Thread: God

Originally posted by Nick
It's not like they had the ability to craft stuft past 1/32 of
an inch.

Of course, I don't expect the ancient Hebrews to have that sort of accuracy, but I do expect God to have even greater accuracy. He really ought to be perfect.

>>if you hit the back button while writing a post, and then hit thwe forward button,
>>due to the dynamic nature of CGI, it erases your message and starts over again.

Nope. I just checked to make sure. Message still around when I return. 'forward' and 'back' dont refresh the page, they simply reload it from cache. It works fine. I'm at a loss for what you've done. Possibly you've somehow set your browser to allow 0 cached pages. That would suck. Change it if thats the case.

>>I was concluding that because your words match exactly with pretty much every other evolutionist I have ever talked to.

Strange that these 'Evolutionists' all agree and yet it is almost impossible to get two religious fanatics, er, persons, to see eye to eye. Strange that nobody can get their story straight when it comes to religion, isnt it? Its almost like everyones guessing and making things up as they go. And yet on the flip side, (this obviously lying conspiracy evolutionist side) we see a vast field of learned people who study the area in depth, and have independantly reached the same conclusions. Weird. I just wonder whats going on. Lets believe the people who cant agree, guess about everything, lie, make things up, hide the facts, distort the fact, and blindly believe something with no logical foundation whatsoever. Yup. What a brilliant plan. I really thought this one through.

>>evolution just doesn't work

See look. Heres one of those lies I spoke of.

>>and besides, it's a belief, not science.

Followed promptly by a distortion.

>>but I do expect God to have even greater accuracy

Hmm, yes. According to the bible, he should be having approximatly.. oh... infinite accuracy.

to Clyde:

>Oh i'm proud, arrogant, egotistical, but my arrogance and pride is well founded.

I rest my case

My academic results justify my confidence in my academic ability.

"Theere is no way it's older."

Based on what? The arguments you presented previously like the moon dust argument that have been refuted a thousand times over? Did you even bother reading my rebutal of your arguments?

" I have done alot of thinking. I've even studied it a fair bit"

You've researched the creationist arguments, checked out whether or not they actually hold up?

Then why is it that the arguments you presented were the same tired old creationist arguments that have been completely nullified by science time and time again?

What have you studied? Tell me. Show me your reasoning, and i will show you why its flawed.

Ok, i just cannot fathom how any thinking person could ever believe what you believe, why do you think that people who study the universe who build on the sum total of human knowledge believe the universe billions of years older than what you claim?

How do you reconsile all the evidence that shows the universe to be billions of years old?

For heavens sakes there are STARS that are millions of LIGHT YEARS AWAY, that means that the LIGHT you are seeing now is millions of years old, how the juice can you claim the universe is 6000 years old when we can see stars RIGHT NOW that are millions of years old?

The standard creationist retort is that the speed of light has changed, but, as usual, the idea is utterly rejected by people who STUDY IN THE FIELD, who say its a load of codswallop.

You cannot possibly have heard any of the evidence or have any understanding of the natural workings of the the world if you believe the universe as 6000 years old, its a stupendously absurd figure.

Give me your arguments and I will show you why they are wrong.

Do you understand radiometric dating? How it works? If you don't i will explain it to you.

There are just so many completely different dating methods that all give consistent figures for an old Earth, that it is madness, utter madness, to claim the Earth is only 6000 years old.

I can't impress on you enough the insanity of your position, it's AS STUPID as the flat-Earther claim over the geometry of the planet.

"Twist it as you may; make things mroe complicated than they are; evolution just doesn't work, and besides, it's a belief, not science"

I don't need to twist anything, evolution does work, what part do you think doesn't work? Do you understand the theory? Do you understand that mutation is an inevitable part of genetic replication? Do you understand that mutations can lead to change in physical characteristics? Do you understand that characteristics that are favourable will vary with environment? ........ Not only is evolution supported by mountains and mountains and moutain ranges of evidence, it is also INEVITABLE given a system that is capable of mutation and replication. You are presumeably a programmer, do you believe in genetic algorythms? Because as far as I can see they follow the same kind of theory.

