Deville, I take it that you must not believe in the supernatural?
"Golden Compass" is an anti-religion film?
- Thread starter Calabrio
- Start date
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
He means God, angels, and demons you ninny.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
To me, those would fall under the mythological or spiritual genre, you dolt. You bring up a good point, why believe in demons, but not believe in vampires. zombies, ghost etc? They both have (about) equal proof of their existance.
I do believe in God (at least I'm willing to bet there's a far greater chance that a higher power exist, than not), I just don't subscribe to any the dogmatic tenets of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Zorastrism etc. etc. etc.
formerknown
Dedicated LVC Member
Since you posted a youtube link then I will as well. I think this is an interesting argument for Proof God is Real.
i'm sorry. i said i was out, but this just keeps going too far. i believe my first evaluation of you right fossten, when you take a book written by MAN to prove your point. the book you refer to is but an 1700+ year old story compiled by roman ideals of the time. they put in what they wanted, and only what they wanted, and through away the rest and did eveything they could to delete any other form of christianity of the day. your quotes are from a book that is heavily biased on what 1 ideal of the time was. it's rather quite laughable. belief in god has nothing to do with religion. using quotes from religious texts for proof is quite feeble. science, if you wish to steer this from that direction, is based on the best AVAILABLE EVIDENCE at the time. as new evidence comes to light, sometimes sequences or series of events change, but the overall ideal doesn't. if you don't believe technology is capable of things, why do you drive a car, or sit writing at this forum using electricity developed from proven methods of science? you don't have faith in science, yet everyday you have nothing but interaction with it. you haven't mentioned anything about the fossil records that keeps being brought up by me. you seem to evade that topic. i really don't believe you are 1 of those that believe the earth is only 6000 years old. you seem a little too well educated for that. something a person who has a strong ideal in god has trouble with as the proof against an omnipotent being becomes stronger is the diminishing importance he has in the universe. without that belief, they feel there is no purpose in life. it becomes meaningless. that is what you stated to me earlier fossten. that my life is meaningless without belief. but guess what, it's not. i don't need a belief in a higher power to find purpose. when reality sets in, you hold your crutch of god to carry you on. the only true purpose to life, at it's most basic form, is to survive and replicate. what you do with the time between birth and death is up to you. societies have created many things,and whether you choose to participate is up to you. life is not accident. it is something that comes about when conditions are right for it. do you believe earth is the only planet with life? you think earth is unique?. if it is, why would have god cared about this microscopic little spot within the vastness of the universe. if the universe was scaled down to the size of the earth, we are not even the size of an atom. yet god can pick us out of this vastness. now that is incomprehendable. hell, if even our own galaxy is scaled down to the size of the earth, our planet is still not even a grain of sand on a beach. it is just too staggering to believe that a single entity could be in control of all this. i will believe in the reality, not mythical things created to control societies, as all religions have been created to do so since there ever first has been one. after all, believing in god answers many questions that don't as yet have an answer. why question creation if it's god's work? because it isn't god's work, it's part of a natural order. the little you tube link talks about time and infinite time, but you must remember, time doesn't exist unless it is measured.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
hrmwrm,
I will not read any long rant that is not separated into paragraphs. If you want to converse and you cannot be more concise, then at least please make your lengthy rants more readable. Interpret this any way you like, but you are acting like a troll. I don't really care what you think of this response; My time is too valuable to waste trying to separate out all of your words.
I don't mind discussing this with you, please don't get me wrong. I am just asking for some courtesy.
I will not read any long rant that is not separated into paragraphs. If you want to converse and you cannot be more concise, then at least please make your lengthy rants more readable. Interpret this any way you like, but you are acting like a troll. I don't really care what you think of this response; My time is too valuable to waste trying to separate out all of your words.
I don't mind discussing this with you, please don't get me wrong. I am just asking for some courtesy.
Whether you do, or dont, there is plenty to be thankfull for in our beautiful land...and certainly we need to be thankful that we have the freedom to carry on discussions like this!
Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!
As for me, and my house, we will be thankful to God for everything He has done for us!
Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!
As for me, and my house, we will be thankful to God for everything He has done for us!
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
That guy is a narrow minded biased ass-clown... "We don't know, therefore, it MUST be God" (and not only God, but my view of God).
Time could be circular, like a loop, no real beginning, no real end. Just food for thought.
I do have a question though, if everything has to have a beginning, like time, space and matter, why is God exempt from these laws?
Happy Thanksgiving all!
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
God is not bound by the laws that He created.
Rev. 22:1 - I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
Colossians 1:16-17 - For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Isaiah 55:8 - For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
fossten, sorry about the last one. i will try to remeber to seperate into paragraphs a bit. but this last one, the beginning and the end? that leaves you to not question anything. which leads to the conclusion of blind faith. which would lead me to believe it is the blind leading the blind. that's not any way to run anything.
you are content to just leave things as gods way. i like to question things. why, when, how, where. i look for evidence of things. and i just don't see evidence stacking up in favour of something you are not supposed to question. sounds a little like a recently fallen empire. we tell you what to do, and you do as you are told. that is gods way.
i wouldn't compare myself to the pope, but neither would i to a criminal. you say any rational person can see there is a god. well, i'm a very rational, logical person who sees that it totally unbelievable from any stand point. especially from a religious point of view. from just a point of possibility, it is more plausible. but still highly unlikely.
you are content to just leave things as gods way. i like to question things. why, when, how, where. i look for evidence of things. and i just don't see evidence stacking up in favour of something you are not supposed to question. sounds a little like a recently fallen empire. we tell you what to do, and you do as you are told. that is gods way.
i wouldn't compare myself to the pope, but neither would i to a criminal. you say any rational person can see there is a god. well, i'm a very rational, logical person who sees that it totally unbelievable from any stand point. especially from a religious point of view. from just a point of possibility, it is more plausible. but still highly unlikely.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
I was answering Deville, not addressing you in that post. But you adding a pejorative to my faith by calling it blind will not advance the discussion. I might as well respond in kind by quoting Psalm 14:1 - how would that be for you?
If I really thought you were trying to find evidence of God, I would steer you in the right direction. As it stands right now, you appear to have your mind made up. So why bother, right?
Okay, do you believe there is no God or don't you? I'm confused now. You sound like you're waffling.
Let's put it this way: Have you ever seen a Tibetan yak? If not, would it be fair to say there are some things you do not know? Thomas Edison said, "We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything."
The statement "There is no God" is an absolute statement. To make that statement accurately, you must have absolute knowledge, correct? For example, saying "There is no gold in China" is absurd, because we all know there is gold in China, and we don't need absolute knowledge to know that.
Let's say that the circle below represents all the knowledge in the universe. The small white pixel represents all the knowledge that man has accumulated.
Is it possible, in the 99% of the knowledge you haven't yet come across, that there is ample evidence to prove that God exists?
If you are rational and reasonable, you must answer "Yes, it is possible, so I don't know."
Therefore you must say, "With the limited knowledge I have at present I've come to the conclusion that there is no God, but I really don't know."
If you are honest, you will say that. If you say that, then you are sincerely still seeking evidence that either proves or disproves the existence of God. If you are doing that, I have some sources that I can direct you to. If not, then we don't need to continue this peeing contest, do we?
i'm aware of who you were addressing. it is blind faith, is it not? that is speaking within the lines of me being particles and not existing. you carried it that way, not me. but i digress.
quoting things from a recently(historically speaking) book, still is not proof. yours is a re-write from an even older text. i'm not seeking god, but if you wish to steer me to true proof of existence instead of a bunch of double talk and reverse logic, i'd be happy to peruse your evidence. i have read through both old and new testaments, and they leave a rational mind quite lost in belief. i could get into it at length, but not now.
i'm not taking stabs at you, merely counter pointing you. i've also read through the 14 volumes of the gale encyclopedia of religion(version 2). i enjoy history and mankinds roots.
