When the Pope Dies

[pimpdave]

[Kruze888]

Barrak...you're just plain wrong. I don't know how you managed to skip over all the parts of that document that would've explained that to you. It seems as though you've been brainwashed. It's ok. Evolution doesn't dispute your white haired man in the clouds that preforms magic tricks from another dimension. You can keep believing in whatever you want. But natty is correct.

Evolution is a fact. Natural selection is the scientific theory proposed by Charles Darwin to explain and understand this fact. And yes, there is a destinct difference between a theory and a scientific theory.

[barackattack]

Barrak...you're just plain wrong. I don't know how you managed to skip over all the parts of that document that would've explained that to you. It seems as though you've been brainwashed. It's ok. Evolution doesn't dispute your white haired man in the clouds that preforms magic tricks from another dimension. You can keep believing in whatever you want. But natty is correct.

Evolution is a fact. Natural selection is the scientific theory proposed by Charles Darwin to explain and understand this fact. And yes, there is a destinct difference between a theory and a scientific theory.

Did I say I believe a religious explanation? No. At no point in this debate have I attempted to peddle Creationism. I'm simply trying to help natty understand that we have no way of knowing for certain where humans came from, and so his trying to force evolution theory onto every passing Christian is not just futile but also moronic. He has no greater understanding of our origins than they do.

There is very little practical difference between a theory and a scientific theory. The only difference is that a scientific theory is back by empirical research. This doesn't magically make it the 100% truth. Trying to refute religion using science is like trying to invalidate a poem with a painting. They're two totally different spectrums.

'Rocks are solid' is a fact. Evolution is a theory.

[Kruze888]

Evolution is a fact no matter how much you want to disagree. The fact that there are theories on evolution does not change the fact that evolution itself is a fact of life.

"It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth." - Richard E. Lenski
qouted from the American Institute of Biological Sciences which can be found here:
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html

[natty dread]

You are a total faggot.

I'm a bundle of sticks? Whatever.

I'm sorry barry, I've tried to explain things to you in as small words as possible, but you just aren't getting it. That's ok, though. Not everyone can be the sharpest spoon in the drawer.

Just go back to your finger painting and pretend this conversation never happened.

[BigBallinStalin]

Barrak...you're just plain wrong. I don't know how you managed to skip over all the parts of that document that would've explained that to you. It seems as though you've been brainwashed. It's ok. Evolution doesn't dispute your white haired man in the clouds that preforms magic tricks from another dimension. You can keep believing in whatever you want. But natty is correct.

Evolution is a fact. Natural selection is the scientific theory proposed by Charles Darwin to explain and understand this fact. And yes, there is a destinct difference between a theory and a scientific theory.

Did I say I believe a religious explanation? No. At no point in this debate have I attempted to peddle Creationism. I'm simply trying to help natty understand that we have no way of knowing for certain where humans came from, and so his trying to force evolution theory onto every passing Christian is not just futile but also moronic. He has no greater understanding of our origins than they do.

There is very little practical difference between a theory and a scientific theory. The only difference is that a scientific theory is back by empirical research. This doesn't magically make it the 100% truth. Trying to refute religion using science is like trying to invalidate a poem with a painting. They're two totally different spectrums.

'Rocks are solid' is a fact. Evolution is a theory.

You're kind of like PLAYER in that you require 100% certainty on anything to be a scientific fact. You may as well doubt the claim that Santa is fiction because there's some tiny bit of certainty that Santa does exist. There's historic accounts of his magical feats, there's pictures of him at the mall, there's presents under the tree. We don't know with 100% certainty if Santa's existence is true or false. With your logic, you'll have to be agnostic on this one.

[Kruze888]

"In the study of biological species, the facts include the existence of many different species in existence today, some very similar to each other and some very dissimilar, the remains of extinct species in the fossil record, and so forth. In species that rapidly reproduce, for example fruit flies, the process of change from generation to generation — that is, evolutionary change — has been observed in the laboratory. The observation of fruit fly populations changing over time is also an example of a fact. So evolution is a fact just as observations of gravity are factual."

qouted from the 2nd wikipedia article natty posted yesterday. Guessing you missed that part?

[Aradhus]

'Rocks are solid' is a fact. Evolution is a theory.

bzzzzt

incorrect, not all rocks are solid.

[BigBallinStalin]

When the Pope dies in a forest, does anybody care?

[pimpdave]

Well God obviously does because he's either firing or promoting him.

[BigBallinStalin]

How do we know that God is an anybody?

[Kruze888]

There is very little practical difference between a theory and a scientific theory.

No. A scientific theory is very different since it is backed by multiple supporting facts among other things.

Trying to refute religion using science is like trying to invalidate a poem with a painting. They're two totally different spectrums.

LOGIC FAIL. First off, you can't invalidate any form of art. You can like it or dislike it or not be moved at all. Second, neither poems nor paintings require the use of facts. Science does. Science and religion both try to explain the unknown. Science explains it using natural facts. Religion typically explains it using unnatural stories. Therefore, science is the perfect thing to use to refute religion. You can use facts to explain things instead of BS. Then, you too would be right.

