Curiosity, uncertainty, some fear of death, and a minor lack of self-trust leads to faith in some super being not low IQs.
Maybe so, but its interesting seeing the relationship. A correct statement to make would be .... People with a lower IQ tend to readily accept religion as an answer over people with a higher one.
Like in any study, there are many variables, of course.
_________________ << banned for being a constant problem. -cin >>
I guess the sun orbits us and we're the center of the universe. The earth is flat too and gravity is not real. That 9.81 m/s^2 is BS. We obviously don't understand how engines or cars work. Just because your religion is at odds with two theories out of many doesn't make the theories wrong or incorrect.
I guess the sun orbits us and we're the center of the universe. The earth is flat too and gravity is not real. That 9.81 m/s^2 is BS. We obviously don't understand how engines or cars work. Just because your religion is at odds with two theories out of many doesn't make the theories wrong or incorrect.
lol Baro. I've learned a loooong time ago that arguing with religious fanatics is pointless. The most you can do is chuckle and/or feel sorry for them.
_________________ << banned for being a constant problem. -cin >>
I guess the sun orbits us and we're the center of the universe. The earth is flat too and gravity is not real. That 9.81 m/s^2 is BS. We obviously don't understand how engines or cars work. Just because your religion is at odds with two theories out of many doesn't make the theories wrong or incorrect.
I guess the sun orbits us and we're the center of the universe. The earth is flat too and gravity is not real. That 9.81 m/s^2 is BS. We obviously don't understand how engines or cars work. Just because your religion is at odds with two theories out of many doesn't make the theories wrong or incorrect.
lol Baro. I've learned a loooong time ago that arguing with religious fanatics is pointless. The most you can do is chuckle and/or feel sorry for them.
Both of you guys have no proof. There is no proof for the big bang and no proof for evolution, just like there is no proof of God or intelligent design. This argument is pointless and should have been locked long ago.
And your just as big a fanatic as any other religious fanatic
_________________ You are now manually breathing.
Last edited by izmeister on Wed Oct 01, 2008 12:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Joined: Jan 2007 Posts: 9841 Location: US - Illidan
Prophet Izaach wrote:
Barotix wrote:
I guess the sun orbits us and we're the center of the universe. The earth is flat too and gravity is not real. That 9.81 m/s^2 is BS. We obviously don't understand how engines or cars work. Just because your religion is at odds with two theories out of many doesn't make the theories wrong or incorrect.
I guess the sun orbits us and we're the center of the universe. The earth is flat too and gravity is not real. That 9.81 m/s^2 is BS. We obviously don't understand how engines or cars work. Just because your religion is at odds with two theories out of many doesn't make the theories wrong or incorrect.
so then you can say that religion is not incorrect and you think of it in a positive manner
your scientific theories are pure fail in my opinion as you chuckle at religion we chuckle at your pathetic demand for a physical meaning for our existence
I guess the sun orbits us and we're the center of the universe. The earth is flat too and gravity is not real. That 9.81 m/s^2 is BS. We obviously don't understand how engines or cars work. Just because your religion is at odds with two theories out of many doesn't make the theories wrong or incorrect.
lol Baro. I've learned a loooong time ago that arguing with religious fanatics is pointless. The most you can do is chuckle and/or feel sorry for them.
Both of you guys have no proof. There is no proof for the big bang and no proof for evolution, just like there is no proof of God or intelligent design. This argument is pointless and should have been locked long ago.
Spoiler!
Quote:
Creationists argue that evolution is "only a theory and cannot be proven."
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.
A fact is something that is supported by unmistakeable evidence. For example, the Grand Canyon cuts through layers of different kinds of rock, such as the Coconino sandstone, Hermit shale, and Redwall limestone. These rock layers often contain fossils that are found only in certain layers. Those are the facts.
It is a fact is that fossil skulls have been found that are intermediate in appearance between humans and modern apes. It is a fact that fossils have been found that are clearly intermediate in appearance between dinosaurs and birds.
Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn't change the facts themselves.
Theories may be good, bad, or indifferent. They may be well established by the factual evidence, or they may lack credibility. Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to "peer review." This means that the proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal in order to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the relevant factual information and publish their conclusions.
Creationists refuse to subject their "theories" to peer reviews, because they know they don't fit the facts. The creationist mindset is distorted by the concept of "good science" (creationism) vs. "bad science" (anything not in agreement with creationism). Creation "scientists" are biblical fundamentalists who can not accept anything contrary to their sectarian religious beliefs.
I just have to ask: What do you think the big bang proposes and what do you think evolution is?
