Religion VS Science

[mattz1010]

WHICH do you believe in?

I put a poll on, because I believe this will be HUGE and this way, we can do the discussions plmzaq and others want to do, but dont really go with the other topics.

[-Scratch]

I believe in both.

Define your question more.

Like, do you believe that some diety put us on earth, or do you believe in evolution?

[mattz1010]

Rephrasing:

If you could only choose one to lead you through your life, would you choose to follow your religion, or would you accept science?

[Sperry]

Considering that there's no drawback for choosing religion over science and still understanding science, I choose religion. At least then I get to know all the answers after a while.

[ManUpstairs]

You can have religion and accept science at the same time. I think you mean "Do you belive that science(such as evolution) is correct and religion is fake? Or the other way around."

I think religion might be true, but I think corrupt people changed it to their will as time went on. I'm what you'd call an agnostic.

I think eventually, someone will find proof that one or the other doesn't work. I'm not a fan of evolutionism, but I think it has at least SOME merit.

-Daniel

[Spike Spiegal]

I belive in science defining what God made. End of story

[Freddy]

Its all about science to me.
I like to have my actions and beliefs be based on my own judgement.

[Jshall]

*cough* troll *cough*

[Vagrant]

Same as Spike -- I find science the way of discovering God's creation.

[Shadow Crest]

I think that God put us here to discover science, and vice versa. Also, religion IS good because there has to be some upper being to look up to in trying times. (G.W. Bush is NOT a good example of this)

On the other hand, if it werent for science, we would never be able to learn anything about this world or other worlds. But both can be used for corruption- religion as a way of starting wars, and science as a way of mass-killing people.

I will not vote because they are both equal.

OFFTOPIC- wouldnt it be funny if one day, we learn that everything that has been proven by science is found out to be untrue? Then there definitely IS a God.

[mattz1010]

*cough* troll *cough*

nuh-uh, i'm just letting other people finish their ARGUMENTS, not FLAMES.

:P

so there ya go :)

[P!3r33]

Ive been going to church all my life so i pick religion, but i think that science is just Gods way of letting us understand this type of thing[/code]

[-Scratch]

Same as Spike -- I find science the way of discovering God's creation.

Yep. That's what I believe as well.

[iamnotreallygod]

OFFTOPIC- wouldnt it be funny if one day, we learn that everything that has been proven by science is found out to be untrue? Then there definitely IS a God.

No, then our understanding of science is flawed; this does not mean there is a god, just that there is another set of rules to discover.
This has actually happened several times; e.g. the discovery of quantum mechanics.

PS. This should be in the debate club

[Sperry]

If it were to go there, not everyone could keep up to tabs with it.

[crusty]

Religion is crap.

[JoeyG]

Thank you for your kind and unbiased opinion, stickylopez.

I belive in science defining what God made. End of story

Agreed; I'll understand both but only accept science that does not directly contradict religion (evolution does not contradict the Bible; it explains it. Evolution is just scientifically unstable).

Don't turn this into an evolution debate, please. Those are exhausting and my arguments tend to be too long to reword and type up.

[ABC123]

Religion is crap.

What he said.

[JoeyG]

So, in an effort to avoid another huge debate, it seems we have resorted to peaceful, indirect flaming.

[DarkReality]

Which would you prefer?

I'm currently not hyped up enough to debate about evolution AGAIN. All my posts would be links to previous ones i made :D

Kind of sad, really. We've got so many problems today we can't count them, and we spend our time arguing over something that's already over. One way or another, evolution no longer applies in it's traditional form due to our technology. Natural selection is completely fooled through modern medicine and genetical/nanotech research in medicine will only help us go in that direction. One way or the other, it doesn't really matter anymore. But no, instead of solving world hunger, a rapidly diminishing fossil fuel and freshwater supply, we argue over how our freaking world came into existance.

>_<

[Sperry]

Well the reason why that is is because someone *ahem* had looping arguments that contradiced themselves. And by the time they figured it out, it was too late and other someones *ahem* had won the debate. Evolution does still apply. It just "chooses" not to. In one quick move, evolution coul pound humanity into the dirt. Natural selection suddenly gives a disease of some sort an immunity to the human immune system. And people start to die. And it spreads. And more people die. And that leaves room for countless other things to come and kill us. Of course, that's not evolution's "choice", it's just what could happen, just like everything else.

What I now laugh it is my friend is strongly against the Chinese child limitations. Frankly, the Chinese are smart for doing it. Their population is huge, and the worldwide numbers are getting way too big. Soon India's going to outnumber China, and they have no limit. The world itself cannot support as many people as the degrees which our population is creating. We're going to hit the limit long before we can go up and live on the moon. It's estimated that we'll have 9 billion people on the earth by 2010. How many people do you think the earth can support? Not by them getting too heavy, but by the simply lack of natural resources. We're running out, and it's a problem. Whether or not we have enough gas for our cars will not be a problem if there's not enough food.

[mattz1010]

I was making the assumption that we'd be smart enough to fix that problem, so that we all die 15 years after your specified date (2010)
:P

[Shadow Crest]

Actually, if you really think about it, it would be Asia and Africa that would be screwed by the lack of food. In North America, our population is growing at a much slower rate, and we appear to have no problems with food.

[mattz1010]

Word of caution: Appear.

I COULD go on a very long rant about appear, but its 11:30 at night, and I've had almost no sleep this whole day.

Would someone else mind doing the rant on the word 'appear', and related things like 'appears' 'appears to be', etc.?

[Sperry]

What, you think that when Africa and Asia overflow we can just close the doors and let them die? They'd force their way in and take "our" food. Plus there's the UN.

[manoftheman6]

umm, puddles, I hope you didnt just post that picture, I really do, you dont know HOOOWWWW much troble you will be in if you did.

[mattz1010]

It's gone. He's gone. So lets stop worrying about the kid who has yet to be laid.

[manoftheman6]

It's gone. He's gone. So lets stop worrying about the kid who has yet to be laid.

the same as 99.9999999999% of most of us here.

[mattz1010]

No, no, he posted porn pictures BECAUSE he has yet to be laid.

[Sperry]

the same as 99.9999999999% of most of us here.According to that, only 5*10^-27 of the active xgen members have "gotten laid". Considering several of them are married/are getting married, you're highly underestimating. :D

[mattz1010]

(sorry if i'm sounding annoying, but could we get back on topic)?

I wish plmzaq would bother reading this, then we'd have our religical debate again!

[Sperry]

Plmzaq hasn't been at xgen since his massive failure to finish the religious debate.

[mattz1010]

Dammit, I was hoping for some more fun :P

[CagedinSanity]

Personally, I am agnostic. I believe that "God" cannot be proven to exist. The only possible way I would ever believe is if he showed up, with blinding light around him, and slapped me on the face while saying, "Hey, I'm real!" Then dissapearing or something. Untill then, I will always be agnostic, Yet I will always be open to the POSSIBLE esistance.

I say science over religeon.

[Alexar]

I believe that both Science and Religion have alot in common with each other and they both make a better understanding of each other, so they are helping one another to emphasize their points. I mean to God maybe one day could be a million years *shrugs* who knows? I think they are both right, but I clicked the Science button without thinking about it too much.... Forgive me Lord :P.

[DarkReality]

I believe that both Science and Religion have alot in common with each other and they both make a better understanding of each other

...

Science is based on observation, drawing conclusions and proving theories, if possible. If not, then a "quantity over quality" proof works just as well. If some theory happens often enough, it's just accepted as true until someone with too much time proves it wrong.

Religion is based on pure belief of something that could be.

I don't see how they have anything in common with one another...

[masterchief2219]

I believe that science will one day prove that there is no god. I personally believe that there is no god and the universe has always existed. I know there will be some people who say that there has to be a creator because there is no way that the universe could have been around forever. The truth is, that HAS to be the case. Think about it, if the universe didnt exist, what would there be? Nothing. You cant create something from nothing. Its not possible. So, the univere and all the mass in it has existed and will always exist forever. Then pro-religion people will say something like "Well, if god didnt create life, what did?". Life was created by coinsidance(spelled wrong I think). Although we dont know how to create life at the moment, that doesnt mean its not possible. It has something to do with anemic acids and electricity.

Although we cant prove god wrong yet, we will be able to in the future. Until then, believe what you want. But you will be disappointed when you die and just rot in the ground(Actually, no you wont. You will be dead.).

[Sperry]

The theory behind religion is that God, whoever he/she/it is, was always there, and that they created the universe. The theory of religion is that God CAN create something from nothing. Otherwise, he wouldn't be much of a God, would he?

Even science disagrees that the universe has always been there. Or else they'd never be able to date the big bang, the currently largest supported theory. You yourself just said coinicidentally, the universe was formed, as pure science agrees. But the coincidence didn't just "always be". It just so happened to become a coincidence whenever the universe did start.

[mattz1010]

coinsidance(spelled wrong I think)

Coincidence :P

As of now, I'm the spelling and grammar check on the forum :), with no rules to my own spelling and grammar because i cant be bothered to press things like shift and '.

