Prove there's a god.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621571 May 6, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
"Project Steve" lol...of course...that's how evolutionist roll. Because it's much easier to be rude and attack people on a personal level than to present significant proof to back up claims when pushed against a wall. Honestly, I don't put a great deal of thought into the percentage of scientists who believe in God versus evolution, although, again, I do find it amazing that many great discoveries were made by men who did actually believe in God. I do try to be objective though. The truth is, most great discoveries weren't made by multitudes of men, but rather by a single man/woman or team, thus a very small percentage...hence, project Steve is just a way to poke fun...it really holds no weight or substance.
Yes, it is a way to poke fun, but it also makes a point. Christians always like to point out that "not all scientists are darwinists," and while this is technically true, it is meaningless, which is what "project steve" is meant to highlight.

How in the world is "project steve" an attack? You made a fallacious claim about not all scientists "believing" in evolution, and I used project steve to point out the flaw in your logic. Not an attack. "That's how 'evolutionist' roll?" Lol. I'm not attacking you. Goodness. And I did provide proof for my claim about chromosome two, which is only a tiny, tiny portion of the overall evidence for evolution. If you can't find evidence for evolution, you aren't looking.

Yes, religious men have made scientific discoveries. So?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#621572 May 6, 2013
psalms 23 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well if you had any knowledge at all about a Christian( a follower of Jesus), you wouldnt have to ask that question....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist...
Read it.

"Primitive Baptist/Calvinist".

Christian.

Now, about the Catholics, Mormons, JWs, Christian Scientists...

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621573 May 6, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay,first, let's address this whole "apologist site" issue you have. It's rather ludicrous that you expect I retrieve information that refutes Darwinism from a Darwinist site. That's not gonna happen.
Do you know why it's not gonna happen? Because there is no good evidence against evolution. It does not exist. There is no such thing as a "darwinist" site, that's like saying that a site explaining the theory of relativity is a "gravitologist" site. There are scientific sites, sources, etc, and there are non scientific sources. If there was any good evidence against evolution, or an equally rigorous competing theory, it would be on.... scientific sites! Imagine that.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#621574 May 6, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Nice diatribe. I'm sorry, but yes, creationist sites are irrelevant, by definition. Apologists have a need to believe in god, and this need informs their opinion on the science. If you can find me work by actual scientists, those working without a preconceived agenda, then that's another story. Their religious belief is irrelevant until they allow it to interfere with their ability to be objective. Would you, for example, be interested in the opinion of a devout muslim on the divinity of jesus? You shouldn't be, because no matter what, his opinion is set in stone from the beginning. Same with christian apologists - most are unable to reconcile the massive evidence for evolution with their religious conditioning, and cognitive dissonance does the rest - resulting in this manufactured controversy. Seriously, we are at the point where we can say that either evolution happened, or some god like creature really wanted us to think that it happened, but you wouldn't know it for all the "teach the controversy" wackos out there.
Pascal, Bacon, etc. are irrelevant. Science does not simply "accept their work because they cannot refute it," they accept it because it is good work and because these men did not allow their personal beliefs to slant their scientific work.
Plus he errs in another major point.

Had anyone, anywhere, ever come up with a disproof of evolution, that's be all over the SCIENTIFIC publications.

Pre-Cambrian rabbit, anyone?

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

#621575 May 6, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Nice diatribe. I'm sorry, but yes, creationist sites are irrelevant, by definition. Apologists have a need to believe in god, and this need informs their opinion on the science. If you can find me work by actual scientists, those working without a preconceived agenda, then that's another story. Their religious belief is irrelevant until they allow it to interfere with their ability to be objective. Would you, for example, be interested in the opinion of a devout muslim on the divinity of jesus? You shouldn't be, because no matter what, his opinion is set in stone from the beginning. Same with christian apologists - most are unable to reconcile the massive evidence for evolution with their religious conditioning, and cognitive dissonance does the rest - resulting in this manufactured controversy. Seriously, we are at the point where we can say that either evolution happened, or some god like creature really wanted us to think that it happened, but you wouldn't know it for all the "teach the controversy" wackos out there.
Pascal, Bacon, etc. are irrelevant. Science does not simply "accept their work because they cannot refute it," they accept it because it is good work and because these men did not allow their personal beliefs to slant their scientific work.
Ahh...that's a two edged sword my friend. Are you seriously going stand behind the idea that only Christians have a biased opinion? Evolutionist have a need to believe in evolution and this need informs their opinion on science as well. Surely you aren't going to say that all data collected and researched by evolutionists is objective.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621576 May 6, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Plus he errs in another major point.
Had anyone, anywhere, ever come up with a disproof of evolution, that's be all over the SCIENTIFIC publications.
Pre-Cambrian rabbit, anyone?
Seriously. "Deniers" act as if there is some concerted effort going on to pull the wool over their eyes. It's not sciences fault that the evidence points toward common descent and therefore conflicts with many creation myths, that's just how it is. If there was a disproof, it would be met with resistance, obviously, with evolution being pretty firmly entrenched across many scientific disciplines (because of it's robustness as a theory, not because of some "conspiracy"). However, it would still be huge news, and eventually the TOE would have no choice but to fall.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621577 May 6, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahh...that's a two edged sword my friend. Are you seriously going stand behind the idea that only Christians have a biased opinion? Evolutionist have a need to believe in evolution and this need informs their opinion on science as well. Surely you aren't going to say that all data collected and researched by evolutionists is objective.
Humans have biases. The purpose of the scientific method is to reduce or remove them. Evolution research is guided by the scientific method, apologetics is not.

