****Official Bill Nye The Science Guy Thread******* (1 Viewer)

[jdoggydogg]

I agree that inspiration can come from many places. I just don't see the point in worshiping the bible if you don't think it's the word of god.

Because alot of people think it is the word of God and it inspires alot of people. Religion also brings people together and bonds people together.

Absolutely. I'm all for community.

 

[GeauxTigers]

The dictionary defines faith as, "...belief that is not based on proof." So being an atheist doesn't require any faith.

Sure it does...you need proof that God doesn't exist.

 

[GeauxTigers]

I agree that inspiration can come from many places. I just don't see the point in worshiping the bible if you don't think it's the word of god.

Because alot of people think it is the word of God and it inspires alot of people. Religion also brings people together and bonds people together.

And it tears people apart and causes wars.

 

[GeauxTigers]

Because alot of people think it is the word of God and it inspires alot of people. Religion also brings people together and bonds people together.

And it tears people apart and causes wars.

If it wasn't religion, it would have been something else...

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Because alot of people think it is the word of God and it inspires alot of people. Religion also brings people together and bonds people together.

And it tears people apart and causes wars.

If it wasn't religion, it would have been something else...

What would Palestine and Isreal be killing each other for if it wasn't religion?

 

[fsword]

That said, there's no evidence of god. There's a massive, wonderful universe that seems impossibly large and magical. But that's not evidence. And the "atheism is a religion" meme gets repeated a lot, but it's simply a fallacious statement. Atheism is just the lack of god-belief. As someone said, "...if atheism is a religion, not collecting stamps is a hobby."

I will argue that what is seemingly impossibly large and magical IS evidence, but that we just cannot validate or interpret that evidence in a 100% full proof manner to gurantee it as truth. But that is beside the point.A Christian would argue there is evidence for God. That evidence obviously doesn't meet your standard for evidence, so you don't believe it; completely reasonable. However, that same Christian would say you are believing in your own logic to dictate what standards you accept for evidence to be legitimate. Hence, they would claim that is where you are placing your faith. Some can call it atheism, some can call it humanism, but whatever it is called, it is still an "ism", a belief system. Belief requires some level of faith. You can rely on others judgement, or your own, but to a deist, you are still elevating someone or something else into "God's" position as supreme arbiter.

The dictionary defines faith as, "...belief that is not based on proof." So being an atheist doesn't require any faith.

Your belief in that dictionary's definition of faith requires faith. There are other definitions of faith. Which one is correct? In whom do you trust when you accept the correct definition of faith? An atheist or a member of any religion other than Christianity decides, based upon something, that they do not believe in God. Not believing in God is a form of belief, regardless of how it is labeled. You can remain in a state of disbelief, because you believe you need proof to accept a God. I am not calling that belief wrong, because it is based upon reason and a lack of evidence you believe is unaccpetable.Please don't do yourself the disservice of believing you have no belief or faith. That's equivalent to people calling themselves Christians, yet don't understand why, how they got that way, or simply utilize Christianity as a philosophy rather than a "relationship".

 

[fsword]

What would Pakistan and Isreal be killing each other for if it wasn't religion?

"Pakistan?""Forget it, he's rolling."

 

[Cliff Clavin]

What would Pakistan and Isreal be killing each other for if it wasn't religion?

"Pakistan?""Forget it, he's rolling."

Oops. Palestine.

 

[jomar]

Religion also brings people together and bonds people together.

especially at Chick-Fil-As nowadays, I hear

 

[GeauxTigers]

Because alot of people think it is the word of God and it inspires alot of people. Religion also brings people together and bonds people together.

And it tears people apart and causes wars.

If it wasn't religion, it would have been something else...

What would Palestine and Isreal be killing each other for if it wasn't religion?

I don't know...land? Resources?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Because alot of people think it is the word of God and it inspires alot of people. Religion also brings people together and bonds people together.