[Impulse]

Personally, I am agnostic. I believe that "God" cannot be proven to exist. The only possible way I would ever believe is if he showed up, with blinding light around him, and slapped me on the face while saying, "Hey, I'm real!" Then dissapearing or something. Untill then, I will always be agnostic, Yet I will always be open to the POSSIBLE esistance.

I say science over religeon.

If being "agnostic" means that you're following a belief that is so vague, I don't see the point in anyone being anything other than "agnostic", unless it only refers to "The God".

[masterchief2219]

The theory behind religion is that God, whoever he/she/it is, was always there, and that they created the universe.
But if there was nothing before god, how was he created? I know what you are going to say. He is god, he didnt have to be created. He always existed. But, if god always existed, why couldnt the universe have always existed?

The theory of religion is that God CAN create something from nothing. Otherwise, he wouldn't be much of a God, would he?
It is impossible to create somethign from nothing. Even your nonexistant god cant do it.

Even science disagrees that the universe has always been there. Or else they'd never be able to date the big bang, the currently largest supported theory.
I dont believe the big bang theory. If the universe always existed, there couldnt have been a beginning.

You yourself just said coinicidentally, the universe was formed, as pure science agrees. But the coincidence didn't just "always be".
I said life was created by coincidence.

[noobpwner1]

But if there was nothing before god, how was he created? I know what you are going to say. He is god, he didnt have to be created. He always existed. But, if god always existed, why couldnt the universe have always existed?
God isn't limited by the boundaries of space and time. He simply existed before he created time. Read what the Bible has to say:

Once there was no Heaven, there was no earth, no time, but there was God, because He has no beginning. Having no beginning, He has no end. God always was and always shall be. God is outside time. God always is.
Therefore, He is called eternal. God is unchanging. (James 1:17, Mal. 3:6).

It is impossible to create somethign from nothing. Even your nonexistant god cant do it.
http://www.faithtacoma.org/sermons/Genesis/genesis36.htm

"And here is the similarity to the Gospel. As Paul said, it is like God raising Jesus from the dead. The impossible. And it is like our being saved from sin and death. Impossible as well. But God did it and does it for all who trust in him in hope that God can do what he has promised, utterly impossible as that promise may seem."

He can do the impossible.

[ummu]

lol

All we have to say, "Science makes sense. You don't."

And according to religious logic, we win the arguement. :)

[ABC123]

But if there was nothing before god, how was he created? I know what you are going to say. He is god, he didnt have to be created. He always existed. But, if god always existed, why couldnt the universe have always existed?
God isn't limited by the boundaries of space and time. He simply existed before he created time. Read what the Bible has to say:

Once there was no Heaven, there was no earth, no time, but there was God, because He has no beginning. Having no beginning, He has no end. God always was and always shall be. God is outside time. God always is.
Therefore, He is called eternal. God is unchanging. (James 1:17, Mal. 3:6).

It is impossible to create somethign from nothing. Even your nonexistant god cant do it.
http://www.faithtacoma.org/sermons/Genesis/genesis36.htm

"And here is the similarity to the Gospel. As Paul said, it is like God raising Jesus from the dead. The impossible. And it is like our being saved from sin and death. Impossible as well. But God did it and does it for all who trust in him in hope that God can do what he has promised, utterly impossible as that promise may seem."

He can do the impossible.
You're quoting the bible to support yourself in a science vs religion topic. Good luck. [/sarcasm]

Edit, I thought the sarcasm was obvious but apparently not.

[noobpwner1]

Why thank you.

Edit, also: Yes, I knew you were being sarcastic.

[ABC123]

Here are some links I found enjoyable.

*Note* A couple swear words.
Your Religion Sucks (http://www.stupidwish.net/religion.html)

*Note* Lots of the S word. LOTS! I warned you.
Close-to-complete Ideology and Religion S*** List (http://www.thejaywalker.com/pages/shit_happens.html)

[zippydaspinhead]

My belifes in religion are in this link.

*note*there is no swearing or otherwise.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/zippydaspinhead/5796.html

this is what i belive, but i do put science into my life.

[masterchief2219]

God isn't limited by the boundaries of space and time. He simply existed before he created time. Read what the Bible has to say:

Once there was no Heaven, there was no earth, no time, but there was God, because He has no beginning. Having no beginning, He has no end. God always was and always shall be. God is outside time. God always is.
Therefore, He is called eternal. God is unchanging. (James 1:17, Mal. 3:6).
If god could have existed forever, why couldnt the universe? If god doesnt need a beginning, why does time? The universe?

http://www.faithtacoma.org/sermons/Genesis/genesis36.htm

"And here is the similarity to the Gospel. As Paul said, it is like God raising Jesus from the dead. The impossible. And it is like our being saved from sin and death. Impossible as well. But God did it and does it for all who trust in him in hope that God can do what he has promised, utterly impossible as that promise may seem."

He can do the impossible.
You cant quote the bible as an arguement.

The bible was written around 800 A.D. by a bunch of priests. It was supposed to be a bunch of made up stories with morals to them. Like childrens stories, they were written to make people do the right thing. For some reason, a bunch of idiots found the book and thought "Hey, I have no clue who wrote this book or where it came from so everything in it must be true!".

By the way, any posts containing anything along the lines of "He's god, he can do anything!" dont even count as arguements.

Your "faith" in god doesnt prove, or supply any evidence of his existance.

[DarkReality]

"And here is the similarity to the Gospel. As Paul said, it is like God raising Jesus from the dead. The impossible. And it is like our being saved from sin and death. Impossible as well. But God did it and does it for all who trust in him in hope that God can do what he has promised, utterly impossible as that promise may seem."

He can do the impossible.

Gotta love religious logic. Something's impossible, but because God can do it, god can do the impossible. Sort of reverse logic, that doesn't really work. Oh well. :p

[Sperry]

The reason why time and the universe cannot be always in being, according to religion (and the universe for science), is because something had to make them. Or there was an event which related in their beginning. Some people say the big bang was the result of the "Death" of a previous universe. And it just goes back and back and back until someone made pancakes.

[mattz1010]

ABC123, the second website...

It's on a T-Shirt, I've seen it lots of times :P

[DarkReality]

Oh my, that second link was absolutely hilarious :D

[masterchief2219]

The reason why time and the universe cannot be always in being, according to religion (and the universe for science), is because something had to make them.

People just assumed that someone had to make them. Nobody knows for sure.

But what I have been saying for two pages is that if god didnt need someone to make him, why does the universe need someone to make it? Of course all you religious people are going to say something like "Because he's GOD!!!". Well, that doesnt work. If "god" doesnt need a maker, then the universe doesnt need a maker.

[Alexar]

Well do you believe the people more than God himself? I mean they don't exactly know for sure and we have the same amount of knowledge that the Universe was created by a big bang, and in Religion The universe was created from swirls of dust to form the world, same with the big bang theory, everything was collected from dust to form into energy which exploded.

What I believe is that God made dust and he created energy and formed life: The Universe itself. So they coincide with one another, and besides if both theories are similar, and the people who made the bible way back before scientists found the "big bang" theory so the bible has more meaning than science ever does, because even from way back then, we just changed the story a bit for today :P.

[Sperry]

The reason why time and the universe cannot be always in being, ACCORDING TO RELIGION (and the universe for science), is because something had to make them.Wow. Was that all so hard?But what I have been saying for two pages is that if god didnt need someone to make him, why does the universe need someone to make it?No matter how you look at it, the two are VERY different. If you base your existance on the fact that there is no supreme being, then you were just a biproduct of random chance. Luck, per say. The reason why God, again, according to religion, does not need to be "made", is because he is the ultimate. There isn't a single thing that is better than he is. So "obviously", he can't have been made by something, unless it was pure chance or accident, which is not what that particular reigion says occured. Yes, the answer is "Because he is God!". There's no other way to put it. He is God. Simply that. There's no other justification for it. We don't "know" that God is real. We sure do know that the universe is. We, to "believe" in God, have to have faith. God knows we're here. He doesn't need faith. The universe, as we know it, requires no faith toward its existance. We know it's there. End of story. The argument is not that the universe couldn't have always been there, but that you can't base that just because God was. They're two very polar things. As for why the universe can't be "always there", both science and religion have come to an agreement on that. Not necessaril why, just that. Religion says God created the universe and time, so obviously God had to be there first, so, therefore, something came before, so it is not "always there". Most scientists agree on the big bang theory, or something very similar. Very few well respected scientists argue that the universe is an infinite, time-immortal object. None argue it is a divine object (not necessarily that it's not of God, just that it's not a God).

[Josh_the_Harris]

I believe religion. God put us here and we can learn about things on the earth. What we learn is science - defining different things in the world

Also why is it "The THEORY of EVOLUTION and the Big Bang THEORY". Shouldn't they be facts if they are true. (Sorry if this is double posting, i don't think it qualifies as it)

[Josh_the_Harris]

The bible was written around 800 A.D. by a bunch of priests. It was supposed to be a bunch of made up stories with morals to them. Like childrens stories, they were written to make people do the right thing. For some reason, a bunch of idiots found the book and thought "Hey, I have no clue who wrote this book or where it came from so everything in it must be true!".

