Waiting for Harsh EU Response!
-
There's no proven fact that we evolved from animals. The scientists are still trying to prove it, but I don't believe they will be able to do it. We're getting sick because of the bodies that we are in, not because we're not praying enough. Adam and Eve didn't eat apples that made them realize that they're naked. You won't find anywhere in the Bible where it says that they ate apples. It was because of sex. If you look at one of the definitions of fruit, you'll see that offspring is listed there. But Satan got to Eve first through the serpent. The Bible says that the serpent was the most subtil of all the beasts. It was a beast that walked upright like a man, closest animal to man. The only animal whose seed could mix with ours. In Genesis chapter 3 verse 15 it says that God will put enmity between the serpent and the woman and between the serpent's seed and the woman's seed. The serpent had a seed (which was Cain). God also cursed the serpent and changed its body into what we now know it as a reptile. The problem with denominational preachers are that they get so filled greeds and dogmas in the seminaries, that God can't use them. I understand why people don't want religion, and it's because they're not being told the truth. I'm not trying to be arrogant. Just trying to say what I know.
Dylvh wrote:
There's no proven fact that we evolved from animals.
It is a theory and a fact. The proof is so overwhelming that there cannot be another conclusion.
Dylvh wrote:
The scientists are still trying to prove it
No, they're not; it is a proven thing.
Dylvh wrote:
God also cursed the serpent and changed its body into what we now know it as a reptile.
I heard lots of variations, but it remains nonsense. Also, you were just talking about proof; while the world is BURIED in proof of evolution, there is absolutely ZERO documented proof for the existance of "a god". That's the problem with religous people - they don't think, they just try to defend what they think they "know".
Dylvh wrote:
I'm not trying to be arrogant. Just trying to say what I know.
You're not just arrogant, you're also endangering other people by spouting that religious drivel. Maybe not soon, but in time it will be banned, for the evil it is. And the world will rejoice :thumbsup:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
jschell wrote:
That is a statement of belief.
No, it's not, but feel free to believe so :laugh:
jschell wrote:
I am certainly up to see your proof of the statement though.
There is none, as you already know. Doesn't make it a "belief" though :) Mankind has a natural tendency to learn. The more we learned, the less we needed magical thinking. History is littered with examples of that, and no single example EVER that speaks in favor of a God-like being.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
There is none, as you already know. Doesn't make it a "belief" though
So it isn't proven but it is true. That is a belief.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
and no single example EVER that speaks in favor of a God-like being.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Science and logic can show that attempts to prove, logically or scientifically, that some deity is true is in fact flawed. But neither, by their very nature, can ever prove that a deity does not exist. People can believe in a deity. People can believe that a deity or all deities do not exist. But even claiming that it is just a zero probability based on lack of evidence is stretching the meaning of both science and logic because it is an attempt to extend the domain of either outside the domain of what the foundations of both. And both are very careful within themselves to define the domain over which they extend. Thus such claims become, by their very nature, not 'scientific' and not 'logical'. Thus nothing more than a roundabout way to rationalize a belief.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
There is none, as you already know. Doesn't make it a "belief" though
So it isn't proven but it is true. That is a belief.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
and no single example EVER that speaks in favor of a God-like being.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Science and logic can show that attempts to prove, logically or scientifically, that some deity is true is in fact flawed. But neither, by their very nature, can ever prove that a deity does not exist. People can believe in a deity. People can believe that a deity or all deities do not exist. But even claiming that it is just a zero probability based on lack of evidence is stretching the meaning of both science and logic because it is an attempt to extend the domain of either outside the domain of what the foundations of both. And both are very careful within themselves to define the domain over which they extend. Thus such claims become, by their very nature, not 'scientific' and not 'logical'. Thus nothing more than a roundabout way to rationalize a belief.
jschell wrote:
So it isn't proven but it is true. That is a belief.
No; similar to evolution, a theory and a fact.
jschell wrote:
But neither, by their very nature, can ever prove that a deity does not exist.
Occams razor combined with the absence of any proof. :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
jschell wrote:
So it isn't proven but it is true. That is a belief.
No; similar to evolution, a theory and a fact.
jschell wrote:
But neither, by their very nature, can ever prove that a deity does not exist.
Occams razor combined with the absence of any proof. :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
No; similar to evolution, a theory and a fact.
Theory and facts are not the same.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Occams razor combined with the absence of any proof.
Which is an 'acceptance' and not a proof. Thus a belief.
jschell wrote:
Theory and facts are not the same.
Yes, they are; they are gradations of the same thing. Evolution as fact and theory - Wikipedia[^]
jschell wrote:
Which is an 'acceptance' and not a proof. Thus a belief.
Earth is buried in proof that supports the theory; only a blind wombat calls that a belief. Every scientist will say evolution is a fact.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
jschell wrote:
Theory and facts are not the same.
Yes, they are; they are gradations of the same thing. Evolution as fact and theory - Wikipedia[^]
jschell wrote:
Which is an 'acceptance' and not a proof. Thus a belief.
