Although this makes for a long post, allow me to present my

case properly:

As you will probably know, some people for religious reasons believe that life on Earth, including Homo Sapiens, did not evolve in the way that science has found. Instead, they believe that the explanation in the Bible (Genesis) must be taken literally.

This implies that Earth and all life forms, including Man, were created by God in six days. No evolution took place since. A close scrutiny of the Bible also reveals a more or less continous cronolgy, enabling scolars to date Creation. Most scolars agree that Creation took place a little over 6,000 years ago.

In a free world, anybody is entitled to his/her beliefs, so some people believing the above would really pose no problem, except for the fact that some are not content to believe; they also feel the need to try to convince others. For this purpose they, ironically, summond the science that they have otherwise denounced.They exploit the fact that, unlike religious beliefs, it is the nature of science never to be completely certain.

However, once Creationists (I use this term, somewhat incorrectly, to cover all who advocate a literal interpretation of Genesis) have moved into the realm of scientific argumentation, they naturally expose their own beliefs to the harsh light of Logic. Lets examine some of the allegations:

Earth with all its life forms were created more or less in its present shape in six days.

- Well it couldnt have taken much longer because, given the sequence of creation outlined, most ecosystems would have been unable to exist for long while being incomplete.

But the world is a strange construction if it must be viewed as an engineering feat. The complex and often fragile ecosystems seem to be an unsafe way to ensure the survival of life-forms. The unstable DNA system seems better suited for change than for preservation of species. The whole setup with food-chains, predators, parasites, harsh competition between life forms, etc. is surprisingly wasteful and cruel if its supposed to be designed as it is by a benevolent god.

Most plants, nearly all mushrooms and fungii, and numerous animals and micro-organisms depend on various dead material for nourishment. Did God create dead plants and animals for them to feed on in the beginning?

Man was created last and on the last day, but several parasites to man (including infectuous micro organisms) cannot survive for more than a few minutes outside the human organism. How did they manage till their host was created?

Earth was created 6.000 years ago.

Most geological structures have all indications of being vastly older, e.g. conglomerate rocks that consist of fragments of mountains that have been eroded down, sedimented in the sea (as shown by sea fossil inclusions), petrified, and can now be found high above sea level in the process of being eroded again. How can that have happened in 6.000 years? Or did God deliberately create them that way to lead scientists astray?

Fossils. Never mind the few spectacular hominids and giant dinosaurs, but we find whole mountain ranges built from the
fossil remains of near-microscopic sea creatures,
intersperced with fossils of billions of larger sea creatures, all extinct. How did these creatures manage to live, die, be sedimented, fossilized, and be pushed up into mountain ranges now in an advanced condition of erosion in 6.000 years?

How come we can see the stars? Most stars are more than
6.000 light-years from us. How can their light have reached
us yet?

--- I could go on, but this post is already far too long.

If Genesis is to be taken as the literal Truth, then the
world around us is filled with built-in deceptions and we
cannot believe anything our senses tell us.

Hans

It is estimated that of all the species of living organisms on Earth that ever existed, well over 90% (by some calculations, 99.9%!) are extinct. A tad wasteful, for a deliberate creation...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Most scolars agree that Creation took place a little over 6,000 years ago.

Just out of curiosity………How could they know?

1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Earth with all its life forms were created more or less in its present shape in six days.

- Well it couldnt have taken much longer because, given the sequence of creation outlined, most ecosystems would have been unable to exist for long while being incomplete.

So you are using the bible literally to expose the fallacy of the whole thing right?

How can that have happened in 6.000 years? Or did God deliberately create
them that way to lead scientists astray?

Where does it say in the Bible that the earth was created 6000 years ago?

If Genesis is to be taken as the literal Truth, then the
world around us is filled with built-in deceptions and we
cannot believe anything our senses tell us.

I think you should study Genisis, if you are prepared to look at it literally, it appears you have missed out some bits.

Love

Jan

Ardena.

First of all, I don't think the Bible stated that the earth was created 6,000 years ago. Simply, those are the words of asinine creationists. One day religion will fall and will society function better without it... Yes, but there will be certainly more crimes. Religion is a positive way to keep those who do not know what to believe in in a beneficial behavior for society.

I personally do not resent religion, let them believe what they want. Whichever makes them happy, I believe people should learn to make their own decision when they grasp the notion to choose what to believe in, when the mind is mature enough to comprehend instead of thinking in one direction.

