GhostAnime
Searching for her...
no because there aren't '1,000' theories, and you just made that up.
i don't think you understand what a real theory is.
-
Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.
However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.
We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure. -
Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
"Top home-school texts dismiss Darwin, evolution"
- Thread starter Shinegreymon Burst
- Start date
i don't think you understand what a real theory is.
Padlock gets a point over the "Proof of God? Look around you, everything is proof of God!" fundies.
Actually, there's tons of evidence that evolution is correct, if you bother to read the thread.
See, the debate here isn't whether evolution is true or whether evolution happened. That's proven. We've seen it happen. You can go on and on about how it's "only micro-evolution", but that's just a term that someone came up with to explain the variations we see that prove evolution without admitting that evolution actually happens - micro-evolution, speciation, macro-evolution, it's all evolution. Evolution has been proven. It happens. That's just the way it is. The question is whether or not evolution resulted in these varieties of species. And that is what we're not entirely sure of, although, we have a lot of evidence to suggest that it is. Basically, the debate in scientific circles is not whether or not evolution happens/happened, but to what degree it happened. Only the most willfully ignorant deny that evolution ever happened or could happen.
Theres no proof to suggest that either creationism or evolution is correct.
Actually, there's tons of evidence that evolution is correct, if you bother to read the thread.
See, the debate here isn't whether evolution is true or whether evolution happened. That's proven. We've seen it happen. You can go on and on about how it's "only micro-evolution", but that's just a term that someone came up with to explain the variations we see that prove evolution without admitting that evolution actually happens - micro-evolution, speciation, macro-evolution, it's all evolution. Evolution has been proven. It happens. That's just the way it is. The question is whether or not evolution resulted in these varieties of species. And that is what we're not entirely sure of, although, we have a lot of evidence to suggest that it is. Basically, the debate in scientific circles is not whether or not evolution happens/happened, but to what degree it happened. Only the most willfully ignorant deny that evolution ever happened or could happen.
The_Boss_Giygas
I. F.E.E.L. G.O.O.D.
i seriously don't understand why dismissing regular science is anything but damaging to the overall intelligence of our people.
i call this god of gaps arguments, because there is no evidence of this 'force' and it is only you pulling the 'i am so amazed it my mind cannot comprehend it' card. this is hardly a logical answer. they said the same thing about lightning, wind, rain, earthquakes. turns out they can be scientifically explained thousands of years later.
yeah, i mean a creator obviously solves that problem.
wait... what about the creator himself? woops, more questions to answer.
Lightning, wind, rain, earthquakes have been proven that's true, but we can see & feel all those, the "magic" that creates atoms, matter, and the universe has not been explained and can't be seen, felt, or heard. Until science finds an accurate answer that can be tested and proven correct, any educated belief is possible, of course "educated" is a point of view. There is no proof of this "force" but there's no proof of what or how life & existence came to be. The only correct answer is: No one knows for sure yet.
What about the creator himself? Well if those arrogant scientists can actually prove their arrogance by proving EVERTHING correct then no problem science is the new God, but as is, our "logical" friends will NEVER solve all the questions despite what they think, so if they want to waste millions of years trying to prove it all let them do it, in the meanwhile I'm gonna do something else.
Let's hop on the merry-go-round. You say stuff can't just appear out of nowhere, but you believe that a creator, like God, jsut appeared out of nowhere, which you said you don't believe. But if God always was, then why could energy not always have been?
God can be energy, he/she/it doesn't have to be a living organism made up of atoms like everything else. If energy was always there than that energy by definition can be considered to be God, God is a creator if that energy can create then it is God/God like.
Last edited:
GhostAnime
Searching for her...
it's not point of view. it's logic. if you see that assuming some 'force' is behind random things like lightning and rain don't make sense, they wouldn't make sense with ANYTHING ELSE until this 'force' is inexplicably seen. otherwise you're just assuming and arguing with god of the gaps; which is the opposite of logic.but we can see & feel all those, the "magic" that creates atoms, matter, and the universe has not been explained and can't be seen, felt, or heard. Until science finds an accurate answer that can be tested and proven correct, any educated belief is possible, of course "educated" is a point of view.
and let's stick with this answer, shall we?There is no proof of this "force" but there's no proof of what or how life & existence came to be. The only correct answer is: No one knows for sure yet.
do you even KNOW what they think? you seem to be under the idea that all scientists are elitists.What about the creator himself? Well if those arrogant scientists can actually prove their arrogance by proving EVERTHING correct then no problem science is the new God, but as is, our "logical" friends will NEVER solve all the questions despite what they think
if it's just energy then why call it God? you even capitalize the G as if it was some kind of person. just call it 'energy' instead of playing to your bias.God can be energy, he/she/it doesn't have to be a living organism made up of atoms like everything else. If energy was always there than that energy by definition can be considered to be God, God is a creator if that energy can create then it is God/God like.