By the way, any posts containing anything along the lines of "He's god, he can do anything!" dont even count as arguements.

Your "faith" in god doesnt prove, or supply any evidence of his existance.

Masterchief, that is being a bit harsh isnt it? We are all intitled to believe what we want and have freedom to say it. People don't have to listen, If you don't think the bible is true then that is your opinion. Seeing as people can't really PROVE for or against God then we have to let people choose what they want to believe.


Your "faith" in god doesnt prove, or supply any evidence of his existance.

Neither does the THEORY of evolution. The theory of evolution there is no solid proof and there are bits and pieces that they believe are correct. Also you pick on Christianity whith the Bible. Allow he to point out that every single other type of religion believes in 1 god who created the earth. Therefore you can't say the bible is wrong, you have to say that ALL RELIGION is wrong.

[mattz1010]

We are all intitled to believe what we want and have freedom to say it. People don't have to listen, ...

:P Ok, then I'll stop.

Seeing as people can't really PROVE for or against God

Then who's side are you fighting on?

Also you pick on Christianity whith the Bible

Yes, because that's what they created and rely on... would you pick on Christianity with a bible from a different religion?

Neither does the THEORY of evolution. The theory of evolution there is no solid proof and there are bits and pieces that they believe are correct.

We don't put FAITH into the theory of evolution. We do have bits and pieces, and we're putting them all together until they fit.

Here's the description of faith.
7 entries found for faith.
faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See 3. Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6 .A set of principles or beliefs.

(it goes on for a while, but that's too much to read. Also, when I copy stuff, some symbols gets edited out.): http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith

[ABC123]

Well do you believe the people more than God himself? I mean they don't exactly know for sure and we have the same amount of knowledge that the Universe was created by a big bang, and in Religion The universe was created from swirls of dust to form the world, same with the big bang theory, everything was collected from dust to form into energy which exploded.

What I believe is that God made dust and he created energy and formed life: The Universe itself. So they coincide with one another, and besides if both theories are similar, and the people who made the bible way back before scientists found the "big bang" theory so the bible has more meaning than science ever does, because even from way back then, we just changed the story a bit for today :P.

Science isn't about meaning.

Religious people don't admit their faith is wrong, scientific people can admit that they made a mistake. Religious people also don't have any proof of anything the bible says, all they can say is "because god says so". Scientific people could go into details why they think they are right. I say "think they are right" because some theories like the big bang currently can not be proven. They have evidence supporting it but it doesn't make it 100%.

Once again here is my opinion in a nutshell. Religion is crap.

[masterchief2219]

Masterchief, that is being a bit harsh isnt it? We are all intitled to believe what we want and have freedom to say it. People don't have to listen, If you don't think the bible is true then that is your opinion. Seeing as people can't really PROVE for or against God then we have to let people choose what they want to believe.
This is a debate. I am debating.

By the way, the existance of god is not a matter of opinion. He either exists or he doesnt. In a matter of opinion, people can think what they want. In a matter of fact, people should believe the truth. There is plenty of evidence against the bible and against god. You are just too stubborn to see it.

Neither does the THEORY of evolution. The theory of evolution there is no solid proof and there are bits and pieces that they believe are correct.
There is plenty of solid proof. Look up "Theory of Evolution" on google. Also try "Pangea".

Also you pick on Christianity whith the Bible. Allow he to point out that every single other type of religion believes in 1 god who created the earth. Therefore you can't say the bible is wrong, you have to say that ALL RELIGION is wrong.
All religion is wrong. I usually say that all religion is wrong. I dont know why I didnt this time.

[Josh_the_Harris]

There is plenty of evidence against the bible and against god. You are just too stubborn to see it.

There is not enough evidence of evolution to make it plausable. When the idea first came around it was ridiculed and people said that it was so outragious that no one would ever believe it. Also think about it, you say the bible was made up by monks, well the theory of evolution was completely invented by Darwin. He is who everyone follows when they say the believe in evolution. You can choose to believe the bible or Darwin. (Please note I use the bible term loosely when I say bible I mean the book that every religion has that they follow)

By the way, the existance of god is not a matter of opinion. He either exists or he doesnt.
Precisely but people can't prove that he doesn't exist. You say people should believe the truth. As no man knows for certain how the world was made a number of possible solutions where brought around. These include God and evolution. Every person has to believe what is right IN THEIR OWN EYES. The reason this debate could go on for ages is because I believe that I am right. You also believe that you are right. So we can argue for ever because both of us have put our faith in something

There is plenty of solid proof

If there is so much proof why is it still called the THEORY. Scientists themselves have argued that the theory of evolution is impossible to prove at the present time.

People are curious as to why we are on this earth. As a result we have to come up with an explanation for everything. In my opinion science mostly explains what god does.

Allow me to use the bible as an example. In the bible it says that God made the world stand still for a day so the Israelites could win a battle. Scientists have found that from the beginning of the world there is a day missing and we should be a day ahead of what we are. This is proof that the sun did stop at one point

Also the flood has been proven as happening by scientists. They have also found out that Jesus definetely existed


Well that should keep us arguing for a bit longer :lol:

[Sperry]

They're still theories because they have yet to be proven. The only reason why God isn't a theory is because it's religion-based. He hasn't been "proven", but you can't call religion a theory as the official ruling. If anyone did (made religion a theory, officially), htey'd be opposing people's right to religion. You don't have the right to science, it's "just science". Frankly, I can prove anything I want. Humanity has found so many loopholes, proof means nothing. I can give you the most idiot formula that proves you are actually a green desk lamp. Formulas are nothing. The only "proof" is tangible evidence. Nothing more. You can say that one specific religion is wrong. You'd be hypocritical, but you can still say it. "Christianity is wrong" "Buddhism is wrong" "The Jewish are drunk with idiocy". They're all opinions. And of course, they're all wrong. All religions have but one God eh? *ahem* Ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, Scandenavia.... Hmm. Did I just not listen during mythology? Were all those books trying to trick me? The reason why we're "picking on Christianity" is because it's the religion in the main field of the debate. Of all the religions, they're the most stubborn, to be stereotipical. Like I mentioned earlier, "evidence" and "proof" is crap. They have absolutely no value. According to some, there is "evidence" that George W. Bush rigged the first election. Doesn't mean he did. Solid proof? There's no such thing in this topic. Solid proof is not through equations, formulas, tests or ideas. Those are just validations, justifications. Were you there? Did you see the formation of the supercontinent? Perhaps Wegener was wrong. Just because Africa and South America look like they'd fit together isn't proof. So some guy named Jesus was born and lived where the Bible says he did, big deal? The Bible was written well after he had died, so I'm sure they'd have known who he was if they bothered. If the sun stops, time does not. Whether or not the sun or the earth rotate does not determine time. That is as foolish as "The sun is the centre of the universe!" "The earth is flat!". -_-

[mattz1010]

Also the flood has been proven as happening by scientists

No. It was proven AGAINST.

Before I copy this from the book that I read it in, Read this first.

I'm not against christianity. I'm just saying some things in there are entirely inplausible. (impossible)

"

It says in the Bible that during the Flood, "all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered." The mathemetician John Allen Paulos has done some calculations. He figures that in order to cover every mountain, there must have been ten to twenty thousand feet of water on the earth's surface, about half a billion cubic miles of water. It rained forty days, and forty nights. To produce a flood of that size in those 960 hours, it must have rained, on average, fifteen feet of water per hour. A really heavy and destructive rainstorm in our day can put an inch or two of water on the ground per hour. But fifteen feet of water in an hour, Paulos remarks, is enough to sink an aircraft carrier. How did Noah's little wooden ark, loaded with thousands of animals stay afloat?1

1: Innumeracy: Mathermatical Illiteracy and Its Consequences(New York: Vintage, 1990), pp 16-17

"

There are Two Errors In The The Title of This Book: A source of philosophicals puzzles, paradoxes and problems, by Robert M. Martin

[DarkReality]

----------------------------------------------------
NOTE:
The first 90 percent is me simply arguing. There are some good points in it and can make anyone who disagrees with me feel incredibly stupid, but if you know the procedure, then you can skip that and read the last two paragraphs. I love those.

Wow... I need an introductory note for my posts, what next, a table of contents?

God I'd hate to have to read all that :D
---------------------------------------------------

There is plenty of solid proof. Look up "Theory of Evolution" on google. Also try "Pangea".

What in the eff's name does Pangea have to do with evolution? A little bit maybe, one sort of helps "prove" that the other is quite possible. So they sort of support each other. As most of our earth is liquid, it's sort of obvious that the crust would float after cracking for several million years. Sure, it proves that the earth is older than 6000 years, but anyone who honestly believes that most likely doesn't have an IQ high enough to hold a decent debate on something as complex as evolution/creationism. So that doesn't really count :D

Woah, that was uncalled for. Time to bash some bible-arguments:

There is not enough evidence of evolution to make it plausable. When the idea first came around it was ridiculed and people said that it was so outragious that no one would ever believe it. Also think about it, you say the bible was made up by monks, well the theory of evolution was completely invented by Darwin. He is who everyone follows when they say the believe in evolution. You can choose to believe the bible or Darwin.

