Originally posted by robbie carrobieLet me see.........Robie vs Darwin.........Robie vs Darwin.......... Robie vs Darwin..... I think I will take Darwin. Plenty has been shown to be false in the bible. Very little of "Darwin has been shown to be false.
yes science is not what we think is probable, but in many instances that is indeed what it is. Would you like me to substantiate my assertion with the lack of evidence for transitory beings? You may look at any biology text book, and there you have it, assertions based on nothing but postulation, dogma a lack of palaeontological evidence and in som ...[text shortened]... e Fabian, you had best be careful with what you term science, for it may be nothing of the sort.
Originally posted by 667joelet me see, fact v fiction, fact v postulation, fact v dogma, ill stick with the facts if you dont mind, you Noobs can believe what you want.
Let me see.........Robie vs Darwin.........Robie vs Darwin.......... Robie vs Darwin..... I think I will take Darwin. Plenty has been shown to be false in the bible. Very little of "Darwin has been shown to be false.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe great Robbie Carrobie, you gotta love him. Consistent comedy gold!!!!
let me see, fact v fiction, fact v postulation, fact v dogma, ill stick with the facts if you dont mind, you Noobs can believe what you want.
Possibly the most deluded man i've ever come across in my life who wasn't taking some form of medication.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI'll keep 'em coming as long as you keep those carrobie-isms coming😉
what's good about posting a misconception, basing your objections to a particular practice on that misconception and then someone tell you that you done great! yeah Karloy Poly, keep them psychic woo woos coming!
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYezz, robbie has become a evolutionist! Hallelujah!
let me see, fact v fiction, fact v postulation, fact v dogma, ill stick with the facts if you dont mind, you Noobs can believe what you want.
fact v fiction, robbie chosed fact! Evolution vs creationism 1-0
fact v postulation, robbie chosed fact! Evolution vs creationism 2-0
fact v dogma, robbie chosed fact! Evolution vs creationism 3-0
And result is evolution 3 points, creationism zero points!
Thank gods, robbie has become a true evolutionist!
...and noobs can believe whatever they want.
Originally posted by FabianFnasumm sorry to disappoint you Fabs but well, its not just as clear cut as you might imagine 😉
Yezz, robbie has become a evolutionist! Hallelujah!
fact v fiction, robbie chosed fact! Evolution vs creationism 1-0
fact v postulation, robbie chosed fact! Evolution vs creationism 2-0
fact v dogma, robbie chosed fact! Evolution vs creationism 3-0
And result is evolution 3 points, creationism zero points!
Thank gods, robbie has become a true evolutionist!
...and noobs can believe whatever they want.
Originally posted by FabianFnas..and why is it 4 BC and not year zero? I always thought that BC/AD referred to 'before' and 'after' Christ respectively.. why 4BC then, huh?
This fellow Urssher is googable. His chronology can be find at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology
586 BC - Destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon and the beginning of the Babylonian Captivity
4 BC - Birth of Jesus
Originally posted by FabianFnasFab, with all due respect (for we sometimes are on the same side), but you do sound like a broken record with your Science and religion cannot mix statement. yeah, we all know that, get over it.. 😉 you just have to agree to disagree with Robbie..
Science is not about what we think is more probable. You have to back it up with science. If you cannot, it's not science, even if it happens to be true.
Science and religion cannot mix, you know that. If your religious belief is that it can, it's your religious belief, it's not a scientific one
Originally posted by RenarsNo, au contraire, there are some people who don't understand that it's impossible to use scientific methods to prove religious things (When will the existance of god be proven scientifically?), and that it's impossible to use religion in scientific research (Pray and the gravitational constant will be changed?), no never.
Fab, with all due respect (for we sometimes are on the same side), but you do sound like a broken record with your [b]Science and religion cannot mix statement. yeah, we all know that, get over it.. 😉 you just have to agree to disagree with Robbie..[/b]
Especially here in Spiritual Forum I hear often that creation is scientifically proved, and evoluton is not proven. But fundamentalist christians has ver low knowledge of what science is. They often believe that evolution theory is not more than a theory, i.e. a guessing, in their minds. They use science if it 'proves' their view, and rejects it if it contradict their view. And so on, and so on, as can be read and reread int hundreds of threads.
So it deserves to be repeated, time after time, that science and religion cannot ever be mixed. There is a sharp line between the two.