Aug 29 - Bill Nye The Science Guy Rips On American's Who Teach Creationism To Children

most viewed right now
 100
Video inside Tay K has signed a record deal with 88 Classic Records worth millions.
45 comments
@hiphop
most viewed right now
 76
Image(s) inside Chinx’s Killer attended his funeral!!!!!smh
138 comments
@hiphop
most viewed right now
 76
What's the best punchline you heard this year?
60 comments
@hiphop
most viewed right now
 59
NBA Kobe Bryant legendary stories like when MJ yelled @ Mugsy shoot u f'n midg..
71 comments
@sports

section   (0 bx goons and 1 bystanders) Share this on Twitter   Share this on Facebook
 

Props Slaps
 5 years ago '10        #141
TheMindOf 21 heat pts21
space
avatar space
space
$27,749 | Props total: 16554 16554
 Michael_Moore said:


see it's moronic posts like this that prove inconclusively that athiests dont know the 1st thing about the Bible and/or haven't read it with understanding...
So what I said was a lie?


Also, Im not an Atheist. If you're read my posts in here I clearly state that I believe in a God. I just have major issues with organized religion and the idiots (like yourself) who blindly follow it without question


Last edited by TheMindOf; 09-01-2012 at 09:14 PM..
 5 years ago '06        #142
nightmare 429 heat pts429
space
avatar space
space
$13,073 | Props total: 37 37
this thread is never gonna end
 09-01-2012, 10:48 PM         #143
Dark Bunny Lord 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
A big problem here is a few people seem to be lumping faith and theory as equal levels of validity. Faith is believing something without evidence and theory is not just a guess. A theory starts as a hypothesis (an idea) that is then tested and if all tests and compared facts match the hypothesis then it graduates to a theory.
Thus we have faith, an idea that is supported by litterally nothing but believed anyways.
Then we have theory, an idea that is tested rigorously and matches perfectly with all facts thus far.

The only reason a "theory" is not a "fact" is because scientists are intellectually honest enough to admit that absolute knowledge of something is rare. Take the theory of gravity, it states that mass = gravity and in every observed instance an object of more mass has more gravity than something of less mass, but that doesn't mean that we might not some day go out and find something with lots of mass and little gravity and thus have to refine our understanding of gravity, thus not a fact but a theory. This does not make theories anywhere close to faith as theories instead ARE our best current understanding of the universe and how things in it work.

This said ALL the evidence currently matches an earth billions upon billions of years old. How much evidence supports a God? None. It doesn't mean there isn't one, it doesn't mean there isn't invisible flying apes of incredible power that hold everything to the ground and simulate weight either. Point being why on earth would you bother to believe in something before evidence supported it. I'd much rather wait until evidence came in and in the mean time when someone asks "how did everything come to be" be honest and say "we don't know yet".
 5 years ago '07        #144
mainevent4u88 101 heat pts101
space
avatar space
space
$9,252 | Props total: 4736 4736
guys. the people who choose to place religion before science will join the ranks of the people who refused to believe the sun was the center of our solar system. Either you learn that the world is round instead of flat, or you go down in history as a dumb a.ss.

the end.
 5 years ago '06        #145
Stupid Fresh 183 heat pts183
space
avatar space
space
$24,238 | Props total: 5042 5042
do hoodrats and hood n*ggas get into heaven

are there gold grills in heaven
 5 years ago '06        #146
nightmare 429 heat pts429
space
avatar space
space
$13,073 | Props total: 37 37
 Dark Bunny Lord said:
A big problem here is a few people seem to be lumping faith and theory as equal levels of validity. Faith is believing something without evidence and theory is not just a guess. A theory starts as a hypothesis (an idea) that is then tested and if all tests and compared facts match the hypothesis then it graduates to a theory.
Thus we have faith, an idea that is supported by litterally nothing but believed anyways.
Then we have theory, an idea that is tested rigorously and matches perfectly with all facts thus far.