Instead of ASSUMING the bible is literally true, THINK about the possibility that it is merely metaphorical (or just plain made up), if you look at the evidence there is just no question, evolution is true.

Every single creationist argument has been answered, why is you think that the scientific community believes in evolution?

"Umm lol.. you don't think Clyde is a religious nut too? He is.. his religion is commonly known as "Evolution", "

If evolution is considered a religion, then so is thermodynamics, electrostatics, genetic replication and every other scientific theory.

"According to the theory of evolution.. we're getting there! Don't worry, we don't need God.. someday we'll evolve and be just as good as he is! "

What the hell? You really havent got a clue do you? Evolution merely means adapting to ones environment, I fail to see how that leads us towards becoming God.

"We have a good reason to think that our pride, arrogance, egos, and arrogance and pride is well founded"

'We' as in 'man' don't, I as in 'me' do.

I am a gifted science student, and i know it, thats bad...... why?

>>I am a gifted science student, and i know it, thats bad...... why?

He might be...

Jealous?
Fearing things not understood?
Thinking ignorance is bliss?
Not used to informed people?
Not used to being asked to think for himself?

Just taking a stab at it.

Oh, and confidence != arrogance. As an ad for Captain Morgans (a better and more reliable source for information, I cant think of ) reads: Its not bragging if its true.

>Based on what? The arguments you presented previously like
>the moon dust argument that have been refuted a thousand
>times over? Did you even bother reading my rebutal of your
>arguments?

I read some of them, however I didn't have the time to comment, or to study them in-depth.

>You've researched the creationist arguments, checked out
>whether or not they actually hold up?

Alot of creationist arguments don't, just like alot of evolutionist arguments.. but I have yet to see evolutionist arguments that *do* hold up.

>Ok, i just cannot fathom how any thinking person could ever
>believe what you believe, why do you think that people who
>study the universe who build on the sum total of human
>knowledge believe the universe billions of years older than
>what you claim?

>How do you reconsile all the evidence that shows the universe
>to be billions of years old?
May have missed something but I have never seen any evidence to that effect - only guesses (educated ones maybe - but still guesses, and all based off of theory)

>For heavens sakes there are STARS that are millions of LIGHT
>YEARS AWAY
I haven't studied much in this field, so I may be wrong, but I've never seen any proof that they are millions of light years away.


>that means that the LIGHT you are seeing now is millions of
>years old, how the juice can you claim the universe is 6000
>years old when we can see stars RIGHT NOW that are millions
>of years old?
There are many things science cannot explain. Even if the stars are millions of light years away, and even if I can't give you an explanation, that doesn't prove the universe is billions of years old.. and even if it does, it still doesn't prove the earth is.

>The standard creationist retort is that the speed of light has
>changed, but, as usual, the idea is utterly rejected by people
>who STUDY IN THE FIELD, who say its a load of codswallop.
Hmm, interesting, I never heard of that retort.

>You cannot possibly have heard any of the evidence or have
>any understanding of the natural workings of the the world if
>you believe the universe as 6000 years old, its a stupendously
>absurd figure.
Billions of years is a far more stupendously absurd figure. Do you even comprehend how much a billion is? Most people don't, and even if they have an understanding of how big it is, they still can't apply it practically in their minds.

>Give me your arguments and I will show you why they are wrong.
What was that you said.. a while back.. about being un-biased? You just contradicted yourself.. you have already decided I am wrong, even though you stated above that you do not yet have my arguments. i.e. If they aren't wrong, you're going to make them so, at least in your own mind.

>Do you understand radiometric dating? How it works? If you don't i will explain it to you.
Not precisely - do you understand how the guy who you said was measuring the atmosphere up on a mountaintop did it? I'm sure he thought he had a very accurate scientific reading, didn't he? but guess what; he was wrong.

>There are just so many completely different dating methods that
>all give consistent figures for an old Earth, that it is madness,
>utter madness, to claim the Earth is only 6000 years old.
Only your methods give a consistent figure for an old earth.