That was painful in so many ways.

a) I just spent half a freaking year learning about evolution, various dating techniques, species relationships throughout the last several hundred million years and so on and so forth. Reading something that your pastor gives you does not qualify as knowing about evolution. Evolution is NOT Darwin's theory anymore. Most of the junk Darwin claimed has already been proven wrong, and the only thing he really did that still counts today is say that species evolve at all. He also observed the basic motors for evolution (competition, selection, adaption, the entire program). But many of the things he wrote in "origin of species" is either far too vague to count for anything today or just outright wrong. He was a founder. He was for the theory of evolution what the wright brothers were for airplanes.

For one thing, the theory of evolution no longer applies to a single individual. If you were to believe Darwin, a single individual and it's offspring mutated and "evolved" based on outer and inner influences. Now we know that "evolution" is pretty much small mutations which give certain individuals a bit more of an edge. Since these small mutations and changes occur every generation, a lot of things happen in a million years. But a reptile did not grow any bloody wings overnight to become a bird. And that was just a.

b) Copernicus claimed the earth was round. He was ridiculed. He was followed by the church. Followed and was threatened. He chickened out. And it stayed that way until Galileo had the balls to stand to his freaking observation. Or was it the other way around? One of 'em chickened out.

c) The theory of Evolution is not an "invention". Nor was it completely "invented" by Darwin. Some other names of early evolutionists (or pseudo-evolutionists who more or less accidentally figured something essential out) are Lamarck, Carl von Linne and Cuvier, The theory of evolution. After Darwin there were dozens of scientists who made important discoveries. No one who seriously wants to argue about Evolution and stand a chance against hardcore christians only follows Darwin. That's nonsense. That's the surface of a motor we don't even fully grasp.

If there is so much proof why is it still called the THEORY. Scientists themselves have argued that the theory of evolution is impossible to prove at the present time.

Did you know that space travel was once a theory? Did you know flight was a theory the wright brothers spent years working on? Did you know any and every idea that is scientific, even in the slightest manner, was once a theory?. Science has that tendency. You form a theory and then attempt to prove it.

No one proves something without knowing what it is. You'd make quite the arse of yourself if you did.

Allow me to use the bible as an example. In the bible it says that God made the world stand still for a day so the Israelites could win a battle. Scientists have found that from the beginning of the world there is a day missing and we should be a day ahead of what we are. This is proof that the sun did stop at one point

... sources. You mean to tell me that scientists, who support the fact that the earth is about 4 billion years old, have claimed that a freaking day was missing? A DAY?! Did you know the we've gone through more calenders than you and I could count? Did you know that calenders didn't exist before ancient civilizations (greeks, chinese, egyptians, Mesopotamians, babylonians, etc) came along and thought "hey, keeping time would be kick arse!" (in their respective language, of course)? Or are you, by any chance, talking about christian scientists, when you claim that scientists can prove that we're missing a day?

How would one go about proving that anyway? Seriously, a day isn't even exactly 24 hours, the earth rotates in 23 hours and 59 minutes or so, which explains leap years, but they don't cover it, so you have to leave out a leap year every now and then, and then leave out the leaving out, until you pretty much get a screwy system that sort of resembles Windows 98.

Also the flood has been proven as happening by scientists. They have also found out that Jesus definetely existed

We recently had a flood here in the eastern half of germany. How freaking likely do you think is a flood in the mediterranean? About as likely as someone dying due to choking on something right now. Which is pretty freaking likely. Of course floods existed. Heck, the mediterranean wasn't even always an ocean until the continental plates parted. No one's proven it, it's one of those things that are so likely, no one bothers disproving it. And the existance of a flood and some lunatic who claimed he was the son of god doesn't do much to help your argument. It sort of makes you look rather desperate.

Seriously.

I'm the son of god. I'm Jesus Reloaded. Now you've got yourself two lunatics. And in 2000 years, people will be all like "oh, Jesus Reloaded existed! Our Religion is real! Worshipping the one-eyed wombat is the true way! The mother of one-eyed wombats created the world in 12 days, 4 hours and 21 minutes!"

Bah. Good god that was painful to read. It sort of resembled every junk argument we've had all bunched up into one. C'mon, you've gotta do a bit better than that. I'm sick of reading why evolution has to be wrong. How about someone proves that religion and god is real? How about someone proves that the bible is actually the word of god?

I almost forgot. You can't. Losers :D

Christ, that wasn't the end of it, there's more...

It says in the Bible that during the Flood, "all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered." The mathemetician John Allen Paulos has done some calculations. He figures that in order to cover every mountain, there must have been ten to twenty thousand feet of water on the earth's surface, about half a billion cubic miles of water. It rained forty days, and forty nights. To produce a flood of that size in those 960 hours, it must have rained, on average, fifteen feet of water per hour. A really heavy and destructive rainstorm in our day can put an inch or two of water on the ground per hour. But fifteen feet of water in an hour, Paulos remarks, is enough to sink an aircraft carrier. How did Noah's little wooden ark, loaded with thousands of animals stay afloat?1

The mere fact that water doesn't appear out of nowhere proves that every mountain being covered is close to impossible, as you'd have to cover the entire earth, meaning you couldn't (in all theory) drain the oceans and dump them into the mediterranean. And where in god's name would all that water go, if I may ask? Does anyone have any idea what that would do to our atmosphere after it all disappeared again?

Nah, it didn't cover each mountain. Based on the primitive navigation tools they had back then, my guess is that it was some minor flood which just looked drastic because everything around the mediterranean is close to sealevel. Obviously, otherwise it wouldn't have a big lake in the middle of it.

A note on my constant reference to the mediterranean: they lived there during that time, and considering they knew nothing else of the world, that was most likely the entire world.

And another note: how do you explain native americans and inca/aztec/mayan/all-them-tribes-down-there? They had no idea of christianity? How freaking arrogant does someone have to be to claim that all humans are made by god, but god decided not to show up in south america, and they're stuck with the obviously made up south american gods (if we were to believe that your god really does exist)? That's just plain nonsense. Or china? "Hey, chinese people aren't real people made by god. We'll bring them the word of god". Oh wow, they never knew of god, does that mean another god made them? Or does that make americans of european decent and europeans the obviously superior race, since the "real god" showed up for them?

...

jesus christ, I'm onto something. Did you know I could easily make the jump and call christians nazis based on that argument. Oh god that's incredible! Absolutely incredible! I've got to remember this one :D

[Sperry]

A very interesting post, but just for the sake of arguing, I will.

Pangaea, overall, has a rather large effect on evolution. Whether or not it was ever really formed or not is irrelevant, apart from the result it produced. If South America and Africa were at one point joined, or at least, connected partially, then species would have transfered to either one, effecting both areas quickly and drastically. I support the Pangaea theory, simply because it "makes sense". Fossils have been found, of the same species, on both Africa and South America. Which implies that they were, at one point or another, close enough for these species to intermingle. Were they simply in the same climate or had very similar climates, they would have adapted differently. That's just how nature works. Nothing ever happens the same twice. Except, of course, for apple pie, which is always as apply as the last. Really, humans flying was not the Wright bothers' theory at all. They simply completed this theory, made it a reality. Neil Armstrong didn't create the theory of going to the moon; Pacman didn't make the theory of being eaten by 2D ghosts. They have no claim to the theories which their accomplishments are based. They're just the famous ones. I'm not all together too detailed as what happened around those two, but I do know that Galileo was proclaimed a heratic for his findings. Simply because the Christian religion was far too stubborn and resistant to fact. It's typical human self-centeredness that had them assuming that God would make the planet earth the centre of the universe. It's absolutely idiotic by today's standards. For all we know, in five hundred years, science will have "proven" religion false once and for all (which is doubtable, but just go with it), and those who live in that time will look back at us and laugh. We laugh at the foolish thoughts of those who thought (or still think o.o) the earth was flat. Surely, plenty things "known" today to be true are wrong. The church is stubborn, and has suffered strongly for it. And that's why Athiesm has caught up with Catholocism. People are tired of the my-way-or-the-highway outlook of the church. They say they're open to the opinions and voices of others, but face it, they're not. No "fully believing" person is. If they were, they'd be succeptable to doubts about their faith, and be a contradiction. The shield of ignorance, if you will. Out of the two, one could argue much sooner than religion is an invention than evolution. There are many more signs (not proofs, signs) of evolution than God. Proof of a "mass flood" is nothing. Everything becomes overstated. Do you honestly think that after nearly 4000 years since Noah supposedly died that the precise details would remain the same? In 4000 years, someone talking about religion could easily throw in that Bob Jones was really Satan, who ran freely about killing and sinning; when really he just got in trouble for not paying the late fee on a Blockbuster movie.

[mattz1010]

Perhaps anyone has heard of my uncle Paul Hebert?

He's doing a really cool project on BARCODING LIFE.

Basically: a basis for all living (and probably dead too) species that ever lived on earth.

Once that's done, we can PROVE to you that evolution exists.

