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

[LOLzZz]

---

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).

the points you made are not debatable? OMG! hahaha...I can't believe im hearing this.

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.

beeep..misrepesenting my statement..beepbeep...I can't respond to something like this.

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.

It did. Im good with that idea but THEORY do change therefore what they have stamped on now can be useless in the coming years. and if you die tomorrow you'll die believing a false theory. That's sad! that is why this NAS APPROVAL thing holds nothing.

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.

I agree as long as the evidence does not contradict each other.

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.

oh well thats remain to be seen. the only embarrassment I heard are evolutionists professors who can't give evidence in front of creationist.

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.

haha..Gloria A. won the congress because of that she can't be put on trial bu it doesn't mean that she isnt corrupt.

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.

dont speak too sure.. it can change. Remember how Science persecuted those who say that the sun is the center of our Solar system?

nd 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.

ow sure, im waiting for this. Show me a proof that a fish can evolve into an amphibian or serpents evolved into a bird? can you?

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'

m sure your points have defecs in it.oh yes Evolution is false. dumb chemicals cant give rise to life and intelligence? it belongs to the sci-fi section of the room.

[LOLzZz]

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.

haha you want me to teach you? go and read about it.

appeal to popularity? you don't know why I used it? haha. be resourceful man.

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?

did i say that myths = false? hmmm?

well if thats how you define FSM then it must be God. but obviously FSM defense is a form of mockery concocted by people who mocks God.

[LOLzZz]

well im sleepy..nite nite.

[hitch22]

Watch me shred every stupid argument to ribbons.

dont speak too sure.. it can change. Remember how Science persecuted those who say that the sun is the center of our Solar system?

SCIENCE PERSECUTED THOSE WHO SAY THAT THE SUN IS THE CENTER OF OUR SOLAR SYSTEM?

Let me get that buzzer...beepbeep...WRONG ANSWER. THE VATICAN TRIED AND PERSECUTED GALILEO, DUMMY! OMG! I'm talking to an IDIOT!

ow sure, im waiting for this. Show me a proof that a fish can evolve into an amphibian or serpents evolved into a bird? can you?

m sure your points have defecs in it.oh yes Evolution is false. dumb chemicals cant give rise to life and intelligence? it belongs to the sci-fi section of the room.

WATCH HOW I'LL HIT TWO HEADLESS BIRDS WITH ONE STONE.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution doesn't claim that fishes will evolve into an amphibian or serpents into birds. The Theory also doesn't deal with CHEMICAL EVOLUTION.

I THOUGHT THE GUY'S READ THE BOOKS ABOUT EVOLUTION, LET ALONE UNDERSTOOD THEM. HE'S JUST SHOOTING OFF THE HIP LIKE SOME CRAZED LUNATIC.

It did. Im good with that idea but THEORY do change therefore what they have stamped on now can be useless in the coming years. and if you die tomorrow you'll die believing a false theory. That's sad! that is why this NAS APPROVAL thing holds nothing.

THEORIES CHANGE. I've always said that. AGAIN, BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T KEEP UP WITH MY POSTS, YOU MISSED THIS EXPLANATION (But I'll paste it here again for everyone's perusal...it also contains Richard Feynman's famous chess analogy):

....If we take the question of certainty in a philosophical discourse, YOU HAVE A POINT. In science, however, we do not claim absolute certainty...only degrees of certainty and probabilities and approximations. You may be tempted to think you've got me there. But let me just give you an analogy of what scientists are doing in trying to understand nature. It goes like this:

Imagine that the gods are playing a cosmic game of chess. You are a tiny observer who doesn't know the rules of the game, but you're allowed to look at the board from time to time and from a little corner.

Through observations, you try to figure out the rules of the game and the rules that the pieces follow. You might discover, after a while, that a piece seems to be moving along the same color. You call this a BISHOP and then noted this consistent behavior. But later on, you discover another theory for the bishop, that it moves on a diagonal. And this refines the theory that you've understood before, that it maintains its color. This process is analogous to how scientists first discover one theory and then later find a deeper understanding of it as new evidence comes along.

Let's say everything's going well and we're discovering one theory after another. All of a sudden, some strange phenomenon occurs. So you begin to investigate it. IT'S CASTLING, something you didn't expect. And that adds to your understanding of what the king can do, under certain rules and circumstances.

Occasionally, we could have a revolution in science. We may be very comfortable and secure in our theory about the bishops...that no two bishops would move along the same color on the board. And then, one day, we discover that it is no longer the case. We see an instance of two bishops moving along the same color. How could this be? Only later do you discover a new possibility: that the bishop actually got captured and then a pawn went all the way to the other end to produce a new bishop. That could happen but you didn't know it.

JUST A SHORT DIGRESSION. Actually, speaking about "scared of being disproven", scientists are always trying to investigate those things in which they don't understand the conclusions. It's the thing that doesn't fit that's the most interesting, the part that doesn't go according to what you expect.

And so, it's very analogous to the way scientific theories are. They sometimes look very secure, they keep on working, and all of a sudden, some little gimmick shows that they don't seem right anymore. And then we have to investigate the conditions under which this deviation happened, and so forth. And gradually, we refine the theory to explain the phenomenon more deeply, more precisely and more comprehensively.

Unlike the chess game though, where the rules become more complicated as you go along---in science, when you discover new things, the whole picture looks more simple. It looks complicated at first because we're learning from a new experience which does not fit into our current set of theories. But if you realized, every time we expand into the wilder regions of experience, every once in a while we have these UNIFICATION of theories, in which everything's explained together...and it turns out to be simpler than it looked before...when distinct phenomena used to have their own separate theories.

