Originally posted by Ullr Christ on a cracker Robbie, I like you better when you've got a glass of good scotch in front of you.
Don't you understand the difference of a hypothesis and a theory? Hypothesis is what comes before research. Clearly much research has been done regarding the theory of evolution.
And now thanks to you my wife is yelling at me for arguing with the Jesus jumpers again!!
Good night, have some more Scotch please.
can the evolutionary hypothesis be subject to falsification and the scientific model? no it cannot! it remains therefore a hypothesis, and i do not care what you put on your crackers, nor what you wear. And i would also be pleased if you would keep me out of your domestic arguments, then again, the application of Biblical principles could work wonders in a marriage.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie ahh how refreshing to note that you do not deny the limitations of human knowledge!
this phrase dear Noob, 'inspired of God', whence does it come from and what does it mean?
ahh how refreshing to note that you do not deny the limitations of human knowledge!
What an utterly ridiculous statement to make, and what a strange little world you must live if you believe that the case.
this phrase dear Noob, 'inspired of God', whence does it come from and what does it mean?
It comes from Christains who claim that the Bible is 'Gods word'. When i point out to them that the Bible isn't REALLY Gods word as he never ACTUALLY wrote, or had any say in the construction of the Bible, the phrase that is given back to me is the Bible is the inspired word of God.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie dating techniques are one thing noobster, what constitutes a human quite another. if you will go back as far as you like, you will find that many of what were called humans, or the so called transitional 'beings', were in fact nothing of the sort. they were simian, not human, therefore something is not quite right here, for you are stating that hum ...[text shortened]... ere human as you are suggesting, why only up until now have we started to write things down?
you have also still failed to answer why, only in the last five thousand years, these humans took to establishing a written record, if the were human as you are suggesting, why only up until now have we started to write things down?
Have a butchers at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_writing
I guess the simple answer Robbie would be the evolution of the human mind.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie can the evolutionary hypothesis be subject to falsification and the scientific model? no it cannot! it remains therefore a hypothesis, and i do not care what you put on your crackers, nor what you wear. And i would also be pleased if you would keep me out of your domestic arguments, then again, the application of Biblical principles could work wonders in a marriage.
Can the existence of God be subject to falsification and the scientific model? No it cannot. Therefore it is a hypothesis. One in which far less scientific research and actual physical evidence has been found. Why do you not hold yourself and your religous beliefs to the same standards that you hold evolutionists to?
As far as the rest of my comments go; just friendly banter is all. But leave it to you to take them literally just like the bible, you humourless twat!
Originally posted by jaywill Do you have scientific proof that the universe was not created ?
As science doesn't deal with religions there cannot be any scientific proofs that Universe was created by any supernatural being.
And of the same reason, no scientific proofs exist that any supernatural beings created universe either.
Simply - it's not science.
Science and religion cannot ever be mixed, you know.
Originally posted by FabianFnas Yet another one beliving that a scientific theory isn't worth more than a mere guess. (*sigh*)
There are theories, there are hypothesis - and there are guessings. Is this clear to you now?
Creationism is not a theory, it is a hypothesis - and it's religion.
I will take back part of what I said. I know not all Science is based on a guess that would be untrue. I don't have a problem with true un-biased Science. Most of the world we live in now was based off scientific discovery.
Also if a scientific discovery seems to contradict my faith then so be it. I would look at in an un-biased light. I love science!
Originally posted by robbie carrobie We Christians like to conduct ourselves with at least a degree of dignity, and while it cannot be guaranteed by those who have not adopted the Christ as their model,
Originally posted by menace71 I will take back part of what I said. I know not all Science is based on a guess that would be untrue. I don't have a problem with true un-biased Science. Most of the world we live in now was based off scientific discovery.
Also if a scientific discovery seems to contradict my faith then so be it. I would look at in an un-biased light. I love science!