[ummu]

Whoops.

Too late.


http://dllab.caltech.edu/avida/

^ Proof.

[DarkReality]

Pangaea, overall, has a rather large effect on evolution. Whether or not it was ever really formed or not is irrelevant, apart from the result it produced. If South America and Africa were at one point joined, or at least, connected partially, then species would have transfered to either one, effecting both areas quickly and drastically

Well... yea, when you see it like that, sure. But evolution could have happened with or without pangea. Pangea sort of only influenced where what was, and why most every continent had similar animals.

But the wright brothers were the ones that actually developed a working airplane. With theory, I don't mean Da Vinci's drawings of helicopters, I meant "the real thing". Sort of. They searched for a way to make it possible. But yea... theory was the wrong word. Saying Evolution is Dawin's theory is just as wrong, however. I'm sure some crazy greek existed way back when who made similar observations.

[Sperry]

effect on evolution:D
Evolution obviously happened, and would've continued to happen even if Pangaea never existed. It was just one of the many things that caused it to result differently. We can't really argue who got such and such a theory, simply because either they stole it from someone or someone got it first (for a beautiful example, see "From the Earth to the Moon"; last part). The people who truely believed in whoever's theory it actually was, that humans could become airborn, were those diehard guys you see flapping their wooden wings on comedy shows. Sure, they were wrong, but the only way to get the Wright is to be wrong. :P

[Josh_the_Harris]

My argument!

Where has the wate from the flood gone? Well i'm thinking probably into all the icebergs in the Arctic and Antarctica. We have already found that global warming could melt the ice caps and flood the world.

O.K. Now this is a little wild and is not in the bible but I think. If the ice caps melted when it rained (It may have been incredibly hot) this could possible cover the earth. When they froze back the flood waters went down and the earth changed back to how it is today.


Secondly the tallest mountains may not have been so tall back then. SCIENCE HAS PROVED that this is made by depositation (or whatever it's called) and this mean's in Noah's day the mountains could have been smaller.


Do you honestly think that after nearly 4000 years since Noah supposedly died that the precise details would remain the same

The bible was writed by many different people through the ages. Therefore we don't know that it was that long between when the flood happened and when it was writen.


god decided not to show up in south america, and they're stuck with the obviously made up south american gods (if we were to believe that your god really does exist)?

Christianity was not the original religion believing in God, it was Judaism. All people were originally Jews (after the flood). Then people thought "How do I know this God fellow exists?" so they made their own gods out of stone and wood that they could see and this helped them to believe because as they could see them they knew that they existed.


All religions have but one God eh? *ahem* Ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, Scandenavia.... Hmm.


Yes I realised that when I wrote it. I meant more modern day religions. The main modern day religions such as Judaism, Christianity, Sikhism, Buddism - they all believe in 1 God (to the best of my limited knowledge)


Oh wow, they never knew of god, does that mean another god made them? Or does that make americans of european decent and europeans the obviously superior race, since the "real god" showed up for them

Wrong, Judaism and Christianity originated from the middle East in Israel NOT in Europe. They then went round and told the rest of the world.


How did Noah's little wooden ark, loaded with thousands of animals stay afloat?

I know you're problably being sarcastic but people used to live a lot longer then up to 600 years and the ark was not little as it took over 100 years to build and collect all the animals

Or are you, by any chance, talking about christian scientists, when you claim that scientists can prove that we're missing a day?

No scientists who prove evolution believe since the evolution there should have been another day

Now we know that "evolution" is pretty much small mutations which give certain individuals a bit more of an edge.

Im sorry but I don't believe that. If I jumped off buildings and my kids jumped of buildings and their kids jumped off buildings and so on we aren't going to develop wings
Heck, why worry about global warming and flooding we could all just MUTATE and grow some gills


So some guy named Jesus was born and lived where the Bible says he did, big deal?

Wait a minute, a few posts ago I was told the bible was written in 800AD by some monks, Well I'm sorry but I doubt whether anyone ordinary would be remembered for 800 years. Therefore everyone who is arguing against religion is contradicting each other.


Evolution, the flood and Jesus has been mainly what this topic has been about. But science should be proving the bible. The only reason people don't believe in God is because they can't see him. Yet noone has seen evolution or the big bang so why do we believe it


Why didn't dinosaurs evolve so they could survive considering they were once so great?


Well that's got to be the longest post I've ever written. Apologies to anyone i've offended and I'm sorry if I sound a bit rude in parts of it. Everyone thinks they are right so no matter what any of us say it's probably not going to change anyone elses mind on this subject.

I ASK THAT PEOPLE TRY TO REMEMBER THIS IS JUST A DEBATE AND THAT THERE IS NO NEED TO BE RUDE. NO MATTER WHAT ANYONE THINKS WE ARE ALL ENTITLED TO BELIEVE WHAT WE WANT (Whether it is right or not) AND THEREFORE YOU SHOULD ONLY DEBATE IF YOU HAVE A VALID POINT (not just to slag me off)

[masterchief2219]

O.K. Now this is a little wild and is not in the bible but I think. If the ice caps melted when it rained (It may have been incredibly hot) this could possible cover the earth. When they froze back the flood waters went down and the earth changed back to how it is today.
Actually, it has been proven that even if the Ice Caps did melt, it wouldnt be enough to flood the whole planet like the bible said.

Secondly the tallest mountains may not have been so tall back then. SCIENCE HAS PROVED that this is made by depositation (or whatever it's called) and this mean's in Noah's day the mountains could have been smaller.
Thats one method of making mountains. There are others that take much less time. Some are formed by volcanos and others by the moving plates under the earths crust. Those can make mountains really fast. The mountains in noahs time were the same size as the ones in our time.

I know you're problably being sarcastic but people used to live a lot longer then up to 600 years and the ark was not little as it took over 100 years to build and collect all the animals
Actually, people lived less thatn 30 years then. I dont know where you got 600 from.

Im sorry but I don't believe that. If I jumped off buildings and my kids jumped of buildings and their kids jumped off buildings and so on we aren't going to develop wings
Heck, why worry about global warming and flooding we could all just MUTATE and grow some gills
You obviously know nothing about evolution. The mutations happen by chance. If an animal is mutated and the mutation helps it out, ti has a better chance at surviving to reproduce.

For example, the first elephants had short trunks. Then, a mutated elephant was born with a slightly larger trunk. It could reach higher so it could get food that other elephants couldnt. It lived longer because it was healthier so it could breed more and it made a bunch of elephants with longer trunks.

No scientists who prove evolution believe since the evolution there should have been another day
what did he just say???

But science should be proving the bible. The only reason people don't believe in God is because they can't see him. Yet noone has seen evolution or the big bang so why do we believe it
Actually, nobody believes in god becaues it doesnt make sense to people who werent brainwashed by their parents into believing in it.

There is a lot of solid proof that evolution happened. Thats why people believe in it.

A lot of scientists dont believe the big bang theory. Neither do I.

Why didn't dinosaurs evolve so they could survive considering they were once so great?
Some did. The first birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Therefore everyone who is arguing against religion is contradicting each other.
Thats because some of us are more informed than others.


Sorry dude. I dont know where you get this stuff but most of the things you said were wrong. In a debate, it is best to research both sides. You shouldnt be arguing against evolution unless you have a clue as to how it works.

[Sperry]

