(February 17, 2016 at 1:08 am)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:

(February 16, 2016 at 11:53 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Actually no,

It makes perfect mathematical sense, the human race had to start somewhere.

You seem to think a huge population of humans Just appeared out of nowhere.  Now that's a special kind of stupid.

(emphasis is mine)

Still building your straw man army, eh Huggies?

Yeah, and I'd like to know why, considering his literal interpretations of every single supernatural claim in the bible, he would think a population of humans appearing out of nowhere a ridiculous proposition. Since his God is all-powerful and everything. It certainly would have a more efficient method for creating.

(February 17, 2016 at 8:17 am)robvalue Wrote: When someone has dogma first and reality second, you cannot have a sensible conversation with them. They will assume that it's reality that's at fault if the two contradict, and will say any complete shit to convince themselves of this.

Take equivocating "theory" (scientific) and "theory" (informal). I've been here long enough to see the difference explained hundreds of times. And again, in this thread. Huggy will not learn, if learning means admitting he might be wrong.

Dogma? please

I would say most of the debates I've had on this forum had nothing to do with religion, and the funny thing is, you atheist hold on to a losing side of an argument like no other, despite my side of the argument being easily proven to be true.

I think by now you know better that to ask for evidence of the above statement, so I'll leave it at that.

Also "scientific theory" as you put it has never been defined as scientific fact, must I point out "scientific theories" that were debunked?

(February 17, 2016 at 11:13 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(February 17, 2016 at 8:17 am)robvalue Wrote: When someone has dogma first and reality second, you cannot have a sensible conversation with them. They will assume that it's reality that's at fault if the two contradict, and will say any complete shit to convince themselves of this.

Take equivocating "theory" (scientific) and "theory" (informal). I've been here long enough to see the difference explained hundreds of times. And again, in this thread. Huggy will not learn, if learning means admitting he might be wrong.

Dogma? please

I would say most of the debates I've had on this forum had nothing to do with religion, and the funny thing is, you atheist hold on to a losing side of an argument like no other, despite my side of the argument being easily proven to be true.

I think by now you know better that to ask for evidence of the above statement, so I'll leave it at that.

Also "scientific theory" as you put it has never been defined as scientific fact, must I point out "scientific theories" that were debunked?

No, scientific theories are not "debunked" in the sense that you mean. They are continuously subject to change, re-evaluation, and reconfiguration in light of new facts and evidence derived from the very same painstaking scientific method used to establish the theory in the first place. A truly rigorous, honest, and thorough scientist will challenge his hypothesis in as many ways as he can think of. You have no idea what science is, or what it does, but instead of being open to actually learning something new, you bury your head in the ass crack of your bible, plug your ears, and sing "la la la, I'm not listening!"

http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is...heory.html

If "everything this one book says is true and will always be true" isn't dogma, I don't know what is.

If it said some other stupid story instead of Adam and Eve, such people would believe that instead. Because it's in the dogmatically esteemed book.

It's the perfect antidote to learning.

(February 17, 2016 at 11:27 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(February 17, 2016 at 11:13 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Dogma? please

I would say most of the debates I've had on this forum had nothing to do with religion, and the funny thing is, you atheist hold on to a losing side of an argument like no other, despite my side of the argument being easily proven to be true.

I think by now you know better that to ask for evidence of the above statement, so I'll leave it at that.

Also "scientific theory" as you put it has never been defined as scientific fact, must I point out "scientific theories" that were debunked?

No, scientific theories are not "debunked" in the sense that you mean. They are continuously subject to change, re-evaluation, and reconfiguration in light of new facts and evidence derived from the very same painstaking scientific method used to establish the theory in the first place.  A truly rigorous, honest, and thorough scientist will challenge his hypothesis in as many ways as he can think of.  You have no idea what science is, or what it does, but instead of being open to actually learning something new, you bury your head in the ass crack of your bible, plug your ears, and sing "la la la, I'm not listening!"

http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is...heory.html

You know what else "are continuously subject to change, re-evaluation, and reconfiguration in light of new facts and evidence"? Beliefs, opinions and speculations. What is not subject to change under any circumstance is truth.

What's true will ALWAYS remain true, any new evidence will corroborate the truth, not change it.

from your link http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is...heory.html

Quote:Facts and theories are two different things. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts.

Also if I may quote your earlier post.

(February 12, 2016 at 2:44 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: I'm sure you've got an answer for that too. How long did it take you to go through every supernatural claim in the bible and come up with ways to spin them in a non-supernatural light? This has to have been a life long endeavor for you.

