U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-25-2010, 03:10 PM
 
1,492 posts, read 2,095,979 times
Reputation: 246

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason28 View Post
Science does prove without a doubt that evolution is 100% real. It's not even a theory anymore. There is simply overwhelming amounts of evidence now. Tons and tons more evidence and fossils than in Darwin's day.

Science has also recreated the big bang successfully with the giant hadron collider recently. But you're right to a point. How the big bang actually occured no one knows for certain. Science can't prove or disprove how it happened as of yet.

And it all depends on your definition of "God". If by "God" you mean a bearded man in the sky who is going to punish me for "sinning", then I would beg to differ and say evidence points firmly against that. If by "God" you mean some indescribable energy that is actually trillions of separate things combined into one, then I may tend to agree with you on some level.

I'm just sick and tired of the same old words being used over and over for humans describing something they can't figure out. "God" seems to be a catch all phrase along with the word "soul". Those words have all kinds of stupid and negative perceived connotations.

I also realize that new things are rarely discovered. The story of Jesus is full of similarities with the Egyptian "God" Horus and all kinds of other religions. Likewise, the stuff I am talking about is written all over ancient Sumerian and Egyptian tablets. The third eye being activated on humans is written all over history, including modern day buddhist women who have the little glitter dot on the center of their forehead.
my husb's dr has that..not all the time tho.apparently they are ceremonial at times.i think it's called a bindi.it looks more like paint or a tattoo.
she's from india,and she's not buddist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-25-2010, 07:31 PM
 
Location: US
23,061 posts, read 11,770,285 times
Reputation: 1375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason28 View Post
Nobody knows that for certain, that's speculation.

Buddhistists, Hindu's, and Jainists all wear dots on their foreheads. It's even common for buddha statues to have a mark on the center of their's.

I'm not about to go off the deep end studying "satanic" literature with you on the christianity forums. Even I have enough respect not to do that.

I'll also note to you that what I'm talking about is proof to any individual who chooses to explore themselves. It doesn't need to rely on history, reading, studying, faith, or any other realm of magic, religion, or "Gods". I am talking about 100% concrete in your face proof for anyone who chooses to experience it. No amount of babbling on about history, chaos theories, or lost faith is going to change that. You can see proof for yourself or you can choose to remain blind. Your choice.
You really do not know what i have explored and proven wrong...And that reverse psychology there at the end does not work on me...I've gone a lot farther than you in my search...Evolution is a theory and that is a fact...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2010, 09:57 AM
 
2,191 posts, read 3,887,614 times
Reputation: 2248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965 View Post
You really do not know what i have explored and proven wrong...And that reverse psychology there at the end does not work on me...I've gone a lot farther than you in my search...Evolution is a theory and that is a fact...
And apparently you have a lot further to go in searching. Evolution is not a theory. It is a 100% provable fact. This isn't even a debate anymore. You're essentially arguing that the world is flat.

Last edited by Jason28; 11-26-2010 at 10:07 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2010, 11:15 AM
 
Location: South Jordan, Utah
6,652 posts, read 6,696,026 times
Reputation: 2826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason28 View Post
And apparently you have a lot further to go in searching. Evolution is not a theory. It is a 100% provable fact. This isn't even a debate anymore. You're essentially arguing that the world is flat.
If you mean that animals evolve (adapt) I agree. If you mean we started off as an amoeba in the ocean and evolved our way from fish to apes t humans, that is not provable at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2010, 02:27 PM
 
2,191 posts, read 3,887,614 times
Reputation: 2248
Quote:
Originally Posted by hilgi View Post
If you mean that animals evolve (adapt) I agree. If you mean we started off as an amoeba in the ocean and evolved our way from fish to apes t humans, that is not provable at all.
Weather you realize it or not you just admitted to believing both. It is provable but you have to read some boring books that aren't in the bible and have a basic understanding of science. Common sense doesn't hurt either. The changes are usually slow and over such long periods of time that you don't notice it. The DNA code is universal. All living things have this DNA code.