>I can't impress on you enough the insanity of your position, it's
>AS STUPID as the flat-Earther claim over the geometry of the
>planet.
The argument against a flat earth has very obvious and physical proofs; evolution is a myth, and has yet to have physical evidence; it is all mental and hypothetical guesses so far.

>Do you understand that mutations can lead to change in physical characteristics?
yes..

>Do you understand that characteristics that are favourable will vary with environment?
yes..

> ........ Not only is evolution supported by mountains and
>mountains and moutain ranges of evidence
you didn't mention any proof so far. What does mutation have to do with it?
Has anyone ever seen any mutation that was beneficial(in whatever environment you wish to mention) and introduced something *NEW* to a species? i.e. like a dog growing feathers?


>it is also INEVITABLE given a system that is capable of mutation
>and replication.
hmm.. really? just a question.. are we speaking of micro-evolution as it is called, or macro-evolution?


>You are presumeably a programmer, do you believe in genetic
>algorythms? Because as far as I can see they follow the same
>kind of theory.

Actually I haven't gotten into that yet :P


>Instead of ASSUMING the bible is literally true, THINK about the
>possibility that it is merely metaphorical (or just plain made up),
>if you look at the evidence there is just no question, evolution is
>true.
*Some* of the bible is very likely not literal. (such as Revelation 12:3 - "And another portent appeared in heaven; behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems upon his heads.")
As for evolution - can you answer the question Charles Darwin failed to answer in his book? What is the Origin of Life? Also you must answer, satisfactorily and with proof, What is Life?
If you answer both of these questions (with substantial proof) Then I will consider that possibly the theory of evolution may have something going for it.

>Every single creationist argument has been answered, why is
>you think that the scientific community believes in evolution?


"Umm lol.. you don't think Clyde is a religious nut too? He is.. his religion is commonly known as "Evolution", "

>If evolution is considered a religion, then so is thermodynamics,
>electrostatics, genetic replication and every other scientific
>theory.
These other theories have demonstrateble facts behind them, with obvious links to the theory itself. Show me an example of evolution. (i.e. mutation causing something not formerly present in an animal to appear - such as a feather on a dog)

>What the hell? You really havent got a clue do you? Evolution
>merely means adapting to ones environment, I fail to see how
>that leads us towards becoming God.
We're getting better.. humanity is the culmination of millions of years of hard work and survival.. as we evolve further, someday i'm sure, our descendants wont even need to breath air or anything simple like that.. man.. we'll probably even be immortal!!
You're the one who doesn't even know what he believes

>'We' as in 'man' don't
Why ever not? we have solved the riddle of how life was formed.. we know that someday we will be like God.. what more do we need? someday we will know everything! w00t!


>I am a gifted science student, and i know it, thats bad...... why?
nothing wrong with knowing you are gifted at something; but you seem to think that you are right mainly based on your keen intellect and ability to think things out.
Do you really think everyone who believed the worl was flat was stupid? I'm sure some of them were.. and I'm sure some of them believed simply because they were told it was flat.. but I think it's also possible that some(maybe even many) of them sincerely believed that they had researched it and thought it out for themselves, and that they were correct in believing that it was flat, and I'm sure they took great pride in their intellect and ability to reason that the earth is flat. They were still wrong. And maybe you should just think for a minute that maybe, just maybe, you're wrong too.




To lightatdawn:
>Nope. I just checked to make sure. Message still around when I
>return. 'forward' and 'back' dont refresh the page, they simply
>reload it from cache. It works fine. I'm at a loss for what you've
>done. Possibly you've somehow set your browser to allow 0
>cached pages. That would suck. Change it if thats the case.
hmm.. that's odd.. I'll have to check it out - I'm still not sure myself what I did, actually :P all I know for sure is the posts dissappeared.


>>>evolution just doesn't work

>See look. Heres one of those lies I spoke of.

See my points above to Clyde - if you can give me some proof, which none of the evolutionists over the past couple hundred eyars have been able to do without lying, then maybe it might work. But you've got an awful lot to prove.


