quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: Main Entry: re·li·gion Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n Function: noun Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY 1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance 2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices 3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

I wish I had a Quarter for every time TVD posts the definition of religion from the dictionary.

___________________

Look, Heinz, since some people already answered most of your points in detail, I'll just give you a quick summary so that we don't have to go all over the same thing again...

Science is not a religion. Secular means non-religious. Scientists do not support evolution because it fits in their belief system, but because it is the best theory for describing what actually happened. Creationism simply isn't a logical, falsifiable, and factual theory. If someone would prove that theory of evolution is absolutely incorrect or that creationism better describes the world we see around us, then theory of evolution would be dropped and creationism would be taught in schools. The reason why creationism isn't taught in schools is because it is totally contradictory to everything we see around us. And while I do agree that there is no absolute truth and that god may be playing a trick on us to make this world seem like it has gone through evolutionary development while it was actually made 6000 years ago, that point is hardly believable and shouldn't be taken seriously because there is no evidence for it. So yes, if you say that for his strange reasons, god hid all the evidence for creation and planted false evidence for evolution, that can not be 100% disproven. But the arguments creationists present can be disproven since they are based on false pretenses and a very simplified and outdated view of theory of evolution.

So in other words, if you make a groundbreaking research that will show creationism is more likely than evolution, the scientific community will embrace it and you'll get a nobel prize. Unfortunately for you, nobody has come even close.

___________________
1+1=10

I know most scientists are athiest but that doesn't mean that evolution disproves the existence of god/gods. Don't come in here saying creationism disproves evolution because it doesn't.

As far as that retarded speaker TVD was quoting thats so pathetic its impossible to prove our reality is actual reality just like its impossible to ever know anything. I was a philosophy major for 2 years before I decided to pursue chemistry so I do know how to talk circles of bullshit around people like the speaker you quoted. Realize everything, absolutely everything is in your head. There is no right and wrong, no black and white. I still believe science can't find its own ass in a lighted room with both of its hands but that doesn't mean I totally throw something like evolution out the window. Science is not a religion, I want to be a scientist and I have a completely different religion so don't try to force your view on me saying that science is my religion. Thats utter bullshit.

___________________
I've never been able to eat a whole baby.
Kill the women. Eat the children.
It's just one of those days where you want to bend over everyone you know and kiss their ass goodbye with a big sideways boot.