and once again, you leave it to undiscovered proof of gods existence, yet as knowledge grows, there is quickly becoming more evidence against. i would say more evidence against than for, but there is NONE for. i may annoy you, but no more than the annoyance given to me with your biblical quotations. perhaps i,m as narrow minded as the kid in mac 1's link, but to me you seem as narrow minded as well. maybe i might be a little agnostic, cause i'm sure if god started talking to me as he did to others 6000 or so years ago, i'd believe. (or seek psychiatric help) but until then, there is no god, no supernatural, no ghosts, only questions that have yet to be answered.
and unlike blind faith, i am free to ask these questions and seek answers. ps. i would edit my earlier post to be more ledgible, but that doesn't appear possible anymore.
quoting things from a recently(historically speaking) book, still is not proof. yours is a re-write from an even older text. i'm not seeking god, but if you wish to steer me to true proof of existence instead of a bunch of double talk and reverse logic, i'd be happy to peruse your evidence. i have read through both old and new testaments, and they leave a rational mind quite lost in belief. i could get into it at length, but not now.
i'm not taking stabs at you, merely counter pointing you. i've also read through the 14 volumes of the gale encyclopedia of religion(version 2). i enjoy history and mankinds roots.
and once again, you leave it to undiscovered proof of gods existence, yet as knowledge grows, there is quickly becoming more evidence against. i would say more evidence against than for, but there is NONE for. i may annoy you, but no more than the annoyance given to me with your biblical quotations. perhaps i,m as narrow minded as the kid in mac 1's link, but to me you seem as narrow minded as well. maybe i might be a little agnostic, cause i'm sure if god started talking to me as he did to others 6000 or so years ago, i'd believe. (or seek psychiatric help) but until then, there is no god, no supernatural, no ghosts, only questions that have yet to be answered.
and unlike blind faith, i am free to ask these questions and seek answers. ps. i would edit my earlier post to be more ledgible, but that doesn't appear possible anymore.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
You speak of all this evidence against the existence of God, yet you haven't furnished a shred of it in this discussion. I'm afraid your argument is empty and void. How does the saying go, put your money where your mouth is?
You won't believe the Bible, how about Einstein? Here are some of his quotes:
If the "kid" in my link is so narrow-minded then I suspect you and your apparently superior and enlightened mind can debunk his arguments of proof of God's existence. It's amazing how you can say there's no proof of God or a creator while at the same time are willing to believe that everything in the known universe was assembled by mere coincidence. I say "coincidence" because that's exactly what you have to think in order to believe that no god or creator exists.
And you call the "kid" in my link "narrow minded."
well, for proof, i put up in my "illedgible" post about the fossil record. all things were created at once, yet there are many forms of man, some existing in the same timeframe, and of course the dinosaurs that were here well before that. then there are a myriad of creatures that have existed before them. i know, lets go visit the creationists museum who have put a saddle on a dinosaur. darwins theory stands up just fine.
all elements created in the periodic table, are created by stars. that is a known fact. our solar system, pulled together about 4.5 billion years ago, is the remainder of a super nova star. left over gases pool together to create the sun, a much smaller star than the original. all other material pooled together to create the planets as they exist today. the evidence of this is the oort cloud left over beyond the orbit of pluto, where other large mass objects are being found.
proof of this is seen in great gas clouds left in space from past super novas. in the large magellanic cloud and the crab nebula are newly formed stars, created from left over dust and gas from a super nova. the known universe is 14 billion light years across. that is the farthest distance that light can be seen in the best telescopes of earth, both land and space based.
if all things were created at once, including space, time, and earth, how do you account for the huge discrepancy of time for the universe and our own solar system? and einstein lived at a time when we knew very little about our universe. edwin hubble was the first to discover that there aren't just stars up there, but many galaxies beyond our own. the start of the big bang theory was with his discovery that all galaxies are expanding away from each other.