Examples of unification are the following. First, take heat and mechanics. When atoms are in motion, the more motion, the more heat the system contains. And then the theories of heat and all temperature effects got unified under the laws of mechanics. Another example is the discovery of the relation between electricity, magnetism, and light, which were found to be different aspects of the same thing--- what we call today the electromagnetic field. Another example is the unification of chemical phenomena, the various properties of various substances and the behavior of atomic particles, which is in the quantum mechanics of chemistry.

The question is, of course: IS IT GOING TO BE POSSIBLE TO UNIFY EVERYTHING? Nobody knows. All we know is that, as we go along, we find that we can amalgamate pieces, and then we find some pieces that do not fit, and we keep trying to put the jigsaw puzzle together. Whether there are finite number of pieces or whether there is even a border to the puzzle, is of course UNKNOWN. It will never be known until we finish the picture, IF EVER.

I hope the above analogy makes clear to everyone what a scientific theory is.

FROM HEREON IN, I'm going to continue with my Biblical Errancy posts. ONLY IN THE RELIGIONISTS' CIRCLES DO YOU FIND THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION STILL REJECTED...NOT IN THE MAINSTREAM SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. THE RELIGIOUS CRACKPOT HATES SCIENCE? THAT'S FINE BY ME. THE FEELING'S MUTUAL.

[schmuck]

haha you want me to teach you? go and read about it.

appeal to popularity? you don't know why I used it? haha. be resourceful man.

did i say that myths = false? hmmm?

well if thats how you define FSM then it must be God. but obviously FSM defense is a form of mockery concocted by people who mocks God.

You honestly believe I don't understand those. Oh my FSM!

The FSM is more than that, it is meant to make you examine your own beliefs and the reasons why you believe them. But as the old saying goes, Irony is wasted on the stupid.

[hitch22]

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.

bingo!

And here's a rhetorical question: Which attitude therefore would lead mankind to a greater discovery of nature and the universe?

And that's the answer to the question on the thread topic.

[Phinx]

bible... wa nakoy lain tuohan... hehehe

[INRI]

you think so? sorry I think he missed it.

why should I stop? the only way for guys like you to have a good understanding of God is to use ordinary objects as illustrations so you can catch the idea being given. Or maybe you want it stop bcos its too clear and precise? no?

Yah I have heard that story many times already BUT unfortunately we cant use it as evidence that there is no God. yes? no?

where is the proof? ow scroll up a little bit, you'll find some suggestions that you might want to try.

He missed it? speak for yourself

Clear and precise? maybe something's wrong with me or with you coz it's blurred and imprecise..
Even if your bats and snakes cannot see me I still exist, why? coz I'm here, I'm tangible and testable and I'm even replying to you..
Is your God testable/tangible? you said yes to schmuck if we will turn into a spiritual man, and like what I've told you I've been there and sorry I found nothing. Now am I using this as an evidence of the god's non existent like what you think? that statement even hardly qualifies as an evidence.
Why should I be presenting evidence anyway, I'm not claiming something here..it's your duty to present us your evidence. Extraordinary claims requires an extraordinary proof. So please present your extraordinary proof.
I will ask you again, how can you be certain that your christian god is the right god? and not the god of islam or god of hindus?
If your god is omniscient and omnipotent, why can't he create a perfect world?
If your god is omnibenevolent, what has he been doing to the poor people?
and he even messed up his book, just check hitch's post.

[chad_tukes]

And here's a rhetorical question: Which attitude therefore would lead mankind to a greater discovery of nature and the universe?

of course, it's the belief in the Bible. why? because God said so.

[INRI]

Watch me shred every stupid argument to ribbons.



SCIENCE PERSECUTED THOSE WHO SAY THAT THE SUN IS THE CENTER OF OUR SOLAR SYSTEM?

Let me get that buzzer...beepbeep...WRONG ANSWER. THE VATICAN TRIED AND PERSECUTED GALILEO, DUMMY! OMG! I'm talking to an IDIOT!





WATCH HOW I'LL HIT TWO HEADLESS BIRDS WITH ONE STONE.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution doesn't claim that fishes will evolve into an amphibian or serpents into birds. The Theory also doesn't deal with CHEMICAL EVOLUTION.

I THOUGHT THE GUY'S READ THE BOOKS ABOUT EVOLUTION, LET ALONE UNDERSTOOD THEM. HE'S JUST SHOOTING OFF THE HIP LIKE SOME CRAZED LUNATIC.



THEORIES CHANGE. I've always said that. AGAIN, BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T KEEP UP WITH MY POSTS, YOU MISSED THIS EXPLANATION (But I'll paste it here again for everyone's perusal...it also contains Richard Feynman's famous chess analogy):



I hope the above analogy makes clear to everyone what a scientific theory is.

FROM HEREON IN, I'm going to continue with my Biblical Errancy posts. ONLY IN THE RELIGIONISTS' CIRCLES DO YOU FIND THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION STILL REJECTED...NOT IN THE MAINSTREAM SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. THE RELIGIOUS CRACKPOT HATES SCIENCE? THAT'S FINE BY ME. THE FEELING'S MUTUAL.

OMFSM hitch...does this guy really knows what he's talking about??
I really thought he's way much better than bungot..
Let's just give him a big LoLzZz