And it tears people apart and causes wars.

If it wasn't religion, it would have been something else...

What would Palestine and Isreal be killing each other for if it wasn't religion?

I don't know...land? Resources?

 

[jdoggydogg]

The dictionary defines faith as, "...belief that is not based on proof." So being an atheist doesn't require any faith.

Sure it does...you need proof that God doesn't exist.

Do you need proof that fairies and unicorns don't exist?

 

[Marvin]

Because alot of people think it is the word of God and it inspires alot of people. Religion also brings people together and bonds people together.

And it tears people apart and causes wars.

If it wasn't religion, it would have been something else...

What would Palestine and Isreal be killing each other for if it wasn't religion?

I don't know...land? Resources?

Yeah, resources. The bountiful resources of Israel and Palestine.

 

[Marvin]

The dictionary defines faith as, "...belief that is not based on proof." So being an atheist doesn't require any faith.

Sure it does...you need proof that God doesn't exist.

Do you need proof that fairies and unicorns don't exist?

@ him deleting this. Good gravy.

 

[fsword]

What would Pakistan and Isreal be killing each other for if it wasn't religion?

"Pakistan?""Forget it, he's rolling."

Oops. Palestine.

I thought the palestinians just wanted their abandoned land returned to them? Are they making a religious claim too? Thought that was only the arabs?

 

[fsword]

Because alot of people think it is the word of God and it inspires alot of people. Religion also brings people together and bonds people together.

And it tears people apart and causes wars.

If it wasn't religion, it would have been something else...

What would Palestine and Isreal be killing each other for if it wasn't religion?

I don't know...land? Resources?

Yeah, resources. The bountiful resources of Israel and Palestine.

Aren't diamonds and agriculture big business there?

 

[jdoggydogg]

That said, there's no evidence of god. There's a massive, wonderful universe that seems impossibly large and magical. But that's not evidence. And the "atheism is a religion" meme gets repeated a lot, but it's simply a fallacious statement. Atheism is just the lack of god-belief. As someone said, "...if atheism is a religion, not collecting stamps is a hobby."

I will argue that what is seemingly impossibly large and magical IS evidence, but that we just cannot validate or interpret that evidence in a 100% full proof manner to gurantee it as truth. But that is beside the point.A Christian would argue there is evidence for God. That evidence obviously doesn't meet your standard for evidence, so you don't believe it; completely reasonable. However, that same Christian would say you are believing in your own logic to dictate what standards you accept for evidence to be legitimate. Hence, they would claim that is where you are placing your faith. Some can call it atheism, some can call it humanism, but whatever it is called, it is still an "ism", a belief system. Belief requires some level of faith. You can rely on others judgement, or your own, but to a deist, you are still elevating someone or something else into "God's" position as supreme arbiter.

The dictionary defines faith as, "...belief that is not based on proof." So being an atheist doesn't require any faith.

Your belief in that dictionary's definition of faith requires faith. There are other definitions of faith. Which one is correct? In whom do you trust when you accept the correct definition of faith? An atheist or a member of any religion other than Christianity decides, based upon something, that they do not believe in God. Not believing in God is a form of belief, regardless of how it is labeled. You can remain in a state of disbelief, because you believe you need proof to accept a God. I am not calling that belief wrong, because it is based upon reason and a lack of evidence you believe is unaccpetable.Please don't do yourself the disservice of believing you have no belief or faith. That's equivalent to people calling themselves Christians, yet don't understand why, how they got that way, or simply utilize Christianity as a philosophy rather than a "relationship".

Humans are the only animals that know they are going to die. So we have a deep urge to understand our place in the universe and to wonder what happens when we die. So that explains the need for religion. That said, you said I have faith. Faith in what? I guess I'd need you to cite something I can identify with. I won't reject your assertion without some thought. But my initial reaction is to say that I believe things based on evidence - not wishful thinking.