The only reason a "theory" is not a "fact" is because scientists are intellectually honest enough to admit that absolute knowledge of something is rare. Take the theory of gravity, it states that mass = gravity and in every observed instance an object of more mass has more gravity than something of less mass, but that doesn't mean that we might not some day go out and find something with lots of mass and little gravity and thus have to refine our understanding of gravity, thus not a fact but a theory. This does not make theories anywhere close to faith as theories instead ARE our best current understanding of the universe and how things in it work.

This said ALL the evidence currently matches an earth billions upon billions of years old. How much evidence supports a God? None. It doesn't mean there isn't one, it doesn't mean there isn't invisible flying apes of incredible power that hold everything to the ground and simulate weight either. Point being why on earth would you bother to believe in something before evidence supported it. I'd much rather wait until evidence came in and in the mean time when someone asks "how did everything come to be" be honest and say "we don't know yet".
i like this, but ppl dont wanna hear this. they gonna use faith as the equal opposite of science.

kadillac87 tryna say the rest of the universe might be different, but we do know what is it like hear and thats wat we talking about. also the bible, specifically discusses events here on earth, so bringing up the rest of the universe is irrelevant, if talking about science vs. faith

how these cats gonna defend something with ZERO evidence against someone, with alot of evidence?
 5 years ago '09        #147
McmasterlockPt2 41 heat pts41
space
avatar space
space
$12,910 | Props total: 839 839
 Dark Bunny Lord said:
A big problem here is a few people seem to be lumping faith and theory as equal levels of validity. Faith is believing something without evidence and theory is not just a guess. A theory starts as a hypothesis (an idea) that is then tested and if all tests and compared facts match the hypothesis then it graduates to a theory.
Thus we have faith, an idea that is supported by litterally nothing but believed anyways.
Then we have theory, an idea that is tested rigorously and matches perfectly with all facts thus far.

The only reason a "theory" is not a "fact" is because scientists are intellectually honest enough to admit that absolute knowledge of something is rare. Take the theory of gravity, it states that mass = gravity and in every observed instance an object of more mass has more gravity than something of less mass, but that doesn't mean that we might not some day go out and find something with lots of mass and little gravity and thus have to refine our understanding of gravity, thus not a fact but a theory. This does not make theories anywhere close to faith as theories instead ARE our best current understanding of the universe and how things in it work.

This said ALL the evidence currently matches an earth billions upon billions of years old. How much evidence supports a God? None. It doesn't mean there isn't one, it doesn't mean there isn't invisible flying apes of incredible power that hold everything to the ground and simulate weight either. Point being why on earth would you bother to believe in something before evidence supported it. I'd much rather wait until evidence came in and in the mean time when someone asks "how did everything come to be" be honest and say "we don't know yet".

This pretty much explains it all here!
 5 years ago '11        #148
Kadillac87 225 heat pts225
space
avatar space
space
$17,495 | Props total: 6665 6665
 Dark Bunny Lord said:
A big problem here is a few people seem to be lumping faith and theory as equal levels of validity. Faith is believing something without evidence and theory is not just a guess. A theory starts as a hypothesis (an idea) that is then tested and if all tests and compared facts match the hypothesis then it graduates to a theory.
Thus we have faith, an idea that is supported by litterally nothing but believed anyways.
Then we have theory, an idea that is tested rigorously and matches perfectly with all facts thus far.

The only reason a "theory" is not a "fact" is because scientists are intellectually honest enough to admit that absolute knowledge of something is rare. Take the theory of gravity, it states that mass = gravity and in every observed instance an object of more mass has more gravity than something of less mass, but that doesn't mean that we might not some day go out and find something with lots of mass and little gravity and thus have to refine our understanding of gravity, thus not a fact but a theory. This does not make theories anywhere close to faith as theories instead ARE our best current understanding of the universe and how things in it work.

This said ALL the evidence currently matches an earth billions upon billions of years old. How much evidence supports a God? None. It doesn't mean there isn't one, it doesn't mean there isn't invisible flying apes of incredible power that hold everything to the ground and simulate weight either. Point being why on earth would you bother to believe in something before evidence supported it. I'd much rather wait until evidence came in and in the mean time when someone asks "how did everything come to be" be honest and say "we don't know yet".
See, the problem here is that any evidence that supports God, people are quick to try and find a natural explanation to explain it. Chariot wheels was found in the Red Sea that support the Exodus story of Moses. The Red Sea was split. Science goes back and say there was a strong wind that caused it.