Quote:
as you chuckle at religion we chuckle at your pathetic demand for a physical meaning for our existence
I think having a solid understanding of my environment is better than making something up when I lack knowledge or evidence. If I don't have the answer to something then I don't have the answer; I'll look for the answer, but I won't make something up so I feel "more secure."
Quote:
turtles and elephants
That one went over my head. What's wrong with heliocentrism?
_________________
Maddening
Last edited by Barotix on Wed Oct 01, 2008 12:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
as you chuckle at religion we chuckle at your pathetic demand for a physical meaning for our existence
I think having a solid understanding of my environment is better than making something up in a lack of knowledge. If I don't have the answer to something then I don't have the answer. I won't make something up so I feel "more secure."
security? explain
in my opinion my catholic views can be far more logical, which is why i prefer them over science
Last edited by magisuns on Wed Oct 01, 2008 12:58 am, edited 2 times in total.
lol Baro. I've learned a loooong time ago that arguing with religious fanatics is pointless. The most you can do is chuckle and/or feel sorry for them.
Both of you guys have no proof. There is no proof for the big bang and no proof for evolution, just like there is no proof of God or intelligent design. This argument is pointless and should have been locked long ago.
Spoiler!
Quote:
Creationists argue that evolution is "only a theory and cannot be proven."
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.
A fact is something that is supported by unmistakeable evidence. For example, the Grand Canyon cuts through layers of different kinds of rock, such as the Coconino sandstone, Hermit shale, and Redwall limestone. These rock layers often contain fossils that are found only in certain layers. Those are the facts.
It is a fact is that fossil skulls have been found that are intermediate in appearance between humans and modern apes. It is a fact that fossils have been found that are clearly intermediate in appearance between dinosaurs and birds.
Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn't change the facts themselves.
Theories may be good, bad, or indifferent. They may be well established by the factual evidence, or they may lack credibility. Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to "peer review." This means that the proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal in order to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the relevant factual information and publish their conclusions.
Creationists refuse to subject their "theories" to peer reviews, because they know they don't fit the facts. The creationist mindset is distorted by the concept of "good science" (creationism) vs. "bad science" (anything not in agreement with creationism). Creation "scientists" are biblical fundamentalists who can not accept anything contrary to their sectarian religious beliefs.
I just have to ask: What do you think the big bang proposes and what do you think evolution is?
Quote:
as you chuckle at religion we chuckle at your pathetic demand for a physical meaning for our existence
I think having a solid understanding of my environment is better than making something up when I lack knowledge or evidence. If I don't have the answer to something then I don't have the answer; I'll look for the answer, but I won't make something up so I feel "more secure."
Why thank you for copying and pasting the article, but I had already seen it. Most theories in Science involve experiments and the like, but evolution and the big bang are impossible to prove. To date I have not seen any experiments proving Evolution or the Big bang. Perhaps the hadron(sp?) collider will give some answers. Until than we are just using faith in this pointless argument.
I'm not up for a serious debate or w/e. I gave up on religion vs w/e the hell religious people are at odds with a loooooooooooong time ago. Now it's just Human beings that believe in no super being person creature thing and Human beings that do. I learn to latch onto similarities. I can't prove evolution but I can provide evidence and facts that support the theory. The same with the big bang. Can one say the same about religious "theories?" Well, they are religious for a reason. Theories get replaced/strengthened and lose/gain credibility all the time. I don't think you can deny fossil evidence or trace elements in space. The thing with religion is that if one part doesn't fit then the whole thing falls apart, correct? It doesn't work that way with science. The puzzle doesn't always have to be complete. When it isn't complete people just say "I don't know" and I'm content with that answer. When you don't know the answer it is ok to say I don't know the answer but I'm working on it. Big Bang is just the how not the why; the same logic applies to evolution. Where did we come from? Idk. Why are we here? Idk. How did we get here? That can be explained and supported. What caused it? Idk/self regulating.
Quote:
solid
Quote:
Theories may be good, bad, or indifferent. They may be well established by the factual evidence, or they may lack credibility. Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to "peer review." This means that the proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal in order to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the relevant factual information and publish their conclusions.
Creationists refuse to subject their "theories" to peer reviews, because they know they don't fit the facts. The creationist mindset is distorted by the concept of "good science" (creationism) vs. "bad science" (anything not in agreement with creationism). Creation "scientists" are biblical fundamentalists who can not accept anything contrary to their sectarian religious beliefs.