when expansion is put in reverse, all things come back to one starting place. speaking of einstein, his theory also works in reverse. gather a huge enough force of energy, and you create mass. there are a lot of questions yet to be answered, but it makes a very logical and reasonable explanation to me. step out of your box and have a look fossten. the universe is amazing. and many things are not theory and conjecture. the size and age of the universe, the creation of our solar system. the exact beginnings of life are unknown because nobody was there to analyze the first simple forms, although science is close to figuring it out. the knowledge is there, if you care to seek it. but hide behind your blind faith, and you will not seek the answers to anything.
all elements created in the periodic table, are created by stars. that is a known fact. our solar system, pulled together about 4.5 billion years ago, is the remainder of a super nova star. left over gases pool together to create the sun, a much smaller star than the original. all other material pooled together to create the planets as they exist today. the evidence of this is the oort cloud left over beyond the orbit of pluto, where other large mass objects are being found.
proof of this is seen in great gas clouds left in space from past super novas. in the large magellanic cloud and the crab nebula are newly formed stars, created from left over dust and gas from a super nova. the known universe is 14 billion light years across. that is the farthest distance that light can be seen in the best telescopes of earth, both land and space based.
if all things were created at once, including space, time, and earth, how do you account for the huge discrepancy of time for the universe and our own solar system? and einstein lived at a time when we knew very little about our universe. edwin hubble was the first to discover that there aren't just stars up there, but many galaxies beyond our own. the start of the big bang theory was with his discovery that all galaxies are expanding away from each other.
when expansion is put in reverse, all things come back to one starting place. speaking of einstein, his theory also works in reverse. gather a huge enough force of energy, and you create mass. there are a lot of questions yet to be answered, but it makes a very logical and reasonable explanation to me. step out of your box and have a look fossten. the universe is amazing. and many things are not theory and conjecture. the size and age of the universe, the creation of our solar system. the exact beginnings of life are unknown because nobody was there to analyze the first simple forms, although science is close to figuring it out. the knowledge is there, if you care to seek it. but hide behind your blind faith, and you will not seek the answers to anything.
Who said all things were created at once? "when expansion is put in reverse, all things come back to one starting place." What does that prove? How did we go from darwinism to the big bang? They are two different theories? Why do you seem to wanna define the debate as between darwinism or a fundamentalist interpretation of creationism as laid out in the bible? Those are not the only two theories. Intelligent design is another one (and no it isn't just a different name for creationism). If darwin was right it doesn't do anything to disprove god, and vice versa.
In fact, there is very little evidence of the non-exsistance of God. The "evidence" cited is just cleverly spun as disproving God. You can't disprove what someone takes on faith, and most of these people claiming "proof" against the existance of God already take it on "faith" that God doesn't exist. Ultimately the existance of God evidence is all about how it is spun. You can never prove logically beyond a reasonable doubt that God does or doesn't exist. And it doesn't have anything to do with the darwinism debate. That debate hinges on weather, given the knowledge we have, darwins theory of evolution is reasonable, or if it is taken on faith. And the fact is, darwinism is taken on faith (or usually, ignorance); it doesn't hold to reason in light of what we know today. Darwinism can't explain the development of the eye, or other complex organs, let alone a change in species. The discovery of DNA disproves darwin.
In fact, there is very little evidence of the non-exsistance of God. The "evidence" cited is just cleverly spun as disproving God. You can't disprove what someone takes on faith, and most of these people claiming "proof" against the existance of God already take it on "faith" that God doesn't exist. Ultimately the existance of God evidence is all about how it is spun. You can never prove logically beyond a reasonable doubt that God does or doesn't exist. And it doesn't have anything to do with the darwinism debate. That debate hinges on weather, given the knowledge we have, darwins theory of evolution is reasonable, or if it is taken on faith. And the fact is, darwinism is taken on faith (or usually, ignorance); it doesn't hold to reason in light of what we know today. Darwinism can't explain the development of the eye, or other complex organs, let alone a change in species. The discovery of DNA disproves darwin.
