The Official Story of Christianity

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Spoken as IF the theory of evolution isn't the biggest 'fairy tale' ever dropped upon the human race.

The Theory of Evolution is considered fact by roughly 99.98% of the scientific community. If you feel comfortable going against what hundreds of thousands of scientists consider as fact, then by all means go ahead.

I’m willing to wager that you have absolutely know idea what the Theory of Evolution says and haven’t spent more than a few hours (if that) studying it.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Spoken as IF the theory of evolution isn't the biggest 'fairy tale' ever dropped upon the human race.

The Theory of Evolution is considered fact by roughly 99.98% of the scientific community.

Appeal to numbers. Fallacy. Just because a certain number believe a certain thing is true doesn't make it true. Secondly, that is a made up number, roughly 30% of the scientific community believes in creation. Thirdly, the fathers of "modern science" believed in God.

If you feel comfortable going against what hundreds of thousands of scientists consider as fact, then by all means go ahead.

Again, appeal to numbers and now ad nauseam.

I’m willing to wager that you have absolutely know idea what the Theory of Evolution says and haven’t spent more than a few hours (if that) studying it.

I went to a public school. It's all I studied. To date it still has no "proof" in the fossil record, and to date is still unrepeatable and unverifiable in the laboratory.

("NO" idea)




[edit on 5-9-2008 by NOTurTypical]

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I went to a public school. It's all I studied. To date it still has no "proof" in the fossil record, and to date is still unrepeatable and unverifiable in the laboratory.

Yes, there is ample proof. The evidence that supports evolution is so overwhelming only someone ignorant would reject it.

Where is your source that 30% of scientists believe in creation as opposed to evolution? I call a lie.

Haven't had internet in a few days, looks like we got off topic. Thanks for posting though, i know i didn't explain my original post very well.

I understand about the people who defend the bible, partly anyway. Why not believe it right? If it makes your life better that good i suppose. But literally or symbolically it really makes no sense. If the bible is taken literally then it should be treated as fiction. If we take it figuratively then that means god has to resort to such absurdities to communicate with the stupid humans.

I'm the type of person that prefers straight talk, i would never support a god that goes around hiding his intentions with silly parables. That sounds more like people that don't want to get killed for talking taboo in public. I like sublimity in music such as bach or mozart, and once in a while i look a good movie that's sublime. but i pretty much prefer everything else straight.

The evidence can be likened to a pile of objects that a blind prisoner confined to a cell has piled up as a result of blindly stumbling and feeling around. This evidence he is convinced explains what is outside the prison.

If the blind men in the prison vastly outnumber the men who have been given the ability to go in and out of the prison freely and their blind data contradicts what those say they know is outside.

Does this then make the prisoners right and therefore discredit the reality outside?

Who then is ignorant?

The men who freely go and see outside, or the blind men in the prison?

Also if the men in the prison are blind, how can they know for sure that those who go in and out of the prison can see?

Or are they simply clinging to scientific guesswork?

Clinging to theories is comparable to death and hell, here and now of course.

Originally posted by SilentGem

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I went to a public school. It's all I studied. To date it still has no "proof" in the fossil record, and to date is still unrepeatable and unverifiable in the laboratory.

Yes, there is ample proof. The evidence that supports evolution is so overwhelming only someone ignorant would reject it.

Where is your source that 30% of scientists believe in creation as opposed to evolution? I call a lie.

I can play your game if you wish.

Where is your evidence that '99.9%' of scientists support evolution? You ask for my 'source', yet I have re-read your post and can't find your 'source' for your 99.9% claims.

Hypocrisy.

Would you mind sharing some of this "ample proof" in the fossil record. Or "ample proof" of evolution being repeated or verified in the laboratory?

Lastly, can you read? I'm not 'ignorant' to Evolution, being educated in government schools it was ALL I was taught. Do you even understand the definition of "ignorant"???

[edit on 5-9-2008 by NOTurTypical]

ig·no·rant (gnr-nt)
adj.