Quote:
security
Quote:
Curiosity, uncertainty, some fear of death, and a minor lack of self-trust leads to faith in some super being
Curiosity and human ingenuity leads to great discoveries. This computer; theories made this computer! :p
Why thank you for copying and pasting the article, but I had already seen it. Most theories in Science involve experiments and the like, but evolution and the big bang are impossible to prove. To date I have not seen any experiments proving Evolution or the Big bang. Perhaps the hadron(sp?) collider will give some answers. Until than we are just using faith in this pointless argument.
SCIENCE 101: No theories are proven.
I have been taught since my first science experiment (that employed the scientific method) that you can never prove your own hypothesis, and also your theory, or any theory or hypothesis for that matter. Science collects evidence to support hypotheses or theories. They are models that try to explain the natural world. They can also be changed once new evidence comes up. They can also be discarded.
Your statement that evolution and Big Bang are impossible to prove is a given. No one can prove them - and no one needs to, as they are theories. The same applies to Gravity, Island Biogeography, Electromagnetism, Germ, Cell, Atomic, Plate Tectonics, Radioactivity, and many others. Never proven, never will. What they all stand on is evidence. If a scientific idea doesn't have evidence, then it's not a theory.
In science, theories are the highest form of knowledge - more than facts or laws. They explain and not just describe.
If you have a problem with unproven scientific claims then I suggest the following things: > Don't take antibiotics - they're based on Germ, Cell, and Evolutionary Theory > Cut your electricity - it's based on Electromagnetism and the Atomic Theory > Disable your smoke detector - most are based on Radioactivity
There's more you can cut down on, but these three are probably enough for now. Just don't go looking for more theories! You might completely refuse medical care, and I don't want to be responsible for it.
Why thank you for copying and pasting the article, but I had already seen it. Most theories in Science involve experiments and the like, but evolution and the big bang are impossible to prove. To date I have not seen any experiments proving Evolution or the Big bang. Perhaps the hadron(sp?) collider will give some answers. Until than we are just using faith in this pointless argument.
SCIENCE 101: No theories are proven.
I have been taught since my first science experiment (that employed the scientific method) that you can never prove your own hypothesis, and also your theory, or any theory or hypothesis for that matter. Science collects evidence to support hypotheses or theories. They are models that try to explain the natural world. They can also be changed once new evidence comes up. They can also be discarded.
Your statement that evolution and Big Bang are impossible to prove is a given. No one can prove them - and no one needs to, as they are theories. The same applies to Gravity, Island Biogeography, Electromagnetism, Germ, Cell, Atomic, Plate Tectonics, Radioactivity, and many others. Never proven, never will. What they all stand on is evidence. If a scientific idea doesn't have evidence, then it's not a theory.
In science, theories are the highest form of knowledge - more than facts or laws. They explain and not just describe.
If you have a problem with unproven scientific claims then I suggest the following things: > Don't take antibiotics - they're based on Germ, Cell, and Evolutionary Theory > Cut your electricity - it's based on Electromagnetism and the Atomic Theory > Disable your smoke detector - most are based on Radioactivity
There's more you can cut down on, but these three are probably enough for now. Just don't go looking for more theories! You might completely refuse medical care, and I don't want to be responsible for it.
There are ways to back up your claims for antibiotics, electricity and radioactivity. There is no way to back up the claim for evolution or the big bang.
There are ways to back up your claims for antibiotics, electricity and radioactivity. There is no way to back up the claim for evolution or the big bang.
FACT: The theoretical implications of electromagnetism led to the development of Einstein's equation E=MC².
That, in turn led to other observations (measurement of background microwave radiation, red-shifted stars, size of our galaxy, size and nature of our expanding universe, etc, etc) and theories (Steady-State universe, Expanding Contracting Universe, Black holes, Quasistellar Radio Sources -- Quasars), one such theory is commonly known as the Big Bang.
Scientists make observations (look at stuff), propose hypotheses (guess why), test, publish, revise and look for independent confirmation while they continue to amass data in order to establish various theories that are sometimes at odds with each other.
Your broad generalization about two widely held theories cannot debunk them. If a denial, made by a single person, is the only criteria required to overthrow widely held theories what progress can be made? How many books have been written on these subjects? It's one thing to value one theory over another, quite another thing to disrespect the amount of work that has been done by those with greater intelligence than you just because you don't like what they say.
There are ways to back up your claims for antibiotics, electricity and radioactivity. There is no way to back up the claim for evolution or the big bang.
FACT: The theoretical implications of electromagnetism led to the development of Einstein's equation E=MC².
That, in turn led to other observations (measurement of background microwave radiation, red-shifted stars, size of our galaxy, size and nature of our expanding universe, etc, etc) and theories (Steady-State universe, Expanding Contracting Universe, Black holes, Quasistellar Radio Sources -- Quasars), one such theory is commonly known as the Big Bang.