shagdrum, dna does prove darwin. i don't see your train of thought there. and the explanation of the eye, there are many species that have a half developed eye, or simply even light sensors to tell darkness from light. check out a nautilus. it has a hollow eye with no cornea, that can detect shapes and shades of light. that would be a mid developement of the eye. it wouldn't be hard to go from there to a fully developed eye. that is the lamest arguement of both intelligent design and creationism.(and yes, they are the same, but take it how you like.)
putting big bang and evolution together explains the full picture of why we are here. you can't have life without somewhere to put it, now can you? and evolution is not on faith, it's based on fact's and evidence. intelligent design would be based on ignorance of fact. and your questioning of all things being created at once would put the religious text into doubt about god then, wouldn't it? so you would be a new wave raver of god who doesn't have a religious belief, just that god exists. and i'd like to know from you just what we know today that puts evolution out of reason?
do you believe there is life on other planets? i don't mean the ones in our solar system, but on the other planets now being discovered around other stars. and i'm not saying intelligent life, but any kind of life. to be truthfully honest shagdrum, you can not concretely prove god is or isn't with todays knowledge. even if we find life on other planets, that only proves earth is not unique. but i believe there is more than enough evidence to prove that a god as stated in religious text does not exist. mankind has invented gods in any civilization throughout history and geography to explain things and control the populace. a biblical god ideal has no answer to the fossil record that proves things started slow and simple on this planet, and man is but a couple of seconds on a 24 hour clock. but that would leave god as still only the creator of the universe. unless past mass extinctions were it's way of trying new life forms. but then, there are answers to that as well.
we will just have to agree to disagree, and leave it at that.
putting big bang and evolution together explains the full picture of why we are here. you can't have life without somewhere to put it, now can you? and evolution is not on faith, it's based on fact's and evidence. intelligent design would be based on ignorance of fact. and your questioning of all things being created at once would put the religious text into doubt about god then, wouldn't it? so you would be a new wave raver of god who doesn't have a religious belief, just that god exists. and i'd like to know from you just what we know today that puts evolution out of reason?
do you believe there is life on other planets? i don't mean the ones in our solar system, but on the other planets now being discovered around other stars. and i'm not saying intelligent life, but any kind of life. to be truthfully honest shagdrum, you can not concretely prove god is or isn't with todays knowledge. even if we find life on other planets, that only proves earth is not unique. but i believe there is more than enough evidence to prove that a god as stated in religious text does not exist. mankind has invented gods in any civilization throughout history and geography to explain things and control the populace. a biblical god ideal has no answer to the fossil record that proves things started slow and simple on this planet, and man is but a couple of seconds on a 24 hour clock. but that would leave god as still only the creator of the universe. unless past mass extinctions were it's way of trying new life forms. but then, there are answers to that as well.
we will just have to agree to disagree, and leave it at that.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
The exoplanets that have been discovered have not been determined to support life, and scientists know very little about them. Furthermore, it is easier to accept a creation explanation than an evolutionary one. There is no possibility of empirical verification of their origin, so in layman's terms they don't prove anything.
You're basing your entire proof that God doesn't exist on your belief in evolution. You point out the time of the universe and our solar system as a problem for creationists. I'm not exactly sure what you mean about that, but I have some articles for you to read. This article explains how the light-travel time problem is a bigger problem for Big Bang theorists than for creationists. You also have a big problem explaining the 300 mature galaxies in the redshift desert. If these galaxies are supposed to be in earlier stages of evolution due to their distance from us, they should be younger galaxies.
By the way, now evolutionists are beginning to abandon the theory that the Big Bang was even the actual beginning of the universe. They say that it was just a turning point and the result of a slow burning fuse. This string theory is based on no science and is nothing more than a made-up story. So your own trust in the Big Bang may be premature, as now your tale-spinners are coming up with something else. Of course, the "inflationary theory" is as close to actual Creationist theory itself, the only difference being that it leaves out an actual Creator. Sounds like denial to me.