Latest Mix

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I read papers and commentary from a number of websites, including arn.org, icr.org, discovery.org, iscid.org, answersingenesis.org, trueorigin.org, among others. What are you attempting to show me that I haven't already seen? Let's see as I click on the icr link - Oh! By golly what do we have here? A lovely diatribe collection from none other than Henry Morris and Mr. Ham himself! How quaint. And the beauty of it ranges from the Big Bang, selecting a good Christian college, biblical prophesy, and Cain's wife! Oh, I guess there's some papers involving evolution laced throughout too. Tell you what, champ, instead of putting me on a scavenger hunt of papers, and for the sake of both brevity and my sanity, why don't you at least attempt to bring some primary arguments from these or other papers here, so that way we can at least try to keep this from being a little too ridiculously long? And if you cannot do so, might I suggest that you simply try not to argue in the first place? It seems quite apparent that you have little understanding of evolution - I'd hate to have you not understand your creationist arguments very well either. *sigh* Here we go again. Look, I'm going to say this nice and slowly for all you creationists out there, so you have a firm understanding on what I am saying. Write this down. Copy and paste it in your memory somewhere. Print it out. Just do whatever you can to remember this point, okay? Here it goes: Science, or more precisely evolution, doesn't give 2 shits about whether or not a god exists. Do you understand that yet? Science does not have any verifiable, testable means of measuring the supernatural, nor has it been able to confirm the presence of the supernatural. All we can ask of science to do is to measure, observe, verify, and test natural phenomena. That is all we are physically capable of doing, got it? Now here's another little snippet I want you to carry around in your wallet. Here it goes: In no way does evolution or any science for that matter eliminate God or any other divine being. Just because science cannot observe, successfully verify, and test the existence of God in no way entails the nonexistence of a God. Got it? IOW, the supernatural may very well exist. God or anyone playing outside the natural world may very well exist. We simply cannot measure this, however, nor are we able to simply insert certain supernatural events wherever we wish to arbitrarily IN a field that requires a verifiable and testable measure of something. As I've shown time and again, polls have consistently demonstrated that there is a good healthy % of scientists who hold a belief in a divine deity of sorts. Up to 40%, in fact. They are actually able to keep their faith separate from their scientific research. What a concept. Please tell me you get this now. I really am running out of patience making this point over and over. Oh boy, not these cute little stories again. Oh well: And the big bang has to do with biological evolution how? Regardless, this young man was idiotic to believe that he arrived here by random processes only. There's this tiny little tidbit he's missing - natural selection, that is also plays a central role in the process. It was an idiotic statement to be approached by in the first place. Call me cynical, but methinks Ham likely made this bullshit story up in the first place. It's pretty much in line with his own way of thinking. Irrelevant to the question at hand (which was flawed to begin with). As I stated previously, random processes are only part of the equation. Natural selection also occurs. Random processes can and do lead to nonrandom outcomes, which is exactly what we see with the evolutionary mechanism of mutation (randomness) and natural selection. Like I said, methinks Ham made this shit up. It's just too irrelevant and apocryphal. That the orginal replicating molecules on the planet arose by random process does not mean that subsequent evolution was random. I could just as easily say that the Great Cookie Monster from the planet Zoinks! makes you believe in your god by hitting you with an invisible handgranade full of drugs and it would be just as logical as this silly example. Two things come to mind: 1. This is completely irrelevant to evolution, but I'll indulge the question on atheism - How do you know you actually believe in god? How do you know you believe in the right one? How do you know there are not millions of gods....you have absolutely no basis in reality for your beliefs. That is why it is called faith. The atheist does not know that there is no god/gods/all powerful Great Cookie Monsters, but there is no evidence for any supernatural beings so he/she does not care, again why should I care about mythological dieties? 2. This is a really stupid straw man argument (as opposed to "smart" straw man ones? Anyway...). It's certainly true that there are no absolute certainties in science, but that doesn't mean we can't be ever-so-slightly logical and rule out certain options or outcomes. Furthermore, we can formulate hypothesis and test them out. The end result after logically ruling certain options out by testing them is our best approximation to the truth or "reality". So no, we can't be absolutely sure of reality, because new information is found and tested all the time. However, we can still be pretty damn sure of certain events occurring, and can be sure to continue to rely on those events. The idiot that Ham is here is essentially wanting us to believe that since we're unsure of a sturdy bridge will remain up, we just shouldn't build it altogether. The universe does tend to operate on regular rules, and though not explicitly stating as such - I'm sure we can rely on a house being where you left it (unless you live in Indonesia I suppose). Talk about throwing the fucking baby out with the bathwater..... Ham merely saying "what point" doesn't get him out of his own sophistry. If there is no Great Cookie Monster from the planet Zoinks!, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? If there are no crazy, loony bird that crapped out the earth from his Great Ass, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? If there are no egg-laying mammals, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? Uh, by checking to see? By seeing what predictions the idea makes, and finding out whether they are right, or whether the opposite is the case? Mindblowing, ain't it? That doesn't negate my point whatsoever, nor have you demonstrated or explained why. Here, I'll reiterate my point but substitute the word "science" with "evolution": And as I stated previously, I see no "values" or blind faith required in evolution, so you're going to have to explain yourself better here too.

in regards to science, i still hold firm to my creationist point of view, but u obviously know much more on the subject of science. and so ill concede here. in that time ill research and hopefully come to your level in the subject.

philosophically speaking, i will continue to argue.

quote:

I wish I had a Quarter for every time TVD posts the definition of religion from the dictionary.

.

quote:

Look, Heinz, since some people already answered most of your points in detail, I'll just give you a quick summary so that we don't have to go all over the same thing again... Science is not a religion. Secular means non-religious. Scientists do not support evolution because it fits in their belief system, but because it is the best theory for describing what actually happened. Creationism simply isn't a logical, falsifiable, and factual theory. If someone would prove that theory of evolution is absolutely incorrect or that creationism better describes the world we see around us, then theory of evolution would be dropped and creationism would be taught in schools. The reason why creationism isn't taught in schools is because it is totally contradictory to everything we see around us. And while I do agree that there is no absolute truth and that god may be playing a trick on us to make this world seem like it has gone through evolutionary development while it was actually made 6000 years ago, that point is hardly believable and shouldn't be taken seriously because there is no evidence for it. So yes, if you say that for his strange reasons, god hid all the evidence for creation and planted false evidence for evolution, that can not be 100% disproven. But the arguments creationists present can be disproven since they are based on false pretenses and a very simplified and outdated view of theory of evolution. So in other words, if you make a groundbreaking research that will show creationism is more likely than evolution, the scientific community will embrace it and you'll get a nobel prize. Unfortunately for you, nobody has come even close....

because, u[all] obviously dont know what the words "god", "religion", and "faith" mean. all u know is the common meaning. that "god" is a deity/devine/supernatural, that "religion" is an organization to worship a "god", or "faith" is an unsupported belief in something. this are the common meanings of these words, but not the entire ones. over and over i tries to state the entire meanings. these are not my definition, but they are the definitions given from a highly accredited language organization(Merriam Webster).