Scientists make observations (look at stuff), propose hypotheses (guess why), test, publish, revise and look for independent confirmation while they continue to amass data in order to establish various theories that are sometimes at odds with each other.
Your broad generalization about two widely held theories cannot debunk them. If a denial, made by a single person, is the only criteria required to overthrow widely held theories what progress can be made? How many books have been written on these subjects? It's one thing to value one theory over another, quite another thing to disrespect the amount of work that has been done by those with greater intelligence than you just because you don't like what they say.
~Granps
Thank you, I was lost lol.
OnT - I used to be Christian while doubting some of the beliefs but after watching some VenomFangX's videos alot of it seems practical.
Now, I'm too tired and in some cases, not intellegent enough to shift through all of the posts but I can argue "No use arguing, you're dumb/fanatic".
That is BS and you know it, let's simplify it -
A - I like Red
B - I think it's Blue...
A - No it's Red! Look at it, look at these studies!
B - I have faith in it's blueness and also have evidence it's Blue
A - *Shows studies/evidence*
B - *Shows evidence*
A - There is NO use argueing with you, you're a dumb fanatic! I feel sorry...
_________________
penfold1992 wrote:
durka durka muhammad gihad allah 10k plys. thats all i hear :S
Oh wow I'm supprised this thread is still around...and yeah it is somewhat pointless to argue weather God's real or not...I think He is and I'm sure a lot of you don't think He is real. We'll just have to wait and see but for me I'd rather play it safe and try to live and abide by what God wrote the best way I can. + Religion gives me a purpose istead of just running around this earth for no purpose what so ever except to live and then die....I'd rather think that there is a bigger picture that we can't quite see yet.
A: The sky is blue. B: I have faith that it's red. A: That's nice, but it's blue. B: Prove it. A: I can't prove it but I can support it with facts, evidence, and years of research: [etc...] A: Can you support yours with facts, evidence, and years of research? B: Look, see this holy book. It proves it! A: Yeah, faith =/= proof. B: ... OK, see this video: Look at this video. A: Faith and fallacies? O.o B: OK, here's another video! A: Faith gallery menz. Do you even know what science is? B: Yeah, it's a bunch of BS! C: I am an educated creationist and beg to differ! Science is not BS. Just because you're misinformed on the subject of science doesn't make you right. Science isn't flawless. Some pieces don't fit. A theory is merely an explanation for laws and events that occur in nature. Usually an accident, followed by observation, followed by studies, a conclusion, and more studies. That is Science! B: Look, see this holy book! A: >_> o.O? The sky is blue. You have no evidence other than a supernatural book. B: You have no evidence at all! A: /face palm C: /face palm
Before Grandpa came there was never a C. Usually me raging/ranting after solid arguments fail.
A: The sky is blue. B: I have faith that it's red. A: That's nice, but it's blue. B: Prove it. A: I can't prove it but I can support it with facts, evidence, and years of research: [etc...] A: Can you support yours with facts, evidence, and years of research? B: Look, see this holy book. It proves it! A: Yeah, faith =/= proof. B: ... OK, see this video: Look at this video. A: Faith and fallacies? O.o B: OK, here's another video! A: Faith gallery menz. Do you even know what science is? B: Yeah, it's a bunch of BS! C: I am an educated creationist and beg to differ! Science is not BS. Just because you're misinformed on the subject of science doesn't make you right. Science isn't flawless. Some pieces don't fit. A theory is merely an explanation for laws and events that occur in nature. Usually an accident, followed by observation, followed by studies, a conclusion, and more studies. That is Science! B: Look, see this holy book! A: >_> o.O? The sky is blue. You have no evidence other than a supernatural book. B: You have no evidence at all! A: /face palm C: /face palm
Before Grandpa came there was never a C. Usually me raging/ranting after solid arguments fail.
Personally, i believe both methods of belief in creation are quite equal because no1 knows the truth. But one that i hate is when those religious people hide in their little hole and almost choose to be ignorant to science, also vice-versa. I like believing that it is possible that there is a God, but also be well imformed scientificly. Sure i'm catholic, but that doesnt mean i cant believe that there could b a scientific explanation. And in the "bible" does this god not ask of us to challenge our beliefs? This is just the human way in both definitions
-- as u can tell i'm done with defending the catholic point of view --
however i believe that people who believe in scientfic theories that stereotype on people with religious theories are just idiots COUGHbarotix, argonautCOUGH
Last edited by magisuns on Wed Oct 01, 2008 9:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 7 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