A while back, I've debated with some 14-18 year olds about religion. I was the only one by myself against all these believers. It was a good experience actually, but to them, it was horrendous for a person like me to have no faith in religion. I've tried to persuade them, heck, I even asked each of them for their beliefs, and most likely they differ from one another. But in the end, a 15 year old girl said she would never stop believing no matter what. She even stated I was unreasonable along with many others. I even said you can't claim your conviction to be right over mines. I proved to them they were being close-minded. But still they did not listen. I used to be like her, very strong believer, but once you get in touch with science and logic, it all will change. And I told her it will for her also, but she didn't listen. That's my experience and I refuse to ever challenge others again on religion unless I have some aide also, or unless they challenge me or speak crap of religion, such as many creationists that say the earth began 6,000 years ago. If you're the minority, people will speak vilely of you since your conviction and sentiment are different from theirs. And that is basically the immature status of the human mind.

hey, I'm with you.

we can go together and support eachother during a hot debate

just be careful you are not converted:D

Jan Ardena:

On the 6.000 year chronology: Well, through Genesis runs a "family three" -- Adam had a son at such and such age etc. I have not studied it in detail, but lots of theologists have, and apparantly it adds up to a little over 6.000 years.

So you are using the bible literally to expose the fallacy of the whole thing right?

No, I'm challenging exactly those that claim that the Bible should be used literally.

Most Cristians feel that the Bible should be understood on a grand level, not in literal detail. I'm not challenging that.

I think you should study Genisis, if you are prepared to look at it literally, it appears you have missed out some bits.

As I have said, I am arguing that it should NOT be taken literally. I've studied it, and there are lots of other things I might bring forward in the discussion, like various contradictions, omissions, etc.

I know some people want to take the Bible less literally, but still adhere to the Creation bit: Six days for God might be millions of years to us, etc. but by the time that begins to hold logic, it has also become virtually indistinguishable from evolution.

I dont consider myself an atheist, I dont deny the existense of a creator, I just believe that creation was done by creating the framework for Life to evolve in.

Hans

Where is this 6,000 year old earth crap derived from? :confused:

Originally posted by Avatar
hey, I'm with you.

we can go together and support eachother during a hot debate

just be careful you are not converted:D

haha they'll never convert me back. You could just see through it all with logic.

Where is this 6,000 year old earth crap derived from?

This number derived from the almost pattern like dates in the bible. Also this number is commonly thrown around by preachers, and preists.

A close scrutiny of the Bible also reveals a more or less continous cronolgy, enabling scolars to date Creation. Most scolars agree that Creation took place a little over 6,000 years ago.

With some indepth research online you will be able to find some information on the orgins of this number!

Simple enough, Adam and Eve have a lineage that some priests have combined with known dates of supposed relatives. This stuff is all pretty intuitive. Trace them all from Adam to Abraham on and you get 6,000 years. That's just a guess, but I cannot think of any other way.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MRC_Hans
On the 6.000 year chronology: Well, through Genesis runs a "family three" -- Adam had a son at such and such age etc. I have not studied it in detail, but lots of theologists have, and apparantly it adds up to a little over 6.000 years.

Genisis 1:27 God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them,
male and female he created them.

In chapter 2, it says,


Genisis 2:7 The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

If you read the first two chapters of Genisis, it appears that God had formed mankind before He formed Adam..

Could they be 2 different times?

It also says,

Genisis 2:1 The heavens and the earth were completed with everything that was in them. 2:2 By the seventh day God finished the work that he had been doing, and he ceased on the seventh day all the work that he had been doing. 2:3 God blessed the seventh day and made it holy because on it he ceased all the work that he had been doing in creation.

Then,

Genisis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.

This is why you cannot take the word of scholars, because they do not understand the nature of God, and only calculate from their own relative percpective.
Before any calculations begin, some understanding of God’s nature should be taken into account. Unfortunately the Bible does not go into that too much. But the bible is not the only scripture.

It say’s,

Genisis 1:26 Then God said, "Let US make mankind in our image, after our likeness,….

Here we can see that God is not alone, he has already created. You see it is very difficult just understanding God, never mind His creation, so I wouldn’t put too much emphasis on what so-called experts say. :)

No, I'm challenging exactly those that claim that the Bible should be used literally.

Its very hard to use it literally if it is not understood, the best method is to try and understand the nature of God. :(

Most Christians feel that the Bible should be understood on a grand level, not in literal detail. I'm not challenging that.

What do you say? :)

As I have said, I am arguing that it should NOT be taken literally. I've studied it, and there are lots of other things I might bring forward in the discussion, like various contradictions, omissions, etc.

Try and understand God’s nature first, it will be a lot simpler. ;)

Six days for God might be millions of years to us, etc. but by the time that begins to hold logic, it has also become virtually indistinguishable from evolution.

Which creation though, it appears there are 2 creations?
Don’t worry about evolution, it is only a theory, and a poor one at that. That thought is probably holding you back from the truth.

I just believe that creation was done by creating the framework for Life to evolve in.