i have shown that what a person holds of supreme value is their god. do u know why?? BECAUSE ITS IN THE DICTIONARY!! we all have something we hold of supreme value, whether it be money, cars, clothes, jesus, allah, or my cat. whatever our "god" is, is what our religion is. mind it that the word "god" doesnt have to be supernatural at all, as i said, it can be my cat or money or cars, or musik.

secular means non-theist, which means indifference or disbelief in the supernatural, your meaning that it is "non-religious" is correct in regards to theism, but as ive stated before, the word "religion" applys to more than just supernatural. your religion is what u believe to be true, and what your god is.

nothing has been disproven from creationism as u have said, i havnt seen one thing to discredit the view without a doubt. of course, there are arguements against creationism, and there are arguements against evolution. each side has claimed to disprove the other. but niether side has disproven the other. my view of creationism is based on my theist worldview as your view of evolution is based on your naturalist worldview. each side is not based on false pretenses, because i dont see in my examination of the evidence at hand, and both sides have the same evidence. its just, creationist interpret differently, and evolutionist interpret it differently according to their preassumed views(pressuppositions). u are assuming that creationism has false pretenses based on your own opinion and your own interpretation of the evidence. im not going to say your wrong or that your right. im going to say i disagree with you.

___________________

quote:

BECAUSE ITS IN THE DICTIONARY!!

Dont lead us into temptation.............

quote:

Originally posted by zig Dont lead us into temptation.............

woah, your avatar freaked me out. upon closer inspection, it...frowns

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by zig Dont lead us into temptation.............

That's 50 imaginary cents just from this thread, lol

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: because, u[all] obviously dont know what the words "god", "religion", and "faith" mean. all u know is the common meaning. that "god" is a deity/devine/supernatural, that "religion" is an organization to worship a "god", or "faith" is an unsupported belief in something. this are the common meanings of these words, but not the entire ones. over and over i tries to state the entire meanings. these are not my definition, but they are the definitions given from a highly accredited language organization(Merriam Webster).

Yes, well, ultimately everything you experience is based upon your belief. I believe that I exist, I believe that there's a computer in front of me on which I'm typing this text, and I believe there's such a thing called internet that will get this message to you, and there's no way I can prove any of these things with absolute 100% certainty, except perhaps my own existance. Ultimately nothing may be real, and this world just may be ruled by Opus' great cookie monster from planet Zoinks. However, if we take on the likelyhood of every possible scenario of which there is an infinite number, we can say it's likely that I exist, it's likely that I have a computer in front of me, and it's likely that internet exists and that you'll get this message, while all the other possibilities are unlikely.

quote:

i have shown that what a person holds of supreme value is their god. do u know why?? BECAUSE ITS IN THE DICTIONARY!! we all have something we hold of supreme value, whether it be money, cars, clothes, jesus, allah, or my cat. whatever our "god" is, is what our religion is. mind it that the word "god" doesnt have to be supernatural at all, as i said, it can be my cat or money or cars, or musik.

Well, yes, but there's a difference in believing in something that has not shown a smallest hint of its existance and believing in someting that we see on daily bases.

quote:

secular means non-theist, which means indifference or disbelief in the supernatural, your meaning that it is "non-religious" is correct in regards to theism, but as ive stated before, the word "religion" applys to more than just supernatural. your religion is what u believe to be true, and what your god is.

No, secular means non-religious. Besides, you are kinda mixing up the word religion with the word belief. The basic position of secularism is that we can't know for certain if god exists, or if anything exists for that matter, so we should act on what seems to give best and most logical results. Secularism does not really claim that there is or isn't a god, so you can't attack it on bases of believing in religion when it is indifferent on the issue.

quote:

nothing has been disproven from creationism as u have said, i havnt seen one thing to discredit the view without a doubt. of course, there are arguements against creationism, and there are arguements against evolution. each side has claimed to disprove the other. but niether side has disproven the other. my view of creationism is based on my theist worldview as your view of evolution is based on your naturalist worldview. each side is not based on false pretenses, because i dont see in my examination of the evidence at hand, and both sides have the same evidence. its just, creationist interpret differently, and evolutionist interpret it differently according to their preassumed views(pressuppositions). u are assuming that creationism has false pretenses based on your own opinion and your own interpretation of the evidence. im not going to say your wrong or that your right. im going to say i disagree with you.

For a millionth time already, evolution is not the primary theory because scientists have faith in it, evolution is the primary theory because the "evidence" that supports creationism is totally fallacious, which you too may realize if you ever get more science education. The problem with creationists is that they attempt to disprove evolution by searching for naturalistic evidence which simply doesn't exist, and are then forced to make up contradictory theories. We have responded to the idiotic article you posted and you haven't responded in any other way than simply reposting the same article. I said to you then and I say to you now, give us exact rebuttals of the arguments in the article you have a problem with and we'll respond in more detail.

___________________
1+1=10