Evil-ution

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Science does not require you to have faith your chair will support you. Its design is based upon science (aka math) that, if you are so inclined to disbelieve, can be researched and proven by you yourself before you ever chose to sit down. Religion does not offer this sort of verification, it relies solely on faith.

There's a reason theories must be published, which is to put them out there for the community to support or refute with their own testing. It takes nearly an infinite amount of testing to prove a theory, but only one to disprove it. Can religion say the same thing? Religion cant even claim it has any mechanism for which to test and validate or invalidate any claims made. This is the fundamental flaw in ecrack's claim that religion is intellectually equal to science.

 

[MANTI5 10+ year member]

Also someone said not all scientist wholeheartedly agree with life beginning from evolution, here's a neat little documentary: "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" (2008) Full Movie - YouTube

 

[denim 5,000+ posts]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJfqmZ0cuek

Whoops.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

The sound is not working on my computer atm, so I cannot really respond to replies that are just a link to a youtube video.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

Science does not require you to have faith your chair will support you. Its design is based upon science (aka math) that, if you are so inclined to disbelieve, can be researched and proven by you yourself before you ever chose to sit down. Religion does not offer this sort of verification, it relies solely on faith.
There's a reason theories must be published, which is to put them out there for the community to support or refute with their own testing. It takes nearly an infinite amount of testing to prove a theory, but only one to disprove it. Can religion say the same thing? Religion cant even claim it has any mechanism for which to test and validate or invalidate any claims made. This is the fundamental flaw in ecrack's claim that religion is intellectually equal to science.

My extreme example was to point out that you can never eliminate the possibility of doubt. You could do all the math in the world, but in the end you still could sit down and the thing could break. You ultimately rely on faith in everything you do. That said, the line at which you refuse to accept your result is the issue in question here

 

[MANTI5 10+ year member]

So much of that video takes no account of Bible truth, just what someone claimed.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

My extreme example was to point out that you can never eliminate the possibility of doubt. You could do all the math in the world, but in the end you still could sit down and the thing could break. You ultimately rely on faith in everything you do. That said, the line at which you refuse to accept your result is the issue in question here

The only faith required in your chair example is that we must have faith our math (aka science) is accurate and complete. Science demands that if we do this due diligence, and the chair still collapses, that we re-evaluate our theory and refine it until it no longer fails any test we can place upon it. Religion does not include this intellectual criteria, in any way. Quite the opposite, it requires that we simply believe based upon faith, and the written accounts in a text that every day gives ground to what science proves to be inaccurate.

 

---------- Post added at 01:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:23 PM ----------

 

So much of that video takes no account of Bible truth, just what someone claimed.

Good one, I chuckled.

 

[MANTI5 10+ year member]

Much of what he said had nothing to do with what is ACTUALLY in the Bible. Many people believe so strongly in things they THINK the Bible says but is nowhere to be found. For instance, how many people have you heard quote the Bible when they say "money is the root of all evil"?

 

[ahole-ic]

I already explained what rule was broken. Does my name contain the word ahole? Stop playing innocently stupid, you called a name which is a clear rule violation, you got your post deleted for it, now you want to be all butt hurt over it. Lesson learned, if you want to have your opinion heard, dont break the rules doing it. Capiche?
And this still does not negate the fact that neither post deleted contained a shred of data on-topic. I quoted both posts here, they were nothing but personal attacks, in the tech section. Are you suggesting you dont know the rules of this forum?

I am suggesting that you have no idea what you're talking about. You didn't answer the question asked which went something like, why were those two comments singled out, when aholic is in almost all of my other posts? Also, it's not a curseword or a negative name and is in violation of absolutely no rule. you are making rules up and lying about them. Yes I'm calling you out. You're lying about rules. If a person were to remove "U-D-I-O" from your name to shorten it, they come to the same conclusion. A hyphen is suitable to show they shortened it. You would have no problem if someone called me "crack". Neither would I because I'm not a baby. Therefore since there is no rule saying I can't shorten a name, and since a-holic isn't a curseword or a putdown, you're a liar for saying so. Capiche? Stop being so butthurt and egotistical. Also, those posts predicted accurately what you were trying to do, and reinforced exactly what went down there. I gave my opinion and was attacked by a mod and ultimately banned for it because the mod has a superiority complex and is a liar and is willing to delete posts to hide his true agenda. You have been shown for what you are.

 

[MANTI5 10+ year member]

And this is where it all breaks down again.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

I am suggesting that you have no idea what you're talking about. You didn't answer the question asked which went something like, why were those two comments singled out, when aholic is in almost all of my other posts? Also, it's not a curseword or a negative name and is in violation of absolutely no rule. you are making rules up and lying about them. Yes I'm calling you out. You're lying about rules. If a person were to remove "U-D-I-O" from your name to shorten it, they come to the same conclusion. A hyphen is suitable to show they shortened it. You would have no problem if someone called me "crack". Neither would I because I'm not a baby. Therefore since there is no rule saying I can't shorten a name, and since a-holic isn't a curseword or a putdown, you're a liar for saying so. Capiche? Stop being so butthurt and egotistical. Also, those posts predicted accurately what you were trying to do, and reinforced exactly what went down there. I gave my opinion and was attacked by a mod and ultimately banned for it because the mod has a superiority complex and is a liar and is willing to delete posts to hide his true agenda. You have been shown for what you are.