[Kruze888]

How do we know that God is an anybody?

we don't. now please stop trolling.

[barackattack]

[quote="Kruze888"]No. A scientific theory is very different since it is backed by multiple supporting facts among other things.[/quote/

'A theory supported by fact's and 'a fact' are not the same thing.

Science dabbles in the natural. Religion dabbles in the supernatural. Science can disprove religion no more than religion can disprove science. The two operate in totally different realms that have no relevance to each other.

[natty dread]

When religion makes claims that are testable in the natural realm, it brings the battle to science's home field, and guess what: it has lost every time.

Religion claims world was made in 6 days 6000 years ago - nope, science wins.
Religion claims there has been a worldwide flood where the entire earth was flooded - nope, science wins.
Religion claims all humans were descended from 2 people - nope...

Starting to see a pattern here?

'A theory supported by fact's and 'a fact' are not the same thing.

Actually, a "fact" is any thing that is supported by enough evidence. There's nothing that can be absolutely 100% proven, so we draw a line somewhere, and call everything that is 99% proven a "fact". So any theory that is 99% proven is a fact.

[barackattack]

When religion makes claims that are testable in the natural realm, it brings the battle to science's home field, and guess what: it has lost every time.

Religion claims world was made in 6 days 6000 years ago - nope, science wins.
Religion claims there has been a worldwide flood where the entire earth was flooded - nope, science wins.
Religion claims all humans were descended from 2 people - nope...

Starting to see a pattern here?

'A theory supported by facts and 'a fact' are not the same thing.

Actually, a "fact" is any thing that is supported by enough evidence. There's nothing that can be absolutely 100% proven, so we draw a line somewhere, and call everything that is 99% proven a "fact". So any theory that is 99% proven is a fact.

I believe you're confusing 'religion' with 'Christianity'. There are many more religions on this planet than Christianity.

As for your 99% thing: if you read back you'll see that everything I have been saying is from the point of view that evolution is not the definitive answer. Your accepting that it is 99% sure proves that. By definition, 99% sure is not definite.

[Symmetry]

When religion makes claims that are testable in the natural realm, it brings the battle to science's home field, and guess what: it has lost every time.

Religion claims world was made in 6 days 6000 years ago - nope, science wins.
Religion claims there has been a worldwide flood where the entire earth was flooded - nope, science wins.
Religion claims all humans were descended from 2 people - nope...

Starting to see a pattern here?

'A theory supported by fact's and 'a fact' are not the same thing.

Actually, a "fact" is any thing that is supported by enough evidence. There's nothing that can be absolutely 100% proven, so we draw a line somewhere, and call everything that is 99% proven a "fact". So any theory that is 99% proven is a fact.

Indeed. I'm no scientist, but I work as a historian. Some of the same principals apply, and many of the same fallacies tend to come up. I don't want to pretend that historians have the same kind of processes as scientists- we can't repeat our results for example. Their are facts though, and while they aren't 100% certain, working as a historian means that you gather other facts from different sources.

You use those to generate a theory, or hypothesis. Other historians will gather other sources and destroy your theory if it's weak. If it can't stand up on the evidence you've gathered. There will always be holes in a narrative, whether scientific or historical, but to equate the holes with a narrative that is entirely holy is a kind of cultural relativism that nobody should stand behind.

[natty dread]

I believe you're confusing 'religion' with 'Christianity'. There are many more religions on this planet than Christianity.

None of them are backed by any evidence though. They all make claims that are either already proven false or unfalsifiable. Unfalsifiable claims are such as "when you die, your consciousness will transportalize to a pocket dimension where you get wings stapled in your back and learn to play a harp". The claim cannot be tested to verify it's accuracy, therefore it's unfalsifiable and thus not a scientifically valid claim. So it loses by default.

As for your 99% thing: if you read back you'll see that everything I have been saying is from the point of view that evolution is not the definitive answer. Your accepting that it is 99% sure proves that. By definition, 99% sure is not definite.

For all practical purposes it's the same thing. Proving anything with 100% certainty is impossible, as there's no such thing as absolute proof.

But here's the thing. If you start dismissing facts just because you can't have 100% proof, then you can't know anything. You'll have to throw away all of science, all the knowledge accumulated during the history of human civilization because you can't get your 100% proof.

You can't know for sure if the universe exists, or if it's a computer simulation and you're just a brain in some jar. You can't know for sure if your life isn't just a dream, and you'll have to live every moment in fear that your dick will suddenly turn into a cucumber.

So, you have to decide to either believe in nothing and be all solipsistic, or you can accept that 99,99% proof is practically the same as a definite fact.

[BigBallinStalin]

How do we know that God is an anybody?

we don't. now please stop trolling.

How can one differentiate between messing around with light-hearted jests and Hardcore Trolling?

