Originally posted by scottishinnz I know you Kelly. You don't accept for a moment that you could be wrong. You might say you do, but you don't. Not really.
[edit; if you did, you'd be agnostic.]
I am what I claim to be, not what you want me to be, or try to paint
me. Just as you are I'd hope, it isn't my fault you think people who
disagree with you have some type of mental defect in their make up.
Kelly
Originally posted by whiterose "What I'm really saying is faith is faith, we are people and we live by it. You can try to say your faith in the logic of some scientist is better
than someone else's faith in God, I don't care! It is still faith, when
you apply your belief system to the world around you and come up
with what you call truth or facts. You may be right, you may be wron ...[text shortened]... you obviously have no working definitions for them which would differentiate the two.
When you or others stop making claims that your faith is facts I'll
stop bringing it up, your conclusions or the conclusions of others on
pieces of evidence do not rate being called facts. The evidence can
be a fact, what you think about them is another thing.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay When you or others stop making claims that your faith is facts I'll
stop bringing it up, your conclusions or the conclusions of others on
pieces of evidence do not rate being called facts. The evidence can
be a fact, what you think about them is another thing.
Kelly
So what is a fact? If "faith is faith" and "evidence has belief and faith wraped up in the description"(your words) then there can be no facts and and you certainly cannot call what you went through yesterday a 'fact', nor can you say that anything is real.
If a fact is "something within reality"(your words), then we should be able to use evidence from the "real" world around us to determine what is a fact. If, as you say, you cannot use your evaluation of this evidence to determine facts, then there is no way to know that anything is real or factual.
The only logical conclusion from your statements is that there are no facts. However, you consisently refuse to admit this and continue to use the word "fact" as if there was such a thing.
Originally posted by whiterose So what is a fact? If "faith is faith" and "evidence has belief and faith wraped up in the description"(your words) then there can be no facts and and you certainly cannot call what you went through yesterday a 'fact', nor can you say that anything is real.
If a fact is "something within reality"(your words), then we should be able to use evidence from ...[text shortened]... fuse to admit this and continue to use the word "fact" as if there was such a thing.
Kelly stretches and misapplies words deliberately to try and play down others positions whilst singularly failing to actually assert a positive position of his own.
Kelly is the guy in the gym who stands there, putting others down, without demonstrating any ability of his own.
Originally posted by scottishinnz Why do you think this?
Also, that's not what the big bang did at all. All the BB did was create a lot of hydrogen which, under the influence of gravity condensed into clouds, then stars, which allowed the generation pf conditions suitable for nucleosynthesis. After some 10 BILLION YEARS our own star was fo e be.
This really is the greatest story ...[text shortened]... ever told.
Originally posted by EcstremeVenom i cant believe you believe that
I´ve been wondering for some time now just what it is about the Big Bang Theory that creationists find so impossible to accept. Originally I thought that it was just a case of not believing that random chance could get us to where we are today, but now I´m of the opinion that creationists feel that without intelligent design all of this, all the people on the earth and all the stars in the sky would be completely meaningless, and we would therefore be doomed to an existence without purpose.
So I ask this: why is it so important that we be GIVEN meaning by a supreme being? Why can´t we simply take life by the cojones and give meaning and purpose to our OWN lives?
Originally posted by nige22 I´ve been wondering for some time now just what it is about the Big Bang Theory that creationists find so impossible to accept. Originally I thought that it was just a case of not believing that random chance could get us to where we are today, but now I´m of the opinion that creationists feel that without intelligent design all of this, all the people on th ...[text shortened]... ng? Why can´t we simply take life by the cojones and give meaning and purpose to our OWN lives?
Fear of accepting that ultimatly our lives mean nothing. Not that that means we can't give meaning to our lifes relative to humanity.
Originally posted by nige22 I´ve been wondering for some time now just what it is about the Big Bang Theory that creationists find so impossible to accept. Originally I thought that it was just a case of not believing that random chance could get us to where we are today, but now I´m of the opinion that creationists feel that without intelligent design all of this, all the people on th ...[text shortened]... ng? Why can´t we simply take life by the cojones and give meaning and purpose to our OWN lives?
Originally posted by KellyJay Yea right, like the Big Bang isn't a work that came from between the
ears of someone.
Kelly
Now THATS a new one. The big bang as the result of exploding earwax. Where can we take THIS one? Can you prove it would lead to inflation? Would the theoretical data match the reading of the cosmic background radiation? Is it polarized? Does it show the universe spinning? Will it shed light on the anti-matter/matter ratio? Does it lead to C as a constant or will it show C to be a variable, however slight? These and many more questions may be answered by this new stunning theory.
Originally posted by Jake Ellison Why? The universe is expanding. You interpolate backwards, logically you get to a singularity. What alternative do you have?
18 Jun '07 11:581 edit
Atheism R0XX0RZ
Back to Top