Earth is buried in proof that supports the theory; only a blind wombat calls that a belief. Every scientist will say evolution is a fact.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Yes, they are; they are gradations of the same thing.
And yet they are not in fact the same thing as the link that you posted demonstrated in great detail.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Earth is buried in proof that supports the theory
I didn't claim otherwise.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
only a blind wombat calls that a belief.
I understand that in Euclidean geometry it is a theory that parallel lines do not intersect. I understand in detail how important that that theory is to that branch of mathematics. None of that however alters the actual fact that personally I believe that parallel lines do not intersect. I do however understand the difference. I also believe that the world is a sphere. And I freely disparage those that do not. I can only vaguely state what one experiment is that proves that and I have certainly never conducted that experiment. I am also certain that for the most part no one is currently re-validating the fact by caring out the experiments that prove it. I believe that some people have conducted such experiments recently but only because I read it. Even so I cannot even cite one authoritative figure that has done so. So again I believe it and treat it as a belief but still understand that I do take it as a belief despite the fact that the theory exists.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Every scientist will say evolution is a fact.
That of course is false. Many do but not all.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Yes, they are; they are gradations of the same thing.
And yet they are not in fact the same thing as the link that you posted demonstrated in great detail.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Earth is buried in proof that supports the theory
I didn't claim otherwise.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
only a blind wombat calls that a belief.
I understand that in Euclidean geometry it is a theory that parallel lines do not intersect. I understand in detail how important that that theory is to that branch of mathematics. None of that however alters the actual fact that personally I believe that parallel lines do not intersect. I do however understand the difference. I also believe that the world is a sphere. And I freely disparage those that do not. I can only vaguely state what one experiment is that proves that and I have certainly never conducted that experiment. I am also certain that for the most part no one is currently re-validating the fact by caring out the experiments that prove it. I believe that some people have conducted such experiments recently but only because I read it. Even so I cannot even cite one authoritative figure that has done so. So again I believe it and treat it as a belief but still understand that I do take it as a belief despite the fact that the theory exists.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Every scientist will say evolution is a fact.
That of course is false. Many do but not all.
jschell wrote:
And yet they are not in fact the same thing as the link that you posted demonstrated in great detail.
They are; like wet and solid aren't the same, but gradations of the same thing.
jschell wrote:
I didn't claim otherwise.
In that case the thread is done.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
jschell wrote:
And yet they are not in fact the same thing as the link that you posted demonstrated in great detail.
They are; like wet and solid aren't the same, but gradations of the same thing.
jschell wrote:
I didn't claim otherwise.
In that case the thread is done.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
They are; like wet and solid aren't the same, but gradations of the same thing.
Regardless of how you spin it they are still not the same thing. Again, as the very link that you posted demonstrated.
jschell wrote:
Regardless of how you spin it
I'm not professing an opinion; it is simply how science works.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
jschell wrote:
Regardless of how you spin it
I'm not professing an opinion; it is simply how science works.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
I'm not professing an opinion; it is simply how science works.
You are professing a belief. And yet as the link that you posted demonstrates others understand that they are not the same.
jschell wrote:
You are professing a belief.
Nope. A belief requires me to take something without proof.
jschell wrote:
And yet as the link that you posted demonstrates others understand that they are not the same.
Never said they were exact the same, but graduations of the same. --edit Put a bit of effort in it, not planning to repeat what is already been said :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
jschell wrote:
You are professing a belief.
Nope. A belief requires me to take something without proof.
jschell wrote:
And yet as the link that you posted demonstrates others understand that they are not the same.
Never said they were exact the same, but graduations of the same. --edit Put a bit of effort in it, not planning to repeat what is already been said :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Never said they were exact the same, but graduations of the same.
And yet as the link that you posted demonstrates others understand that they are not the same.
jschell wrote:
And yet as the link that you posted demonstrates others understand that they are not the same.
You must be very biased, to read that into it :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
jschell wrote:
And yet as the link that you posted demonstrates others understand that they are not the same.
You must be very biased, to read that into it :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
You must be very biased, to read that into it
I didn't need any bias of any sort to actually read two different definitions and understand that because there were two different definitions that does in fact mean that the words do in fact mean two different things. Otherwise, it would seem obvious, that the link would have specifically pointed out that they meant the same thing, and would have posted the singled definition for both.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
You must be very biased, to read that into it
I didn't need any bias of any sort to actually read two different definitions and understand that because there were two different definitions that does in fact mean that the words do in fact mean two different things. Otherwise, it would seem obvious, that the link would have specifically pointed out that they meant the same thing, and would have posted the singled definition for both.
That's a long way of saying that water is not ice, since they have two different definitions :D You do realize a definition is an attempt at an abstraction?
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
That's a long way of saying that water is not ice, since they have two different definitions :D You do realize a definition is an attempt at an abstraction?
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
That's a long way of saying that water is not ice, since they have two different definitions
No it is not the same as that.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
You do realize a definition is an attempt at an abstraction?
I realize quite a few things - such as the fact that you posted that link to support your argument. And I agree with what is in the link, since it makes it clear, that the two are not the same. And to me it seems obvious that the author is specifically attempting to make that point clear.