Posts: 11697
Threads: 117
Joined: November 5, 2016
Reputation:
43
RE: Religion and Science are 1000% Opposite
October 16, 2017 at 4:43 am
Quote:It's obvious you guys aren't seeing the point, but what else is new...
No obvious you need to start making some fucking sense .
Seek strength, not to be greater than my brother, but to fight my greatest enemy -- myself.
Inuit Proverb
Posts: 7392
Threads: 53
Joined: January 15, 2015
Reputation:
88
RE: Religion and Science are 1000% Opposite
October 16, 2017 at 4:52 am
(October 16, 2017 at 12:10 am)Cyberman Wrote: (October 15, 2017 at 11:22 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Care to add anything other than wow?
Actuall, yes. Duly submitted to FSTDT. Shit like that is far too good not to share.
It's a great example of falsifiability. It's the perfect example to refute the statement that there are no stupid questions.
Posts: 4738
Threads: 7
Joined: October 17, 2013
Reputation:
15
RE: Religion and Science are 1000% Opposite
October 16, 2017 at 10:37 am
Ok let me explain it for you dummies.
That statement was obviously sarcasm, since I believe in a creator and not that nature actually figured out the principles of lift. 
The point was flight has been around a long time, and neither prayer or science had anything to do with it.
Posts: 7392
Threads: 53
Joined: January 15, 2015
Reputation:
88
RE: Religion and Science are 1000% Opposite
October 16, 2017 at 10:39 am
(October 16, 2017 at 10:37 am)Huggy74 Wrote: The point was flight has been around a long time, and neither prayer or science had anything to do with it.
So ...?
Posts: 4738
Threads: 7
Joined: October 17, 2013
Reputation:
15
RE: Religion and Science are 1000% Opposite
October 16, 2017 at 10:44 am
So read the quote I was responding to...
Why you commenting on something you don't know the proper context of?
Posts: 23918
Threads: 300
Joined: June 25, 2011
Reputation:
151
RE: Religion and Science are 1000% Opposite
October 16, 2017 at 10:46 am
(October 15, 2017 at 7:24 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: (September 13, 2017 at 10:13 am)Khemikal Wrote: I suspect that it does. Praying for something to fly isn't as effective as working out the principles of lift.
How did nature manage to work out the principles of lift without science?
It was by way of survival of the liftest, a topic science addresses in evolution.
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: Religion and Science are 1000% Opposite
October 16, 2017 at 10:55 am
(October 16, 2017 at 10:37 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Ok let me explain it for you dummies.
That statement was obviously sarcasm, since I believe in a creator and not that nature actually figured out the principles of lift.
The point was flight has been around a long time, and neither prayer or science had anything to do with it.
You aren't helping yourself, dumbass.
Posts: 4738
Threads: 7
Joined: October 17, 2013
Reputation:
15
RE: Religion and Science are 1000% Opposite
October 16, 2017 at 11:12 am
(October 16, 2017 at 10:55 am)Minimalist Wrote: (October 16, 2017 at 10:37 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Ok let me explain it for you dummies.
That statement was obviously sarcasm, since I believe in a creator and not that nature actually figured out the principles of lift.
The point was flight has been around a long time, and neither prayer or science had anything to do with it.
You aren't helping yourself, dumbass.
How about some ASTDT
(September 4, 2014 at 1:03 pm)Minimalist Wrote: You do realize that you are using one part of your silly book to "prove" another part?
Using that model I can prove that Jack and the Beanstalk was real.
(September 4, 2014 at 1:11 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Correct.
If we were discussing Jack and the Beanstalk, and you claimed that Jack climbed a rope instead of the beanstalk, then it would make sense to look and see what it says on the book...no?
(September 4, 2014 at 1:13 pm)Minimalist Wrote: They are both works of fiction. A flying carpet could easily be inserted and have no impact on the story.
Try dealing in facts instead of fairy tales.
(September 4, 2014 at 1:25 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: My response is to the OP, who asked a question concerning the Bible, so therefore my answers will be according to the Bible. Apparently you're offended by that so why are you even here?
And btw, a flying carpet would impact the story of Jack and the beanstalk considerably. 
Posts: 947
Threads: 0
Joined: May 12, 2016
Reputation:
11
RE: Religion and Science are 1000% Opposite
October 16, 2017 at 11:25 am
(October 14, 2017 at 1:59 pm)Drich Wrote: And if you'd pay a little attation to the circumstance you will note I never said it had to only start in one place in the universe either... I pointed out that is how darwin used evolution to replace or kill a need for God. rather than creator of a planet earth, evolution is the source code or evolution the science version of "god did it." Again that is not how I use the term but how it is seen to be used here.
Except for one having supported evidence and the other....not, they're the same thing.
"The last superstition of the human mind is the superstition that religion in itself is a good thing." - Samuel Porter Putnam
Posts: 13392
Threads: 187
Joined: March 18, 2012
Reputation:
48
RE: Religion and Science are 1000% Opposite
October 16, 2017 at 3:19 pm
(This post was last modified: October 16, 2017 at 3:20 pm by Drich.)
(October 14, 2017 at 5:12 pm)Mathilda Wrote: (October 14, 2017 at 3:44 pm)Drich Wrote: Glob...
Nothing you f-ing moron. Small changes on an inner species level can be witnessed with in just a few generations of cross breeding and environmental change. No one has EVER questioned that. But that (and thisis the f-ing moron part you don't seem to get) Inner species evolution is NOT DARWINISM!!! Darwinism speak to extra species evolution. like from a 14 foot reptile to a bird of prey! Not from a hound dog to another type or measure of a hound dog. or a donkey and horse to a mule. a 500ft whale to 300ft land animal to100ft blue whale.. that is darwinism get it? from one species over time to another.
So the usual strawman argument from a theist who does not understand what the theory of evolution actually is but dismisses it anyway.
I am glad that you agreed that there is no mechanism is in place to stop small changes from accumulating over many generations because that means that what you creationists call micro-evolution accumulate given enough time to become major changes. That is what the theory of evolution is, small changes accumulating over time. Genetic algorithms for example won't work if it requires large steps to be made. And what I said in a nut shell is there is not one example of a major change. The 'algorithm' simply has not yielded one example of a major change. the 24 hour fruit fly is proof of that. 50,000 Generations of 24 hour fruit flies since they were first studied, and what did evolution do? it made one group blind and another tranlucent. that said they were all still 24 hour fruit flies after 50K generations. nothing morphed into anything else!
(October 16, 2017 at 11:25 am)Harry Nevis Wrote: (October 14, 2017 at 1:59 pm)Drich Wrote: And if you'd pay a little attation to the circumstance you will note I never said it had to only start in one place in the universe either... I pointed out that is how darwin used evolution to replace or kill a need for God. rather than creator of a planet earth, evolution is the source code or evolution the science version of "god did it." Again that is not how I use the term but how it is seen to be used here.
Except for one having supported evidence and the other....not, they're the same thing.
THE EVIDENCE IS THE SAME "the dude" just a different explanation as to how it all comes together. matter of fact it comes together far more cleanly.
|
