No Proof the Bible is untrue.

[JoeyKnothead]

From one of the threads...

Not one human has ever proved anything in the Bible to be untrue. The truth remains in spite of all attacks against it. On the other side of the coin, the words of the Bible apply perfectly to all mankind, while opposing the perversions of unbelieving minds.

I'm gonna pass over the whole 'perversions of unbelieving minds'. I'm just gonna trust this writer had nothing but love in his heart when he said it.

I will though, say the ToE pretty much put the kibosh on the whole creation thing. Eh?

[israeltour]

I have to apologize to Beastt.

The day before yesterday, after being rather critical in this thread, I ended my post with "little boy has to be watched." That was a horrible typo. When I was posting, my 3 year-old son wanted to play in the back yard, and I had to stop what I was doing on the computer to go watch him. My omission of the word "my" makes it seem like I was calling Beastt a little boy. I am very sorry about that. If I was out line with anything else in that post, I'll own that. But, in that last statement, I was referring to my own son, and not to Beastt. I'm sorry.

[Beastt]

There is no such thing as a "bad theory" just as there is no such thing as a "bad fact" (and I'm not saying that "theory" = "fact").

There a nonexhauastive list of people who would disagree with your first comment.


http://www.indiana.edu/~wanthro/SEA98.htm


http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:sV ... 7e.pdf+bad+
theory&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/su ... .1.20.7141

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... id=1279757


I sometimes forget that those who accept the pro-evolution theory believe that "facts" and "theory" are synonomous, so from that viewpoint you are correct, but VERY disagreed with.

Now I invite you to go back and read what I wrote instead of continuing to beat a strawman. I'll even repost it here in nice bold type for you. I stated very clearly, and I'm not saying that "theory" = "fact"
This habitual avoidance of what people say in favor of trying to make arguments against what they've not said is not only disingenuous, but clearly leaves you out of the running when it comes to trying to present yourself with any modicum of credible viability.

The reality is simply this; a concept either qualifies as a theory by complying with all known pertinent evidence or it doesn't. Anything which does, is a theory (once presented with the intense challenges which fail to demonstrate a lack of compliance with the evidence). Yet very few theories fall to new evidence. Many more require some refining and adjustment as new evidence emerges or our ability to analyze evidence improves.

You are beating a dead horse. I said you have accepted that and I have no intent to dissuade you of it. You are free to accept your beliefs by whatever standard you used to weigh them.

And as I have made very clear to you (several times now), this isn't just me. You're the odd man out here, not I. I adhere to the accepted and proper definition of "theory" while you do not. And the reason you won't accept it is for the reason which I pointed out quite plainly above. You want to believe in "bad theories" while I have addressed that there isn't any such thing. A theory is any comprehensive explanation of the mechanisms behind a given process of nature to explain the outcomes which fully complies with all of the known pertinent evidence. As such, a concept either complies with all of the pertinent known evidence or it doesn't. If it does, then it qualifies as a theory. If it doesn't then it isn't a theory. There are no levels of theory as you suggest with your idea of "bad theories". Think of it as a light switch. It's either on or off. It's not on but bad nor is it off but bad. It's either on or off. If a scientific explanation for a process of nature complies with all of the pertinent known evidence (and has been demonstrated to do so via extensive and intensive challenges from a number of sources), then it's a theory. If the next day a new piece of evidence is discovered which shows the theory to be without potential for continued credibility, then it loses the title of "theory". Get it?

If you're going to talk about holes in the Theory of Evolution I would ask that you define the specifics behind these "holes". What problems do you see with the theory?

Take it up in the science forum.

If you're going to suggest there are holes in this thread, then do not retreat from a challenge to present them by suggesting it be discussed in another section of the forum.

If you want to take this off the OP, then go ahead......if a mod is on their toes, they will then suggest it go there and go back to the OP.

I usually hesitate to direct other members of any forum to the rules of the forum but in your case I believe a bold exception is in order. Take a good look at the rule which makes it very clear that no one is to make an assertion they are unwilling to support. This is exactly what you have done by proclaiming there are holes in the theory of evolution, then running away screaming about propriety within a given section of the forum when asked to present support for your assertion. The truth is simply this; you don't know of any holes in the theory of evolution. You take the word of people who know little more about it than yourself, and boldly proclaim that the holes exist. But when asked to support your assertion, you quickly switch to hiding behind forum formalities.

If you climb into a boxing ring with a practiced fighter and start ducking, bobbing, weaving and punching AT them, don't expect the referee to come to your rescue when you take a sharp blow on the nose. Here the "punches" are delivered through supportable points of argument. You've climbed into the ring but it appears you're only interested in putting on a show by dancing around in over-size shorts and stuffed mittens and fanning your opponent. If you want to enter the bout you need to learn to throw a punch and follow through. This is why everyone here gets so tired of your continual whining, followed by a puffed up retreat and a load of verbal posturing.

I'll go so far as to assert that you don't know of any holes in the theory of evolution and likely hold very little understanding of the concepts of the theory.

Of course you will assert that. Everyone who disagrees with evolution does not understand it. I have heard that ad nauseum.

And of course this is the best you can offer because I'm correct. You don't know anything about it, but that doesn't prevent you from smearing your borrowed assumptions and opinions about it, without a shred of knowledge with which to support you assertions. It eventually wears on everyone's patience.

[quote="Beastt] You've just been lead to believe it is false by those in whom you hold trust and you believe they are right without yourself having examined any of the evidence or having attempted to seek an understanding of the theory. Hence, when challenged to present the "holes" you claim, you shrink away with an evasion.