Someone is miraculously healed, science says it's a coincidence. Any evidence presented will always be refuted because humans think they can explain any phenomenon by natural causes.

You say there is no evidence for God, but there is much archaeological evidence found that support the Bible. Again, you will not accept this evidence. You will say, oh, it's just something else. People have reconstructed Noah's ark based on the measurements in the Bible and found it to be more stable than most modern boats. Again, you will not accept this.

There are people who have experienced God. Their testimony is discredited. There are people who walked with Jesus, they still didn't believe. Nothing presented will ever be good enough for some people.

Again, I find it funny that you say all the evidence supports the Earth is billion of years old. Less than 100 years of observation is good enough to predict how something decayed billion of years ago? You don't find that funny? You are quick to dismiss the experiences and testimonies of others today but are quick to believe the a.ssumptions of others who have no idea whether their work is even valid a billion years ago? So since it's science, we can ignore all of the gaps and profess it as the truth? Again, both rely on a.ssumptions. You just can't see the logical gaps in science because of your bias. You are quick to accept everything is science as valid because of your bias against faith. That's ok, as long as you realize that's what you're doing.

Try reading Proverbs once in a while. Even if you don't believe in God, there's still a lot of valuable wisdom in there.


Last edited by Kadillac87; 09-02-2012 at 09:36 AM..
 5 years ago '06        #149
nightmare 429 heat pts429
space
avatar space
space
$13,073 | Props total: 37 37
 Kadillac87 said:
See, the problem here is that any evidence that supports God, people are quick to try and find a natural explanation to explain it. Chariot wheels was found in the Red Sea that support the Exodus story of Moses. The Red Sea was split. Science goes back and say there was a strong wind that caused it.




Someone is miraculously healed, science says it's a coincidence. Any evidence presented will always be refuted because humans think they can explain any phenomenon by natural causes.

You say there is no evidence for God, but there is much archaeological evidence found that support the Bible. Again, you will not accept this evidence. You will say, oh, it's just something else. People have reconstructed Noah's ark based on the measurements in the Bible and found it to be more stable than most modern boats. Again, you will not accept this.

There are people who have experienced God. Their testimony is discredited. There are people who walked with Jesus, they still didn't believe. Nothing presented will ever be good enough for some people.

Again, I find it funny that you say all the evidence supports the Earth is billion of years old. Less than 100 years of observation is good enough to predict how something decayed billion of years ago? You don't find that funny? You are quick to dismiss the experiences and testimonies of others today but are quick to believe the a.ssumptions of others who have no idea whether their work is even valid a billion years ago? So since it's science, we can ignore all of the gaps and profess it as the truth? Again, both rely on a.ssumptions. You just can't see the logical gaps in science because of your bias. You are quick to accept everything is science as valid because of your bias against faith. That's ok, as long as you realize that's what you're doing.

Try reading Proverbs once in a while. Even if you don't believe in God, there's still a lot of valuable wisdom in there.

so if a random person says they were miraculously healed or they saw some supernatural visage, im supposed to just automatically believe them?



you acting like theres a clear trend of this stuff, ppl claim wild things all the time in the name of various religions, not just christainity, so how wat does that prove? u have no hard evidence except hearsay.

and the bible was written by hella different ppl and translated and reinterpreted hella different times by ppl with various agendas, and was written long after jesus was sed to have existed, so the bible is a reliable source? give me a break. GTFOH


also im not saying the Bible has no value as a philosophical source of wisdom, but an accurate historical text? hell na!
 5 years ago '11        #150
Kadillac87 225 heat pts225
space
avatar space
space
$17,495 | Props total: 6665 6665
 nightmare said:
so if a random person says they were miraculously healed or they saw some supernatural visage, im supposed to just automatically believe them?



you acting like theres a clear trend of this stuff, ppl claim wild things all the time in the name of various religions, not just christainity, so how wat does that prove? u have no hard evidence except hearsay.

and the bible was written by hella different ppl and translated and reinterpreted hella different times by ppl with various agendas, and was written long after jesus was sed to have existed, so the bible is a reliable source? give me a break. GTFOH


also im not saying the Bible has no value as a philosophical source of wisdom, but an accurate historical text? hell na!
Exactly. Anything presented will be dismissed. Even though a lot of archeological evidence support the Bible, it's still dismissed. Not saying everything people say is to be believed, but everybody isn't lying or crazy.