 

[timschochet]

Because alot of people think it is the word of God and it inspires alot of people. Religion also brings people together and bonds people together.

And it tears people apart and causes wars.

If it wasn't religion, it would have been something else...

What would Palestine and Isreal be killing each other for if it wasn't religion?

Not a good example. India and Pakistan would be a much better example.

 

[Frostillicus]

Geniusburger. There is a running joke between Frostilicious and others that I am really, really old. It's all in good fun. That gif was in response to his post, not yours.

It's not a joke though.

 

[timschochet]

Because alot of people think it is the word of God and it inspires alot of people. Religion also brings people together and bonds people together.

And it tears people apart and causes wars.

If it wasn't religion, it would have been something else...

What would Palestine and Isreal be killing each other for if it wasn't religion?

I don't know...land? Resources?

Yeah, resources. The bountiful resources of Israel and Palestine.

Aren't diamonds and agriculture big business there?

Diamonds?

 

[fsword]

That said, you said I have faith. Faith in what? I guess I'd need you to cite something I can identify with. I won't reject your assertion without some thought. But my initial reaction is to say that I believe things based on evidence - not wishful thinking.

Here is one of a few definitions of faith as originally published in Webster's dictionary. "The assent of the mind to the truth of a proposition advanced by another; belief, or probable evidence of any kind." And here is another from the current online Merriam Websters, "something that is believed with strong conviction". There are other definitions as well, all with subtle nuances. How do you decide which definition is correct or best? Or do you decide you don't need to decide which is best? Or do you simply craft your own definition? You have faith in whichever process you choose to reach a conclusion. If you decide its not important to decide, then you have faith it isn't important to decide what faith really means; and, you likely still have an idea of how you woudl define faith to yourself.I would suggest you have faith in yourself, or someone you trust and respect, to properly define what standards "evidence" must meet, in order for you to consider it legitimate; call it a belief in how to determine belief, and that belief requires faith per the above definition.There is an old maxim, "Not to decide, is to decide."

 

[fsword]

Diamonds?

IIRC, aren't the top 5 industries something like tourism, agriculture, diamonds (processing not mining), tech and rocks?

 

[timschochet]

The idea that atheism is a belief which requires as much faith as religion is something I hear often from religious Christians. I think it represents a certain amount of insecurity. I know plenty of religious Jews, and not one of them has ever made this argument to me, even though I have had numerous discussions about atheism vs. faith with them. My anecdotal conclusion is that religious Jews are much more comfortable with faith, and in their own skins, than some religious Christians are.

 

[timschochet]

Diamonds?

IIRC, aren't the top 5 industries something like tourism, agriculture, diamonds (processing not mining), tech and rocks?

I believe that's an industry within Israel. But I don't think it's something the Israelis and Palestinians fight over. They're not fighting over tourism, either.

 

[Marvin]

Geniusburger. There is a running joke between Frostilicious and others that I am really, really old. It's all in good fun. That gif was in response to his post, not yours.

It's not a joke though.

My link

 

[JZilla]

Diamonds?

IIRC, aren't the top 5 industries something like tourism, agriculture, diamonds (processing not mining), tech and rocks?

I believe that's an industry within Israel. But I don't think it's something the Israelis and Palestinians fight over. They're not fighting over tourism, either.

They're fighting over land, primarily, and more specifically control of holy sites.

 

[jdoggydogg]

That said, you said I have faith. Faith in what? I guess I'd need you to cite something I can identify with. I won't reject your assertion without some thought. But my initial reaction is to say that I believe things based on evidence - not wishful thinking.