>>>and besides, it's a belief, not science.

>Followed promptly by a distortion.

hmm.. really?



In closing:
I may not be able to reply again for awhile, not to mention I don't really want to - I can see that no matter what proofs I bring, Clyde has already decided to prove them wrong, and unless Clyde follows my adivce and gives me proof as to how life can be created from nothing, I am not going to believe that theory (since it's wrong.)
Anyway, lunch hour is over, so that's all I'll write for now.

Getting rid of the 666!

"Alot of creationist arguments don't, just like alot of evolutionist arguments.. but I have yet to see evolutionist arguments that *do* hold up."

WHAT? You have yet to see any arguments for evolution that hold up............ that statement just staggers me, its just....... well its an unbelieveable statement.

I list of few in this post; macro-evolution is inevitable given micro-evolution, and micro-evolution can be seen in a lab + i give a link for 29 examples of evidence for macro-evolution.

"I haven't studied much in this field, so I may be wrong, but I've never seen any proof that they are millions of light years away"

I do not know the reasoning, i'll have to ask one of my physics friends but even the creationists acknowledge the stars are millions of light years away so the 'proof' must be pretty simple

"There are many things science cannot explain. Even if the stars are millions of light years away, and even if I can't give you an explanation, that doesn't prove the universe is billions of years old.. and even if it does, it still doesn't prove the earth is"

It proves the universe is more than the age of the oldest star. (factoring in expansion of the universe, reduces the age of stars as they get further away, stars that are 30 billion light years away turn out to be about 10 billion years old because the universe has been expanding).

"Hmm, interesting, I never heard of that retort."

Then you cannot posssibly be familiar with these arguments.

"Billions of years is a far more stupendously absurd figure. Do you even comprehend how much a billion is? Most people don't, and even if they have an understanding of how big it is, they still can't apply it practically in their minds."

I don't comprehend what a billion is, neither do you, or anyone else, because the human brain can only comprehend up to a numerical limit of i forget what, i think its a 200,000 or so.

But it doesn't make any difference, in light of what we know about the universe 6000 years is an insane value, 4.5 billion (for the Earth) and ca 10 billion (for the universe) are not.

"What was that you said.. a while back.. about being un-biased? You just contradicted yourself.. you have already decided I am wrong, even though you stated above that you do not yet have my arguments. i.e. If they aren't wrong, you're going to make them so, at least in your own mind."

I have already decided you are wrong because i understand more about the workings of the universe than you probably ever will and I know how to evaluate arguments in a rational manner. I think of you as 'wrong' in the same way i think of flat Earthers as 'wrong', in the same way i think the body IS made of cells, some things are just too probable to be considered anything but true. Now having said that, if you can show me why all the evidence is wrong, why all the theory is wrong, and provide REAL evidence for your arguments, then sure that would change everything in the same way that if you could provide a detailed explanation revoking all the microscopic evidence for cells, and offer a counter explanation supported by evidence i would reconsider what i think about the sub-units of biology.... i just deem the probability of both to be minsicule.

I WILL SHOW YOU why your arguments are not valid, if you approach the topic with the possibility of being wrong i can convince you that you are.

"Not precisely - do you understand how the guy who you said was measuring the atmosphere up on a mountaintop did it?"

Since it tells you already, err, yes i do.

By assuming (incorrectly) that all of the nickel dust he detected came directly from outer space

Did you miss this?

He detected nickel dust, now i don't know the exact mechanism he used to determine the nickel dust, but i know plenty of different methods of chemical identification that could have been used: he may well have used a magnetic moment calculation combined with a spectroscopic analysis.

Based on the amount of dust he detected, he calculated the amount of dust that should have fallen on the moon given its age of a few billion years....

Understand? Its not exactly rocket science.

