Take the Atheist Challenge!!!

Oversimplification?
Lol.I call it a lie. I guess we can teach them whatever then right? Then when they are old enough they can decide.

quote:

---

his is where I get a little cranky. Theories can never be proven. Get your freaking facts straight.

---

shh, don't let the other scientists hear you say that.
I take science for what it is worth.

quote:

---

Noone claims to know it all. In fact, if you ask a physicist enough question about gravity, he will admit to you that he doesn't know. No scientist in his right mind would say that he knows all. Only you dogmatic people claim such a thing.

---

Thank you for further clarifying my point.
Please don't call me names either, that only describes where your coming from.

quote:

---

Science is very interested in finding out how we got here. But as to assigning a purpose, it's a philosophical question. Science doesn't care if there is a purpose or not. It only cares about the how and the when.
I'm very afraid. I think I'll try to buy a bullet proof vest now

---

How very scientifical of you, I really believe in evolution now.

I agree with people being delusional. Thats part of what kept me from God all these years.I am not talking about scientists either, I am talking about religious people and their silly traditions.Back to the 80/20 rule.

quote:

---

Each of us has to pick and choose as best we can. Science as a practive picks only those things which have some observableevidence to work with.

---

But if most of the scientists don't believe in God, then where is that going to lead us?

quote:

---

But if most of the scientists don't believe in God, then where is that going to lead us?

---

The truth hopefully, whatever it turns out to be. (If they find evidence of god, then it will become a relevent scientific theory)Unseul

---

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....

Surveys seem to show that about 40% of scientists are believers of one sort or another. While that's not a majority it seems to me to be a pretty good representation. I don't see that there's going to be a problem there.In any case, we were talking about evidence. If someone finds some evidence for God that can be examined the process will lead us there.

Since we all have contributed to this thread's demise, it is only a matter of time before an admin step in and kick our arses. You should really notice the hint that no creationist has rallied to your defense. Long term members on this forum who are creationists know better than to support bogus arguments.

---

The Laminator

​

No, it's just that it's hard to explain the technicality behind certain concepts to people who doesn't have the background.I have worked as a teacher's assistant in math class before. Even a simple thing such as the proof to the quadratic formula couldn't be understood by a lot of my students. I spent days going over and over step by step how you could arrive at the quadratic formula using AX2 + BX + C = 0. I thought it was better just to tell them to trust the formula at the time and the "why" will answer itself when they go on to a more advance class.Same thing with the theory of evolution. You couldn't even understand about the bacteria within a petri dish. I really don't expect you to understand what's behind all of it. For a starter, you could look up mitosis. Dodging the point. Dodging the point, again. Point dodging. Dodging the point. The point is dodged.

---

The Laminator

​

Good point. I was thinking about something else at the time.

---

The Laminator

​

Agreed, but if they don't look for him, they won't find him. We have instructions how.
Maybe when they discover the 4th dimension, we might find God, or some traces thereof.

Agreed, You make good points.
But there is probably thousands pieces of evidence, that all get trashed for some reason or another.
don't tell me because they aren't true.

Thats your opinion.
I have no arguement here. I merely stated that I feel God, and I explained how. The Bible explains how.
If you still consider me to be bogus, you are calling me a liar then.
Keep offending me, that will convince me of it all.
Everytime you insult me, you bring me closer to God.I believe I have not said anything to be untrue as of yet.

I guess my point is that you don't make any valid points whatsoever.Mathematical formulas, are proven, TOE is not, you can't compare the two.Who says I don't understand what happened in the petri dish. I want you to explain it to me, how that proves evolution. There is so much wrong with that experiment, and I will get to it all.
It is not the proof that you seek, not by a long shot.You really must stick to the topic, and quit the harassing, otherwise I will choose not to respond to you.

I don't "think or feel it is so." It simply is. Evolution is what describes the changing frequency of alleles in a population of biological organsisms, and in the case of the T4 phage experiment, that is precisely what is observed. This has to be one of the most ill-informed statements I've read on this forum in a long while.Why should evolution be able to "explain love," according to you? Why not quantum theory for that matter? What does it matter to the validity of evolutionary theory whether or not I happen to believe in life after death? I never said that it was impossible, so what do you think you're arguing against? It obviously isn't my position. You've obviously never heard of the luminiferous ether.Besides, life after death is not an object in reality -- it's an idea. We discover THINGS in reality, but we invent ideas. No. It would only invalidate your very narrow intepretation of it. There are other interpretations that harmonize perfectly fine with evolutionary theory. Balderdash, and this lays bare your ignorance of the pragmatism of the scientific method. Unfalsifiable hypotheses are scientifically useless since they can never be tested against reality.

How much of your science do you use from 200-300 years ago? Maybe it needs to be re-visited.Anyway I'm sure rhain is going to write me a book tonight, so I better go study the Bible.

No, the Theory of Evolution does not prove the Bible wrong, but it does show that the Bible should not be taken literally. Ofcourse, most Christians do not need Evolution to know that. The Bible is full of Parables and stories that were meant to teach a religious, moral or social lesson.For example, when Jesus tells of the Faithful Servant it does not matter if the story is true or something he made up to illustrate the point.It does not matter if the Good Samaritan existed or not, the point is to teach a lesson. IMHO we can know who GOD is by looking at the world and universe around us. You may believe that but all of the evidence seems to say otherwise. I doubt that any of us came from apes, they are way too evolved to be the common ancestor. You and I and everyone else though came from the ancestor of the apes. Does that bother you? If so, why?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Mathematical formulaes are just about the only thing that can be proven, because we make up the rules.No science can be truly proven, there can be evidence, even i suppose some proof depending on how you read into the word, but no absolute proof.The bacteria, i was actually thinking about doing something like this as my final year project, but taking it to the extremes that creationists seem to need.The original bacteria could be sequenced, and it would not have the specific resistance encoded in its DNA, otherwise it would be resistant. All of its progeny will be almost exact replicates of it, because most bacteria are asexual (though some transfer of plasmids can occur, this is still not the same, as we still start with just one cell). However mutations will occur along the way, and the number of bacteria in a lawn on the average petri dish is going to be some truly absurdly high number. With this number of bacteria there will have been a lot of mutation (prokaryotes (bacteria etc, eukaryotes are more advanced organisms, (basically "before" and "with" a seperated nucleus)) do not have as advanced mechanisms to prevent mistakes occuring in the replication) With all these mutations occuring, a few of them will have developed a resistance to the phage.This resistance probably involves the changing of a certain sequence (im not familiar with the experiment myself). The sequence will be the one that the virus uses to target the bacteria. Of course it could be due to other things such as restriction enzymes (enzymes that can destroy foreign DNA).Now the phage has torn through the population leaving only these select few, the select few can now spread once more forming a lawn. As Rrhian said if you then reinfect the phage can also mutate (tho i assume you must use extremely large amounts of phage so to allow for one to have had the necessary mutations.)Now this is evolution. Random mutation is acted upon by a selection process that allows one organism to thrive over its intraspecific competitors. Just because it is done in a lab means nothing, there have been cases of evolution occuring in the field as well. One example i learnt today was that of Fasicola (a trematode worm that infects sheep) these worms were taken from England to Austrailia in the sheep stocks, however the worm requires a certain species of snail to complete its life cycle, this snail does not occur in Aus, however the worm evolved and adapted so that it could complete its life cycle in another snail.Random mutation with some sort of selection pressure, it all just works up from there really.Unseuledit to correct spellings etcThis message has been edited by Unseul, 05-10-2004 04:49 PM

---

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....