No evasion. I think you will find the information on the other forum.[/quote]
The other forum isn't where you made the assertion and no one should have to chase you, not just from thread to thread, but from forum section to forum section, to demonstrate to the whole of the forum that you appear to have absolutely nothing but lip service to contribute. You very boldly stated that there are holes in the theory of evolution. Now either support that by explaining what these "holes" are and why you see them as holes or retract your statement (AKA: step up or step out of the ring in forfeiture).

If you rest on the "fact" that YOUR theory and its definition is the ONLY one that is valid, then I am sure there is no way to dissaude you from the position. You will remain correct...but disagreed with by myself and others.

It is not "my definition". It is "the definition".

well, then congratulations on finding "THE" truth. Your enlightenment should be of value to your fellow man.[/quote]
Must you toy around with the quote-tags just to make everyone else have to track down what you've done in order to type a response?

I didn't make it up nor do I have the influence to cause vast numbers of online sites to define it as such or volumes of hard-copy to define it as such. That is simply the proper meaning of the word. If that definition is new to you, then you have been offered an opportunity for greater understanding.

Uhh, thanks for the offer, but I decline. Heard it all before...

And you likely ran from it just as you're doing here. That's the proper definition, so deal with it.

There are theories in Christianity. many of them. They just are not scientifically based, for the most part and therby do not share your recognition based on your accepted definition of what you say a theory is.

Christianity is a spiritual concept.

Yes, and?

[/quote]
"And"; just what I continued to state...

As yet we have not one piece of objective evidence to either lead us to support for the concept of spirituality or to lead us away from it. And since there is no evidence from which to work, there can be no "theory". Christianity has ideas, concepts and assertions. None qualify as a "theory".

what kind of evidence do you want? (and no, I already agreed it doe not fit your definition of a theory, whoops I mean by THE ABSOLUTE definition if a theory that YOU accept.

Let the strawman die. This is not "MY definition" of "theory". It's THE definition of "theory". I've invited you to refute that and you can't do it. So drop it. Since there is no evidence to support concepts of spirituality or the supernatural, no assertion for either can be considered to be a "theory". They don't qualify. A theory must be in compliance with all evidence, yet all of the evidence in our universe points to a purely physical existence, not to anything spiritual or supernatural. As such, Christianity qualifies as fantasy, fairy-tale, pure imagination perhaps, but most certainly not "theory". Theories maintain credibility via full compliance with objective evidence. Christianity is all about blind assertion which is very poor fodder for debate, yet you continue to try.

Well, there have been many, but the gaps keep filling in order to cover the new questions. The theory of evolution has evolved many times.
[/quote="Beastt"]Most theories continue to be refined as new evidence comes to light.

Of course, and evolution theories change when challenged by the holes.[/quote]
Which you keep asserting, but quickly revert back to posturing, ducking and weaving the moment anyone asks you to explain what "holes" you're talking about.

As for the rest of your dancing and weaving, I'm growing tired of attempting to trace down the way you've tampered with the quote-tags and trying to fix each and every one in order to respond to each post. It's very clear to me that you're here only to disrupt debate and not as a credible participant. I wonder how long the rest of the forum will be force to endure this before the forum rules you continually evade and violate are enforced where you are concerned.

In closing, let me just post this for any interested moderators.

and I'm not saying that "theory" = "fact"

(and your predictable response)

"I sometimes forget that those who accept the pro-evolution theory believe that "facts" and "theory" are synonomous"

...typical.

[twobitsmedia]

Now I invite you to go back and read what I wrote instead of continuing to beat a strawman. I'll even repost it here in nice bold type for you. I stated very clearly, and I'm not saying that "theory" = "fact"
This habitual avoidance of what people say in favor of trying to make arguments against what they've not said is not only disingenuous, but clearly leaves you out of the running when it comes to trying to present yourself with any modicum of credible viability.

You can word it in whatever way you want, if you are now going to say that the theories have no facts,, then it's a bit difficult to debate someone who is on both sides of the same fence. I purposely overlooked your comment assuming it was a typo, but if you now really want to claim that theory has no facts in it, then I will not argue it. But I think it has some facts and a lot of faith to tie the loose ends together.

And as I have made very clear to you (several times now), this isn't just me. You're the odd man out here, not I. I adhere to the accepted and proper definition of "theory" while you do not.

WEll then I have no problem being the odd man out. I do not yield to your doctrine as though it had any authority. It is a scientific faith statement to which you and the rest of the scientifically gullible adhere to. I would however presume that if I said about anything "This is so because it says so in the Bible" you would not give it any creedence either.

And the reason you won't accept it is for the reason which I pointed out quite plainly above. You want to believe in "bad theories" while I have addressed that there isn't any such thing. A theory is any comprehensive explanation of the mechanisms behind a given process of nature to explain the outcomes which fully complies with all of the known pertinent evidence. As such, a concept either complies with all of the pertinent known evidence or it doesn't. If it does, then it qualifies as a theory. If it doesn't then it isn't a theory. There are no levels of theory as you suggest with your idea of "bad theories". Think of it as a light switch. It's either on or off. It's not on but bad nor is it off but bad. It's either on or off. If a scientific explanation for a process of nature complies with all of the pertinent known evidence (and has been demonstrated to do so via extensive and intensive challenges from a number of sources), then it's a theory. If the next day a new piece of evidence is discovered which shows the theory to be without potential for continued credibility, then it loses the title of "theory". Get it?

Then by your standards the evolution nonsense is an off switch.

I usually hesitate to direct other members of any forum to the rules of the forum but in your case I believe a bold exception is in order.