As in the “theory of evolution?” :bugeye:

Love

Jan Ardena.

Jan Ardena wrote:

Try and understand God’s nature first, it will be a lot simpler. ;)God, who? A gentleman named Stephen Roberts made a rather insightful observation when he wrote: I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

-- Stephen Roberts, quoted from Rob Fenton, in a letter to Cliff Walker (September 29, 2000)
Jan Ardena wrote:

Which creation though, it appears there are 2 creations?You might find The Documentary Hypothesis: Evidence (http://www-relg-studies.scu.edu/netcours/hb/dh/index.htm) to be of some interest. The referenced book by R. E. Friedman is also quite good.
Jan Ardena wrote:

Don’t worry about evolution, it is only a theory, and a poor one at that. That thought is probably holding you back from the truth.You are, of course, kidding I trust. :D

You are, of course, kidding I trust.
No, unfortunately she isn't .

We have had talks before

She?

Is Jan Ardena a girl?

Why do I always think I am talking to men??

Avatar, what's your favorite brand of make up? :D

Jan is one of those unique individuals who believes she and she alone holds the ultimate truth and it's some odd mix of the few religions she has studied in depth. Don't bother giving her actual evidence of anything contrary to her view, it's useless to her unless you have a personal relationship with her god and understand entirely her god and accept unquestionably her god. Such is Jan.

Jan is one of those unique individuals who believes she and she alone holds the ultimate truth and it's some odd mix of the few religions she has studied in depth. Don't bother giving her actual evidence of anything contrary to her view, it's useless to her unless you have a personal relationship with her god and understand entirely her god and accept unquestionably her god. Such is Jan.

She (?? :) ) is not.

I've had long talks with her (!!?), and she (stop it!) is really open to all kinds of stuff.

She doesn't force anything, she just asks questions and considers the value of scripture.

It is very open minded of her to study different scriptures and comparing them.

Avatar, what's your favorite brand of make up?
do I look girlish inmy photo/avatar?:bugeye:


She is not.
I very well remember A4Ever
particullary one discussion at religion forum long ago (don't remember the title)
I thought I was going mad

you haven't touched the right string yet

Well,
I don't exactly want to debate with "believers". I consider people who take the bible literally to be, bluntly, idiots and fanatic dumb@s$es.
But before we use the bible to debate anything, where did the bible come from anyway? Obviously it was not written by god, or was it. I am no theologist, so why dont you believers tell me where YOU think (or in your case probably, know) where the bible came from.
It is my -belief- that the bible has been writen by many many people and passed down by many generations and changed and translated. Who authorizes the bible to be any sort of historical truth?

Anyway it is sort of pointless to argue with belivers because the whole point of literal religion is to believe without proof (which to many people is insane) while science is about prooving and understanding rather than taking things for granted (although many people who think they know science DO take things for granted and things that teachers say for truth).

But for "creationalists" who dont believe in evolution, that is just sad. Im sorry, but saying that evolution is just a theory (which it is), but saying that it is a poor theory is a nieve thing to say.
Anyone that thinks evolution is not a feasible theory is definately not educated for more than 10 minutes worth of evolution theory and research and facts and proof.

As part of my extremely open-minded yet critical beliefs, I do believe that there can be a god, but with the only circumstance that "H"e set up this world with many fossils and false clues to lead us astray. Or that "H"e made earth long before bibles creation and set it up so that it turns out with fossils and evolution on its own.


But as for those sad folks that have no evolutionary understanding, you MUST know that evolution is happening right now.
NO, not at incomprehensibly slow speeds, but quickly. Where do you think all these viruses with immunities come from? They arent a batch that survived the virus killing chemicals we swallow! They are the natuarally genetically altered one that could live long enough to multiply into millions and billions of evolved viruses.

Im not going to go much further, but I do know that there is not much PROOF that god exists. Faith is just a different way of thinking about it. But when faith comes up in contradiction to proof, we have problems.

BiTe Frencheneesz

do I look girlish inmy photo/avatar?

No.

you haven't touched the right string yet

Don't know what to answer here. We have good conversations. I never feel pushed in any direction.

Originally posted by Tyler

Jan is one of those unique individuals who believes she and she alone holds the ultimate truth and it's some odd mix of the few religions she has studied in depth. I assume that "the few religions she has studied in depth" do not include the Judeo-Christian ones. :)

She seems to know a lot about the Bible and has some interesting views on it as well.

A4Ever wrote:

She seems to know a lot about the Bible and has some interesting views on it as well. Then I'll certainly look forward to her input. :)

Originally posted by Frencheneesz
But as for those sad folks that have no evolutionary understanding, you MUST know that evolution is happening right now.

Is that so? It looks more like devolution to me.

