incremental changes WITHIN a species and try to prove the unprovable by this evidence. Would it hurt to admit there may be problems with the current theory? Or has science finally achieved it's first ever completely correct, immutable theory, which will now be considered infalible...like the Pope?
Please reply without insults, try to keep to the topic being discussed.
1. Hello loophole! Hello escape hatch! Make it incomprehensible and jump out of the plane.
Punisher

Yonkers, NY

#281 Sep 27, 2012
Hello-World wrote:
<quoted text>
Many supposed evidences have been found to be either just wrong (Australopithecines) or intentional hoaxes (Piltdown man). I'd like to see what you believe is an example of a proven theory, and what that proof is.
Cheers :)
While not one single verified proof has ever been provided for your Religious myths. Not one! Faith and anecdotes don't count.
Punisher

Yonkers, NY

#282 Sep 27, 2012
HelloWorld wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, so if i don't agree with the evolutionary theory i'm a science hater? When did questioning a scientific theory become disdain for science? When did that become wrong? I believe that's what you're supposed to do with theories; question them, test them, poke holes in them. Its how better, more accurate theories are born.
Real science doesn't fear alternative theories or "fight" against them, it just lets the best theory win by subjecting them all to constant scrutiny.
Science Hater? Why not? Anyone who challenges a Xtian is deemed a hater, so why not apply the same logic to you folks?

You cant poke holes thru these Scientific theories by using the Bible as a hole-punch. Wont work.

The only fear is emanating from Believers.

The win only occurs when the theory and work leading up to it adheres to the rules, not just because its the better or most popular.

Cookie_Parker

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#283 Sep 27, 2012
Punisher wrote:
<quoted text>Science Hater? Why not? Anyone who challenges a Xtian is deemed a hater, so why not apply the same logic to you folks?
You cant poke holes thru these Scientific theories by using the Bible as a hole-punch. Wont work.
The only fear is emanating from Believers.
The win only occurs when the theory and work leading up to it adheres to the rules, not just because its the better or most popular.
You are totally amazing..thanks.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What religion was Enoch, Noah, and Abraham? (Oct '12) 11 min truth 1,182
Is there any evidence Apostles Peter and Paul b... 24 min Big Al 332
The False Teachings of the Hebrew Israelites, s... (Jan '14) 1 hr ROG 1,088
judgment coming to america 1 hr ROG 47
News Police need more training on hate crime, says A... 1 hr ROG 30
Early Christianity 3 hr Barmsweb 2,111
Hospice Care or Murder? (Jan '13) 8 hr Jesus Made Me Whole 110
More from around the web