Anything anybody says for support of God, will be dismissed. This person is crazy. A lot of unexplained things happen and people chalk it up to coincidence. Vernon Forrest has a nightmare that someone robbed him and shot him two weeks before he was k!lled during a robbery. Coincidence right?



There's many stories of something warning people, telling them to move, and leading them out of harm's way. Coincidence right? Anything unexplained will always be chalked up to coincidence. Science says if we can't explain it, it's only because we don't know how to explain it yet. That's why there will never be any "evidence" of God. Because people will dismiss it and try to explain it by human means.
 5 years ago '04        #151
HHS 1 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$5,554 | Props total: 93 93
 Kadillac87 said:
See, the problem here is that any evidence that supports God, people are quick to try and find a natural explanation to explain it. Chariot wheels was found in the Red Sea that support the Exodus story of Moses. The Red Sea was split. Science goes back and say there was a strong wind that caused it.




Someone is miraculously healed, science says it's a coincidence. Any evidence presented will always be refuted because humans think they can explain any phenomenon by natural causes.

You say there is no evidence for God, but there is much archaeological evidence found that support the Bible. Again, you will not accept this evidence. You will say, oh, it's just something else. People have reconstructed Noah's ark based on the measurements in the Bible and found it to be more stable than most modern boats. Again, you will not accept this.

There are people who have experienced God. Their testimony is discredited. There are people who walked with Jesus, they still didn't believe. Nothing presented will ever be good enough for some people.

Again, I find it funny that you say all the evidence supports the Earth is billion of years old. Less than 100 years of observation is good enough to predict how something decayed billion of years ago? You don't find that funny? You are quick to dismiss the experiences and testimonies of others today but are quick to believe the a.ssumptions of others who have no idea whether their work is even valid a billion years ago? So since it's science, we can ignore all of the gaps and profess it as the truth? Again, both rely on a.ssumptions. You just can't see the logical gaps in science because of your bias. You are quick to accept everything is science as valid because of your bias against faith. That's ok, as long as you realize that's what you're doing.

Try reading Proverbs once in a while. Even if you don't believe in God, there's still a lot of valuable wisdom in there.
Let's say you can't find the remote control to your TV. You go to look for it everywhere around the house, and you find it in a kitchen drawer that you know you haven't used recently. Now, you didn't see someone place it there, so you can't know for sure how it got there, but you can guess.

You know other people live with you and use the remote control and the kitchen. So, one possibility is that one of them put it in the drawer. Another possibility is that a gremlin snuck into your house and hid the remote control so you couldn't find it. Despite not actually seeing either thing happen, which explanation are you gonna heavily lean toward?

Now, take this one step further and say that you asked someone if they moved the remote control, and they say no, they didn't, and they claim that a gremlin moved the remote control. Do you accept their story as equally valid and plausible, or do you suspect that they're either lying or delusional?

Years later, you tell the story of the lost remote control, and you've come around to the gremlin theory. It's based on a fact, that the remote control was lost and you found it in a drawer, but does that mean every part of the account is factual?

Let's say later on the body of a mysterious creature is found, a creature that looks like the gremlin described in your lost remote episode.. The people who found it tell their friends, take pictures, let biologists examine it and test its DNA, and its found to be unlike any known animal. This knowledge is based on concrete, objective analysis, removing the existence of gremlins from the realm of the entirely subjective, and now we can reevaluate the story, because now the fantastical part of the story has some evidence, not just the mundane. Science allows us to do that, faith does not, because faith is entirely subjective.


Last edited by HHS; 09-02-2012 at 10:22 AM..
 5 years ago '11        #152
Kadillac87 225 heat pts225
space
avatar space
space
$17,495 | Props total: 6665 6665
 HHS said:
Let's say you can't find the remote control to your TV. You go to look for it everywhere around the house, and you find it in a kitchen drawer that you know you haven't used recently. Now, you didn't see someone place it there, so you can't know for sure how it got there, but you can guess.