When it becomes YOUR forum, I will oblige you.

The truth is simply this; you don't know of any holes in the theory of evolution.

The you can choose to believe what you want with no evidence of any such thing. But you then contradict your own "belief system." If you want find all the old threads were evolution is addressed over and over and over and over again.

You take the word of people who know little more about it than yourself, and boldly proclaim that the holes exist. But when asked to support your assertion, you quickly switch to hiding behind forum formalities.

Well, when it becomes YOUR forum , you can make the rules.

If you climb into a boxing ring with a practiced fighter and start ducking, bobbing, weaving and punching AT them, don't expect the referee to come to your rescue when you take a sharp blow on the nose.

There would be no logical reason for me to be in such a position. So I do not get your point. Do you think you are a prize fighter?

This is why everyone here gets so tired of your continual whining, followed by a puffed up retreat and a load of verbal posturing.

I will be sure and refer you enlightened "nonwhining" position to the moderator. Thanks.

And of course this is the best you can offer because I'm correct.

It is not the best, but it is ALL I am going to offer on this thread. So feel free to assume you are correct. Again,. though such a position contradicts your stated beliefs about the neccessity for evidence. However if your contradiction does not bother you than I will live with it also.

You don't know anything about it, but that doesn't prevent you from smearing your borrowed assumptions and opinions about it, without a shred of knowledge with which to support you assertions. It eventually wears on everyone's patience.

Ho hum...interesting taunt.

The other forum isn't where you made the assertion and no one should have to chase you, not just from thread to thread, but from forum section to forum section, to demonstrate to the whole of the forum that you appear to have absolutely nothing but lip service to contribute. You very boldly stated that there are holes in the theory of evolution. Now either support that by explaining what these "holes" are and why you see them as holes or retract your statement (AKA: step up or step out of the ring in forfeiture).

Go to the other forum and debate it then. Your repitition isn't convincing me of anything.

And you likely ran from it just as you're doing here. That's the proper definition, so deal with it.

No decline, But I presume that your conclusion based on non evidence is "logical" now since you seem to keep doing it???

Let the strawman die. This is not "MY definition" of "theory". It's THE definition of "theory".

Then what is there to debate? You could not reason out a decision to make any choice about what you accept as a "theory" and instead had to have it fed to you for which you now proclaim "it is not mine..it is THE definition." Does not leave anything to debate with you personally.

I've invited you to refute that and you can't do it. So drop it. Since there is no evidence to support concepts of spirituality or the supernatural, no assertion for either can be considered to be a "theory". They don't qualify

Not to you and THE definition that YOU subscribe to that is NOT yours but THE definition.



[/quote]Christianity is all about blind assertion which is very poor fodder for debate, yet you continue to try.[/quote] Because you say so? Or because you have given mental ascent to some definition which is THE definition but is NOT yours? I presume though that you cannot reasonable support that assertion.

Which you keep asserting, but quickly revert back to posturing, ducking and weaving the moment anyone asks you to explain what "holes" you're talking about.

As for the rest of your dancing and weaving, I'm growing tired of attempting to trace down the way you've tampered with the quote-tags and trying to fix each and every one in order to respond to each post. It's very clear to me that you're here only to disrupt debate and not as a credible participant. I wonder how long the rest of the forum will be force to endure this before the forum rules you continually evade and violate are enforced where you are concerned.

Yes, the nontheists are very aggravated that I do not spout scriptures at them to make an argument. Bothers them that I dont answer the questions the way they are so sure a Christian should answer them....I know,...heard it all before...

In closing, let me just post this for any interested moderators.

and I'm not saying that "theory" = "fact"

(and your predictable response)

"I sometimes forget that those who accept the pro-evolution theory believe that "facts" and "theory" are synonomous"

...typical.

That means theories can be void of facts and still be a theory..go figure..

[Beastt]

Now I invite you to go back and read what I wrote instead of continuing to beat a strawman. I'll even repost it here in nice bold type for you. I stated very clearly, and I'm not saying that "theory" = "fact"
This habitual avoidance of what people say in favor of trying to make arguments against what they've not said is not only disingenuous, but clearly leaves you out of the running when it comes to trying to present yourself with any modicum of credible viability.

You can word it in whatever way you want, if you are now going to say that the theories have no facts,, then it's a bit difficult to debate someone who is on both sides of the same fence. I purposely overlooked your comment assuming it was a typo, but if you now really want to claim that theory has no facts in it, then I will not argue it. But I think it has some facts and a lot of faith to tie the loose ends together.

I would have to suggest that you're now beginning to learn despite all the time you thought you already knew things about science. Science doesn't operate on "proofs" nor does it produce "facts". Science operates on objective analysis of evidence and it produces the most likely conclusion consistent with all of the pertinent evidence. So yes, theories do not contain "facts" for one simple reason; our ability to analyze evidence can always change and we can never know that we have discovered all pertinent evidence.

So unlike religion where the claim is almost always some form of absolute, science takes a far more rational approach and learns from experience. Science recognizes that while being very useful, Newton's observations on gravity weren't wholly "factual". They were good enough to get us to the moon and back, to make determinations about distant cosmic bodies and to provide us with a firm foundation from which to expand our discoveries, but we have since discovered more and made refinements to Newton's original theory of gravity. We've done the same with Einstein's theory of relativity and of course, to Darwin's theory of evolution. The theory of evolution today is not the same as when drafted by Darwin. But in each respect, the core of the theory has remained in tact and continued to demonstrate a very clear consistency with evidence old and new.