That is an interesting theory, but the amount of ice required to form from that is extreme. The reason why the poles are so much colder is due to their location in relation to the sun. The equator receives highly concentrated amounts of sun rays since they are in a "direct" line with it. This concentration gives the warmer climate. Since the poles are further away from the equator, and are not in direct line with the sun, they are cooler. Why? Because the lower surface area of the "centre" of the earth's area has again, the high concentration. The polar areas, and basically anything above/below the tropics, are at a much more "indirect" angle, due to the extreme curve in the earth. This means that the sun's rays are spread out and less concentrated, providing less heat in any specific area (in laymen's terms...). This explains the presence of the ice at the poles. If you noticed, when one makes ice cubes, the water expands as it cools. This can be easily proven when one fills the tray just to the top, and when the water solidifies, it expands. Were the entirety of the earth to have flooded, there would have been MUCH more ice than there is currently today. Even if you argue with our previous argument that the "world" was but the Mediterrainian and Middle East, you would find that there is still not sufficient ice, as the mountains located in and around where the Eastern Ottoman Empire/Central Persia used to be are very high. Not only this, but it is physically impossible to just flood until a certain point and then have this wall well over 5000 feet high. The extent of the water would have to be all the way to the Nepalesian mountains, and over all of Europe and Africa, to provide a physically understandable flood. Once again, not enough ice. If all the ice in the world melted, the worldwide water levels would rise about two feet (scientific estimation). If this were concentrated in the prementioned area, one could expect the water to rise ten feet at the most. Yes, the world's tallest mountains were much much smaller long ago than they are today. Hundreds of millions of years ago, Mount Everest was prehaps a grain of sand or a rock. Other mountain ranges towered well above Everest's height. An example would be the Canadian Shield. Some of its mountains reached well above 12000 meters, 33% larger than Everest is. In the time that the Bible says Noah lived, the mountains would be almost exactly the same as they are today. Erosion, deposition, folding and faulting take hundreds of thousands of years at the very least. One will not walk down the street and see a mountain fall over. By science, the mountains would be perhaps 100ft more or less than they are (Not sure, guessing on annual changes). By the Bible, the difference between Noah's life and now is 4000 years (4003 to be "precise"). This is certainly not enough time to provide that much difference in mountain elevation. "All people were originally Jews". Through this, you deny the existance of thousands of people in that time period. Those of far East Asia, the Americas, even extremely far north Europe, were around at this time. They were extremely primative, but they undeniably existed. Japan was not even brought under complete rule until about 400 years ago. Japan, for most of its modern human inhabitance, was totally out of the influence of the rest of the world. Not even Khan had any effect on them, as he was unable to invade. They did not open their markets to trade for about 200 years, and were forced to do so. Japan's early history is not one of international involvement, even after the Bible. Have you ever seen records or diagrams of what boats during the time of the Middle East/Mediterrainian? Before the Spanish and British developed their fleets, the known world had terrible boats. These meagre contraptions could certainly not withstand the journey across one of the world's largest barriers, the Atlantic Ocean. How can you explain the presence of the Incas? Science justifies it through the following: Around ten thousand years ago, the Bearing Strait was a bridge, a link, between Asia and North America. During this time, humans ("cavemen" if you will) crossed along with other species. They then traveled south, and could possibly be the ancestors of many civilizations. Of course, science also says that humans were already living in some of these areas; and that they were indiginous to the regions which they lived in. According to the Bible, written by those who knew nothing of these western people, all were Jewish after the flood. No one in the Americas was Jewish. They had never heard of Johova (spl?) or Jesus. They had different Gods which they worshiped, totally different from the Jewish/Christian God. By the Bible, these people must have, in the 3000 year window that was given before exploration of the new world was about to begin, found their way over to the Americas and set up colonies, cultures, and thrive, and of course wage war, before the Koreans/Spanish arrived. You must also note the differences in appearance, mentality and culture. In the few hundred years they would have had, they could not have changed as drastically as they did. The Native Americans, compared to the Aztecs, have so little in common. The cultural bridge, for such a short time, is unimaginable. By the scientific explanation, these peoples had thousands of years to develop and differ. Certainly much more understandable than the highly unlikely and illogical explanation the Bible provides. Sure, God may have "enthused" people to write the Bible, to explain things, and sure, perhaps the flood did happen through God's will. But the Bible is taken far too literally. How do you know that a mere human interpreted the exact meaning and infinite knowledge that is God? How do you know God even told them that these other peoples existed? They wrote, through the inspiration, what they understood. If he told them about the riches of the Americas, with all that they had to offer, history would be very, very different. What is said in the Bible should not be taken as the exact go-on, considering it was written by man; whether divinly inspired or not. People used to live over 600 years? That has absolutely no proof, reasoning, or even hint of proof to be true outside of the sacred texts of a handful of religions. To say this so knowingly is to deny the fact that it is circumstancial evidence at best. There is more proof that evolution is real than this. Should have been another day? Please, do provide me with a link to this wonderful missing day. The theory of evolution does not base itself on what you say. Species adapt and evolve slowly as is required. Since not all of the human race needs to or will jump off buildings, as that is not in their nature nor nature itself, they will not grow wings and suddenly fly. Evolution is based on necessary survival. Thicker hair or a full fur is "added" to a species which is exposed to extremely cold, wet climates. It is by the constant need that the evolution must occur. The reason why those who live in Antarctica do not have these mystical coats is due to clothing. A replication of evolution. Have you ever noticed, that on a person who is not exposed to the sun, that their skin is paled? This is a tangent for my next debate. Let us say a certain person wears jeans. And they always wear jeans, or long pants of some sort, when outdoors. This results in two things; paler skin, and less hair on the legs. Why? The paler skin is because there is less exposure to the sun, thus lowering the tan levels, thus making it pale. The hair is due to temperature. Thehairs on your body are to keep you warm. An insolator. If you are always wearing long pants, the pants will act as this insolation. If your legs are warm, there is no reason to warm them more, since that would result in unnatural overheating. A very very small evolutionary process as result of clothing. The reason why scientists do not "bother" themselves to prove or disprove the Bible as often as you think they should is the result being seen in this topic. Human stubbornness. Christians with enough brains to even debate live by the Bible fully more often than not. This provides stubbornness. This wall prevents a large group for debating, thusly, science cannot be bothered. Would you waste your time trying to explain your side when every two words the listener says "nope. Bible doesn't say that. Wrong." or "Well you'll be buring for a long time in Hell now won't you?"? That's not even listening. It's waiting to argue and debate. Listening does not involve trying to find the right time to butt in. The many theories which scientists have on what killed the dinosaurs off all have one basic point: quick. Whether it was a huge meteor impact, a drastic climate change or an unknown disease their immune system couldn't handle, it was very fast acting. The largest supported theory is that of a huge asteroid impacting somewhere in the Southern Gulf of Mexico area. This impact caused great changes in climate, water levels/location, heat, and gave an extremely powerful shockwave. This impact supposedly killed anything on the planet that weighed more than fifty pounds. As I recall, a instant set of gills wouldn't drop a dinosaurs' weight that much.


I apologize for the length of this post. It outsizes any that I have made in quite a long time....

[masterchief2219]

I think snowman just won the arguement. Science wins.

[Sperry]

I'm really enjoying this debate, interesting points being brought up. Now where's Reality, we really could use another person to laugh?

[Josh_the_Harris]

As I have said before but all of you are obviously too incredibly stupid to realize it no matter what you say you can't change the other person's mind. Now I'm sorry but I sick of people telling me my religion is a piece of **** and that my views are all wrong. I started posting my side of this debate and everyone has stated slagging me off.


Actually, nobody believes in god becaues it doesnt make sense to people who werent brainwashed by their parents into believing in it.

Well I'm sorry masterchief but some people do actually believe in God as their own decisions. I thought this was a debate not a chance to start hitting out at people's beliefs. Post all the **** that you want. I don't care what you put I believe in God. Nothing anyone says is going to change that.

I find it easier to believe that there is a God rather than all of a there was this bang and amazingly the whole universe was created! And this one planet just happened to be hot enough to keep another planet at the right temperature that these blobs of goo turned into animals and poeople.

Sorry dude. I dont know where you get this stuff but most of the things you said were wrong
Everything I have said about the Bible matches my beliefs therfore they are not wrong


In a debate, it is best to research both sides. You shouldnt be arguing against evolution unless you have a clue as to how it works

Any I suppoose you understand everything about a Christian's beliefs If I ought to know everything about evolution to join a debate I think you should learn eveything about the Bible and Christians and their beliefs.

You think you are so good don't you? Well when you are burning in hell you can remember this conversation and you can think for eternity about whether I was wrong.


ALSO one more thing, If the Bible is true and I live my life by it then when I die I would have had a good life and go to heven. If it's not true the fact that I am a Christian would not have made my life any worse.

This is the last message I am posting on this topic as everyone is just taking the opportunity to point out how wrong I must be and how stupid I am

http://www.aglimpseofeternity.org/testimony.htm - he died, went to heaven and hell and came back to life. DOCTORS CONFIRMED HE HAD BEEN DEAD FOR 15 MINUTES. You can check it out. Then you can have someone else to slag off instead of me

[Shadow Crest]

Actually, on evolution, I think that the idea is false. Evolution scientists classify nearly everything by- it was found this deep in the crust, it is, say, 1,000,000 years old. What if there was something that caused a shift. That, and from what I have heard, some of their presentations are 95% false facts.

However, It does not sway me from my original arguement- God put us on Earth to discover science, so neither wins.

[ABC123]

Religion is a piece of **** and your views are all wrong, Josh_the_Harris. Just had to say that. I love these debates, I don't usually participate very much in them, but I love watching the religious people getting pwned.

Everything I have said about the Bible matches my beliefs therfore they are not wrong

Yeah they are, because the bible is wrong. OMFG pwned! lol

Also, you're really believing some random site about some guy saying he went to heaven. The white light is understandable, scientists have proven that when you die you see a white light. The rest is probably a bunch of crap the guy made up to try and be famous.

[Shadow Crest]

Yes, but religion is, in a sense, good during trying times.

[DarkReality]

Where has the wate from the flood gone? Well i'm thinking probably into all the icebergs in the Arctic and Antarctica. We have already found that global warming could melt the ice caps and flood the world.

Woah... so you're telling me the entire polar caps melted, flooding the world, and within fourty days, froze again, drawing all water away from the rest of the world? I had no idea stupidity could be so bundled in one place. That's just plain pathetic. I'm not exactly an expert on the behavior of water on a global scale. In fact, I know jack about it. But I can tell you that THAT certainly did not happen. That would require a massive temperature increase you couldn't achieve. Ever. I doubt even god would have managed that. The temperature change would have killed half the animals. Especially those that are temperature resistant.

Secondly the tallest mountains may not have been so tall back then. SCIENCE HAS PROVED that this is made by depositation (or whatever it's called) and this mean's in Noah's day the mountains could have been smaller.