You know other people live with you and use the remote control and the kitchen. So, one possibility is that one of them put it in the drawer. Another possibility is that a gremlin snuck into your house and hid the remote control so you couldn't find it. Despite not actually either thing happen, which explanation are you gonna heavily lean toward?

Now, take this one step further and say that you asked someone if they moved the remote control, and they say no, they didn't, and they claim that a gremlin moved the remote control. Do you accept their story as equally valid and plausible, or do you suspect that they're either lying or delusional?

Years later, you tell the story of the lost remote control, and you've come around to the gremlin theory. It's based on a fact, that the remote control was lost and you found it in a drawer, but does that mean every part of the account is factual?
Another possibility is that you put it there yourself and in your quest to find the truth, you missed the obvious answer that was staring you in the face the whole time. Anyway, I wouldn't worry about how my remote got to some destination because in the end, I found the remote. That's what I was after. If the whereabouts of the remote possibly determined my salvation, I would dig much deeper. Research each side. Are the people I'm living with known to lie? Has the existence of remote control stealing gremlins been well documented?
 5 years ago '04        #153
HHS 1 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$5,554 | Props total: 93 93
I think the problem with looking for evidence of "God" is that the concept is ultimately nonsensical, so you can't even begin to establish any meaningful criteria for objective evidence. Some people attempt to side-step this by looking for collateral religious evidence, such as evidence to confirm a historical basis for the Bible. There's not much, but there is a little bit in the Bible that is supported by non-Biblical historical evidence, but unless you already have faith in the Bible's connection to "God", evidence confirming the historicity of events in the Bible isn't evidence of God, so the logic ends up being circular.

Believing in God ultimately requires blind faith, and that's unacceptable for some people. No amount of research can bridge that gap.
 5 years ago '11        #154
Kadillac87 225 heat pts225
space
avatar space
space
$17,495 | Props total: 6665 6665
 HHS said:
I think the problem with looking for evidence of "God" is that the concept is ultimately nonsensical, so you can't even begin to establish any meaningful criteria for objective evidence. Some people attempt to side-step this by looking for collateral religious evidence, such as evidence to confirm a historical basis for the Bible. There's not much, but there is a little bit in the Bible that is supported by non-Biblical historical evidence, but unless you already have faith in the Bible's connection to "God", evidence confirming the historicity of events in the Bible isn't evidence of God, so the logic ends up being circular.

Believing in God ultimately requires blind faith, and that's unacceptable for some people. No amount of research can bridge that gap.
They both require blind faith. Belief in random occurrence or belief in God. That's what it comes down to. Did the physical laws that govern science happen by random occurrence or was it designed that way?
 5 years ago '04        #155
HHS 1 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$5,554 | Props total: 93 93
 Kadillac87 said:
They both require blind faith. Belief in random occurrence or belief in God. That's what it comes down to. Did the physical laws that govern science happen by random occurrence or was it designed that way?
Random (or unpredictable) occurrences can actually be observed experimentally. So, it doesn't take blind faith to know that random occurrence takes place.


Last edited by HHS; 09-02-2012 at 12:14 PM..
 09-02-2012, 02:39 PM         #156
Dark Bunny Lord 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
 Kadillac87 said:
See, the problem here is that any evidence that supports God, people are quick to try and find a natural explanation to explain it. Chariot wheels was found in the Red Sea that support the Exodus story of Moses. The Red Sea was split. Science goes back and say there was a strong wind that caused it.
The "chariot wheels" that where found where never allowed to be peer reviewed. Instead a theologian claimed to find something that appeared to be wood at the bottom of the sea, and then wouldn't let anyone else to conduct tests on it to confirm his findings making the "evidence" extremely unreliable.