As far as DNA proving evolution, you obviously have not done the research. DNA has always been the enemy of evolution. Think again. Evolutionists' chemical experiments attempting to synthesize life formation in the lab using DNA strands failed miserably and ruined their hypothesis.
If it isn't hard to go from a "proto-eye" to a fully developed eye, then show it. Don't just offer some half-ass story of how it could get there. And don't just assert, as you are doin'. For that matter explain the "proto-eye", and how that "evolved" into existance. The fact is the eye has never been explained through evolution, even Darwin admitted he couldn't explain it. So, if you can do better then darwin at his own theory, please do.
As to intelligent design; it isn't just another name for creationism. It is wierd that some think that if evolution is true it disproves God. It doesn't. It isn't even a daunting challenge to faith in God. It is interesting that believers in God don't need evolution to be false, but atheists need evolution to be true. One of Richard Dawkins most famous quotes was, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled athiest." This is why those who believe in evolution treat any doubts about evolution as religious heresy.
To have any discussion on the issue; a concrete definition must be given. Evolutionists try to confuse the issue (knowingly or unknowingly) by claiming certian things are evolution, when the are not. To be clear, evolution isn't selective breeding. Evolution is not the phenomenon of an existing species changing over the course of many years. In fact, evolution is not adaptive characteristics developing within a species at all. Dawin's theory says we get new species, not a taller version of the same one. Evolution is not proved by genetic similarities among living things, the heritability of characteristics, or the age of the Earth.
The theory of evolution is a three step process:
1: Random mutation of desirable attributes
2: Natural selection weeding out the "less fit" creatures (survival of the fittests)
3: Leading to the creation of a new species
P
psungee
Guest
Agree! They are not mutually exclusive. While I'm inclined to believe God, in some form, exists, I don't think one can prove or disprove such an existence. Faith, after all, is (by definition) the belief in something in the absence of proof.
While I won't dispute this, I would dispute that this definition is all-encompassing. For example, it was pointed out to me, by a dentist, that some humans are starting to loose their dog-teeth (upper cuspids) ... or, at least, they are changing their shape because we no longer use them (in the same way as humanity used to, at least).
I always believed (as I was taught - and as seem logical to me, at least) part of evolution was "Adaptation by a plant or animal to an evolving change in environmental condition related to that life form."
DunItRight
Dedicated LVC Member
I seen previews for this movie the other day!
It looks good if you ask me. Looks like a movie that simply helps to encourage the standard imagination into having a bit of fun.
It looks good if you ask me. Looks like a movie that simply helps to encourage the standard imagination into having a bit of fun.
Then you weren't taught the specifics. Adaptation and Darwinian evolution are totally different things. Evolution, as defined by Darwin is as I described above. Evolution can have many different meanings; the most basic being "change over time". In this sense evolution, and adaptation are the same thing and no one questions this evolution. Biological evolution has additional meaning. Some biologists define biological evolution as, "a change is gene frequences over generations." My genes are different from my parents and my childrens genes will be different from mine. Again, this definition of biological evolution is uncontroversial. Charles Darwin didn't use the term biological evolution, but instead, "decent with modification." In a limited sense, this is even uncontroversial. It happens all the time within existing species; breeding race horses, breeding prize winning dogs, ect. Darwin defined evolution very specifically, and that definition is what is controversial.
The dentist example you cite would be adaptation, or "decent with modification" under Darwin. Adaptation and evolution (in the Darwinian sense) are two very distinct and different things.
Dawinists exploit the many meanings of "evolution" to distract critics. Eugenie Scott recommends: "define evolution as an issue of the history of the planet: as the way we try to understnad change through time. The present is different from the past. Evolution happened, there is no debate within science as to whether it happened, and so on...I have used this approach at the college level". Scott says that once she gets agreement on that idea, she gradually introduces them to "the Big Idea", that all species are related through descent from a common ancestor. "Darwin called this 'descent with modification' and it is still the best definition of evolution we can use." This underhanded tactic is known as "equivocation"; changing the meaning of the term in the middle of an argument.