My whole point is that scientific FACT corroborates what the bible has been saying, it doesn't disprove it, the bible told you time was relative long before the theory of relativity.

Evolution is a fact in so much that each creature evolves after its "kind", cats evolve from cats and dogs from dogs, But the idea that we all evolved from some primordial soup is pure conjecture.

(February 17, 2016 at 1:07 pm)robvalue Wrote: If "everything this one book says is true and will always be true" isn't dogma, I don't know what is.

If it said some other stupid story instead of Adam and Eve, such people would believe that instead. Because it's in the dogmatically esteemed book.

It's the perfect antidote to learning.

You know what the biggest obstacle to learning is? Close mindedness.

It's always one side or the other with fanatics (read fanbois), whether they be religious or atheist. One can benefit from both science AND spirituality.

STILL waiting for Huggy74 to explain to me how freshwater fish survived the flood.

(February 18, 2016 at 3:34 am)Nihilist Virus Wrote: STILL waiting for Huggy74 to explain to me how freshwater fish survived the flood.

Still going on about the fish?

It's called adapting to ones environment. There are plenty of fish able to survive in both saltwater AND fresh water (salmon for example).

So who's to say that the fish we have now didn't evolve from fish that could survive in both environments, and over time, adapted to their respective environments.

Huggy. I've seen your pix. We all have. You got plenty of kudos. Cool dude with a cool woman.
I like you too much as a real person to take your silly fantasy personally. Enough Huggy...Enough.

(February 18, 2016 at 3:54 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(February 18, 2016 at 3:34 am)Nihilist Virus Wrote: STILL waiting for Huggy74 to explain to me how freshwater fish survived the flood.

Still going on about the fish?

It's called adapting to ones environment. There are plenty of fish able to survive in both saltwater AND fresh water (salmon for example).

So who's to say that the fish we have now didn't evolve from fish that could survive in both environments, and over time, adapted to their respective environments.

In 4000 years...?

(February 18, 2016 at 3:17 am)Huggy74 Wrote: You know what else "are continuously subject to change, re-evaluation, and reconfiguration in light of new facts and evidence"? Beliefs, opinions and speculations.

I'll fix this for you: Beliefs, opinions, and speculations may change on a whim regardless of facts or evidence because they, by their very nature, are not contingent upon them.

Quote:What is not subject to change under any circumstance is truth. What's true will ALWAYS remain true, any new evidence will corroborate the truth, not change it.

Correct! And the only way to determine the truth to the highest degree of certainty possible is the scientific method. What you don't get to say is, "this two thousand-year-old book is the truth because God said it is, and the bible is the word of God." Sorry. That in no way is evidence of any truth.

Discovery; revelation (dare I say) of our universe is a process. The fact that the scientific method is by its very design a self-correcting machine, makes it the most accurate tool for gathering facts and evidence about the world we live in. Facts and evidence lead to the truth, or as close to the truth as we can come. Your pointing out of instances where science has come to an incorrect conclusion actually bolsters my point, not yours. The difference between science and religion is that science is willing to say, "this isn't quite right. We are going to keep working until we get the answer that best reflects reality." Religion just screams by fiat, "this IS the truth, because it IS!" over, and over until people want to puke (namely me).

And science is why we are here in this world today. This is why we have modern medicine, and the longest life span our species has ever seen. Do you go to the doctor when you are sick, Huggy? If your physician offers you the most cutting-edge treatment with the maximum possible efficacy, are you going to turn him down because "science is wrong all the time and everything is just a theory"? Will you seek a cure in the pages of your book? I seriously doubt it.

Tell me, Huggy: if science is such a joke to you, why do you try so hard to reconcile its findings with your holy book?

Quote:link http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is...heory.html

Facts and theories are two different things. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts.

No, you're right, I shouldn't have linked you to anything that would require you to critically think. I'm sorry, I should know better by now.

Quote:My whole point is that scientific FACT corroborates what the bible has been saying, it doesn't disprove it, the bible told you time was relative long before the theory of relativity

LOL! Are you kidding me?

2 Peter 3:8 - But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

This is no way Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, lol. Science doesn't corroborate the bible. You just happened to retrospectively find vague, and poetic prose from the bible that doesn't particularly contradict the scientific theory that you already know about. Thanks to the scientific method.. And Einstein.

Quote:Evolution is a fact in so much that each creature evolves after its "kind", cats evolve from cats and dogs from dogs, But the idea that we all evolved from some primordial soup is pure conjecture.

Your understanding of evolutionary biology is incorrect, and I suspect willfully ignorant, but that has been demonstrated in this thread already. You just refuse to acknowledge it. Www://talkorigins.org. You're welcome.