I’m still not clear on what they are winning. I mean, is the title greatest lie teller in history? Biggest fallacy mankind has ever conceived? Most self-important group on the planet? Hmmm, ok maybe the last one could end up a tie on occasion.
Islam is the right religion and since cant win If you read the Quran with understanding you will find out that Islam is the right religion within 200 years Islam will expand
god, indeed! God IS Science. If you need a side of prophet with that, worship technology. If you need to follow that which can’t be proven, try scientific theory. My God is bigger than your God, My God’s bigger than yours……..,
I agree with previously. Religion was invented by the greedy to control their slaves. There is too many people on this earth. Religions are compounding the problem. Why would anyone truly care about this earth when they’ve been brainwashed into beleiving that a better life is at hand? Obviously, they don’t!
Religion explained the natural world using super natural entities. Then someone thought about finding out if these ideas were true. This is science – finding out if what you think is real. If not, then change what you think.
Personally, you will very rarely be able to actually change a religious follower. If they are ignorant, and only in the back of their head consider the conflicts of the world, they will find it hard to comprehend these in an argument. If they feel they are being disproved, they will revert to their fundamental truth of the world, their fortress of irrationallity in which no logic can touch them. And, worst of all, if they will believe they are right, if you attempt to carry out a discussion with them, they will become hypocritical, they won’t shut up and give you a chance to speak, they will interrupt you, and in the end, they will believe they have won because they are not convinced, or because someone tires of the discussion and breaks it up. Thus, any attempt at actually providing religious nutcases with real world proof is utterly useless, and any attempt to outsmart them in metaphysical sciences ends in improbability paradoxes. Any attempt to continue the discussion makes you look as stupid as them, so it is best simply not to engage in these discussions with religious people. Instead, wait thirty years until the world is mostly atheist, and see if they are more reasonable.
If evolution is backed by “real world proof” as Amal puts it then why are there no fossils of transitional creatures in our very extensive fossil record? Why is there no mechanism for adding DNA to propel us from one species to another? What of the problem of chirality (the spontaneous generation of first life)? Sir Arthur Keith, anatomist and anthropologist said, “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe in it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable”. Evolution is a theory that is impossible to confirm through scientific method. So for all of you evolutionists let me welcome you to the realm of religion for your belief takes more faith than mine.
First of all, awesome name, I wish my parents had named me that; I think my name translates into something like: “not bad military leader”. Anyways, normally I wouldn’t argue with you, but seeing as your argument is so flawed, I couldn’t help myself. First off, transitional fossils: I’m no paleontologist, or even a biologist, so forgive me if I am wrong, but can’t we easily trace the evolutionary tree of primates in the fossil record, following it down the line until we end up with humans? Second, the DNA propelling method: I’m not really a chemist either, but I know that such a mechanism is possible, however, it would be so extremely complicated, that us attempting to build it would be, one, impractical, and two, similar to expecting a newborn to program the next Halo game using only binary. Third, chirality: I know that organic compounds can be formed under in the environment of primordial earth, having myself performed a lab proving just that in AP biology. After organic compounds form, it would be a simple matter, if an extremely lengthy and time consuming one, before self-replicating RNA would end up inside a protective(ish) bi-lipid bubble. Next, the bubbles would begin to perform glycolysis, and evolution would shoot off, eventually resulting in life. I would like to know what kind of an anatomist/anthropologist your Sir Arthur Kieth is; evolution is easily provable as we can see natural selection within our own lifetime and with our own lives. If you want to think your belief requires less faith to believe in…more power to you. I think you have a point there, and I’d rather not get trapped in a silly discussion about it.
March 21st, 2010 - 11:06 pm
Agreed
March 22nd, 2010 - 2:37 am
Prove it.
March 22nd, 2010 - 2:40 am
Fossils.
March 22nd, 2010 - 4:45 am
Creationism > Science
March 22nd, 2010 - 4:50 am
Unfair fight. You cant have shit tier vs. god tier its not balanced, lrn2tournament rules fgt.
March 28th, 2010 - 2:54 am
I’m still not clear on what they are winning. I mean, is the title greatest lie teller in history? Biggest fallacy mankind has ever conceived? Most self-important group on the planet? Hmmm, ok maybe the last one could end up a tie on occasion.
May 19th, 2010 - 8:46 pm
there is no proof either way. one cannot state fact when talking about philosophy. everything is abstract, everything is infinite.