Humans are animals too. As mammals, we share plenty in common with a bunch of different species. Animals adapt and change and, over long periods of time look like something else entirely different. That's how we got where we are today and that's what is happening before your eyes with all sorts of different creatures. There are thousands of examples.

Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees. They share a common anscestor. That anscestor was not a chimpanzee nor a human. There are hominid fossil remains that show some of the more recent variations. One that is 4.4 million years old and shows upright walking chimp like animals. Another that had feet similar to ours and was about 3.2 million years old. You can go into a museum and see these for yourself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2010, 08:42 PM
 
Location: US
23,061 posts, read 11,770,285 times
Reputation: 1375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason28 View Post
And apparently you have a lot further to go in searching. Evolution is not a theory. It is a 100% provable fact. This isn't even a debate anymore. You're essentially arguing that the world is flat.
Sure, son...Whatever you say...Little guy...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2010, 12:43 AM
 
16,301 posts, read 22,855,285 times
Reputation: 8230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965 View Post
Sure, son...Whatever you say...Little guy...
When one has no facts for a retort, how quickly they resort to insults to prove they have nothing to offer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2010, 06:34 AM
 
Location: US
23,061 posts, read 11,770,285 times
Reputation: 1375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asheville Native View Post
When one has no facts for a retort, how quickly they resort to insults to prove they have nothing to offer.
Back at ya buddy...Look, I've been down that road...I have a lot to offer, but, Jason just does not want to hear it...He doesn't want to believe and that's that...Science and religion both embellish, exaggerate and lie according to their own agendas...I've read all those 'boring books' as he calls them...This is how i look at things:

Empirical research is a way of gaining knowledge by means of direct observation or experience. It is used to answer empirical questions, which must be precisely defined and answerable with data (e.g., "Does listening to vocal music during learning a word list have an effect on later memory for these words?"). Usually, a researcher has a certain theory regarding the topic under investigation. Based on this theory some statements, or hypotheses, will be proposed (e.g., "Listening to vocal music has a negative effect on learning a word list."). From these hypotheses predictions about specific events are derived (e.g., "People who study a word list while listening to vocal music will remember less words on a later memory test than people who study a word list in silence."). These predictions can then be tested with a suitable experiment. Depending on the outcomes of the experiment, the theory on which the hypotheses and predictions were based will be supported or not.

Scientific research
Accurate analysis of data using standardized statistical methods in scientific studies is critical to determining the validity of empirical research. Statistical formulas such as regression, uncertainty coefficient, t-test, chi square, and various types of ANOVA (analyses of variance) are fundamental to forming logical, valid conclusions. If empirical data reach significance under the appropriate statistical formula, the research hypothesis is supported. If not, the null hypothesis is supported (or, more correctly, not rejected), meaning no effect of the independent variable(s) was observed on the dependent variable(s).
It is important to understand that the outcome of empirical research using statistical hypothesis testing is never proof. It can only support a hypothesis, reject it, or do neither. These methods yield only probabilities.
Among scientific researchers, empirical evidence (as distinct from empirical research) refers to objective evidence that appears the same regardless of the observer. For example, a thermometer will not display different temperatures for each individual who observes it. Temperature, as measured by an accurate, well calibrated thermometer, is empirical evidence. By contrast, non-empirical evidence is subjective, depending on the observer. Following the previous example, observer A might truthfully report that a room is warm, while observer B might truthfully report that the same room is cool, though both observe the same reading on the thermometer. The use of empirical evidence negates this effect of personal (i.e., subjective) experience.
Ideally, empirical research yields empirical evidence, which can then be analyzed for statistical significance or reported in its raw form. - Empirical research - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just so you don't think that i 'over spiritualize' everything...I see Intelligent Design in the Universe...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2011, 11:11 PM
 
Location: Chicago, Illinois
396 posts, read 482,667 times
Reputation: 41
Evolution must NOT be true because the brains of those who believe it have NOT evolved.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2011, 11:44 PM
 
Location: SC Foothills
8,830 posts, read 9,231,887 times
Reputation: 58177
I wish I may, I wish I might, I wish this thread to die tonight.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top