first, fossten; i never said the planets discovered yet support life. don't put things in there that i didn't say. i merely asked if you(shagdrum actually) believe there is life elsewhere, or if earth is unique. and the rest is just double talk to what i say. you carry on about things i don't even say, and attribute them to me. i don't base my disbelief in god solely on evolution. and as for your links, they are based from religious background physicists and are your own propaganda for perpetuating the god myth. when you can get proof from science based sites and not dogma based sites, i'll peruse them. but thanks for the biology lesson. oxygen didn't exist until plants were formed.
quite frankly, i've got better things to do with my time than run around finding links on the web. good thing you found them all from 1 site.
and shagdrum; evolution does prove a god based within the religious texts doesn't exist. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html
here are a few little movies you may wish to peruse if you have time. and as i did say, if you take the religious ideal out, and believe a god started the universe, and everything falls in place after according to known facts, then there is no proof either way.
you may want to try these links as well
http://richarddawkins.net/growingupintheuniverse and from a site you will call propaganda http://www.atheists.org/evolution/index.html no i'm not a member, never been there before. but thanks for forcing me to find a few links. i now have some more places to visit for info. and heres a little article about the true wording of "theory" and what it represents in scientific circles. theory doesn't mean "probable" http://richarddawkins.net/article,1...h-Only-When-Theory-Becomes-Law,Clive-Thompson
i could waste more time finding more links, but they would seem biased to you because they aren't from your own biased based sight trying to prove the opposite. quite frankly, i'm tired of running in circles with you. if you think something is true, you will twist the reality any way you wish to make your point. behe is shot down in the pbs links. i think in part 8. say what you will, link to what you will, i will continue to believe in reality, not what is fed to. i'm a free thinker, i don't need to find answers to come to my conclusions. the true evidence is out there, if you choose to seek it. if you look for your evidence from true unbiased science sites fossten, i wouldn't see the evidence as laughable. that sight reminds me of the books that get left by the saturday door knockers. believe in us, we have all the answers you need.
as final note about the starting of this thread, if this show is good, i'll watch and let my daghter watch it. she believes in god, as does my wife. but they have that right and freedom. ever since the courtcase about the teaching of the origin of the species, god believing people have felt soo threatened that they have launched campaigns to disprove it. i wonder why?
quite frankly, i've got better things to do with my time than run around finding links on the web. good thing you found them all from 1 site.
and shagdrum; evolution does prove a god based within the religious texts doesn't exist. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html
here are a few little movies you may wish to peruse if you have time. and as i did say, if you take the religious ideal out, and believe a god started the universe, and everything falls in place after according to known facts, then there is no proof either way.
you may want to try these links as well
http://richarddawkins.net/growingupintheuniverse and from a site you will call propaganda http://www.atheists.org/evolution/index.html no i'm not a member, never been there before. but thanks for forcing me to find a few links. i now have some more places to visit for info. and heres a little article about the true wording of "theory" and what it represents in scientific circles. theory doesn't mean "probable" http://richarddawkins.net/article,1...h-Only-When-Theory-Becomes-Law,Clive-Thompson
i could waste more time finding more links, but they would seem biased to you because they aren't from your own biased based sight trying to prove the opposite. quite frankly, i'm tired of running in circles with you. if you think something is true, you will twist the reality any way you wish to make your point. behe is shot down in the pbs links. i think in part 8. say what you will, link to what you will, i will continue to believe in reality, not what is fed to. i'm a free thinker, i don't need to find answers to come to my conclusions. the true evidence is out there, if you choose to seek it. if you look for your evidence from true unbiased science sites fossten, i wouldn't see the evidence as laughable. that sight reminds me of the books that get left by the saturday door knockers. believe in us, we have all the answers you need.
as final note about the starting of this thread, if this show is good, i'll watch and let my daghter watch it. she believes in god, as does my wife. but they have that right and freedom. ever since the courtcase about the teaching of the origin of the species, god believing people have felt soo threatened that they have launched campaigns to disprove it. i wonder why?