 Kadillac87 said:
Someone is miraculously healed, science says it's a coincidence. Any evidence presented will always be refuted because humans think they can explain any phenomenon by natural causes.
As for things like "miraculous healing" that's not evidence of God and I don't see how you could say it was. You're making a common argument from ignorance, someone suddenly get's better so we look for why, this does not mean you get to make up an answer such as "must have been a miracle from God". You'd have to find miraculous energy, God himself, anything that actually supports your conclusion that it was God beyond "we can't figure out how it happened" otherwise your answer becomes interchangable with litterally ANYTHING someone makes up. THAT is why we look for a naturalistic answer, because it actually leaves confirmable evidence behind. We KNOW that many horrible diseases can go into remission, we know the body can heal itself with it's immune system, we know certain medicines can also help the body f!ght against things, we don't know any magical energy or thing even exists let alone that it can do anything.

 Kadillac87 said:
You say there is no evidence for God, but there is much archaeological evidence found that support the Bible. Again, you will not accept this evidence. You will say, oh, it's just something else. People have reconstructed Noah's ark based on the measurements in the Bible and found it to be more stable than most modern boats. Again, you will not accept this.
Just because the bible may have recorded certain real events or places does not mean that everything in it is true. If that kind of logic worked I could say that Spiderman was real because his comic books have real places and real historical events referenced in them.
No they haven't reconstructed the boat as more stable and even if they somehow did make wood more stable than steel (I mean really you'd have to be stupid to actually believe that), you'd still have to ignore the plethora of other evidence against the Ark.
Let's compare:
The Titantic vs The Ark

Titantic:
-Solid steel construction built by hundreds of people with near modern technology
-882ft long, 92ft wide
-Held 3,547 people
-Held enough food and water for 2 weeks for those people.

Ark:
-Gopher wood construction, built by one man with a hammer, nails, and handsaws.
-450ft long, 75ft wide
-Held 8 people / 17,400 Birds / 12,000 Reptiles / 9,000 Mammals / 5,000 Amphibians / 2,000,000 insects
-Held enough food and water for ALL of these to last a year.
...Let's not forget parasites, salt water life, etc. The sheer amount of things alone would not fit on the entire surface area of the boat and that's not even including the food and water, other living animals for the carnivores to eat, etc.
Also at the sea level (covering the highest mountain) everything on that boat would have suffocated to death do to thinned oxygen.
So the sheer size of the boat alone make this story literally impossible as the boat would need to be far, far, far larger to fit what it claims.
...Nor does ANY geographical evidence support there ever being a global flood anywhere remotely near the time listed.
...Nor would the world be able to repopulate from the massive inbreeding that would have to take place.
Need I go on?

 Kadillac87 said:
There are people who have experienced God. Their testimony is discredited. There are people who walked with Jesus, they still didn't believe. Nothing presented will ever be good enough for some people.
Testimony is not evidence for anyone other than the person receiving the testimony. Why would you expect it to? Do you plan on abandoning your belief in your God if I present you with testimonies of other religions Gods? Or how about the fact that even within any religions faith (we'll stick with Christianity since that seems to be what you're defending) there are thousands of sects that don't agree with each other on what God told them or what he wants so clearly testimony is not a reliable way of gathering truth form those that didn't receive it personally.


 Kadillac87 said:
Again, I find it funny that you say all the evidence supports the Earth is billion of years old. Less than 100 years of observation is good enough to predict how something decayed billion of years ago? You don't find that funny? You are quick to dismiss the experiences and testimonies of others today but are quick to believe the a.ssumptions of others who have no idea whether their work is even valid a billion years ago? So since it's science, we can ignore all of the gaps and profess it as the truth? Again, both rely on a.ssumptions. You just can't see the logical gaps in science because of your bias. You are quick to accept everything is science as valid because of your bias against faith. That's ok, as long as you realize that's what you're doing.
No I don't find that funny. Every form of testing we've had that predicts the age of things of things finds an earth that is billions of years old... EVERY form of testing.
Again I just explained why testimony is a horse sh*t way of trying to defend something, please refrain from waisting my and others time to try and use it as proof.
No, they don't rely on a.ssumptions, what part of my explanation of a theory did you not seem to grasp? Theories are testable things that are supported by ALL discovered evidence relevant to their field. They are not perfect, but again that's the difference between what you're doing and what I'm doing. If evidence arises that contradicts what science has found then sciences answer will change to better understand things, that's how a logical brain should work. Your faith in comparison is supported, again, by nothing... the only evidence you've given is "hey look here's some wheels we found in water and the bible has chariots crossing this water when it was separated therefor a magical being created the universe" or "look someone suddenly got better, let's ignore that there are other explanations for how it could have happened, instead let's a.ssume it was a magical being". Do you not see how insane that sounds?