The_Boss_Giygas
I. F.E.E.L. G.O.O.D.
do you even KNOW what they think? you seem to be under the idea that all scientists are elitists.
if it's just energy then why call it God? you even capitalize the G as if it was some kind of person. just call it 'energy' instead of playing to your bias.
Do I know scientists? My sister is a scientist though not in the creation area, but maybe it's just all the Atheists I run into they're all the same, they speak for science though they know nothing of it and they all hate religion so I treat them as 1, If any Atheists think this is wrong I'd be happy to be proven wrong. if Scientist don't want to be associated with Atheist, Atheist should not associate themselves with scientists, nor associate religion with ignorance.
Why not call it God, If science discovers this "God" force/energy/magic why can't they say "we discovered the ways of God"? Because it sounds stupid uneducated, not logical, unscientific? I know christians will get mad if they did, but the word God has been used way before Christians came to be.
Education is a point of view, an educated Priest will for sure be uneducated in the view of an atheist and vice-versa. Education varies from culture to culture some cultures may seem uneducated to a more advance cultures and so on.
Last edited:
GhostAnime
Searching for her...
well unfortunately using 'God' in the way you do actually does refer to the Judeo-Christian god. not only that, but you are attaching character/personification to something that doesn't require it. that's not science either. you wouldn't call lightning 'God' I hope.Why not call it God, If science discovers this "God" force/energy/magic why can't they say "we discovered the ways of God"? Because it sounds stupid uneducated, not logical, unscientific? I know christians will get mad if they did, but the word God has been used way before Christians came to be.
good thing i simply used the word logic instead of education. logic is certainly not point of view (at least in this current scenario that you are bringing up).Education is a point of view, an educated Priest will for sure be uneducated in the view of an atheist and vice-versa. Education varies from culture to culture some cultures may seem uneducated to a more advance cultures and so on.
if all you're going to tell me is 'well i believe in super pink puff fairies and it's my educated point of view WHO CARES' then there cannot be any debate because there is no logic. you need logic to debate.
GoombaGeek
Begone!!
Oh-oh! Problem: numerous atheists are ahead in different scientific fields, and some of them are very important indeed. I'm not going to pull a statistic out of my *** (signatures cough cough), but seriously, numerous atheists are in fact quite knowledgeable in science. I'm 11, but I read numerous physics-related books in my spare time and as a result I'm not just "knowing nothing of science". I'm not sure if people will even stand up for something they know nothing about, but then maybe you just know narrow-minded people. As far as science goes, people tend to be the same -- those who are born into certain religions from the start are liable to be exactly as good as those from other religions - but certain types of people might flock to certain faiths over time, which may cause the bad distribution you see here. Or you might only talk to atheists who are uneducated, or it's a random statistical hiccup, but no group of people is all stupid.they speak for science though they know nothing of it and they all hate religion so I treat them as 1
I'm tired right now. Resume argument when assumptions stop being made about entire groups of people.
no because there aren't '1,000' theories, and you just made that up.
Oh, sorry, I didn't realise that I was to wikipedia every scientific theory ever made and then count them...
i don't think you understand what a real theory is.
I don't think you understand when someone is being sarcastic.
GhostAnime
Searching for her...
no worries, because you could probably count the amount of scientific theories regarding the beginning/expansion of the universe on ONE hand.Oh, sorry, I didn't realise that I was to wikipedia every scientific theory ever made and then count them...
then why did you postulate that there was actually 1,000 theories? there's probably not even 5.I don't think you understand when someone is being sarcastic.
no worries, because you could probably count the amount of scientific theories regarding the beginning/expansion of the universe on ONE hand.
then why did you postulate that there was actually 1,000 theories? there's probably not even 5.
I am sure that I could count the ammount of scientifically-backed theories on one or possibly both hands. What I was saying is that all of them could be wrong. Could. Could. Could.
The number 1000 was just an estimate to the number of ridiculous theories that anybody could come up with in a couple of seconds: for example, the infamous pink rabbit theory.
GhostAnime
Searching for her...