Here is one of a few definitions of faith as originally published in Webster's dictionary. "The assent of the mind to the truth of a proposition advanced by another; belief, or probable evidence of any kind." And here is another from the current online Merriam Websters, "something that is believed with strong conviction". There are other definitions as well, all with subtle nuances. How do you decide which definition is correct or best? Or do you decide you don't need to decide which is best? Or do you simply craft your own definition? You have faith in whichever process you choose to reach a conclusion. If you decide its not important to decide, then you have faith it isn't important to decide what faith really means; and, you likely still have an idea of how you woudl define faith to yourself.I would suggest you have faith in yourself, or someone you trust and respect, to properly define what standards "evidence" must meet, in order for you to consider it legitimate; call it a belief in how to determine belief, and that belief requires faith per the above definition.

There is an old maxim, "Not to decide, is to decide."

Not sure I'm on board with this yet. Let's take Mrs. Dogg as an example. She's a very decent, moral person. I trust her implicitly. But this isn't faith. I've seen her live by her own creed, so I have evidence that I should trust her.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

To be fair, golddigger doesn't understand cosmology either.

 

[Marvin]

It was an appropriate response to the level of insight and intelligence you're bringing to this thread.It's all good, though. Just about anyone is capable of being the smartest or dumbest person in the room depending on the topic on hand and people present. Just because sn0mm1s knows less about the Bible than MasterOfOrion knows about science doesn't mean they are both idiots. It just means neither of them should speak on those respective topics as if they are knowledgable about them.

I actually know quite a bit about the Bible. Sundays of misspent youth being forced to go to church does that to you.

Then you have done an excellent job hiding that knowledge with the claims you have made about the Bible and Christianity in this thread.Don't sweat it, though. There's a lot of people here who think they know a lot about the Bible and Christianity because they were forced to go to church and/or sent to parochial schools as children. We've even got a philosophy professor who pops in from time to time with experience teaching comparative religion, yet in religion threads repeatedly failed to demonstrate even a basic understanding of "Saved by Grace through faith". It was like reading someone who claimed to be an expert on American football and having no idea what a quarterback was, much less his role on a football field.

MasterOfOrion knows nothing about Evolution though - or is a great troll. I haven't decided if he believes his tripe or if he is just posting stuff to get a rise out of others.

I don't disagree with what you said here, and I still stand behind my earlier statement.

Enough of this.A person doesn't need to know a single thing about the Bible to know that Creationism is complete crap.

 

[JZilla]

My anecdotal conclusion is that religious Jews are much more comfortable with faith, and in their own skins, than some religious Christians are.

I think this is true of American Jews, many of whom are effectively agnostic. Not so sure it applies around the globe.

 

[fsword]

That said, you said I have faith. Faith in what? I guess I'd need you to cite something I can identify with. I won't reject your assertion without some thought. But my initial reaction is to say that I believe things based on evidence - not wishful thinking.

Here is one of a few definitions of faith as originally published in Webster's dictionary. "The assent of the mind to the truth of a proposition advanced by another; belief, or probable evidence of any kind." And here is another from the current online Merriam Websters, "something that is believed with strong conviction". There are other definitions as well, all with subtle nuances. How do you decide which definition is correct or best? Or do you decide you don't need to decide which is best? Or do you simply craft your own definition? You have faith in whichever process you choose to reach a conclusion. If you decide its not important to decide, then you have faith it isn't important to decide what faith really means; and, you likely still have an idea of how you woudl define faith to yourself.I would suggest you have faith in yourself, or someone you trust and respect, to properly define what standards "evidence" must meet, in order for you to consider it legitimate; call it a belief in how to determine belief, and that belief requires faith per the above definition.

There is an old maxim, "Not to decide, is to decide."

Not sure I'm on board with this yet. Let's take Mrs. Dogg as an example. She's a very decent, moral person. I trust her implicitly. But this isn't faith. I've seen her live by her own creed, so I have evidence that I should trust her.

Sounds like an awesome spouse, and this is a great example. In order for you to arrive at this awesome knowledge of, and more importantly, trust in Mrs. Dogg, you presumably got to know her before she became Mrs. Dogg. No matter how well you thought you knew her, you still hadn't been with her the entirety of her life, pre-you, to prove she was who you thought or believed her to be. And you still had to decide to make her Mrs. Dogg. Didn't that decision require some amount of faith, and wasn't that trust in her built in your shared experiences?

