quote:
Archon was listening to Cher while typing:
All right. But just one thing. Evolution has never been proved. There is more evidence supporting a creator than a remote chance as the origin of life. Stating evolution as anything other than faith, goes against the majority of the principals behind the scientific process.
That is complete and utter bullshit.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
ACES! Another post by Rodent King:
Sorry, because leading a peaceful Christian life can't be measured, it must not count for anything.
Not in a discussion about abortion it doesn't. It's deflecting the discussion away from the fact that you're basically saying "because I said so" for your reasoning.
quote:
Archon had this to say about Tron:
All right. But just one thing. Evolution has never been proved. There is more evidence supporting a creator than a remote chance as the origin of life. Stating evolution as anything other than faith, goes against the majority of the principals behind the scientific process.
Oh is that so? Where's all this evidence you speak of?
quote:
Archon stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
All right. But just one thing. Evolution has never been proved. There is more evidence supporting a creator than a remote chance as the origin of life. Stating evolution as anything other than faith, goes against the majority of the principals behind the scientific process.
Archon, that is the biggest load of bullshit that you've managed to spew forth to date.
Evolution has been scientifically proven, more than once, and has been thoroughly documented. I'd like to see that evidence that supports a creator - really, I do. Please, post it. With references as to where you got it from please.
Man.. you just dug yourself a hole you can't get out of, but go ahead and try it anyway. It'll be amusing.
ben(at)netmastering(dot)nl
quote:
There was much rejoicing when Karnaj said this:
That is complete and utter bullshit.
Science is incapable of proving absolute truth, only drawing conclusions based on observations. Unfortunatly, no one was there to SEE macro-evolution, and no one has provided any reliable evidence for it, so it can hardly state it as truth.
quote:
MadCat the 2nd was naked while typing this:
and has been thoroughly documented.
...
quote:
Archon had this to say about Knight Rider:
All right. But just one thing. Evolution has never been proved. There is more evidence supporting a creator than a remote chance as the origin of life. Stating evolution as anything other than faith, goes against the majority of the principals behind the scientific process.
Hahahah!
Please post your evidence.
I will post, no, point you to libraries full of "counter-evidence". 
According to the bible....
We're all here because of incest...
Yet according to fossil evidence, and DNA evidence, we're all here from evolving from the pirmates...
Hmm so it's basicaly believing a book that has been grossly mistranslated, retranslated, writen a thousand times over full...
or believing scientific evidence (note: not *proof* nothing in the scientific world is an absolute) of thousands of years worth of fossiles, studies, and tests...
>.<
quote:
There was much rejoicing when Archon said this:
Science is incapable of proving absolute truth, only drawing conclusions based on observations. Unfortunatly, no one was there to SEE macro-evolution, and no one has provided any reliable evidence for it, so it can hardly state it as truth.
Really? So science is incapable of that?
I wonder what that would mean for your computer, your car, your house, your healthcare.. need I go on? If science was incapable of proving absolute truth, you wouldn't be posting this right now because then practically nothing we enjoy in our modern world could exist.
And by your words, since nobody was around to witness God creating the world, and nobody has supplied any reliable evidence for it, you can't state it as the truth.
Spanked.
ben(at)netmastering(dot)nl
quote:
Archon had this to say about Optimus Prime:
Science is incapable of proving absolute truth, only drawing conclusions based on observations. Unfortunatly, no one was there to SEE macro-evolution, and no one has provided any reliable evidence for it, so it can hardly state it as truth.
Dude, I don't know what church you belong to, but I seriously think you need to find a new one that DOESN'T hand out crack and LSD during Sunday services.
quote:
MadCat the 2nd wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
I wonder what that would mean for your computer, your car, your house, your healthcare.. need I go on? If science was incapable of proving absolute truth, you wouldn't be posting this right now because then practically nothing we enjoy in our modern world could exist.
Hence, the drawing conclusions bit. "Spanked."
quote:
There was much rejoicing when Archon said this:
Hence, the drawing conclusions bit. "Spanked."
Yes, but people have *ALWYAS* had drawn their own conclutions from the bible!
ohnose! *spanks now* !!
quote:
Drysart painfully thought these words up:
Not in a discussion about abortion it doesn't. It's deflecting the discussion away from the fact that you're basically saying "because I said so" for your reasoning.
That wasn't about abortion. That was in regards to your exageration that Christianity's only done 6 good things in the last 2000 years. This whole thread's been off the topic of abortion for the past two pages or so.
Thinking about your posts
(and billing you for it) since 2001
quote:
Archon painfully thought these words up:
Hence, the drawing conclusions bit. "Spanked."
Uh, I just disproved your bullshit - so that would indeed constitute that you just got spanked good.
Please, be my guest, and try and back up your mindless drivel with some cold hard facts. I want facts, the references, and maybe then I'll consider debating something with you. Until that time, you're spanked, and spanked good.
Be gone, boy.
ben(at)netmastering(dot)nl
quote:
So quoth Aanile:
Sooooooooooo.....According to the bible....
We're all here because of incest...
