Majority of Republicans believe in literal creationism

Basically, here is AHZ telling people to define the number 5 without using math, you can only use colors.
 
Damocles said:
It is babble to tell people to define something using a method that is directly contradictory to its actual meaning.
Click to expand...

Making it also babble to tell people something has been defined using a method that is directly contradictory to it's actual meaning.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Making it also babble to tell people something has been defined using a method that is directly contradictory to it's actual meaning.
Click to expand...
Yes. Science cannot define the supernatural, that is why it is called supernatural. However, what you asked for was "scientific proof" for something that by definition is directly outside that sphere. Or, as I said before, you asked somebody to describe green to somebody who has never had sight, or you asked somebody to define the number 5 only using color. All of these are great philosophical questions, but it is just blabbering nonsense at us. You can't "disprove" god using the appendix any more than somebody can define the supernatural using the scientific method.
 
Damocles said:
Yes. Science cannot define the supernatural, that is why it is called supernatural. However, what you asked for was "scientific proof" for something that by definition is directly outside that sphere. Or, as I said before, you asked somebody to describe green to somebody who has never had sight, or you asked somebody to define the number 5 only using color. All of these are great philosophical questions, but it is just blabbering nonsense at us. You can't "disprove" god using the appendix any more than somebody can define the supernatural using the scientific method.
Click to expand...

I didn't asked for it. It is being spriously offered forward by theocratic nutjobs...

So you agree with me that there is no scientific evidence or proof for god?
 
AssHatZombie said:
I didn't asked for it. It is being spriously offered forward by theocratic nutjobs...

So you agree with me that there is no scientific evidence or proof for god?
Click to expand...
There is no scientific "proof" of god. We agree there, however you did tell people they had the "burden" to "prove" something that by definition cannot be proven.
 
Damocles said:
There is no scientific "proof" of god. We agree there, however you did tell people they had the "burden" to "prove" something that by definition cannot be proven.
Click to expand...

I admit their task is difficult. But they took charge of the task on their own.

Who am i to discourage them? I enjoy analyzying their layers of blather and mental dysfunction.

WHy are you arguing with me and not dixie? Because he's a new world order fucktard like you?
 
AssHatZombie said:
I dont think i ever bent over damo this hard before.
Click to expand...
Mostly because you are grabbing hard and bending over backwards, that pain you feel is from when your back broke. I'm not "arguing" with you, I am pointing out how foolish it is to demand "scientific proof" for something supernatural.
 
AssHatZombie said:
I'm sorry. You're wrong. The ones claiming the existence of magic entities has the burden of proving them, in science that is.

Science is atheistic.

and calling it a faith choice is not longer tenable for these theocratic zealots. It is their agenda to pervert science into a theocratic tool, for social control.
Click to expand...

/shrugs....and you're wrong three paragraphs in a row....
one who makes an assertion of fact is has the burden of proof, science is neutral, and we acknowledge it's a faith choice, while atheists are not honest about it......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
/shrugs....and you're wrong three paragraphs in a row....
one who makes an assertion of fact is has the burden of proof, science is neutral, and we acknowledge it's a faith choice, while atheists are not honest about it......
Click to expand...


Atheist aren't honest about it, what a pile of road apples!
 
Damocles said:
Mostly because you are grabbing hard and bending over backwards, that pain you feel is from when your back broke. I'm not "arguing" with you, I am pointing out how foolish it is to demand "scientific proof" for something supernatural.
Click to expand...

A very good reason for ID not to be part of science!
 
AssHatZombie said:
Black hole = matter so dense that it's gravity is strong enough to pull light and warp the space time continuum, making a convenient thoroughfare for adventuresome gene rodenberry characters.
Click to expand...

But this all defies our understanding of conventional physics. Also, the density of matter is not directly related to amount of gravity, that was what we ONCE believed, but in the past 50 years, that theory has changed. You see, scientists are constantly discovering new things, stuff we didn't know or understand before, and we advance as a species because of this. You are stuck in a world where science knows everything already, and no new information can be obtained, because you have stopped asking questions and began drawing conclusion.

Once upon a time, if they had internet forums, people like you would have been arguing with people like me, about the Earth being flat or round. I would be suggesting that the Earth could be round, it's possible... you would have been insisting that was nonsense, and not supported by science. They nearly ran Louis Pasteur out of France because he theorized that micro-organisms from raw milk, were living inside people, and causing them to become ill. Scientists of the day, called him an idiot and a fool for believing such a thing. There was no basis in science to support his theory at that time, and it was essentially discounted as nonsense. It's very important for you to remember, science does not have all the answers, science doesn't explain all things, it's not altruistic or infallible, and certainly not complete.

Some people, like Mott, have substituted faith in religion, with faith in science. You can read this in most everything scientific he posts. He presumes science to be the final word on everything, and because science has led to a theory, that theory is automatically the "gospel" and irrefutable. Although, many scientific theories have been debunked, found to be completely wrong and lacking, and they are often altered or dropped altogether. Einstein's theory of relativity, does not account for black holes, they defy the theory. According the the theory of relativity, nothing travels faster than the speed of light... well, we know this is not always true because we've observed black holes. This was not known when Einstein developed his theory.
 
I have faith in science. It has given me a lot of really great things, like my health.

The saying I use when being blasphemous, spit in one hand, pray in the other and see which one fills up first.

I relied on science to overcome my cancer, I did not put my faith in a god.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
...and then there are people like Dixie who don't know what the difference between the two are.
Click to expand...

I certainly know the difference. Science continues to ask questions and never draws a definitive and absolute conclusion. The second you decided there was no scientific basis for God, you stopped practicing science and began practicing faith in a belief that God doesn't exist. Science demands you continue to leave that question open, and continue to explore possibility. You fail to do that.

Now.... at present, there is no 'scientific proof' that God exists, but the concept of God resides outside the known physical realms of science, so it is probably always going to be impossible to 'prove' God with science. However, it's not something we can conclude to be impossible, unless we wish to abandon science completely, and rely on faith.

Damo makes some good points about the natural vs. supernatural world, however, the "supernatural" is merely things that can't be explained by natural law. This doesn't necessarily mean they will always be unexplainable by natural law, just that they are currently unexplainable, given our current understanding of natural law. Everything can change, nothing is impossible, all is possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top