 

[jdoggydogg]

That said, you said I have faith. Faith in what? I guess I'd need you to cite something I can identify with. I won't reject your assertion without some thought. But my initial reaction is to say that I believe things based on evidence - not wishful thinking.

Here is one of a few definitions of faith as originally published in Webster's dictionary. "The assent of the mind to the truth of a proposition advanced by another; belief, or probable evidence of any kind." And here is another from the current online Merriam Websters, "something that is believed with strong conviction". There are other definitions as well, all with subtle nuances. How do you decide which definition is correct or best? Or do you decide you don't need to decide which is best? Or do you simply craft your own definition? You have faith in whichever process you choose to reach a conclusion. If you decide its not important to decide, then you have faith it isn't important to decide what faith really means; and, you likely still have an idea of how you woudl define faith to yourself.I would suggest you have faith in yourself, or someone you trust and respect, to properly define what standards "evidence" must meet, in order for you to consider it legitimate; call it a belief in how to determine belief, and that belief requires faith per the above definition.

There is an old maxim, "Not to decide, is to decide."

Not sure I'm on board with this yet. Let's take Mrs. Dogg as an example. She's a very decent, moral person. I trust her implicitly. But this isn't faith. I've seen her live by her own creed, so I have evidence that I should trust her.

Sounds like an awesome spouse, and this is a great example. In order for you to arrive at this awesome knowledge of, and more importantly, trust in Mrs. Dogg, you presumably got to know her before she became Mrs. Dogg. No matter how well you thought you knew her, you still hadn't been with her the entirety of her life, pre-you, to prove she was who you thought or believed her to be. And you still had to decide to make her Mrs. Dogg. Didn't that decision require some amount of faith, and wasn't that trust in her built in your shared experiences?

I see your point. And to a certain extent, you have to have faith in people - because it's impossible to track everything they do as proof of supposed integrity. But using this analogy, I've seen her act in a way that is exactly in keeping with her morals. So this is evidence. Where is the evidence of god?

 

[shader]

One group has a massive amount of evidence to prove its theory and the other group says 'god did it'.

This should be the only reply whenever one of these threads pops up. Yet somehow we get sucked into to arguing with a bunch of rubes.

Well if it were true, that would be great. But since you don't have a "massive amount of evidence" to support the entire theory, you are left to ridicule, laugh and act ignorantly. You have a massive amount of evidence in some portions of the theory. But the overall theory itself? Not at all.That being said, you don't need the evidence, because you have already discounted any possibility for a creator, and because we are here. So you imagine that since it obviously happened, the details will become apparent one day.

 

[shader]

It doesn't matter what Bill Nye thinks. You are not going to convince people that operate within a faith based ideology of anything scientific

This absolutely untrue. You can believe in God and also believe in science.

Well not all science according to Shader.

Shader doesn't have a clue of what he is talking about. All living organisms on this planet are related....that means trees and humans have a common ancestor.As for God, you have to define "God". Is God the creator of humans? Is God the creator of living organisms on this planet? Is God the creator of the Universe?

For all we know, a supernatural being could have created the universe, which in turn set off events that would eventually lead to the creation of the first single celled organisms, which would have evolved into ape like creatures. Then, aliens could have traveled to earth and genetically altered the ape-like creatures DNA and created humans...so you could have 2 "Gods".

Personally, I have no idea if "God" exists. What I do know is that evolution is a FACT. I also know that the universe was created 7 billion years ago. I don't know how or why or possibly who created it though.

define related? You mean they have DNA? Yes, they all have DNA. That is irrelevant when trying to determine if life was created or evolved.

 

[Marvin]

One group has a massive amount of evidence to prove its theory and the other group says 'god did it'.