A very good point. Short mathematical explanation:

The himalayan mountains have been developing for the last several million years. 4000/5000000 (I'll assume 5 million in your favor, as that seems incredibly short. I'm too lazy to figure out something as complex as that. Google hates complex things). That's 1/1250. That means that instead of 8850 meters (or so), it was 1249/1250 of that height. That's 8842.92 meters. You see we're speaking of a matter of meters. Heck, even if they magically gained a thousand meters, you'd still need more water than we have to fill that up. Even a mediterranean mountain (lets say in the alps) would only have been maybe 10 meters shorter back then. Tops. With depositation. Whereas erosion is a stronger force than depositation on mountains. Depositation (or however you call it, that word's just plain cool sounding) usually happens around river regions with flowing water. But so does erosion. Woah... a vicious cycle :D

Christianity was not the original religion believing in God, it was Judaism. All people were originally Jews (after the flood). Then people thought "How do I know this God fellow exists?" so they made their own gods out of stone and wood that they could see and this helped them to believe because as they could see them they knew that they existed.

... So the jews sent missionaries to Paraguay and taught the local Mayans of God. The Mayans were too stupid, and made their own gods. Right on. You do realize that the south american cultures have been around a good deal longer than boats that can cross the freaking atlantic. So how exactly did absolutely nothing survive of the bible or a monotheistic god there? I mean, Moses got rather ticked off when people started worshipping a golden lamb. And the south americans had the cool tendency to make a whole lot of little gold and jade statues for a lot of gods. I'm still missing the logic. It still sounds like central europeans are far more intelligent and capable of grasping the "real god" as opposed to the stupid primitives that had to be converted.

Where we would be at point two, if they were already jews, then whose brilliant idea was it to send missionaries to convert them in the 16th and 17th centures (and later as well)?

Yes I realised that when I wrote it. I meant more modern day religions. The main modern day religions such as Judaism, Christianity, Sikhism, Buddism - they all believe in 1 God (to the best of my limited knowledge)

True buddhists don't believe in any "god". But cultural differences have led to various forms of buddhism with pseudo-gods. They have their buddhas as "role models" of sorts.

Wrong, Judaism and Christianity originated from the middle East in Israel NOT in Europe. They then went round and told the rest of the world.

To hell. If Turkey can claim to be a part of europe and demand a place in the EU, then israel's part of europe as well :D Dunno why I said europe. I was probably too fixated on the catholic church and their "teachings". That still doesn't change the fact that these israelites are obviously considering themselves superior. Ironic that they should be hunted by hitler. So ironic it's almost funny. But only almost, really.

I know you're problably being sarcastic but people used to live a lot longer then up to 600 years and the ark was not little as it took over 100 years to build and collect all the animals

... You have no idea how funny that was. Seriously. That was hilarious. People live up to 600 years? A boat that took 100 years to build? Do you know what happens to dead wood that lays around for a 100 years? It rots. And I really, REALLY, doubt they had any varnish or wood finishes back then :-p

Im sorry but I don't believe that. If I jumped off buildings and my kids jumped of buildings and their kids jumped off buildings and so on we aren't going to develop wings

a) Wings are small mutations? SMALL MUTATIONS?! Small mutations are in your genes. Proteins that work a bit more efficiently. A bone or muscle that happens to be a bit readjusted to work better. Not any effing wings!

b) No, you wouldn't. You'd be dead.

c) Mutation is proven. There's no point arguing there. There are people who have mutated with visible effects. Look at victims of post WW2 radiation in Japan. Nasty things, I tell you. Mutations. 'sides, a mutation is a change in your genes. It's been done by hand. It's one of the simplest things to do in genetic research and is pretty much a basic procedure when it comes to developing medicines against certain diseases.

d) Gills aren't small mutations either. They're a change in our entire goddamned respiratory system

e) You have earned yourself a new title: Moron.

The only reason people don't believe in God is because they can't see him. Yet noone has seen evolution or the big bang so why do we believe it

Because... there's more evidence than for a supernatural, allpowerful being that created the world in 7 days and did that 6000 years ago? We've observed the effects of evolution? Seen that certain animals are related, both genetically and through visible properties? We can classify animals into different species, subspecies, families, and so on?

For the same reason other extinct creatures didn't evolve. They were most likely killed too quickly to adapt. Ice ages, maybe the meteor theory, global warming, god knows what happened.

I still would like to read some proof for your religion. So far, you've only mad a pathetic attempt at disproving science and evolution.

Snowy... paragraphs are your friend. Please? :D

And science won way back when not one but two people pretty much proved the earth was round. And that it wasn't the center of the universe. Religion already started to crumble way back then. We suddenly weren't the center, the pinnacle. For all we know, we could just be a step along the way. In a million years, we might have telepathic abilities and 3-digit IQs. Or we could be dead. Which is a whole lot more likely. >_>

[ABC123]

3 Digit IQs, lol. That would be good if normal people had 3 digit IQs.

[Shadow Crest]

hey, I have a 3 digit IQ. It is a brilliant thing *cough* photographic memory *cough*

[DarkReality]

You think you are so good don't you? Well when you are burning in hell you can remember this conversation and you can think for eternity about whether I was wrong.

That just made me giggle like a little schoolboy who just smoked his first joint. Pardon the comparison >_> :D I find it despicable that you consider yourself in a position to judge who goes to hell and who doesn't. If I'm a good person in life and do my best to make others happy and help the world and go to hell because I don't believe in your god, then I spit on your god and I will gladly spend an eternity in hell. because the near vicinity to a god like that would make me puke. Period.

Let me emphasize that for you: I find it despicable that you think you can tell me who'll go to hell. I'd bold it, but that's overkill.

ALSO one more thing, If the Bible is true and I live my life by it then when I die I would have had a good life and go to heven. If it's not true the fact that I am a Christian would not have made my life any worse.

So you're a christian to get the best possible outcome because you're too afraid to live life without restrictions? You were saying about going to hell?

This is the last message I am posting on this topic as everyone is just taking the opportunity to point out how wrong I must be and how stupid I am

And you've been doing nothing but pointing out how wrong evolution is. I'm STILL waiting for proof that religion is obviously more correct than science. Quit playing innocent.

http://www.aglimpseofeternity.org/testimony.htm - he died, went to heaven and hell and came back to life. DOCTORS CONFIRMED HE HAD BEEN DEAD FOR 15 MINUTES. You can check it out. Then you can have someone else to slag off instead of me

The human body isn't a machine that ceases to work. It's quite possible to be "dead" but somehow come back to life. In the first stages of death, merely your active brain regions and heart cease to function. The rest of your cells and organs still work for a while. Which is why dead people can fart (insert giggling sound). Hence it's quite possible to "resurrect" someone if their heart and brain can be jump-started. Rare, but obviously possible, as the website as well as other testimonies show.

I refuse to believe in a god just so I can go to heaven. Simple as that. And if my actions send me to hell, at least I stand to them, rather than chickening out by following the partially irrational teachings of some god that may or may not exist.

Actually, on evolution, I think that the idea is false. Evolution scientists classify nearly everything by- it was found this deep in the crust, it is, say, 1,000,000 years old. What if there was something that caused a shift. That, and from what I have heard, some of their presentations are 95% false facts.

Classification is done purely through genetics nowadays. Your technique only serves as a way to date things, but as you said yourself, mostly inaccurate. Gives you massive time spans that solve absolutely nothing. But classification is done genetically. There are more ways to date things though. Far more. And no, carbon dating is not the one I will speak of like every other over-zealous evolutionist.

Now go pray for my oh-so-lost soul. Maybe it'll buy you a freaking ticket into heaven.

Wow... you reaaallly annoy me :D

hey, I have a 3 digit IQ. It is a brilliant thing *cough* photographic memory *cough*

"3-digit-IQ" means that your IQ has three numbers, not that it IS 3 :D

OMFGLIEKPWNED! >_> Woah, what a bad insult...

[ABC123]

Umm, Dark, you do realize that the average IQ is 110 or something.

[Liokae]

Depends on which IQ scale you're using.

[masterchief2219]

As I have said before but all of you are obviously too incredibly stupid to realize it no matter what you say you can't change the other person's mind. Now I'm sorry but I sick of people telling me my religion is a piece of **** and that my views are all wrong. I started posting my side of this debate and everyone has stated slagging me off.
As I have said before but Josh_the_Harris is obviously too incredibly stupid to realise, THIS IS A DEBATE!!! I am going to argue with you. Thats the way a debate works.

Well I'm sorry masterchief but some people do actually believe in God as their own decisions. I thought this was a debate not a chance to start hitting out at people's beliefs. Post all the **** that you want. I don't care what you put I believe in God. Nothing anyone says is going to change that.
Read Previous answer

I find it easier to believe that there is a God rather than all of a there was this bang and amazingly the whole universe was created! And this one planet just happened to be hot enough to keep another planet at the right temperature that these blobs of goo turned into animals and poeople.
So you are believing whatever is more convenient for you to believe?