1. Lacking education or knowledge.
2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3. Unaware or uninformed.

Seems you are ignorant to the definition of "ignorant".

Now, all I was taught in schools was the theory of evolution. I'm far from 'ignorant' of this theory.

Originally posted by SilentGem

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I went to a public school. It's all I studied. To date it still has no "proof" in the fossil record, and to date is still unrepeatable and unverifiable in the laboratory.

Yes, there is ample proof. The evidence that supports evolution is so overwhelming only someone ignorant would reject it.

Really? It also appears that the more we learn about science today, the more people are changing their opinions on Darwinism.

Instead of creation scientists losing supporters it appears they are GAINING them.

As Science Digest reported:

"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities… Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science."

Hmmm, "impressive credentials in science".

Oh, and on a side-note..

My I.Q. has been tested at 141,..

I reject Evolution.

Religious claims are not logic, therfor incorrect.
Religious claims are contradictory.

"Life is a test", but then 'God' is also omnimistic - knows past present and future, therfor, why would 'he' need to set a test to find out an outcome, if he already knows the future?

Mary was a virgin? Mary was human. We know chicks can't get pregnat without screwing, therfor, she was not a virgin, or, got some up her.

Bibles a book > books can be written by humans > humans can lie. Logicly possible for the Bible to be a lie.

Religion is beleif, not fact. If religion was fact, it would be science, and could be pre-produced.

If you saw something, you may have been tricked. Take a good magician to Africa, so some peasants some vanishing tricks, and they will beleive it.
You may have also had a delusion attack.

The Bible speaks of the things which happen in 3 dimensional 'world's' only. Its explinations are less than modern science. Why doesn't it speak of thing thousands of years in our future?

Claims claims claims... Where are the scientific fact?

Tell insecure people what they wanna here > support the church > Church leaders have social power.

Wow, so 99% of people beleive something, doesn't make it true. Most people beleived Al-Qaeda where behind New York's attack in 2001, doesn't mean its true.

reply to post by Nikolas

"Life is a test", but then 'God' is also omnimistic

What is "omnimistic"? Do you mean "omniscient"?

Religion is beleif, not fact. If religion was fact, it would be science, and could be pre-produced.

Religion is not a belief, it can be verified on any given Sunday in any given church. Just 1 person following a church dogma is proof that religion exists.

There is irrefutable proof that people practice religion in this world, that is not up for debate. People have been practicing religion since the first pieces of recorded history. It's fact, religion exists.

Now, on the other hand, if you meant "faith" when you typed "religion", then I can point out that science needs "proof", faith just needs "evidence".

Why doesn't it speak of thing thousands of years in our future?

WOW, I mean wow...

From Genesis to Revelation the books of the bible have verses that deal with events in the future.

Was your Q a serious one?

Wow, so 99% of people beleive something, doesn't make it true. Most people beleived Al-Qaeda where behind New York's attack in 2001, doesn't mean its true.

You are correct, that's why I laugh when people use the same appeal to numbers fallacy when trying to "prove" the theory of Evolution to be true.

Creationists just expect too much from their theories. The theory of evolution isn't so much to get worked up over. It makes no difference one way or another. Unless you're a scientist whose job depends on evolution, or a teacher, or just happen to be interested in it then it doesn't matter. It's just fodder for the mind to try and learn something off of.

Unless someone can use evolution to turn a chicken nugget into a 12oz t-bone with mushrooms and onions then I could really care less wheter or not it's true. It's meaningless as of now. Oh sure someone will probably come up with a use for it 50-100 years from now. But who cares?

Actually there are current practical applications of evolutionary theory in things such as antibiotics and pesticides. Here's a short article about it: evolution-101.blogspot.com...

I should mention though that we seem to be getting off topic here so I'll supply a thought to hopefully get everyone back on track. The thought is - The Bible... what's up with that? Discuss.

[edit on 9-9-2008 by Rock Lobster]