And I seriously doubt you'd have much luck defending the assertion that "evolutionists need to believe in evolution." We do not believe our salvation depends on the hallowed archaeopteryx. I "believe" in evolution because it would be perverse not to; the evidence is overwhelming to the point that it would be absurd for me to deny it. If a better explanation were to come along, I would have no problem changing my views.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#621578 May 6, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Seriously. "Deniers" act as if there is some concerted effort going on to pull the wool over their eyes. It's not sciences fault that the evidence points toward common descent and therefore conflicts with many creation myths, that's just how it is. If there was a disproof, it would be met with resistance, obviously, with evolution being pretty firmly entrenched across many scientific disciplines (because of it's robustness as a theory, not because of some "conspiracy"). However, it would still be huge news, and eventually the TOE would have no choice but to fall.
Yah. That's how science works.

If the theory doesn't match the data, you change the theory.

Faith warps the data, or ignores it, to fit the theory.

To put it another way:

Believer: "God".
Everyone else: "Really? Kewl! Show me."
Believer: "BLASPHEMER!"

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#621579 May 6, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
...it'll make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.:)
are you the standard?

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#621580 May 6, 2013
Clementia wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Karl!!!:-)
Hey Clem,

I see your studies have left you cranky.

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#621581 May 6, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>I'm aware, thank you/ Now, are they Christians?
You certainly consider Catholics to be Christians.
Not entirely true. A month or so ago, RR was trying to insist that Catholics are NOT Christians.

It was only after I and several other posters proved to him that he was wrong in his ignorant assertion that Catholics aren't Christians that he finally capitulated and realized he had no choice but to accept the fact that Catholics are in fact, Christian.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#621582 May 6, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Even I think that's a little over the top. I mean, maybe if he was obnoxious about it, screaming "praise the lord" over and over, but pointing at the sky isn't that serious.
So what if he was screaming "praise the lord" over and over?

He's constitutionally protected to do so.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#621583 May 6, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>They might as well be a denomination. If I was a christian, I would insist they were a splinter group.
A single church is not and can not be a denomination.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#621584 May 6, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>I'm aware, thank you/ Now, are they Christians?
You certainly consider Catholics to be Christians.
Ya they're Christians, albeit rather strange....

The WB people do not represent Christians, they're atypical.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#621585 May 6, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Read it.
"Primitive Baptist/Calvinist".
Christian.
Now, about the Catholics, Mormons, JWs, Christian Scientists...
What Christian scientists? Who are you referring to?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#621586 May 6, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Yah. That's how science works.
If the theory doesn't match the data, you change the theory.
Faith warps the data, or ignores it, to fit the theory.
To put it another way:
Believer: "God".
Everyone else: "Really? Kewl! Show me."
Believer: "BLASPHEMER!"
Stupid, baseless analogy.

Atheist: "There is no gods"
Theist: "Prove it"
Atheist: " It's YOUR STUPID RELIGION!!"

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#621587 May 6, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>Not entirely true. A month or so ago, RR was trying to insist that Catholics are NOT Christians.
It was only after I and several other posters proved to him that he was wrong in his ignorant assertion that Catholics aren't Christians that he finally capitulated and realized he had no choice but to accept the fact that Catholics are in fact, Christian.
Hehehe.

I know. I just wanted to tangle him up again.

I LIKE this game!

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#621588 May 6, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
A single church is not and can not be a denomination.
You're the only one said it might be.

And even at that, you're wrong.

All sects started as a single church or group.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#621589 May 6, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya they're Christians, albeit rather strange....
The WB people do not represent Christians, they're atypical.
In other words, a cult.

Just like yours, only smaller.

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

#621590 May 6, 2013
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
are you the standard?
Lol...probably not. But I try :)

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Christian Atheist debate 2 min too lazy to log in 4,070
Poll What's your opinion on Mexicans? (Jul '10) 2 min Johnny 72
You are of your father, Satan the devil, you wi... 10 min Doctor REALITY 1
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 14 min princeofdarknessi... 8,339
Play "end of the word" (Jan '11) 24 min andet1987 6,409
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 58 min MUQ2 41,168
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr June VanDerMark 603,567
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 7 hr waaasssuuup 7,653
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 12 hr Lyndi 177,899
More from around the web