This should be the only reply whenever one of these threads pops up. Yet somehow we get sucked into to arguing with a bunch of rubes.

Well if it were true, that would be great. But since you don't have a "massive amount of evidence" to support the entire theory, you are left to ridicule, laugh and act ignorantly. You have a massive amount of evidence in some portions of the theory. But the overall theory itself? Not at all.That being said, you don't need the evidence, because you have already discounted any possibility for a creator, and because we are here. So you imagine that since it obviously happened, the details will become apparent one day.

When compared with the evidence there is for proving God exists (and obviously Creationism) it is massive.

 

[GeauxTigers]

Because alot of people think it is the word of God and it inspires alot of people. Religion also brings people together and bonds people together.

And it tears people apart and causes wars.

If it wasn't religion, it would have been something else...

What would Palestine and Isreal be killing each other for if it wasn't religion?

I don't know...land? Resources?

Don't be a smart ### and strike through my post, dude. Palestine and Israel ARE fighting over land right now.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I've heard many scientists say that calling evolution a theory is like calling gravity a theory. It's entirely provable.

 

[JZilla]

Because alot of people think it is the word of God and it inspires alot of people. Religion also brings people together and bonds people together.

And it tears people apart and causes wars.

If it wasn't religion, it would have been something else...

What would Palestine and Isreal be killing each other for if it wasn't religion?

I don't know...land? Resources?

Don't be a smart ### and strike through my post, dude. Palestine and Israel ARE fighting over land right now.

And what is it about much of that land that they are so absolutely fervent about, that both sides would rather keep killing each other than even attempt to compromise?

 

[GeauxTigers]

The dictionary defines faith as, "...belief that is not based on proof." So being an atheist doesn't require any faith.

Sure it does...you need proof that God doesn't exist.

Do you need proof that fairies and unicorns don't exist?

@ him deleting this. Good gravy.

Who deleted what?And yes, if you believe that God doesn't exist, then you have "faith that is not based on proof" because you don't have proof that God doesn't exist. And yes, you need proof that fairies and unicorns don't exist. They might exist on another planet...you have no proof.

 

[Frostillicus]

To be fair, golddigger doesn't understand cosmology either.

What about chemical engineering?

 

[GeauxTigers]

Humans are the only animals that know they are going to die.

Elephants know they are going to die. They go to an elephant graveyard and die.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Humans are the only animals that know they are going to die.

Elephants know they are going to die. They go to an elephant graveyard and die.

I hadn't heard this. Do they know, or is that innate?

 

[GeauxTigers]

The idea that atheism is a belief which requires as much faith as religion is something I hear often from religious Christians. I think it represents a certain amount of insecurity. I know plenty of religious Jews, and not one of them has ever made this argument to me, even though I have had numerous discussions about atheism vs. faith with them. My anecdotal conclusion is that religious Jews are much more comfortable with faith, and in their own skins, than some religious Christians are.

 

[shader]

The idea that atheism is a belief which requires as much faith as religion is something I hear often from religious Christians. I think it represents a certain amount of insecurity. I know plenty of religious Jews, and not one of them has ever made this argument to me, even though I have had numerous discussions about atheism vs. faith with them. My anecdotal conclusion is that religious Jews are much more comfortable with faith, and in their own skins, than some religious Christians are.

It's an interesting discussion. I think an atheist simply wants to see physical proof. As such, he feels no need to look to a God. I've made that argument before that atheism requires faith. But the more I think about it, I guess that's not true. I think an atheist however, is so sure that there is no God, that they don't worry much about the obstacles that had to have been overcome for us to get here without intelligent guidance of some sort. We are here, science learns new things every day, and eventually it will be figured out. Pretty simple set of beliefs. I don't agree at all, but I get the rationale.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

To be fair, golddigger doesn't understand cosmology either.

What about chemical engineering?

LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT.

