http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta07/ERES1580.htm
> 1. The aim of this report is not to question or to fight a belief – the right to freedom of belief does not permit that. The aim is to warn against certain tendencies to pass off a belief as science. It is necessary to separate belief from science. It is not a matter of antagonism. Science and belief must be able to coexist. It is not a matter of opposing belief and science, but it is necessary to prevent belief from opposing science.
Stopped reading there.
There is NO evidence of evolution. It is a belief. Objective science doesn't support evolution no matter how many frauds and hoaxes are fabricated to support evolution. The truth always trickles out.
Life doesn't just happen. That alone totally defies the Laws of Science.
The Judeo Christian G-D, made it happen. G-d is the Author of all science. It is no coincidence that leading evolutionists are atheists. THAT is by design. These atheistic evolutionists do not find G-d acceptable in their premises. Their premise is that there is NO G-D.
Professing to be wise they have become fools .... intolerent fools.
Obvious troll is obvious.
>>2
I wish it was a troll
>>1, in the unlikely event that you are not just yanking our chains, can you provide empirical evidence for any of the quite astonishing claims you've just made?
If you come here seeking civil debate you will find many willing to oblige you. If you're just copypasting silliness trying to get a rise out of us, 4chan is that way -->
>G-d
It's a Jewish troll.
There is NO evidence that bullets cause gunshot wounds. There are numerous wounds that occur without bullets, and the vast majority of bullets are never connected to any wound.
Police, criminals, and the gun lobby want us to believe that guns can hurt people, but it is only a belief, not science. Have you ever SEEN a bullet enter a real body? No one has! - The so-called evidence is controlled by the police and gun manufacturers, who want to use guns to control you!
There is NO evidence that sex causes babies. Sure, people say the do, but that's such obvious bullshit.
ITT our reductio ad absurdam threatens to become reductio ad nauseam instead.
or reductio ad hominem
in which case I'm still waiting for the hurt little girl to come out and convert us
If there is a god, I doubt he is proud of his creation. No "god" would allow poverty, starvation, totalitarian dictators, and republicans. No god would allow this shit. Period.
Its a theory, not a proof. So you cannot say its false or true. Its far more believeable an explanation than God, or so it seems.
>>12
You can test the predictions the theory makes. If the theory makes predictions that observation shows to be false, the theory is wrong.
>>1 = JAPANESE IS LIAR THERE IS NO COREAN SEX ARMY ON EARTH!!!!!!
You can't test evolution
>>15
Evolution is change in allele frequencies over time in a breeding population. How is this not testable?
It is actually possible to make predictions about things that have already happened, you simply predict that no evidence will ever be uncovered to contradict your hypothesis. In the context of evolution we would not expect to find a rabbit in the pre-cambrian, and therefore predict that no rabbit fossils dating to that era shall ever be uncovered.
I think he meant you cant test macroevolution
>I think he meant you cant test macroevolution
And >>17 pointed out that you can.
This just in: Evolution of a significant new trait observed in lab. Macroevolution pretty much proven to exist. ( http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/conservapedias-evolutionary-foibles.ars/1 )
>>21
Actually, no. >>17 just laid down a simple way to disprove evolution: If any fossils were found in a layer of the earth that could not, according to evolutionary theory, possibly be in that layer - due to not existing yet when that layer formed - then that would be evidence suggesting that evolution is wrong.
So far, all fossils that have been found formed at just the time evolutionary theory would suggest they have. It's not like no one is looking - it's just that it's pretty likeley that such evidence simply happens to not exist, and the evolution is indeed right.
>>21
furthermore, while religion likes to be absolutist, science is just the opposite. There is no 100% chance of anything (thank you entropy theory). We can be 99.999999999999999999999999999999^to the googolplex power % sure of something but never 100%. we have not proven macroevolution and science does not claim this. we have shown that it is by far the most likely possibility. we have also shown that by contrast, creationism as currently presented is ALMOST completely unlikely (0% also doesnt exist in science. u see how science doesnt rule shit out entirely because it recognizes the possibility of the undiscovered?) Evidence suggests that we evolved from things. Evolution is a theory. Creationism is a myth. The difference here is that to be a theory, you must present a criterion that can be either supported or discredited EMPIRICALLY. Creationism relies on supernatural explanations which, by deifinition, cannot be naturally or empirically explained or meassured. Creationists like to claim anything evolution cannot currently account for as proofs for creationism. Thats like saying that because a car does not contain any red pigment in its' paint, it is proven to be blue. The conclusion does not follow the prmeise, and is, therefore a FAILURE! now if you wanted to reconcile the 2, you could say that god is an amoeba and created us in his image (that of primordial slime) and that "eating the fruit of knowledge" was a metaphore for the beginins of evolution. both science and chrisitanity agree that we are all made of dust (various forms of star dust, according to science). but thats up to you if you want to reconcile the 2. bottom line, creationism is not science because it does not measure things empirically. evolution is a theory but it is one that has sufficient evidence to be the current standing truth. Science is always open to change, provided you can back it up.
tl;dr OP is either stupid or a troll. creationism isnt science; evolution is. threads over; pool's closed.