Thing is, it has been refuted by SCIENCE, do you know what that is? Do you understand what the peer-review process means? It means that anytime someone publishes something that is glaringly wrong a paper refuting the findings will turn up, thats how science works, mistakes are uncovered like that. Sometimes its rapid sometimes its slow, but it always happens.

see this:

Nowadays, most of the more responsible young-Earth advocates have ceased to use this claim. For example, Snelling and Rush (Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, v.7, pp.2-42 (1993)) not only explain why the moon-dust argument is untenable, they also refute the commonly-repeated myth that Apollo scientists were afraid that their landers would sink into a deep dust layer.

See what "Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, v.7, pp.2-42 (1993)" that is? Its a JOURNAL reference. A MODERN journal reference at that, if you care to look, every single journal reference ever quoted by creationists comes from atleast 50 years ago, and they have always been refuted by later papers.

See how the peer-review process works? Someone makes a mistake, it gets uncovered, witness the power of science!

"I'm sure he thought he had a very accurate scientific reading, didn't he? but guess what; he was wrong"

Yes, he was. Scientists often are wrong, which is why we have a peer-review system to weed out wrong answers, and confirm right ones.

"Only your methods give a consistent figure for an old earth."

'My' methods, are scientific methods, accepted by the most brilliant minds the world over. Your methods are nonsense methods, rejected by everyone bar the worlds idiots.

"The argument against a flat earth has very obvious and physical proofs"

As does the argument against creation. Its just its requires a smattering of education to see them.

"evolution is a myth, and has yet to have physical evidence"

No physical evidence!? Are you denying 'micro-evolution' as well as 'macro-evolution'?

If you are......... are you not aware that we can physically SEE micro-evolution in labs all round the world? Did you miss that one?

If you, like most creationists accept micro-evolution but deny macro-evolution, then you are faced with a logical impossibility: Even if there were not additional mechanisms (which there are) macro-evolution would still occur, it MUST occur if microevolution occurs, the only alternative is that at some point micro-evolutiuon simply stops for an organism EVEN if there is still selective pressure! It also requires genetic drift to simply stop too. That doesn't make any sense. What i'm saying is macro-evolution is logically inevitable if you accept micro-evolution.

As for evidence, heres 29 examples:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

"you didn't mention any proof so far. What does mutation have to do with it?"

What does mutation have to do with it!? How about EVERYTHING.

If you accept mutation occurs, and you accept it can lead to a change in physical characteristics, and you accept that which physical characteristics are favourable depend on local environment, then you cannot possibly deny evolution!

"Has anyone ever seen any mutation that was beneficial(in whatever environment you wish to mention) and introduced something *NEW* to a species? i.e. like a dog growing feathers?

There is just so much wrong with this,

1) For a dog to grow feathers, many many many many mutations would have to occur not just one.
2) They would not be usefull so they would never get selected for, so it would never happen.

And yes there are many examples of mutations that offer benifit, everything is a trade off though; you gain something, you lose something else, whether or not the change is beneficial depends on the environment. Have you ever wondered why some people have sickle cell anaemia? Or Cystic Fibrosis? They are advantages in certain environemnts. (Sickle Cell anaemia confers resistance to malaria, Cystic fibrosis confers resistance to cholera)

The life span of flies has been increased and they have been shown to gain resistance to the sting of paracitic wasps, bacteria and viruses have gained resistance to drugs, there are so many examples of micro-evolution around you just have to look.

"hmm.. really? just a question.. are we speaking of micro-evolution as it is called, or macro-evolution?"

I'm talking about both, ok from this presumeably you accept macro-evolution, you are still faced with a logical impossibility.

You do not believe species can evolve yet you do believe species can change.

What do you think happens when one species is separated so that the genes of the two groups cannot mix, and are present in different environments?

I'll tell you what happens; they both adapt (via micro-evolution) to their environments, their DNA becomes more and more different (via separate evolutionary adaptation and by genetic drift), at some point they become so different that they are no-longer genetically compatible, VOILA two separate species.

"As for evolution - can you answer the question Charles Darwin failed to answer in his book? What is the Origin of Life? Also you must answer, satisfactorily and with proof, What is Life?"