There is simply no rational basis for any claim that there are "holes" in the theory of evolution which would draw the basic premise of the theory into doubt. It is fundamentally far more sound that is the theory of gravity.

And as far as the workings of science, some seem shocked when they finally realize that it doesn't operate on proofs nor produce proofs. But as is a common saying in some areas of discussion on science; "Science doesn't operate on proofs. Proofs are for math and alcohol."

Now take a moment and look around you. Obviously, there is a keyboard in front of you -- an array of resistance monitoring devices allowing you to quickly convert thoughts (in the form of words), into electrical signals which flow along a circuit (the A20 gate), through a processor which creates a correlation between the switch activated and a look-up table burned into an integrated circuit. This electrical signal is then equated to an integer and that number is stored in a group of 8 individual on/off switches creating a binary representation of the numerical value found in the lookup table. The value is then aligned with a particular vector formula, processed through the operating system (another vast quantity of values stored in arrays of 8-bit groups), and visually represented through the alignment of crystals in response to a moderate flow of electrical current so that you see the result of each key press (assuming an LCD monitor). Once your thoughts are thusly converted to words and sitting before you, you move a tracking device along a desk which (most likely), utilizes a light emitting diode to compare one moment's graphical image of the support surface to the next to track movement and relate the direction and speed to the processor to visually map that movement to a small indicator on screen. You align that indicator with a particular, graphically-represented, position on the screen array and activate a switch on the tracking device and within seconds, your information is converted back to fluctuations in an electron stream, through wires to a system which then converts it to light pulses, through a series of systems where it is converted from electron flow to photon flow and back, until it finally reaches its destination where it again becomes a binary pattern across a large number of 8-bit arrays on its way to being stored as flux transitions on a surface of electro-magnetically sensitive material. From there the transmission process can be reversed until the same pattern of on/off switches which were found in your computer, is reproduced on my computer so that I can know the thoughts you chose to convey.

That's simply one example and one that we take ever more for granted. Do you have a clock on the wall? Does it also show you the day and date? Perhaps it also shows you the temperature and humidity both inside and out, and does so with wires linking it to the outdoor sensor. Does it, by chance, reset itself to the proper time each day by communicating with a system tied to an atomic clock? Is there a cool flow of air coming from your air conditioner? Do you twist a knob at your sink to quickly have hot water? Is there a television in the room? Does it receive a rich assortment of visual and audio signals from a satellite orbiting above the Earth's atmosphere? Does that satellite follow a geosynchronous orbit or does the signal switch seamlessly from one satellite to the next? Is there a digital watch on your wrist? Perhaps a cell phone on your waistband? Does that cell phone contain a digital camera, can it play video or compressed digital music formats? Does your car have an automatic transmission, many of which run through 30,000 lines of computer code each time they change gear ratios?

All of things things are the fruits of a process which doesn't operate on proofs and fully recognizes that it can only produce likely conclusions and must never wait for "facts", and yet produces far more truths about the world than any other methodology ever developed by man.

To think that because anyone has an old book asserting the ancient superstitions of men who were relatively intensely ignorant and highly superstitious isn't just absurd or slightly illogical. It's an absolute denial of realities which flap in your face every minute of every day. Until you begin to understand science, you should probably refrain from making unsupported (and unsupportable), criticisms of the findings it produces since you utilize them ever minute of every day and have a much better quality of life for their existence.

Religion has never produced so much as a grain of sand. It has lead to wars, to irrational fears and prejudice and extreme suffering on a vast human scale. But it has never produced a truth, a convenience or a single verifiable discovery about our environment, our future or our nature.

You assumed my comment was a typo because of what you don't know about science and what you assume to know about science. And yet you seem to feel qualified to make rash and unsupported statements concerning the output of science while demonstrating that you are devoid of knowledge concerning its operating principles.

Discussions such as this most often provide a singular demonstration; that those who subscribe to theistic fallacies are more likely to be devoid of real knowledge. And yet, while that has remained the case since well before the days when Copernicus kept his observations from the eyes of theistic scrutiny, when Galileo was imprisoned for advancing man's knowledge and when Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for daring to draw rational conclusions based on evidence and logic, theists continue to assert themselves as holding some sort of superior knowledge which has never once earned itself the slightest hint of validation.

[twobitsmedia]

I would have to suggest that you're now beginning to learn despite all the time you thought you already knew things about science.

Oh yes, of course, since YOU are the teacher, it is going to be "correct."

There is simply no rational basis for any claim that there are "holes" in the theory of evolution which would draw the basic premise of the theory into doubt. It is fundamentally far more sound that is the theory of gravity.

Feel free to believe that as a theory that is NOT yours.

Now take a moment and look around you. Obviously, there is a keyboard in front of you -- an array of resistance monitoring devices allowing you to quickly convert thought into electrical signals which flow along a circuit (the A20 gate), through a processor which creates a correlation between the switch activated and a look-up table burned into an integrated circuit. This electrical signal is now equated to an integer and that number is stored in a group of 8 individual on/off switches creating a binary representation of the numerical value found in the lookup table. The value is then aligned with a particular vector formula, processed through the operating system (another vast quantity of values stored in arrays of 8-bit groups), and visually represented through the alignment of crystals in response to a moderate flow of electrical current so that you see the result of each key press. Once your thoughts are thusly converted to words and sitting before you, you move a tracking device along a desk which (most likely), utilizes a light emitting diode to compare one moment's graphical image of the support surface to the next to track movement and relate the direction and speed to the processor to visually map that movement to a small indicator on screen. You align that indicator with a particular, graphically-represented, position on the screen array and activate a switch on the tracking device and within seconds, your information is sent from your computer through wires to a system which then converts it to light pulses, through a series of systems where it is converted from electron flow to photon flow and back, until it finally reaches its destination where it again becomes a binary setting across a large number of 8-bit arrays on its way to being stored as flux transitions on a surface of electro-magnetically sensitive material. From there the transmission process can be reversed until the same pattern of on/off switches which were found in your computer,

Thanks if my computer and keyboard ever become a theory, I will see the connection.

is reproduced on my computer so that I can know your thoughts.