You have proven you realize you were in the wrong then, by now altering what it was you said. You now claim you said aholic, when what you actually said was "ahole-ic". Im not stupid, and calling someone an asshole in the tech section is in fact against the rules. If you are now changing your stance from I shoudnt have deleted those posts, to I should have deleted more of your posts because you said it previously, feel free to post the links and I'll be glad to go back and delete them all. lol? Your attempt at using logic really is comical.

This is your problem ecrack, you cant have a reasonable debate. You turn nasty, call names, and then blame everyone else when the thread turns sour, or you get infractions for your behavior. Grow up.

As for me being so 'butthurt' over the situation, who brought it up, in this thread, out of the blue? You did. Winner winner, chicken dinner. lol Like I said before, i didnt even remember the thread you are crying about until YOU brought it up. So if the butthurt fits, wear it.

Lastly, I didnt ban you, the infraction system did. You were given infractions to warn you that you were breaking the rules, yet you continued to do so until the infractions added up to a ban, and then you claim *I* banned you. Again, you need to grow up and take responsibility for your own actions.

Any more illogical logic you want to bring up? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif And while your at it, want to veer back to the topic at hand, or are you so scared that you are now content to completely alter the subject away from your religious views, and onto a topic about car deadener? lol!

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

The only faith required in your chair example is that we must have faith our math (aka science) is accurate and complete. Science demands that if we do this due diligence, and the chair still collapses, that we re-evaluate our theory and refine it until it no longer fails any test we can place upon it.

I'm in general agreement with your philosophy, but you are missing an important distinction which most anti-evolutionists tend to exploit. In general, we are talking about the heisenberg uncertainty principle, although it is much more specific. Derivatives of this suggest that any time data is analysed, the physical scenario from which the data comes could have changed. Your math can be perfect and you could see a different result. You could then revise your math and see again the original result, making your math wrong again. Ultimately, all knowledge (to be acceptable as valid) require a measure of faith.

Your frame of reality says that because you got the same result 1000 times, your model fits.

But what if your model failed the next 20 times? You can't know that it won't! Anything you study can change. You must assume that your measurements are valid AKA faith.

Religion does not include this intellectual criteria, in any way. Quite the opposite, it requires that we simply believe based upon faith, and the written accounts in a text that every day gives ground to what science proves to be inaccurate.

 

Religion relies almost exculsively on faith. But thats not what i'm getting at. I'm trying to point out that there is an ideal balance of faith an knowledge most people miss the mark on.

 

[ahole-ic]

You have proven you realize you were in the wrong then, by now altering what it was you said. You now claim you said aholic, when what you actually said was "ahole-ic". Im not stupid, and calling someone an ******* in the tech section is in fact against the rules. If you are now changing your stance from I shoudnt have deleted those posts, to I should have deleted more of your posts because you said it previously, feel free to post the links and I'll be glad to go nack and delete them all. lol? Your attempt at using logic really is comical.

My stance hasn't changed. You cannot deny that however you spell it, that you are assuming what I meant. The curseword filter doesn't catch it. There was no bbcode used to circumvent it. It's not a curseword in any fashion. It's just you being butthurt and having a superiority complex and lying about breaking rules. It's par for your course. What's awesome is, while the people in this thread might not like me they see it for what it is. They won't agree with me here. That much we know for sure because they hate that they cannot prove me wrong or even create a logical argument against it without calling me names.... but they agree. You abuse your "authority" and you get butthurt easily. I'm glad I was able to screen cap it all so if you delete it again I will always have proof of what happened. I think I did before but I can't find it.

As for me being so 'butthurt' over the situation, who brought it up, in this thread, out of the blue? You did. Winner winner, chicken dinner. lol

Any more illogical logic you want to bring up? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif And while your at it, want to veer back to the topic at hand, or are you so scared that you are now content to completely alter the subject away from your religious views, and onto a topic about car deadener? lol!

I established that you have a pattern of this behavior. You challenged me to prove it. I did. You accused me of lying saying I wouldn't after I already had. I proved that you were in fact the liar. No apology, just more of the same arrogance from you. You think if you lie about it enough, nobody will realize what they just saw. They will.

By the way, don't even attempt to say I'm scared. Lol you're the one that had to concoct an argument to put words in my mouth so you would not look so foolish.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

My stance hasn't changed. You cannot deny that however you spell it, that you are assuming what I meant. The curseword filter doesn't catch it. There was no bbcode used to circumvent it. It's not a curseword in any fashion. It's just you being butthurt and having a superiority complex and lying about breaking rules. It's par for your course. What's awesome is, while the people in this thread might not like me they see it for what it is. They won't agree with me here. That much we know for sure because they hate that they cannot prove me wrong or even create a logical argument against it without calling me names.... but they agree. You abuse your "authority" and you get butthurt easily. I'm glad I was able to screen cap it all so if you delete it again I will always have proof of what happened. I think I did before but I can't find it.

I established that you have a pattern of this behavior. You challenged me to prove it. I did. You accused me of lying saying I wouldn't after I already had. I proved that you were in fact the liar. No apology, just more of the same arrogance from you. You think if you lie about it enough, nobody will realize what they just saw. They will.

By the way, don't even attempt to say I'm scared. Lol you're the one that had to concoct an argument to put words in my mouth so you would not look so foolish.

Speak for yourself. My personal opinion is that you are intellectually challenged. Is funny that you now for the 2nd time just ASSUME that the entire forum agrees with you, as if that lends ANY credibility to your claims.