It doesn't matter how life originated, evolution explains how life changed over time, I'm sure that life originated in the prebiotic soup of organic materials on Earth about 3.2 billion years ago (or originated somewhere else via a chemical process and was carried to Earth via a meteorite) because i reject the alternative which requires magic; science has shown time and time and time again that supernatural explanations always lose out to deterministic explanations. But it doesn't matter! From your perspective you can just say God made the first life form, by clapping his hands like Sentaku does, it's irrational, foolish, but not as stupendously absurd as claiming creation is literally true.

What is life? A self replicating chemical system capable of mutation. Proof? Errrr biology.

"If you answer both of these questions (with substantial proof) Then I will consider that possibly the theory of evolution may have something going for it."

One of the questions is totally irrelevant to evolution, namely how life formed, the other question is already well known, its no longer an interesting question, it used to be when people thought there was some fundamental divide between living and non-living matter, but now we know differently.

"These other theories have demonstrateble facts behind them, with obvious links to the theory itself. Show me an example of evolution. (i.e. mutation causing something not formerly present in an animal to appear - such as a feather on a dog)"

A feather on a dog would need many many mutations all in the right place, OF COURSE IT DOESN'T HAPPEN. I've already given you examples, the most obvious are organisms gaining resistance to toxins.

"We're getting better.. humanity is the culmination of millions of years of hard work and survival.. as we evolve further, someday i'm sure, our descendants wont even need to breath air or anything simple like that.. man.. we'll probably even be immortal!!"

WRONG, UTTERLY WRONG, there no such thing as "better", we are NOT getting "better", we merely adapt to our environment. You just don't understand it at all do you? There is no 'better' without a context. And no, we would never become immoral due to evolution, a few million/billion years down the line it is concieveable that our descendants (now looking absolutely nothing like us) could become photosynthetic and plant like, or use another method of chemical respiration like cyano-bacteria. But the point is mute, human evolution is no longer a factor (atleast for the time being) because humanity can adapt far far far faster than adaptation via evolutionary change

"You're the one who doesn't even know what he believes "

I know exactly what i believe.

"nothing wrong with knowing you are gifted at something; but you seem to think that you are right mainly based on your keen intellect and ability to think things out."

That and the fact that every other scientist who studies the material agrees with me and i have seen enough evidence and understand enough of the theory to see the alternative is insane.

"Do you really think everyone who believed the worl was flat was stupid?"

No, the people who think the world is flat NOW are stupid or ignorant, and the people who didn't believe evolution straight off weren't stupid either, but the people who don't NOW are stupid or ignorant.

"They were still wrong. And maybe you should just think for a minute that maybe, just maybe, you're wrong too."

Yes, maybe i'm wrong, maybe all the scientists all over the world are wrong, all the physicists, geologists, biologists, chemists, in all the different fields within those branches, they are all wrong, all the evidence has been made up, all the pictures of fossils fabricated, the theory must have been dreamt up by a genius because its logically inevitable given the properties of life, oops i guess they must be wrong too DNA must not be capable of mutations so i guess all of genetics is a lie too....

OR... maybe your wrong.

The question is this, should we believe people who know what they are talking about, people who dedicate their lifes to studying the world around them and who build upon the knowledge passed down by previous generations, knowledge that has been filtered thousands and thousand of times to remove innacuracies. Or should we believe people who don't understand what the theories say at all, don't understand the evidence, and have an irrational believe that governs their interest in the topic.

..........tough call.

"and unless Clyde follows my adivce and gives me proof as to how life can be created from nothing"

Its totally irrelevent, but don't you find it funny that self replicating chemical systems can be created in labs (albeit not ones capable of mutation, we have yet to manage that), and that when you slot in some of the chemicals and conditions thought to be around at the time that life was thought to form, out pops the building blocks of life. Remarkable coincidence no?

"Theres nothing wrong with being proud with your abilities or in what you believe, but I think that your approach to a lot of this debate has at times been illogical and irrational"

Illogical? Give me an example.

"Coming off as being arrogant and overbearing is not making people listen to you, but instead has made people defensive and LESS likely to listen to you."