 

[fsword]

That said, you said I have faith. Faith in what? I guess I'd need you to cite something I can identify with. I won't reject your assertion without some thought. But my initial reaction is to say that I believe things based on evidence - not wishful thinking.

Here is one of a few definitions of faith as originally published in Webster's dictionary. "The assent of the mind to the truth of a proposition advanced by another; belief, or probable evidence of any kind." And here is another from the current online Merriam Websters, "something that is believed with strong conviction". There are other definitions as well, all with subtle nuances. How do you decide which definition is correct or best? Or do you decide you don't need to decide which is best? Or do you simply craft your own definition? You have faith in whichever process you choose to reach a conclusion. If you decide its not important to decide, then you have faith it isn't important to decide what faith really means; and, you likely still have an idea of how you woudl define faith to yourself.I would suggest you have faith in yourself, or someone you trust and respect, to properly define what standards "evidence" must meet, in order for you to consider it legitimate; call it a belief in how to determine belief, and that belief requires faith per the above definition.

There is an old maxim, "Not to decide, is to decide."

Not sure I'm on board with this yet. Let's take Mrs. Dogg as an example. She's a very decent, moral person. I trust her implicitly. But this isn't faith. I've seen her live by her own creed, so I have evidence that I should trust her.

Sounds like an awesome spouse, and this is a great example. In order for you to arrive at this awesome knowledge of, and more importantly, trust in Mrs. Dogg, you presumably got to know her before she became Mrs. Dogg. No matter how well you thought you knew her, you still hadn't been with her the entirety of her life, pre-you, to prove she was who you thought or believed her to be. And you still had to decide to make her Mrs. Dogg. Didn't that decision require some amount of faith, and wasn't that trust in her built in your shared experiences?

I see your point. And to a certain extent, you have to have faith in people - because it's impossible to track everything they do as proof of supposed integrity. But using this analogy, I've seen her act in a way that is exactly in keeping with her morals. So this is evidence. Where is the evidence of god?

The intimate relationship you and Mrs. Dogg share as you deepen your love for one another is something you cannot tangibly measure or prove in scientific terms, yet you know unequivacally that love exists and is growing. Just as you initially required faith to move forward with Mrs. Dogg, you still require faith to continue, although the character of that faith matures as you grow together.Biblical Christians (and religious Jews) will tell you your relationship with Mrs. Dogg is evidence of God. Working through the ups and downs of marriage with dilligent commitment illustrates your intentional love relationship, one that transcends mere instinctive biological reproduction.

 

[shader]

One group has a massive amount of evidence to prove its theory and the other group says 'god did it'.

This should be the only reply whenever one of these threads pops up. Yet somehow we get sucked into to arguing with a bunch of rubes.

Well if it were true, that would be great. But since you don't have a "massive amount of evidence" to support the entire theory, you are left to ridicule, laugh and act ignorantly. You have a massive amount of evidence in some portions of the theory. But the overall theory itself? Not at all.That being said, you don't need the evidence, because you have already discounted any possibility for a creator, and because we are here. So you imagine that since it obviously happened, the details will become apparent one day.

When compared with the evidence there is for proving God exists (and obviously Creationism) it is massive.

 

[GeauxTigers]

Enough of this.A person doesn't need to know a single thing about the Bible to know that Creationism is complete crap.

I agree. Whoever believes in creationism is just very ignorant.

 

[matuski]

Well if it were true, that would be great. But since you don't have a "massive amount of evidence" to support the entire theory, you are left to ridicule, laugh and act ignorantly. You have a massive amount of evidence in some portions of the theory. But the overall theory itself? Not at all.

You are woefully misinformed, and you repeatedly hike up this tree.Your argument is ridiculous.

 

[shader]

Enough of this.A person doesn't need to know a single thing about the Bible to know that Creationism is complete crap.

I agree. Whoever believes in creationism is just very ignorant.

A couple very intelligent, well thought-out posts here.