[Victor Sullivan]

When religion makes claims that are testable in the natural realm, it brings the battle to science's home field, and guess what: it has lost every time.

Religion claims world was made in 6 days 6000 years ago - nope, science wins.
Religion claims there has been a worldwide flood where the entire earth was flooded - nope, science wins.
Religion claims all humans were descended from 2 people - nope...

Starting to see a pattern here?

If you're going to bash religion, at least get your facts straight, Egbert.

Christianity (as it seems you are referring to) claims, according to the Bible, that the world was created in 6 'periods of time' (if you go back to original Hebrew, the word used is translated as 'day', but it could just as well be translated as 'era'). And it doesn't even make sense to say that God created light in a day, because the concept of a day wouldn't have even existed yet (no Sun/Earth). And no, (most) Christians don't believe in the "Young Earth", nor does the Bible point to the Earth being only 6000 years old. On the contrary, I'd say it points to an ancient Earth (as with my first sentence).

Next, Christianity (or I suppose you could use religion in general for this one, since there are multiple 'flood myths') does not say the whole world was flooded. Perhaps the known world, but in no way does it point to the entire world being flooded.

Your third point is an interesting one. The conventional Christian belief is yes, Adam and Eve were the first Homo sapiens. Homo erectus and Homo habilis existed/started to exist before Adam and Eve. And just saying "nope" to this doesn't really refute it. Science has yet to prove/disprove Adam and Eve, so it's not a particularly valid argument.

-Sully

[Kruze888]

How do we know that God is an anybody?

we don't. now please stop trolling.

How can one differentiate between messing around with light-hearted jests and Hardcore Trolling?

TTBOMK: Someone not participating in a "heated" debate who then decides to throw in something off topic in the middle would be trolling. Someone throwing in something off topic while participating in the debate as a light hearted jest would usually signal that they don't currently want to continue the debate asis because otherwise they'd rebut.

[Kruze888]

No. A scientific theory is very different since it is backed by multiple supporting facts among other things.[/quote/

'A theory supported by fact's and 'a fact' are not the same thing.

Science dabbles in the natural. Religion dabbles in the supernatural. Science can disprove religion no more than religion can disprove science. The two operate in totally different realms that have no relevance to each other.

I never said a theory supported by fact's is the same thing as a fact. I said evolution is a fact. I've also provided you with multiple resources to varify that fact.

Why did you bother to comment on something I didn't say instead of the things I did actually say?

[natty dread]

When religion makes claims that are testable in the natural realm, it brings the battle to science's home field, and guess what: it has lost every time.

Religion claims world was made in 6 days 6000 years ago - nope, science wins.
Religion claims there has been a worldwide flood where the entire earth was flooded - nope, science wins.
Religion claims all humans were descended from 2 people - nope...

Starting to see a pattern here?

If you're going to bash religion, at least get your facts straight, Egbert.

Vicky, my facts are straight as a straight line on an infinite plane. You're biting more than you can chew here.

First of all, I said religion, I didn't specify which brand. If you try to deny there are religious people who, based on their religious beliefs and the dogma of their particular church, claim those exact things I mentioned, then you're wrong. There are several branches of christians who insist on earth being 6000 years old, being created in 6 days, etc.

So then you could say "those aren't Real True Christians, only the ones who believe like I do are Real True Christians" but they would say the same of you, and neither of you would have any empirical evidence to back up your claims.

Anyway, that aside, let's look at your arguments:

Christianity (as it seems you are referring to) claims, according to the Bible, that the world was created in 6 'periods of time' (if you go back to original Hebrew, the word used is translated as 'day', but it could just as well be translated as 'era').

Historically, it has been interpreted as 6 regular days. Only when scientists found out that the earth is much much older, christians started to interpret it differently.

And it doesn't even make sense to say that God created light in a day,

Ok... so you accept god magically creating the earth, the universe, making a woman from the rib bone of a man, creating people from dust; people walking on water, turning water to wine, magical healing, angels... but creating light in a day "doesn't make sense"? Huh.

Next, Christianity (or I suppose you could use religion in general for this one, since there are multiple 'flood myths') does not say the whole world was flooded. Perhaps the known world, but in no way does it point to the entire world being flooded.

Genesis 7:19 - And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
7:20 - Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Your third point is an interesting one. The conventional Christian belief is yes, Adam and Eve were the first Homo sapiens. Homo erectus and Homo habilis existed/started to exist before Adam and Eve. And just saying "nope" to this doesn't really refute it. Science has yet to prove/disprove Adam and Eve, so it's not a particularly valid argument.

It is in fact impossible for a whole population of humans to be descended from only 2 individuals. Not enough genetic diversity.

Also, if homo erectus etc. were there at the time, why wasn't anything written about them in the bible?

[Army of GOD]

Please, stop fucking calling the modern scientific belief of evolution, the creation of the universe/world and whatever as facts. They are not even remotely close to facts.

[natty dread]

Please, stop fucking

Never!