You assume that people will listen if you are nice, I have a fair bit of experience in arguing religion, i've tried nice, it doesn't work at all. Not when dealing with people like Sentaku and Cobra, it works with people who are willing to listen, and i use it there.

To make people that are uber religious come around you have to be HARD, I will never convert my opponents in this debate but i might make them think and introduce an element of doubt. At some later stage in their life that may make a difference or it may not.

One of my closest friends today is someone i hit HARD, as hard as i'm hitting my opponents here. You need a hammer to crack through the shield of irrationality then you can use your feather pillow to guide people afterwards. The internet is a pain though, he had to go away and think about my points, and ask religious leaders, unfortuneately people now just find a creationists website and real off a load of nonsense arguments. But i then shoot those down, hopefully i do make them think.

Trust me, people brush aside logic if they have the mentality demonstrated by Sentaku et Al unless you push it even then it takes alot to get through, as i said all i can hope to do is sow the seeds of doubt.

"Who is more willing to have a sensible talk about one's beliefs with, a friend who remains calm and at least *pretends* to keep an open mind about the others beliefs, or an overbearing father who constantly calls the person stupid, ignorant, uneducated, and flat out wrong every time the person opens his mouth?"

That depends on the person involved, i can make people think because i can make them WANT to beat me, they want to show me up so they will go away and research the arguments. As i said the Internet is a pain because they can find a plethora of 'answers' that they like which i then have to shoot down again, but in the end they will have to look somewhere else for answers. They may gradually acknoledge there are problems with their beliefs, or the possiblity that there might be problems with their beliefs might emerge somewhere in the dark recesses of their minds. Like i said at a later date that could make a difference.

"Hell, I agree with almost everything you say, and even I feel the urge to argue with you"

And that my friend, is exactly my point.

>>Personally i don't see the issue; if people think they are good something, and ARE good at something, i don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to say it.

I agree. The Michael Schumaker (yes, I dont know how to spell it either so I'll steal your spelling ) example is a good one. He is quite likely the best racer in his class. Whats so horrible about not lying about it? Theres something to be said for modesty but why outright lie about your skills? No need to brag... but if you're asked... ?

I far too upset at the displays of illogical reasoning and ignorance here to make any comments currently.

Logical reasoning is not something you have to go to class to understand. If a = b then b = a should be obvious to anyone in any area of the world, in any state of education or lack thereof. Likewise, anyone should be able to see the logic break in the following: if a = b, and a = c, then c != b. Nobody needs to be taught this stuff.

Also, I'm sick of science being thought of as the opposition to religion. Science is merely the pursuit of the truth and explanations for the universe. It just so happens that what we've learned, has contradicted what religion has taught/believed. Nobody freaks when something new is discovered that contradicts a previous concept, unless that concept is a religious one. Why do you suppose this is?

I'm not anti-religious. I'm pro-truth.

"I think that it just makes somebody hole up even deeper within their religion most of the time"

Within the context of an individual debate that may well be true, but the after-effects are more important.

Ultimately i am not going to strengthen people's beliefs, the people I am debating are already 100% certain of their convictions. But there is a chance that by making them think I can make them aware of the possibility they are incorrect hence decreasing that percentage.

Originally posted by Cobras2
unless Clyde follows my adivce and gives me proof as to how life can be created from nothing, I am not going to believe that theory (since it's wrong.)

This is the basic problem. How can life be created from nothing? Well, it's not created from nothing, it's created from atoms, molecules, etc. But OK, how are atoms, etc, created from nothing? Can't be, say the god believers, ergo, there's a god. But...WHERE DID GOD COME FROM??? Here's where the believers lose credibility. God just 'is", creation doesn't pertain to god, etc. Well duh! The same argument can be applied to life, atoms, etc.
I don't know if science has any real idea what 'caused' the big bang, although, since time itself didn't exist it may not be a valid question. Maybe science has some ideas there, don't know. But any question you put about 'where' something ultimately came from can be applied to god as well. If you can say god just is/was, you can equally say the big bang just happened and subsequent evolution both cosmic and local are a result of that.

Here ya go