Kinsa jud imo gituohan kung diin jud tah gikan, ang Bible or Science?

[schmuck]

---

oh that's wrong,your comparison is wrong so wrong. Your problem is this, youre using characters w/c are found in mythology. what is a mythology? those characters are a well established figures in mythology.

now with God its different, He is called the life giver and we can see the evidence of that proposition, you are breathing and alive. He is the Creator and we can see that right here, you are in it.

your using an outdated defense dude.

You haven't given anything to disprove this. Saying its mythology doesn't equate to proof.
How can you be certain it is "God"? How do you know its not the FSM that is the breather of life?

[LOLzZz]

If you look at it at face-value, it will appear like its committing the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority. But anyone who has an understanding of how these institutions work would know, for something to be "favored" there(NAS), it has to undergo extensive peer-review(kasabot ka ani?) scrutinized, tested and deemed sound. So no, its not an appeal to authority. Wrong. Try again.

haha. extensive peer-review, I like the sound of the word "peer", it gives a picture of drinking buddies.

oh I think you fully have not understood the definition of what Appealing to authority is. tsk tsk..

The thing is, Science does not claim to be infallible. That's religion's forte. Woops again?
Science prides itself in being falsifiable. Religion demands "unquestioning faith" even in the face of evidence that contradict its claims.

ohI know that, but someone here is trying to make it appear infallible. woooops!

ow no no no...you are misrepresenting sk tsk..nice try but you fail. that's your "assumption" talking.

[hitch22]

Did I say that? hmmm??

I remember 911, C.I.A considered to be as one of the elite organization failed to detect the terrorists' attack. Their gadgets and intel had flaws.

woooopsy...Biology is Science..Darwin's Evolution is purely philosophical. Creationism/ID is not science but they are using science against Darwinism. Why NAS favor Darwinians,well I guess the reason is obvious. There is no need for explanation.

well the Vatican can say what they want.

by the way let me remind you...that in discussions like this appealing to popularity is considered a logical fallacy. Just bcos so and so have said this is and that is false doesn't mean that the statement is already true. tho it would help your argument look smart.

I expected your response for my post, but the points I made are not DEBATABLE. I'm sorry. I'll just tackle your statements in reverse order (but I won't bother to respond if you do respond).

You didn't get what I was responding to. LET ME REMIND YOU that you claimed that Darwin's Theory isn't upheld by scientists but by Evolutionists. THAT'S WHY I PLACED YOUR QUOTE AT THE BEGINNING OF MY RESPONSE. I recall you specifically said that the Theory of Evolution is only supported by Evolutionists, not scientists. THAT'S THE REASON WHY I BRING UP THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES' POSITION ON THIS EVOLUTION-VERSUS-CREATIONISM DEBATE...TO TURN YOUR RIDICULOUS ASSERTIONS UPSIDE DOWN. OF COURSE, the point was to say that the Theory of Evolution is upheld by the mainstream scientific community....PRECISELY TO COUNTER YOUR POINT.

That also serves to reinforce the argument that the Theory of Evolution has passed through the scientific method, which includes strict peer reviews. AND WHEN YOU HAVE THE NAS PUTTING ITS STAMP OF APPROVAL FOR YOUR THEORY, IT DOESN'T GET ANY BETTER THAN THAT.

About the Vatican, I only brought that up just to make the point that religious beliefs and the Theory of Evolution need not be at odds with one another.

Darwin's Evolution is purely philosophical? YOU'D BE AN EMBARASSMENT IF YOU TALK LIKE THAT IN FRONT OF BIOLOGY PROFESSORS AT TOP UNIVERSITIES IN DEVELOPED COUNTRIES. A solid understanding of Evolution is in fact KEY to virus research and the development of vaccines.

Creationism/ID is not science but they are using science against Darwinism? OH YES INDEED...AND GUESS WHO WON IN THE DOVER TRIAL. ENOUGH SAID. CASE CLOSED. I'VE SAID THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN.

C.I.A. (so-called elite intelligence agency) failed to detect terrorists? Well, what else is new? THEY ALSO BELIEVED IN THE QUADRO-TRACKER (a dowsing device...a pseudo-science) AND SPENT MILLIONS ON THEM. When the National Academy of Sciences states that the Theory of Evolution is a SCIENCE, however, IT IS.

And do you REALLY know things about the Theory of Evolution that I don't? JUST PICK OUT ONE CLAIM THAT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION MAKES THAT'S FALSE. And perhaps we could debate about it. I seriously doubt though that you know anything about DARWIN'S THEORY.

You're a johnny-come-lately to this thread. I've been presenting arguments and evidences for Evolution from page 10 of this thread. SORRY, I DON'T REPEAT MY POINTS. I REALLY DON'T CARE TOO, IF YOU DON'T ACCEPT WHAT I SAY. A lot of posters in this thread who've kept up with my conversations know that I've said enough about the arguments and evidences for the Theory of Evolution. DON'T BOTHER BRINGING UP ABOUT "EVOLUTION IS FALSE or whatever"...I just choose not to respond to it...not just to you but anyone who's going to bring up a decomposing horse for me to kick.

JUST TALK TO THE HAND, COZ THE FACE AIN'T LISTENIN'

[LOLzZz]

You haven't given anything to disprove this. Saying its mythology doesn't equate to proof.
How can you be certain it is "God"? How do you know its not the FSM that is the breather of life?

oh my goodness your losing it dude. its a common knowledge that they belong to mythology. haha. and that is proof that they don't exist.

how do I know? EASY no brainer. Define God? Omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent...sourceof Life, Intelligent. Define Spaghetti Monster? do you have an official definition of this creature? or you want to make your own? well gota do it quickly, your losing your argument. haha.

[schmuck]

haha. extensive peer-review, I like the sound of the word "peer", it gives a picture of drinking buddies.

oh I think you fully have not understood the definition of what Appealing to authority is. tsk tsk..



ohI know that, but someone here is trying to make it appear infallible. woooops!

ow no no no...you are misrepresenting sk tsk..nice try but you fail. that's your "assumption" talking.

Me? Not understand this fallacy? LOL LOLzZz

Sige daw, explain to poor o' me what an Appeal to Authority is. Also why you used Appeal to Popularity originally.

My fault, I did not notice that someone was making it appear infallible.

[schmuck]

oh my goodness your losing it dude. its a common knowledge that they belong to mythology. haha. and that is proof that they don't exist.

how do I know? EASY no brainer. Define God? Omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent...sourceof Life, Intelligent. Define Spaghetti Monster? do you have an official definition of this creature? or you want to make your own? well gota do it quickly, your losing your argument. haha.

Funny, I don't find any source that define myths = false.
Care to help me out?

Omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, The Flying Spaghetti Monster(Sauce be upon Him) is all these things and more. What now?

[PseudoSurgeon]

Thank you very much Hitch22. Awesome as always.

[chad_tukes]

OT: i love how the old SnO has somewhat resurrected itself thanks to the still alive Gen Disc.

mag lurk lang sa ko... lingaw rako basa-basa i feel like the arguments keep repeating over and over again.

[schmuck]

OT: i love how the old SnO has somewhat resurrected itself thanks to the still alive Gen Disc.

mag lurk lang sa ko... lingaw rako basa-basa i feel like the arguments keep repeating over and over again.

OOT: I took an extended leave when the SnO noise *cough*kebot*cough* was too... well, noisy. I came back and SnO was gone

[chad_tukes]

OOT: I took an extended leave when the SnO noise *cough*kebot*cough* was too... well, noisy. I came back and SnO was gone

that was such a mess. but uber-fun nonetheless.

hey you guys, i say enjoy this discussion while it last.