Or so you think...or assume.

Until you begin to understand science, you should probably refrain from making unsupported (and unsupportable), criticisms of the findings it produces since you utilize them ever minute of every day and have a much better quality of life for their existence.

Thanks for the advice. If I ever feel really bored I might "refrain" and follow your expert suggestion.

Religion has never produced so much as a grain of sand.

It's purpose is not to produce sand.

It has lead to wars, to irrational fears and prejudice and extreme suffering on a vast human scale.

Oh yes, a science could not have anything to do with that could it? Bombs, and guns, and plains and napalm and stuff like that.

But it has never produced a truth, a convenience or a single verifiable discovery about our environment, our future or our nature.

Religion is not science. I thought we both agreed to that point. You now fault it because it doesnt produce scientific inventions?


If I ever bring up religion as the antithesis for what you accept as a theory, then you can preach this again. Since I did not, it is of little relevance.

[Beastt]

I would have to suggest that you're now beginning to learn despite all the time you thought you already knew things about science.

Oh yes, of course, since YOU are the teacher, it is going to be "correct."

It is correct because it aligns with reality.

There is simply no rational basis for any claim that there are "holes" in the theory of evolution which would draw the basic premise of the theory into doubt. It is fundamentally far more sound that is the theory of gravity.

Feel free to believe that as a theory that is NOT yours.

It's not about what one believes. It's about what one can demonstrate to be true. Have you ever seen a graviton? Has anyone? Is a warping of space-time as a consequence of proximity to mass a force? We know very little about how gravity operates. One current hypothesis has it that it may be shared among our four known dimensions and other dimensions not yet confirmed to exist. We know that neutrinos exist. We know they're so small that they can penetrate our entire planet and not collide with a single sub-atomic unit. We can demonstrate that they are so numerous that 100 billion pass through your thumbnail every second. We understand that on those occasions when they collide with an atom in DNA during the replication process, the resultant DNA is not a perfect copy. We understand the mechanisms of evolution far better than we understand the mechanism of gravity. And yet you stand here and imply challenges to evolution, and seem to have no problem with gravity.

Now take a moment and look around you. Obviously, there is a keyboard in front of you -- an array of resistance monitoring devices allowing you to quickly convert thought into electrical signals which flow along a circuit (the A20 gate), through a processor which creates a correlation between the switch activated and a look-up table burned into an integrated circuit. This electrical signal is now equated to an integer and that number is stored in a group of 8 individual on/off switches creating a binary representation of the numerical value found in the lookup table. The value is then aligned with a particular vector formula, processed through the operating system (another vast quantity of values stored in arrays of 8-bit groups), and visually represented through the alignment of crystals in response to a moderate flow of electrical current so that you see the result of each key press. Once your thoughts are thusly converted to words and sitting before you, you move a tracking device along a desk which (most likely), utilizes a light emitting diode to compare one moment's graphical image of the support surface to the next to track movement and relate the direction and speed to the processor to visually map that movement to a small indicator on screen. You align that indicator with a particular, graphically-represented, position on the screen array and activate a switch on the tracking device and within seconds, your information is sent from your computer through wires to a system which then converts it to light pulses, through a series of systems where it is converted from electron flow to photon flow and back, until it finally reaches its destination where it again becomes a binary setting across a large number of 8-bit arrays on its way to being stored as flux transitions on a surface of electro-magnetically sensitive material. From there the transmission process can be reversed until the same pattern of on/off switches which were found in your computer,

Thanks if my computer and keyboard ever become a theory, I will see the connection.

Some never tire of demonstrating ignorance when they have so much to share; your computer, keyboard, mouse, modem and all the components of networking were theory before they were an actuality.

is reproduced on my computer so that I can know your thoughts.

Or so you think...or assume.

If my quoted portions of your statements were other than what you stated, would you not notice?

Until you begin to understand science, you should probably refrain from making unsupported (and unsupportable), criticisms of the findings it produces since you utilize them ever minute of every day and have a much better quality of life for their existence.

Thanks for the advice. If I ever feel really board I might "refarin" and follow you expeert sugggestion.

I assume you meant "bored" and "refrain". So many are presented with the opportunity to advance their knowledge and most will decline the opportunity for reasons of ego.

Religion has never produced so much as a grain of sand.

It's purpose is not to produce sand.

And yet if it did, it would be a vast step forward.

It has lead to wars, to irrational fears and prejudice and extreme suffering on a vast human scale.

Oh yes, a science could not have anything to do with that could it? Bombs, and guns, and plains and napalm and stuff like that.

Before one develops the weapons of war, they must hold the mentality to war. That mentality comes from ignorance and ideas of absolutes, not from the desire to discover the workings of reality.

But it has never produced a truth, a convenience or a single verifiable discovery about our environment, our future or our nature.

Religion is not science. I thought we both agreed to that point. You now fault it because it doesnt produce scientific inventions?

I fault it because it produces nothing of value and much hatred, suffering and a prompting to remain ignorant.

If I ever bring up religion as the antithesis for what you accept as a theory, then you can preach this again. Since I did not, it is of little relevance.