Everything I have said about the Bible matches my beliefs therfore they are not wrong
No, that just makes you both wrong.


Any I suppoose you understand everything about a Christian's beliefs If I ought to know everything about evolution to join a debate I think you should learn eveything about the Bible and Christians and their beliefs.
I know a lot about christian beliefs. I dont think I have made any arguements with false information in it so far. You have.

You think you are so good don't you? Well when you are burning in hell you can remember this conversation and you can think for eternity about whether I was wrong.
That wont happen. Hell doesnt exist.

ALSO one more thing, If the Bible is true and I live my life by it then when I die I would have had a good life and go to heven. If it's not true the fact that I am a Christian would not have made my life any worse.
Only mormans make it into heaven. South Park said it so it must be true.

This is the last message I am posting on this topic as everyone is just taking the opportunity to point out how wrong I must be and how stupid I am
Its not our fault that you are stupid. BLAME YOUR GOD!!! 8)

http://www.aglimpseofeternity.org/testimony.htm - he died, went to heaven and hell and came back to life. DOCTORS CONFIRMED HE HAD BEEN DEAD FOR 15 MINUTES. You can check it out. Then you can have someone else to slag off instead of me
He made it up to get attention.


.....I win.

[Sperry]

Reality, I wanted to put in paragraphs, but I had so many tangents to adress, I figured I'd make a nice big slob of blah.
_________________________
Uhm, if you'll excuse me, but clearly Josh, you've done no real debating here before. In every religious debate I engage in, I make it relatively clear at the start that I'm a Christian, I've read the Bible and I make my beliefs somewhat known. Of course, I don't go advertising. You don't see "GOD KICKS EINSTEIN'S ARSE" in big pink letters going down the 506, do you? I love it when people blindly follow their religion. It's so sad, really. You are so sure that because you believe something and someone presents a dispute, or a debate that you are perhaps incorrect, that they are a satanic, scientific crack head. Perhaps we'd treat you with more debate respect if you were to loosen your text. You can believe all you want that a giant booger created the universe in half an hour while riding a pony to Mexico, and nobody'll give a hoot. The backing up of your reasoning is what people will care about. The examples, reasons, or "proofs" that what your side is claiming to be true actually is. In other words, the end does not justify the means. I disagree, about the "nobody believes in God". Even if some were brainwashed, that's still belief. They have had it drilled into their head, so they believe it. Like a child believes in Santa Claus (I'm sorry to use this example, the point is meant, not that Santa's not real). You clearly don't know about evolution. There wasn't just this big pack of TNT in what's known today as southwestern Kentucky that suddenly went "pop" to form the universe. Google "big bang" for a bit more explanation.

No, blobs of goo did not turn into animals and people. Chemicals eventually formed precellular organisms, which multiplied and adapted into single-celled creatures, and so on and so forth. This took millions and millions of years, the Precambrian era lasted for over 4 billion years and most of it featured no life at all. So, if you believe in something, it is instantly correct? When writing a test, if you believe that the answer is "bla bla bla", does that mean that it must be? No. The teacher won't give you credit for believing it was right. "Oh mam I believed the answer was "bla bla bla", can you give me a perfect grade because I suck?"

I already told you that I know a load more about religion than you do evolution. When did I say that I thought I was "da bomb" or "all good"? Perhaps I should now, since if I believe it, it will be true. The real question is "you think you are so right, don't you?". Like those who argue religion before you, you use the "when you are in hell" line. A classic last shot at trying to make it seem like yours is right. If you truely knew the Bible, you'd know that God gave human kind free will. To eat that cake, to go to school, to piss in the bushes. He gave them the right to choose what they believed. Due to this, he would obviously know, being God, that many people would choose to not be Jewish or Christian, or not religious at all; since he is the all-knowing God. What God would set up two thirds of his creations for eternal damnation? Just because you don't believe in the "right" religion doesn't mean you will go to hell. In all fact, God may love people more for thinking for themselves, being unique and making their own, individual mark in life, as he undoubtably intended.

Do you suggest that the only way for everyone to get into eaven is Christianity? That, sir, is wrong; beyond any doubt. God would not make humanity unique simply to have them end up exactly the same in the end. You're "right"; if you live a good life and do good to others, you probably will go to heaven. But being a Christian doesn't give you a ticket through the gate. Heaven doesn't have a guy standing there just before you leave to be born asking "stamp ya hand?" so you can get back in when you want to. This is the last message I am posting on this topicThis is the last message I am posting on this topicOoh, a white light. Might have something to do with the lamp in the operation room. XD

Agreed. The human body is NOT simply there with an on/off switch. Until riggamortis (spl?) sets in, until after you crap yourself due to the relaxation of muscles, you have a small chance of being brought back to life. When someone's got no pulse, and thusly no blood being pumped, there's still an 8% chance of being recussitated. That's a darn good cahnce considering how close you are to death. Oh and as a note, nost IQ scales put the average at 90-110. 120-130 is usually "above" average, and below 90 is considered "dimwit". Most don't agree past 135, however.

[DarkReality]

Umm, Dark, you do realize that the average IQ is 110 or something.

In germany, "3-digit" really means 4-digit. sort of a european-american conversion thing.

>_>

Not really, I'm just stupid sometimes.

(I'm sorry to use this example, the point is meant, not that Santa's not real)

*sniff*... what do you... *sniff* mean, santa isn't real? :(

Do you suggest that the only way for everyone to get into eaven is Christianity? That, sir, is wrong; beyond any doubt. God would not make humanity unique simply to have them end up exactly the same in the end. You're "right"; if you live a good life and do good to others, you probably will go to heaven. But being a Christian doesn't give you a ticket through the gate. Heaven doesn't have a guy standing there just before you leave to be born asking "stamp ya hand?" so you can get back in when you want to.

Random funny :D

See, that's the type of religious reasoning I'm looking for and waiting for from one of them funny fanatics. Something so blatantly logical and tolerant that it's virtually impossible to "prove wrong", no matter how much we know of evolution. Way to be an example! *roots for the snow*
*sees sun*
*laughs*

[Doug05257]

In germany, "3-digit" really means 4-digit. sort of a european-american conversion thing.

>_>

Not really, I'm just stupid sometimes.

heheh... Almost tricked me... lol.

I hope everyone here applies to the Debate Club membergroup... That's where this belongs...

[Sperry]

It would be but none of the people who still engage in the "other side" of a debate like this are actually in the club. I just so happen to be, and as I recall, so is Reality...

Oh, so that's why France says "mille" as 1000... or something. *shrug**sniff*... what do you... *sniff* mean, santa isn't real? :( I knew someone'd say that... XD

[DarkReality]

Oh, so that's why France says "mille" as 1000... or something. *shrug*

o.O What's that have to do with anything?

[Sperry]

...Absolutely nothing. XD

[DarkReality]

... right...

I'm glad that I'm not that stupid after all :D

[Sperry]

*raises jagged newspaper* =_=

Now, get back into this no-longer two sided debate!

[masterchief2219]

I really have nothing to say right now. Now that Josh left, I have no one to "debate" with. Is there anyone here who is on religions side?

[mattz1010]

ALSO one more thing, If the Bible is true and I live my life by it then when I die I would have had a good life and go to heven.


How can there be ONE heaven for all of us? Isn't heaven supposed to be bliss? I scarcely believe that everyone has the same view of heaven.
So then when I get to heaven, it will be a disappointment? No way.

I'd rather live my life for a *certain* person, life has more meaning that way.

[DarkReality]

ALSO one more thing, If the Bible is true and I live my life by it then when I die I would have had a good life and go to heven.


How can there be ONE heaven for all of us? Isn't heaven supposed to be bliss? I scarcely believe that everyone has the same view of heaven.
So then when I get to heaven, it will be a disappointment? No way.

I'd rather live my life for a *certain* person, life has more meaning that way.

... that's frightening. So true it's frightening...

>_>

Yep, this argument has died. Until some other fanatic without a clue of evolution comes along, claiming to know everything.

*pokes christians*

heeeeere silly christian fanatic... heeeeere boy. Or girl. Whichever. Or genderless meatloaf.

[masterchief2219]

Christianity is wrong, the bible is a fictitious book that was found by some idiot and takens seriously and god was made up because people didnt want to bother figuring out how the world really works.

Come on people, someone argue with me.

If nobody else shows up, I guess science wins.

[mattz1010]

ALSO one more thing, If the Bible is true and I live my life by it then when I die I would have had a good life and go to heven.


How can there be ONE heaven for all of us? Isn't heaven supposed to be bliss? I scarcely believe that everyone has the same view of heaven.
So then when I get to heaven, it will be a disappointment? No way.

I'd rather live my life for a *certain* person, life has more meaning that way.

... that's frightening. So true it's frightening...

>_>

Yep, this argument has died. Until some other fanatic without a clue of evolution comes along, claiming to know everything.

*pokes christians*

heeeeere silly christian fanatic... heeeeere boy. Or girl. Whichever. Or genderless meatloaf.

I try not to be confusing, or frightening. More or less... I try to be remembered by when I leave, not when I exist.

Lmao, its gonna be a long time before I leave.