May 19th, 2010 - 8:48 pm
p.s. evolution just backs up the idea of god.
open ur peepers
May 21st, 2010 - 1:16 am
Islam is the right religion and since cant win If you read the Quran with understanding you will find out that Islam is the right religion within 200 years Islam will expand
May 25th, 2010 - 2:34 pm
im am god there for i win
May 25th, 2010 - 2:35 pm
they both loose neither one can out prove the other
June 14th, 2010 - 6:53 pm
god, indeed! God IS Science. If you need a side of prophet with that, worship technology. If you need to follow that which can’t be proven, try scientific theory. My God is bigger than your God, My God’s bigger than yours……..,
June 14th, 2010 - 6:55 pm
Perception is derived from focus.
June 14th, 2010 - 9:38 pm
I agree with previously. Religion was invented by the greedy to control their slaves. There is too many people on this earth. Religions are compounding the problem. Why would anyone truly care about this earth when they’ve been brainwashed into beleiving that a better life is at hand? Obviously, they don’t!
June 14th, 2010 - 10:18 pm
I do so agree! However, rest assured, if all this heaven and hell crap plays out as truth, I will be the one to make satan wash the feet of Jesus.
June 15th, 2010 - 8:23 pm
Did I stumble into a den of athee aythi azei…….,non-believers?
June 15th, 2010 - 8:29 pm
Based on most of the responses to my site so far, you might have.
June 28th, 2010 - 10:38 am
This
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8vp7ku47Qs
July 14th, 2010 - 4:11 am
Religion explained the natural world using super natural entities. Then someone thought about finding out if these ideas were true. This is science – finding out if what you think is real. If not, then change what you think.
July 20th, 2010 - 9:51 am
Personally, you will very rarely be able to actually change a religious follower. If they are ignorant, and only in the back of their head consider the conflicts of the world, they will find it hard to comprehend these in an argument. If they feel they are being disproved, they will revert to their fundamental truth of the world, their fortress of irrationallity in which no logic can touch them. And, worst of all, if they will believe they are right, if you attempt to carry out a discussion with them, they will become hypocritical, they won’t shut up and give you a chance to speak, they will interrupt you, and in the end, they will believe they have won because they are not convinced, or because someone tires of the discussion and breaks it up. Thus, any attempt at actually providing religious nutcases with real world proof is utterly useless, and any attempt to outsmart them in metaphysical sciences ends in improbability paradoxes. Any attempt to continue the discussion makes you look as stupid as them, so it is best simply not to engage in these discussions with religious people. Instead, wait thirty years until the world is mostly atheist, and see if they are more reasonable.
July 21st, 2010 - 5:41 pm
If evolution is backed by “real world proof” as Amal puts it then why are there no fossils of transitional creatures in our very extensive fossil record? Why is there no mechanism for adding DNA to propel us from one species to another? What of the problem of chirality (the spontaneous generation of first life)? Sir Arthur Keith, anatomist and anthropologist said, “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe in it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable”. Evolution is a theory that is impossible to confirm through scientific method. So for all of you evolutionists let me welcome you to the realm of religion for your belief takes more faith than mine.
August 17th, 2010 - 6:22 am
In response to Greg McClellan:
First of all, awesome name, I wish my parents had named me that; I think my name translates into something like: “not bad military leader”. Anyways, normally I wouldn’t argue with you, but seeing as your argument is so flawed, I couldn’t help myself. First off, transitional fossils: I’m no paleontologist, or even a biologist, so forgive me if I am wrong, but can’t we easily trace the evolutionary tree of primates in the fossil record, following it down the line until we end up with humans? Second, the DNA propelling method: I’m not really a chemist either, but I know that such a mechanism is possible, however, it would be so extremely complicated, that us attempting to build it would be, one, impractical, and two, similar to expecting a newborn to program the next Halo game using only binary. Third, chirality: I know that organic compounds can be formed under in the environment of primordial earth, having myself performed a lab proving just that in AP biology. After organic compounds form, it would be a simple matter, if an extremely lengthy and time consuming one, before self-replicating RNA would end up inside a protective(ish) bi-lipid bubble. Next, the bubbles would begin to perform glycolysis, and evolution would shoot off, eventually resulting in life. I would like to know what kind of an anatomist/anthropologist your Sir Arthur Kieth is; evolution is easily provable as we can see natural selection within our own lifetime and with our own lives. If you want to think your belief requires less faith to believe in…more power to you. I think you have a point there, and I’d rather not get trapped in a silly discussion about it.