But of course that's because you're hiding. And you're hiding because you know you can't support your assertions. And I see you've not given up playing with the quote tags. The software does a fine job with them. Leave them alone and I won't have to keep fixing them for every single point in every single post.

[twobitsmedia]

It is correct because it aligns with reality.

Well as I have stated ad nauseum...that leaves nothing to debate. You have cornered reality and there is no way to hedge around it. Your "reality" is truth or not truth, facts or not facts...I really don't know because of the all-purpose positions you take. Science is reality, but it is not facts, it can be apparently psuedo because it is not complete...but, nonetheless, you proclaim that it IS reality. And you are quite content and certain that it is what you say it is, and, it is NOT what you say, it is what somebody else said, that you accept, even though it is NOT yours.. That about covers all the bases.............Now for me to debate you from this all-certain and factless position which you hold simultaneously, I would have to step OUT of that and into an area which you have ALREADY ruled is not reality because it does NOT line up with the definition of reality you accept that is NOT yours, even though you accept it. So, by doing so, I WILL be told that I do not understand it properly because if I did I would line up my thinking with the reality you accept which is in turn NOT yours but you accept. And you, in turn, call it evasive which adding that taunt, pretty much puts you in a win-win situation by holding, basically, facts and nonfacts simultaneously and calling it reality.

There is simply no rational basis for any claim that there are "holes" in the theory of evolution which would draw the basic premise of the theory into doubt. It is fundamentally far more sound that is the theory of gravity.

Feel free to believe that as a theory that is NOT yours.

It's not about what one believes.

Of course it isn't, even though you believe it is is not about belief. Again, holding both positions simultaneously, AND denying that you believe it.

Some never tire of demonstrating ignorance when they have so much to share; your computer, keyboard, mouse, modem and all the components of networking were theory before they were an actuality.

Well, then the only proper response, according to your rationale, would be "thank your for the information you have given me, sir!" I have a disagreement with your position on reality and I get a lecture about a computer monitor. A few days ago I got a lecture from someone about how far it would go on tank of gas........

is reproduced on my computer so that I can know your thoughts.

Or so you think...or assume.

If my quoted portions of your statements were other than what you stated, would you not notice?

You are getting the information that is being typed. You are NOT getting all my thoughts.

Until you begin to understand science, you should probably refrain from making unsupported (and unsupportable), criticisms of the findings it produces since you utilize them ever minute of every day and have a much better quality of life for their existence.

Thanks for the advice. If I ever feel really board I might "refarin" and follow you expeert sugggestion.

So many are presented with the opportunity to advance their knowledge and most will decline the opportunity for reasons of ego.

Well, we jes be a religus person who canst possibleeee know all the lurning you hav gots and iz willin to teech a po boy like me.

Religion has never produced so much as a grain of sand.

It's purpose is not to produce sand.

And yet if it did, it would be a vast step forward.

LOL. You know I find this very funny. But I suppose you actually mean it. Next time I go to a church I will suggest that they consider creating sand for the nontheists in order to make them a viable piece of reality.

It has lead to wars, to irrational fears and prejudice and extreme suffering on a vast human scale.

Oh yes, a science could not have anything to do with that could it? Bombs, and guns, and plains and napalm and stuff like that.

That mentality comes from ignorance and ideas of absolutes, not from the desire to discover the workings of reality.

Yes, I am sure that all the people who ever created a weapon, a bomb, a plane, or such was religious...that is what I presume you mean.

But it has never produced a truth, a convenience or a single verifiable discovery about our environment, our future or our nature.

Religion is not science. I thought we both agreed to that point. You now fault it because it doesnt produce scientific inventions?

I fault it because it produces nothing of value and much hatred, suffering and a prompting to remain ignorant.

Then fault it because of that, don't; fault it for not be scientific,. it isn't science. Don't hide behind some disengenuous "moral" issue.

If I ever bring up religion as the antithesis for what you accept as a theory, then you can preach this again. Since I did not, it is of little relevance.

But of course that's because you're hiding. And you're hiding because you know you can't support your assertions. And I see you've not given up playing with the quote tags. The software does a fine job with them. Leave them alone and I won't have to keep fixing them for every single point in every single post.

OK, well I am going to hide from your reality if I can. Aftur all that iz what us here relijus peeple do best is hiiiide frum reallitty.

[JoeyKnothead]

The theory of gravity is so well accepted, it is often referred to as a fact, are we to rid ourselves of it?

Same with the theory of evolution, it is so well accepted to be regarded as fact. Many people will use the term 'fact' as shorthand for 'it is so well supported by evidence'.

It seems theists, in their need to accept God, are willing to try to redefine words, or quibble over their meanings, rather than debate the topic at hand.

So to get back on track. My assertion is the ToE, and 'the evolution of geology' more accurately, has proven the earth to be far older than what the Bible seems to indicate.

I further assert that saying the Bible agrees with the ToE is an inaccurate reading of it, due to man being made as 'man' and not as a series of evolutionary steps leading up to man.


'The retard has said in his heart: there is a God"

[otseng]

'The retard has said in his heart: there is a God"

Moderator formal warning:

This type of comment is not in line with civil debate. Any further rule violations will result in disciplinary action.

[Beastt]

It is correct because it aligns with reality.

Well as I have stated ad nauseum...that leaves nothing to debate.

Well, you could go with the usual theist approach and argue that reality isn't really indicative of reality.

You have cornered reality and there is no way to hedge around it.

I guess that's what happens when you subscribe to studies of reality instead of studies of people's fantasies and extraordinary claims.