I am sure that I could count the ammount of scientifically-backed theories on one or possibly both hands. What I was saying is that all of them could be wrong. Could. Could. Could.
unfortunately to discard them you're going to have to say more than 'well, it could be wrong.' these aren't things scientists come up with out of thin air.
and here is the problem. these 'theories' don't matter. theories based on empirical evidence matters, and thus, using this quote:The number 1000 was just an estimate to the number of ridiculous theories that anybody could come up with in a couple of seconds: for example, the infamous pink rabbit theory.
as if The Big Bang is comparable to the pink rabbit is misleading and dishonest."The Big Bang is simply one of thousands of theories.
Padlock gets a point over the "Proof of God? Look around you, everything is proof of God!" fundies.
Actually, there's tons of evidence that evolution is correct, if you bother to read the thread.
See, the debate here isn't whether evolution is true or whether evolution happened. That's proven. We've seen it happen. You can go on and on about how it's "only micro-evolution", but that's just a term that someone came up with to explain the variations we see that prove evolution without admitting that evolution actually happens - micro-evolution, speciation, macro-evolution, it's all evolution. Evolution has been proven. It happens. That's just the way it is. The question is whether or not evolution resulted in these varieties of species. And that is what we're not entirely sure of, although, we have a lot of evidence to suggest that it is. Basically, the debate in scientific circles is not whether or not evolution happens/happened, but to what degree it happened. Only the most willfully ignorant deny that evolution ever happened or could happen.
Were you there when you claim evolution happened? I didn't think so.
GhostAnime
Searching for her...
skipped my post, did you? were you there when somebody robbed a bank? were you there when pluto orbited the sun? do you disbelieve things like this on a regular basis? do you seriously discredit the traces of anything that comes into your life?Were you there when you claim evolution happened? I didn't think so.
GoombaGeek
Begone!!
*facepalm*Were you there when you claim evolution happened? I didn't think so.
Evolution is a continuum. It keeps going. It is happening now.
Probable response:
Prove that it's happening right now. Hahaha, bow before my awesome logic.
Mutations happen. Changes happen. We see species at the verge of separation, organisms with differences, organisms with an advantage. God did not create a temporal slice of the world and let everything on it stay the exact same for eternity (since I'll never convince you that said deity doesn't exist, so let's go with the halfway view). Animals change. Things change. Face it, the world is a madhouse, and you can find species at almost any stage of becoming new species. Please read a book before debating here.
The_Boss_Giygas
I. F.E.E.L. G.O.O.D.
Or you might only talk to atheists who are uneducated, or it's a random statistical hiccup, but no group of people is all stupid.
Exactly, when I call out atheists and religious people alike to answer me the question of creation, the religious say God did and shut up, the Atheists laugh and tell me to go back to worshiping the spagetti monster, basically all retards who know nothing, but it's the internet, a lot of fakers. So some Athesist are very smart and I don't know them personally to say if they're arrogant and all that, but certainly they're smart.
I know all scientists are not the same. Some like Issac Newton did have a belief in God, even Albert Einstein believed in God even in Jesus though he didn't think Jesus was God and he didn't believe in a personal God aka religious God.
All in all I always tend to focus on the bad side of groups of people and that's wrong, but that's a different topic.
unfortunately to discard them you're going to have to say more than 'well, it could be wrong.' these aren't things scientists come up with out of thin air.
and here is the problem. these 'theories' don't matter. theories based on empirical evidence matters, and thus, using this quote:
as if The Big Bang is comparable to the pink rabbit is misleading and dishonest.
I take it it was my use of the word "simply" which made me sound like a complete moron. Well a least we seem to have come to some sort of an understanding; the Big Bang may be wrong but it is one of the top-tier theories out there.
GhostAnime
Searching for her...
you mention he didn't believe in a personal God yet you still use 'God' as if he actually believed in an actual entity. he was a pantheist.even Albert Einstein believed in God
The_Boss_Giygas
I. F.E.E.L. G.O.O.D.
you mention he didn't believe in a personal God yet you still use 'God' as if he actually believed in an actual entity. he was a pantheist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein's_religious_views
At the bottom in a quote here, he says he's not Atheist and can't call himself a Pantheist. He mentions his views are more of an Agnostic and you can call him that, but he was born Jewish so I just call him that. I guess I said it wrong instead of God I'll say he believed in "The God".
Last edited:
Were you there when you claim evolution happened? I didn't think so.
I don't need to have been around. You know how when someone looks at a crime scene they gather all the evidence and figure out what happened and how? It's like that. Just because you weren't physically there and didn't physically see a person get shot doesn't mean you can discard all the evidence pointing towards homicide simply because you didn't see it happen. Same with evolution.