Yet according to fossil evidence, and DNA evidence, we're all here from evolving from the pirmates...
Hmm so it's basicaly believing a book that has been grossly mistranslated, retranslated, writen a thousand times over full...
or believing scientific evidence (note: not *proof* nothing in the scientific world is an absolute) of thousands of years worth of fossiles, studies, and tests...
>.<
Let's not forget how many times the bible contradicts itself... some of the contradictions are minor, yet...
Things like... Should we own slaves?
Does God change his mind?
Are we punished for our parents' sins?
Is God peaceable?
Was Jesus peaceable?
Was Jesus trustworthy?
Are we all sinners?
As a mother, and a woman I will say that I am Pro-Choice.
However, even though I can no longer procreate, I personally couldn't do an abortion except for life-threatening reasons.
I won't touch the religous crap.. because relgion is crap made by man, and it is an everlasting argument that causes 1,000 year wars.
Intolerance is bullshit.
quote:
MadCat the 2nd obviously shouldn't have said:
If science was incapable of proving absolute truth, you wouldn't be posting this right now because then practically nothing we enjoy in our modern world could exist.
Science proves nothing. It never has proven anything. It cannot prove anything. Science can only observe, theorise, and create models. Using models, make predictions to within the point that it will work %99.99999 of the time. Never proves.
I just felt like arguing that point.
This is the starting point. It's pretty hard to go wrong here, and the Theory of Evolution hasn't.
2.Develop a hypothesis. A hypothesis is an educated guess which is specific and testable.
Error #1, evolution is NOT testable. Thus from this point on it is fundamentally flawed.
3.Test the hypothesis. The procedure must be designed to answer the specific problem.
Again, not testable.
4.Evaluate the data. Once you have finished
your experiment, you must determine if the data collected answers the hypothesis. Often the data is unconvincing or the hypothesis is disproved. When this happens you might need to think of a new procedure for your experiment.
There has been hordes of data presented to validate evolution. But from where?
5.Identify a new problem. Strong scientific inquiry often produces more questions than it answers! Many important scientific discoveries have been the result of questions raised in unrelated experiments.
Unfortunatly this step was skipped all together. Data is presented, acepted, and they procede to construct their "proof" even as their data is proven incorrect or inconclusive. All that's left is an empty shell. It remains standing on faith alone, as the very people who established it can only hope to present more information faster than it can be discredited.
Honestly, the whole deal is very subjective. On both sides. Data can be interpreted any number of ways and considering it's humans doing the considering i seriously doubt you can find any conclusions that were not influenced by a bias.
The same falacies that face the Theory of Evolution face Creationism. Yet Creationism is labeled as blind faith and Evolution is taken as scientific truth.
I shouldn't have even brought my side up... *sigh*
quote:
Archon had this to say about dark elf butts:
Science is incapable of proving absolute truth, only drawing conclusions based on observations. Unfortunatly, no one was there to SEE macro-evolution, and no one has provided any reliable evidence for it, so it can hardly state it as truth.
That's why it's called a "theory". You're obviously not familiar with the scientific process.
quote:
Tegadil obviously shouldn't have said:
Science proves nothing. It never has proven anything. It cannot prove anything. Science can only observe, theorise, and create models. Using models, make predictions to within the point that it will work %99.99999 of the time. Never proves.I just felt like arguing that point.
Science can conclusively prove things - Newton's law? How would you say that's not conclusively proven? Hmm?
ben(at)netmastering(dot)nl
quote:
A sleep deprived Tegadil stammered:
Science proves nothing. It never has proven anything. It cannot prove anything. Science can only observe, theorise, and create models. Using models, make predictions to within the point that it will work %99.99999 of the time. Never proves.I just felt like arguing that point.
Science proved that the earth is round instead of flat.
Science proved that the earth revolves around the sun, rather than vice-versa.
Science proved that each star is a separate sun, with its own planets. It proved that there are millions of suns, millions of planets, and millions of galaxies.
And I think it's safe to say that we know these things 100%, not 99.9999999999999% 
[ 11-17-2002: Message edited by: Karnaj ]
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Drysart had this to say about Robocop:
Still waiting on all that "evidence" you said you had, by the way.
if it's one of those websites.... lock the thread
ben(at)netmastering(dot)nl
hahahaah.... now there's someone who really believes in their convictions.
Here's a hint: If your point of view can't stand up to scrutiny, chances are it's wrong.
quote:
Aanile Model 2000 was programmed to say:
lock the thread
YEAS!
ben(at)netmastering(dot)nl
quote:
Archon had this to say about (_|_):
1. Identify the problem or question which is the central point of your scientific investigation.This is the starting point. It's pretty hard to go wrong here, and the Theory of Evolution hasn't.
2.Develop a hypothesis. A hypothesis is an educated guess which is specific and testable.
Error #1, evolution is NOT testable. Thus from this point on it is fundamentally flawed.
'Testable' can mean more than just observations. 'Testing' something means showing evidence that it's true. This can mean many things.
You 'test' water temperature by touch. Your evidence is in the reaction your nerves give you.