Your "reality" is truth or not truth, facts or not facts...I really don't know because of the all-purpose positions you take.

My reality is simply what reality demonstrates itself to be. I have a strong resistance to accepting things proclaimed through imagination and superstition which lie contrary to what reality demonstrates.

Science is reality, but it is not facts, it can be apparently psuedo because it is not complete...but, nonetheless, you proclaim that it IS reality.

Science is the study of reality through non-subjective criteria.

And you are quite content and certain that it is what you say it is, and, it is NOT what you say, it is what somebody else said, that you accept, even though it is NOT yours.

Logic is a very handy little tool when it comes to accepting or rejecting what someone else claims. It's also quite convenient to have the ability to double-check the claims of other people. And no, I don't have to be able to do it myself. If someone claims they've achieved cold fusion, and no one else following the same steps achieves cold fusion, logic dictates that the claim was either mistaken or fraudulent.

That about covers all the bases.............Now for me to debate you from this all-certain and factless position which you hold simultaneously, I would have to step OUT of that and into an area which you have ALREADY ruled is not reality because it does NOT line up with the definition of reality you accept that is NOT yours, even though you accept it.

Do you accept that I'm the one responding to you and not some server somewhere? Why? You can't see me typing. You've never seen my computer. So how do you know that I'm a person and not just some server running a very advanced parser and response program? Does logic play a part? Does knowledge of current software limitations play a part.

We're not, as you seem to imply, at the complete mercy of researchers. When they make claims, I fully expect them to explain their answers. And science is all about explanations, not just claims. On the other hand, religion is all about claims, and rarely about explanations. When we do find explanations, they're usually devoid of, or contrary to, logic.

So, by doing so, I WILL be told that I do not understand it properly because if I did I would line up my thinking with the reality you accept which is in turn NOT yours but you accept.

You continually demonstrate that you don't understand it. You seem all ruffled up and disoriented when faced with the idea that science doesn't produce "facts" and doesn't operate on "proofs". You keep wanting to assert that the theory of evolution is filled with holes, yet you can't seem to explain a single one of these holes. Yet I'm supposed to accept that you hold a good working knowledge of science, just because you say so, despite the lack of ability to demonstrate this knowledge? See how it all comes back to logic? If you held the knowledge you claim, your claims would be supported. You'd stop running from me each time I asked you to qualify your claims of these supposed "holes". You'd have not been the least bit surprised or argumentative when I explained that science isn't about proofs or facts.

If someone claims they can spread their arms, flap and elevate themselves into the air and fly around the room, logic causes me to be very skeptical of their claims. When they refuse to demonstrate the ability they've claimed, my skepticism shows itself to be well-founded and accurate. The same applies here. You claim advanced knowledge of the theory of evolution in asserting that it's full of holes, but when the time comes for you to demonstrate this knowledge, you fall flat.

And you, in turn, call it evasive which adding that taunt, pretty much puts you in a win-win situation by holding, basically, facts and nonfacts simultaneously and calling it reality.

What "facts" are you talking about? What really is a "fact"? How many things aren't arguable? Please remember that there are still people who insist that the Earth is flat. We have all kinds of conclusive evidence but to them, it's not convincing. So is it a fact that the Earth is an oblate spheroid? Who takes the burden of "proof" when we call something a "fact"? I believe the statement "there are no gods" is completely true. You don't believe it to be true, yet you can't present any credible point to refute me. So does your disbelief make my statement other than factual? Does someone who won't accept what all of the evidence shows about the shape of the Earth make that shape other than a fact? It's very hard for people who want to mock and ridicule someone for not accepting the obvious when it comes to the shape of the planet. Yet many of these people practice the very same kind of denial when it comes to their religious beliefs, and are highly offended when mocked or ridiculed for their beliefs. There is no such thing as a "fact" when you start trying to figure out who has to believe it before it qualifies as a fact.

There is simply no rational basis for any claim that there are "holes" in the theory of evolution which would draw the basic premise of the theory into doubt. It is fundamentally far more sound that is the theory of gravity.

Feel free to believe that as a theory that is NOT yours.

It's not about what one believes.

Of course it isn't, even though you believe it is is not about belief. Again, holding both positions simultaneously, AND denying that you believe it.

As I stated, (and you truncated), it's about what can be demonstrated. If you ever start arguing from a position of logic, you'll come to love that word. Can I demonstrate that two marbles from one hand, added to three marbles from another will result in a total of five marbles? Of course I can. But what if someone looks right at the five marbles and still doesn't believe it? Have I provided proof? If they're not convinced, have I "proved" anything?

Some never tire of demonstrating ignorance when they have so much to share; your computer, keyboard, mouse, modem and all the components of networking were theory before they were an actuality.

Well, then the only proper response, according to your rationale, would be "thank your for the information you have given me, sir!" I have a disagreement with your position on reality and I get a lecture about a computer monitor. A few days ago I got a lecture from someone about how far it would go on tank of gas........

Have you ever noticed that you do this nearly everytime an analogy or an example demonstrates that you're wrong? Rather than take the lesson with a bit of a bruise to your ego, you divert and try to make the whole topic about the specifics of the example. You claimed that if your computer or monitor ever became a theory that you'd keep my comments in mind. I pointed out that they were theory before they were a reality, and rather than accept that you'd made a rather blunderous statement, you try to make my point all about the computer and the monitor instead of admitting that your statement was foolish. You did the same thing when you claimed that you include logic in your theistic beliefs and I presented you with a simply test of logic which so clearly undermined your position, that you refused to answer the five simple questions. And ever since then, you've been going on and on about the specifics of the questions, in an attempt to divert the purpose -- to demonstrate that you do utilize, logic, reason and evidence UNTIL, those things show a desired belief to be wrong. Then you rapidly abandon logic, reason and evidence, and just believe what you want. That is the true implementation of what theists call "faith".

is reproduced on my computer so that I can know your thoughts.