>>23, the problem is that you are rational and reasonable, and wiling to change your model of the world if new evidence becomes available.
One does not "believe in" evolution. Or gravity. Or relativity. Or electrons.
One provisionally accepts them as useful models that help us think about the world, pending empirical evidence that shows them to be false.
Religion on the other hand is all about "believing in" things, and refusing to change one's mind no matter what.
"provisionally accepting" something is "believing" in it. you just have a rational reason for it. it ceases to be faith when logic is involved.you don't have "faith" in science but you do "believe" in it. bu i agree. thats why i can truthfully call myself agnostic. i am not bound to allegiance one way or the other. am i biased? of course. im biased AGAINST religion. I admit it. im not virulently against it but i am heavily against it because i lack the capacity for faith. i fuction through logic and reason and that means i am enslaved to empiricism. if, without the use of drugs, i experiences something "supernatural" in nature (ie god talks to me, i walk miraculously after being a paraplegic with no scientific reasoning, i see an angel, ect) and others see it to 9so as to rule out dumb luck or dilusions) i will believe in said supernatural being/effect because i now have empirical proof (i experienced it first hand). I would not be able to prove this unless i could recreate the scenario because the proof would only be temporary. i would, however, accept it. if you want a mystical experience, you can believe whatever you wants and take psychedelic drugs to experience what you believe in. garuanteed to make you "see" god or whatever else you believe in. i need proof. thats all. im willing to accept that i am wrong, that sience fails, and that the bible is truth... just as soon as i am with a group of my atheist friends and we see god or the pacific parts for us and is ombserved and recorded. if that happens, i would automatically become the MOST fundamentalist believer of whatever faith said being comanded me to because i would have PROOF that this is a superior being. until then, i cannont do so. Bear in mind, at high enough levels of math and science, physics, logic, and math FAIL. ultimately, beyond the subatomic level of neutrons, protons, and electrons, science fails. all of science ultimately boils down to chaos, giving credende to the idea that everything was born from chaos. hence entropy and dark matter and dark energy (qwhich science hypothesises comprise 90% of the universe). there is much that science doesnt answer.
(>>25 continued)
Further more, i dont feel comfortable just saying that god answers what science doesnt. to me, that insults both science and "god" or any other divinity you put in that place. That reduces the divine to whatever we don't understand. That means that god shrinks as our knowledge expands. it also means that it makes science gods rival. and that is stupid, arrogant, and disruptive for both sides. it means that following science is effectively attempted Deicide (god killing). it also promotes willful ignorance in the name of religion. BAD approach. Science is not perfect but nothing in the universe is. not even god (if you believe in him). if he were perfect he would not have made something which he knew would fail him (humanity). if the christian god was perfect, he would have known the free will involves suffering and that his creating would not obey him. he may be nigh perfect. but he has made errors. (once again bearing in mind that u postulate that he exists.)
if there is a religion that hope is true, it would have to be wicca. at least in that respect, everything lives, dies, and is reborn and the god/goddess duo are merely observers. it leave people free to do as they wish and assume responsibility for their actions or inactions.
also bear in mind that you are grossly overgeneralizing when you say, "Religion on the other hand is all about 'believing in' things, and refusing to change one's mind no matter what."
That is false. Hinduism and buddhuism are quite the opposite. Particularly zen buddhism. They all hold that knowledge is the key to enlightenment and freedom from rebirth and that therefor, you should alter your way of life as you become more enlightened. Zen, in particular, holds that one can only learn things first hand, as no second hand knoledge is sufficient. Only first hand experience will suffice to zen buddhists. a popular zen story tells of a zen monk who was asked how deep the Zen River was wilste standing on a bridge. He immediataly grabbed the person who wasked him and would have thrown him into the river if he had not been stopped by onlookers. The monk wanted the person who asked him to go to the bottom of the river to measure it himself. Zen holds that all outside help for knowledge is futile. And this has some merrit. You can read books all you want but until you actually get experience, it is all theoretical knowledge and is worthless. Thats why when you leave law school, you have to start as an intern or junior attorney. Thats why to be a teacher you must be an interns before you get your credentials. you lack experience and must gain first hand experience before you're deemed worthy to teach.
hinduism and buddhism have MANY different schools and denominations which are so large that they could be seen as their own religions. and they all mandate one gain person knowledge and alter their world view accordingly. and they all venerate knowledge. why do you think Ghandi is so respected. he was a hindu monk. inspite of the fact that he was racist against black people, he insisted that people learn from the past. he knew violent revolts would not defeat the worlds greatest empire but civil resistance would and so, he urged people to change their method of revolt. and it worked.
lumping religion into a big pile like that falls into the same trap that most religions do. not all christianity is blind. there are many liberal forms of christianity that view the bible as largely metaphorical. i just dont believe it because it lacks empirical evidence
This 'evolution is a lie!' stuff is such an American phenomenon. Europe, for example, simply accepts that it is the best explanation for what we can observe, which is possible a result of the more secular society to be found here.