The evidence presented is easy : DNA similarities between sapiens and simians, and fossil evidence. They 'test' this by A) Carbon dating and comparing the changes in fossils over a specified time period, and B) Comparing the fossils of simians from ancient times, to the skeletal structure of simians from modern times. From there they also observe simians in development and compare it to humans. For the first three months, simian and human behavioral development is damn near identical, with each progressing and 'learning' at a similar rate, displaying similar traits and behavioral pattersn. It's only after the 3rd month of development that the simian's mental growth seems to start falling seriously short of a human's.
quote:
3.Test the hypothesis. The procedure must be designed to answer the specific problem.Again, not testable.
Wrong again!
quote:
4.Evaluate the data. Once you have finished
your experiment, you must determine if the data collected answers the hypothesis. Often the data is unconvincing or the hypothesis is disproved. When this happens you might need to think of a new procedure for your experiment.There has been hordes of data presented to validate evolution. But from where?
From the fossils collected and the comparisons between modern simians found. From the obvious growth and change in fossil structures showing the minor, gradual changes from primate, to simian, to australopithecus, to habilis, to erectus, to sapien.
Comparing the skeletal structure of those earlier simians and primates to modern ones shows an undeniable relationship there, and comparing DNA of simians to modern humans shows yet another undeniable relationship.
spanked.
quote:
Khyron had this to say about the Spice Girls:
Let's not forget how many times the bible contradicts itself... some of the contradictions are minor, yet...Things like... Should we own slaves?
Does God change his mind?
Are we punished for our parents' sins?
Is God peaceable?
Was Jesus peaceable?
Was Jesus trustworthy?
Are we all sinners?
Just reading through that site, i can see over and over verses taken out of context, meanings misinterpreted, and culture misunderstood. There's even a few in there where one side of the vs. in no way has any discrepancy(sp?) with the other side.
Seeing as how you bolded the parents sin bit, i assume that would be your strogest point.
The first corinthians first can be discarded out of hand as it completely taken out of context. What that verse refers to is the fall, when the bible states that sin entered the world and corrupted men and the very world itself.
Actually most of the time when you see an old testament verse quoted against a new testament verse, the reason they seem to dissagree is because they are fundamentally different. Christ was the herald of the "new covenant". Paul talks quite a bit about how the "law" is good but no longer applies.
The other two:
Exodus 20:5 "For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation." (Repeated in Deuteronomy 5:9)
Exodus 34:6-7 " . . . The Lord God, merciful and gracious, . . . that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to
the fourth generation."
They conveniently forgot to the mention the last bit that goes with each verse:
Exodus 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; (KJV)
These verses in actuality compliment, not contradict each other.
The bible is *ALWAYS* taken out of contexts and twisted to suit the needs of those who preach it!!
[ 11-17-2002: Message edited by: Aanile ]
*spanking numba 2* !!
quote:
Archon spewed forth this undeniable truth:
These verses in actuality compliment, not contradict each other.
How come you won't live to be 400 years old then?
Wasn't short life a punishment?
Carbon dating has been proven completely inacurate over 60,000 years, though some claim it may be acurate at up to 75,000 years. Even these calculations assume that the rate of decay has remained constant, and the amounts present have also remained constant, neither of which can be proved as we were not at the estimated dates to observe this.
DNA and structural similarities don't seem to refute creationism in any way to me. If you have a mold that works, why not use it again? If they had a "common ancestor" from which they both evolved, why would they have evolved any different at all?
quote:
Drysart probably says this to all the girls:
How come you won't live to be 400 years old then?Wasn't short life a punishment?
Consequences are not the same as punishment. God isn't saying, "Oh man, Adam and Eve fucked up," and spanking you. He's saying, "Oh man, Adam and Eve fucked up," and letting us deal with the repercussions. Responsibility plays a major part in the free will God has given us.
quote:
Archon's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
Exodus 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; (KJV)
Yep, now tell me, bible boy, which 'them' is he speaking of; the fathers, or the children?
'The third and fourth generation of them that hate me'
'The grand children and great-grandchildren, of those fathers who hate me.'
Or... 'The grand children and great-grandchildren, of those children who hate me.'
Personally, I rather think the first makes a wee bit more sense, but that's just me.
quote:
Archon wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
Consequences are not the same as punishment. God isn't saying, "Oh man, Adam and Eve fucked up," and spanking you. He's saying, "Oh man, Adam and Eve fucked up," and letting us deal with the repercussions. Responsibility plays a major part in the free will God has given us.
... you just contradicted yourself.
quote:
And I was all like 'Oh yeah?' and Archon was all like:
DNA and structural similarities don't seem to refute creationism in any way to me. If you have a mold that works, why not use it again? If they had a "common ancestor" from which they both evolved, why would they have evolved any different at all?
As life spread, it entered into different environments, which necessitated different evolutions. Also consider that there are millions of possible mutations an organism could go through, any number of which are beneficial. Also consider that there's more than one branch on the family tree of life, and that a beneficial mutation in one doesn't automatically appear in any other one.
Oh, and still waiting on that "evidence" of yours.
