[pvnk]

The member @meow has more valid points than most individuals on this thread. Regardless of the fact that he is a pedophile.

[Oni]

...

You assume I'm quick to assume I understand creation or the universe. On an off-hand note, things are not created, things come into effect because of a cause. Refer to the Law of Conservation of Mass and the Law of Conservation of Energy.


Proof is a mathematical term, not everything can be proven contrary to your belief. Evidence is facts along with inferences that are based on observations of nature and the universe. That's what science is.


Taking the coward's way out? You seem pretty confident, just give it a shot. I don't have any animosity towards you, it's just a debate.


I know that, thanks.


It's physically impossible for there to be an intelligent designer of the entire universe. If you think or believe I'm wrong, cite some sources to evidence.

I identify as a Christian (sort-of), but not exactly as a theist. I am quite open to other religions (all are similar, really) and I do believe in science. The reason I don't identify as a theist, is because I believe both science and religion can coexist. I don't subscribe to the traditional beliefs you likely expect me to. You're so focused debating religion/science and being right, even though neither have been proven. I'm focused on exploring the possibilities.

[meow]

Ha. Case closed.
(just being sarcastic and showing you how stupid that phrase is...)


Yet you say you don't have "faith" in scientists. You have to have faith in the scientists in order to believe their theories.


You have faith in scientists that say things you have never experienced. Have you ever sent a rover through space? You have to have trust in scientists to believe their science.
(I'm not saying that is wrong.)


I didn't know that anyone would be so ignorant as to think that there was no Bible before Christ came to Earth.
And Isaiah was written before Pythagoras.
He didn't have to be a "Christian" to read the Bible.
Maybe he knew the Earth was round... he was one of the few: until just recently, people thought the earth was flat...

Ha. Case closed.
(just being sarcastic and showing you how stupid that phrase is...)

Ad homenim because you obviously don't know how to respond to what I said. Is this your first time being wrong?

Yet you say you don't have "faith" in scientists. You have to have faith in the scientists in order to believe their theories.

I actually don't. I believe scientists in the sense that I believe they're telling truths (which are backed by logical reasoning and evidence), I don't have "faith" in them. Faith is belief without logical reason. If a scientist were to say the Earth is ending in 5 seconds without logical reasoning and evidence to back up his claim, obviously, I would not believe him.

You have faith in scientists that say things you have never experienced. Have you ever sent a rover through space? You have to have trust in scientists to believe their science.
(I'm not saying that is wrong.)

So you've seen God, have been to heaven, etc? I'm positive you haven't. To not believe (again, in the sense of trust that it's the truth) something only because you didn't experience it is like saying I believe all historical texts and documents are false because I wasn't alive back then.

I didn't know that anyone would be so ignorant as to think that there was no Bible before Christ came to Earth.

Quote me where I said I thought there was no Bible before Christ came to Earth.

And Isaiah was written before Pythagoras.
He didn't have to be a "Christian" to read the Bible.
Maybe he knew the Earth was round... he was one of the few: until just recently, people thought the earth was flat...

I never claimed Isaiah was written after Pythagoras.
I never claimed someone had to be Christian to read the Bible. I'm not Christian and I've read it.
Either way, it doesn't refute the fact that he was the first known man to propose that the Earth is round.

Anything else?

---

The member @meow has more valid points than most individuals on this thread. Regardless of the fact that he is a pedophile.

Thank you sir. Yes indeed, I am a pedophile.

[Jiggly]

I identify as a Christian (sort-of), but not exactly as a theist. I am quite open to other religions (all are similar, really) and I do believe in science. The reason I don't identify as a theist, is because I believe both science and religion can coexist. I don't subscribe to the traditional beliefs you likely expect me to. You're so focused debating religion/science and being right, even though neither have been proven. I'm focused on exploring the possibilities.

It's like there has to be one or the other for some people. I follow similar thinking to Oni.

[meow]

I identify as a Christian (sort-of), but not exactly as a theist. I am quite open to other religions (all are similar, really) and I do believe in science. The reason I don't identify as a theist, is because I believe both science and religion can coexist. I don't subscribe to the traditional beliefs you likely expect me to. You're so focused debating religion/science and being right, even though neither have been proven. I'm focused on exploring the possibilities.

I identify as a Christian (sort-of), but not exactly as a theist.

Christianity is a monotheistic religion. If you're identifying yourself as a Christian (even sort-of), you're technically identifying as a theist.

The reason I don't identify as a theist, is because I believe both science and religion can coexist.

If you identify as a Christian and are saying that, you're contradicting yourself quite drastically. The Bible has many scientifically disproven verses.

You're so focused debating religion/science and being right, even though neither have been proven.

I'm focused on being right because this is a debate, isn't that what both of us are trying to do? Also, many branches of science have been proven. Regardless of that, lack of mathematical proof does not mean something isn't true.

[Jiggly]

I'm focused on being right because this is a debate, isn't that what both of us are trying to do? Also, many branches of science have been proven. Regardless of that, lack of mathematical proof does not mean something isn't true.

Many things were considered "proven" until "proven" otherwise. Things are reassessed a lot.

[meow]

Many things were considered "proven" until "proven" otherwise. Things are reassessed a lot.

Again, proof is a mathematical term. Things are considered absolutely proven when the equation/algorithm/expression has been tested to have no pitfalls.

Yes, people have made mistakes in the past. People might even be making mistakes regarding proof today, we just have to see in the future. The important thing is learning from that mistake and remastering/reforming what was previously said.

It appears I'm being triple teamed now. If anyone else would like a piece of me, please step forward now.

[Jiggly]

Again, proof is a mathematical term. Things are considered absolutely proven when the equation/algorithm/expression has been tested to have no pitfalls.

Yes, people have made mistakes in the past. People might even be making mistakes regarding proof today, we just have to see in the future. The important thing is learning from that mistake and remastering/reforming what was previously said.

It appears I'm being triple teamed now. If anyone else would like a piece of me, please step forward now.

I'm not intending to gang up on you. It's just how views seem to have panned out.

When you say things are considered proven when they've been tested to have no pitfalls, what about the things that were supposedly proven, then years later, pitfalls appeared?

In this instance, is proven a temporary state?

[meow]

I'm not intending to gang up on you. It's just how views seem to have panned out.

When you say things are considered proven when they've been tested to have no pitfalls, what about the things that were supposedly proven, then years later, pitfalls appeared?

In this instance, is proven a temporary state?

Give an example and I'll do my best to explain.

[BurritoBeans]

Agnostic for me. I'm open to the concept of religion and gods, but I don't believe in any as I'm a person who likes solid proof, and I don't exactly have any proof apart from "Well it's in this book which we consider holy" or whatever. Pretty much, I'm not faithful to any god, but I don't disbelieve in the possibility of a god.