Or so you think...or assume.

If my quoted portions of your statements were other than what you stated, would you not notice?

You are getting the information that is being typed. You are NOT getting all my thoughts.

Which is why as you were typing your response, I was editing my original comment to say, "From there the transmission process can be reversed until the same pattern of on/off switches which were found in your computer, is reproduced on my computer so that I can know the thoughts you chose to convey". Go back and check (It's post #54). Now check the post times. I rarely fail to proof-read my posts and find things that aren't worded carefully enough to avoid people attempting to squeeze some kind of off-topic complaint into the dialog. That's why my posts are so wordy. It's an attempt to assure that no such lack of specificity remains.

So many are presented with the opportunity to advance their knowledge and most will decline the opportunity for reasons of ego.

Well, we jes be a religus person who canst possibleeee know all the lurning you hav gots and iz willin to teech a po boy like me.

When the best response you can provide is nothing but sarcasm, the lack of credible responses left to you should be telling you something about the position you've taken.

Religion has never produced so much as a grain of sand.

It's purpose is not to produce sand.

And yet if it did, it would be a vast step forward.

LOL. You know I find this very funny. But I suppose you actually mean it. Next time I go to a church I will suggest that they consider creating sand for the nontheists in order to make them a viable piece of reality.[/quote]
It wouldn't be for the non-theists. It would be for the theists. You can put sand in a bag and use it to divert flood waters. You can melt it and make glass. It has some productive uses, unlike what theism tends to offer as is.

That mentality comes from ignorance and ideas of absolutes, not from the desire to discover the workings of reality.

Yes, I am sure that all the people who ever created a weapon, a bomb, a plane, or such was religious...that is what I presume you mean.

If you're going to refute my position, then do so. Stop presenting a gross distortion of my position to argue against and start dealing with my actual argument. You're little more than a strawman factory. First one must have the mentality to war and that comes from positions of absolutes, entitlement, elitism and greed, not from the desire to understand the workings of reality. If one then takes the knowledge of the workings of reality and attempts to use them to harm those with whom they have developed adversarial positions, it's a complete misrepresentation to blame those who have worked to gain understanding, rather than to blame those who have worked to assert ignorance through their positions of absolute claims.

I fault it [religion] because it produces nothing of value and much hatred, suffering and a prompting to remain ignorant.

Then fault it because of that, don't; fault it for not be scientific,. it isn't science. Don't hide behind some disengenuous "moral" issue.

You know, I hear this from theists so often that I've come to believe that they must chant it in their weekly meetings. But it's bunk and it always has been. Have you ever opened a bible... any bible? It doesn't have to be the Holy Bible of Christianity, but since that's what most people apply such fallacious statements to, it's a good place to start. What is Genesis One? It's a chronologically based account of the creation of the universe and life on Earth. That's science! What about all the proclaimed miracles of Jesus? What makes them miracles? It's because they conflict with what we know of the workings of the physical (the only realm we can demonstrate to actually exist). That's science! You (the collective theistic "you"), keep wanting to separate religion from science but religion doesn't do that. Religion plunks itself right down in the middle of science and often attempts to proclaim that our findings of science are wrong. And yet, whenever put to the test, science always comes out on top -- every time. And that's because science is the study of the physical while religion is simply ancient positions of superstition based on relative ignorance.

The Bible improperly classifies bats as birds. That's science. The Bible tells us insects have four legs. That's science. It claims the sun stopped and remained stationary in the sky. That's science. The Bible claims the Earth was completely flooded, that the seeds of life were stowed aboard a huge hand-made boat and that the flood later "dried up" and "ran off" even though there would be no place for the water vapor to go and no place for the flood water to "run off". That's science. The Bible claims we should love our neighbors as ourselves. That's social science. The Bible claims all kinds of things about man, what's best for man (man is a physical being), what realms exist, why we do things that harm others, how we came to exist, and a whole list of other things that all fall into the realm of science. So next time you hear anyone in your church say the Bible isn't about science, stop them. Pull out a printed copy of this if you have to and challenge them to support their position. They won't be able to do it because it's not supportable. Such assertions only work for as long as they're not challenged because they're false. People are just beginning to challenge these ideas because religion has long enjoyed an invisible shield created through the idea that it's wrong to challenge anyone's "sacred" beliefs. Well that's just a load of bunk too! "Sacred" beliefs can be just as wrong as those which are not sacred. And promoting false beliefs isn't helpful to anyone. In fact, this common practice has done little more than demonstrate how harmful it can be.

The Bible does make scientific claims and very single one of them should be subjected to scientific scrutiny.

If I ever bring up religion as the antithesis for what you accept as a theory, then you can preach this again. Since I did not, it is of little relevance.

But of course that's because you're hiding. And you're hiding because you know you can't support your assertions. And I see you've not given up playing with the quote tags. The software does a fine job with them. Leave them alone and I won't have to keep fixing them for every single point in every single post.

OK, well I am going to hide from your reality if I can. Aftur all that iz what us here relijus peeple do best is hiiiide frum reallitty.[/quote]
You can't hide from reality and it's not "my reality". It's here for everyone. Pay a little attention to it and in a few months time, you'll be unable to keep yourself from laughing at the absurd assertions you once held to be truth.