Manny
That's a good start. Science is fun! Should be! 🙂
Originally posted by Ullr Can the existence of God be subject to falsification and the scientific model? No it cannot. Therefore it is a hypothesis. One in which far less scientific research and actual physical evidence has been found. Why do you not hold yourself and your religous beliefs to the same standards that you hold evolutionists to?
As far as the rest of my comments go ...[text shortened]... er is all. But leave it to you to take them literally just like the bible, you humourless twat!
well, well, touchy touchy touchy! i never stated that the existence of God could be subject to falsification, did I. Then why are you trying to assert that i did? Nor can it be, for theses things are spiritual! you may have of course noticed that the forum is termed the 'spirituality', forum, to discuss, things of a spiritual nature. Why you are intent on discussing things that have no context here , i do not know. As for your humour, well, like what you put on your crackers and what you wear, it is of course a matter of taste!
Originally posted by robbie carrobie i never stated that the existence of God could be subject to falsification, did I. Then why are you trying to assert that i did? Nor can it be, for theses things are spiritual! you may have of course noticed that the forum is termed the 'spirituality', forum, to discuss, things of a spiritual nature. Why you are intent on discussing things that ...[text shortened]... well, like what you put on your crackers and what you wear, it is of course a matter of taste!
What a lame cop-out this post is.
First of all, I didn't start this thread titled "Best evidence" about evolution so if you have a problem with the discussion here being off topic take it up with your fellow Christian that did start the thread. Seriously, if you Christian folks don't want threads about evolution in the "Spirituality" forum then stop creating them.
Also if you want to participate in the thread about evolution in an attempt to tear it down then you should be prepared to have your beliefs put under the same scrutiny and held to the same standards. Otherwise you are behaving like a whining hypocrite.
Originally posted by Ullr Oh you mean like fellow JW Serena Williams?
So what exactly are you trying to say? If it's to say "Look at the JW acting like a fool" Yes I would totally agree. She did completely. And I'm not defending her or making excuses. But just because someone says they are of a religion doesn't mean they are. I don't know in her case but aren't their millions of humans on this earth who say they are part of a religion but don't live up to the expected standards?
But if she is an active Witness in her congregation, she will be approached about this...
Originally posted by galveston75 So what exactly are you trying to say? If it's to say "Look at the JW acting like a fool" Yes I would totally agree. She did completely. And I'm not defending her or making excuses. But just because someone says they are of a religion doesn't mean they are. I don't know in her case but aren't their millions of humans on this earth who say they are part o ...[text shortened]... ut if she is an active Witness in her congregation, she will be approached about this...
I think she probably already has been approached by this. My comment about her was not a condemnation of JW's just a reply to Robbie's hypocritical post.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie can the evolutionary hypothesis be subject to falsification and the scientific model? no it cannot! it remains therefore a hypothesis, and i do not care what you put on your crackers, nor what you wear. And i would also be pleased if you would keep me out of your domestic arguments, then again, the application of Biblical principles could work wonders in a marriage.
Why can evolution not be falsified?
Darwin himself suggested it were possible: If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. And a number of more recent scientists have suggested ways to falsify the theory.
But of course, you'll deny any of these as valid because they run counter to your central point, don't they ...
Originally posted by Ullr I think she probably already has been approached by this. My comment about her was not a condemnation of JW's just a reply to Robbie's hypocritical post.
Thanks. It was an embarrising thing for sure and just on a professional level it was really bad..
I met a girl yesterday who is into Jehoveh. She says she has been rejected by their chuch. Vey nice girl. Very forthright, honest and generous. The point here is that she is the first JW that I've met that actually has a proper conversation about spirituality. Ie. she listens to my point of view on things as well as me listening to hers. Ah! How refreshing. Sorry to any JW's out there. I dont mean to generalize but she is the first one I've met like that. Every other JW I've met does not listen to my point of view. Its just their way or the highway.
Best evidence
16 Sep '09 08:072 edits
Back to Top