 Kadillac87 said:
Try reading Proverbs once in a while. Even if you don't believe in God, there's still a lot of valuable wisdom in there.
For every small bit of good advice in the bible I can easily quote you several horribly disgusting immoral passages and commandments supported by God, so it's not something I tend to go to for moral reference.
 09-02-2012, 02:42 PM         #157
Dark Bunny Lord 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
 HHS said:
Random (or unpredictable) occurrences can actually be observed experimentally. So, it doesn't take blind faith to know that random occurrence takes place.
This right here ^ is exactly what I'm trying to get across. Faith is the most unreliable way of determining truth because it requires no experimentation, no evidence, nothing and in fact is often in opposition of evidence (ie "Well God is Magic"). Science does not require that, in fact science abhors that. Science states something then says "here, this is how we found this out, take a look at it and if someone can find where we went wrong and present evidence that makes this idea not fit then we'll keep looking for the answer".
How anyone could compare science to faith as standing on even grounds of credibility is insane.


Last edited by Dark Bunny Lord; 09-02-2012 at 04:10 PM..
 5 years ago '11        #158
Kadillac87 225 heat pts225
space
avatar space
space
$17,495 | Props total: 6665 6665
 HHS said:
Random (or unpredictable) occurrences can actually be observed experimentally. So, it doesn't take blind faith to know that random occurrence takes place.
Funny you say unpredictable because every "random" event in science has an equation. So is it really random if you can model it by an equation? And even something that appears random is governed by something. What random occurrence has science observed wasn't governed by some set of laws? Your idea of random is observing something occurring in a predefined space under predefined laws and conditions without an explanation. So has science really observed true random occurrences?
 5 years ago '11        #159
Kadillac87 225 heat pts225
space
avatar space
space
$17,495 | Props total: 6665 6665
 Dark Bunny Lord said:


For every small bit of good advice in the bible I can easily quote you several horribly disgusting immoral passages and commandments supported by God, so it's not something I tend to go to for moral reference.
While your whole reply was refuting evidence, which was actually proving my point, this caught my eye. And I take you up on your challenge. Easily quote the several horribly disgusting immoral passages and commandments supported by God.
 5 years ago '04        #160
HHS 1 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$5,554 | Props total: 93 93
 Kadillac87 said:
Funny you say unpredictable because every "random" event in science has an equation. So is it really random if you can model it by an equation? And even something that appears random is governed by something. What random occurrence has science observed wasn't governed by some set of laws? Your idea of random is observing something occurring in a predefined space under predefined laws and conditions without an explanation. So has science really observed true random occurrences?
You couldn't know an event was random unless you observed it under experimental conditions, otherwise other factors might be influencing it that made it not truly random.
Home      
  
 

 






most viewed right now
 51
Video inside Chick Rants About Only Liking Hood Guys! "I Love When I see A N*gga Glo..
184 comments
24 hours ago
@wild'ish
most viewed right now
 50
Erykah badu shows that fur burger
75 comments
18 hours ago
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 48
Image(s) inside Might let her meet the parents
66 comments
18 hours ago
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 41
50 cent did something to Comedienne Aarona Lopez. She has her friends worried!!!
105 comments
21 hours ago
@hiphop
most viewed right now
 30
Video inside Get abused in an employee meeting brehs lol
51 comments
22 hours ago
@wild'ish
most viewed right now
 27
Phat ass white girl for real
62 comments
18 hours ago
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 22
pocaahantus
20 comments
18 hours ago
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 20
Image(s) inside Dec 15 - Amazon may have just dropped a clue about the home of its new..
74 comments
21 hours ago
@news
back to top
register contact Follow BX @ Twitter Follow BX @ Facebook search BX privacy