Although I am against the religious god creationism, you must consider this: Isn't science the new religion in a way?

People are all up to believing in what scientists may find and what theories they present. There is proof for a lot of it yes. It doesn't say science holds all the answers though.

I disagree on the words that evolution is happening right now. Humans are utterly selfish and not evolving at all. Why do you say that? On what is it based? On the scientific theories?

I read somewhere, that people have forgotten about the gods, who were worshiped in ancient times, among the ancient ones like the Walhalla and the like? And what gods were ruling there?

And what about the ancient roman gods? Where do you think names like Mars, Apollo, Venus, Jupiter, Neptune and so on come from?

Have you people all forgotten about this? How sad.

Once there was a time, humans knew how to work together with energy from Earth. That knowledge is all forgotten or ridiculed away.

Yes, humans are really evolving at the moment...:rolleyes:

I read somewhere, that people have forgotten about the gods, who were worshiped in ancient times, among the ancient ones like the Walhalla and the like? And what gods were ruling there?

Once there was a time, humans knew how to work together with energy from Earth. That knowledge is all forgotten or ridiculed away.

Celestine prophecy?

I think he ment physical evolution, Banshee


--------
I have read the book. Interesting read.

Banshee wrote:


Once there was a time, humans knew how to work together with energy from Earth. Do you have any evidence of this?

Originally posted by A4Ever
Celestine prophecy?

Why the fuck do you always think it is coming from a prophecy? It is not. I am not a reader of prophecies. My goodness, it is unbelievable!

Physical evolution? What physical evolution? Polluting your body with artificial adds?

As I said: devolution is happening at the moment.

Sorry, I can get so angry about it.

Have you people all forgotten how it is to live in a free world, without additions to your food and drinking supplies?

What the hell do I care whether it is called science or evolution. If humans were evolving, they would get wiser, as in knowlege, gained by life's experience and not believe in everything they are told.

Your own perception and how you interpret it is what counts. Not a creator or science.

It is what you yourself see, hear and interpret as being your truth. If it is possible than please with consideration that not everything is to be found in the bible, nor in science...

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
Do you have any evidence of this?

And there we go again! Do you have evidence of this?

Perfect example of what I mean though. Yes I can dig up some evidence of how Earth energy was used in earlier time periods.

If you think it is really necessarry that everything has to be displayed by internet links. I have also evidence of the number of BS which is posted on the internet.

My, my, when will you people ever learn?

There you go swearing again. I'm serious, one of these days I'm gonna have to edit your posts Banshee. :)

The Celestine Prohecy is not a prophecy, it is a famous book by James Redfield which describes things like you were talking about.

You said you forgot where you read them.

edit: it is not uncommon for people in this century to ask for proof. Too much bullshit is aready floating through the ether...

Banshee wrote:


Why the fuck ...This is my first experience with a foul-mouthed butterfly. Tight cocoon?
Banshee wrote:


If humans were evolving, they would get wiser, ...You misunderstand evolution.

Reasonabledoubt, I like your style.

we are here mostly talking not about evolution of mind or morals or deevolution. We are here talking about evolution which in long time period changes body structure - height, bones, different face/body charecteristics etc

evolution of mind is a different topic and I would really enjoy the discussion of it

cheers


btw, I would have nothing against nanobots going by and fixing my damaged or aged cells, or circulating in my blood, cleaning it.

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
This is my first experience with a foul-mouthed butterfly. Tight cocoon?

I apologise. :) I am in the same kind of discussion on another Forum and I'm just a little angry about all knowledge and wisdom, coming from the elders who were inhabiting Earth. Because of the belief in science all this is going to be lost. I think that is a real shame.

I will look for a nice internet link on Earth Energy and post it for you. :)

A4Ever, I rarely talk like this. So how do you mean, swearing again? Can you provide proof of my swearing? :p

If I come across it I will read the Celestine Prophecy. Now I am curious...

I can't remember what you said exactly, but I remember I was baffled and asked you: 'can we do this on the forum??' So it had to be swearing... :)

Yeah, read the book, it is good. Do you want a nice internet link with that? :)

Greetings!

Banshee wrote:


I will look for a nice internet link on Earth Energy and post it for you.One can dredge up a "nice internet link" on everything from alien abduction to the Flat Earth Society. They are, for the most part, childish and tiresome. Please be somewhat discerning in you offering ...

Well, that was exacrly what I was talking about, ReasonableDoubt. All the BS websites which are floating on the internet. :)

Here's something on water energy. A nice example in the light of in which Forum this thread is posted. Enjoy, with an internet link :) :

snip------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOURDES

In Lourdes since the year 1858 there were 3.500 of the recovery written down. The Church has admitted like a miraculous till this time only sixty-six of them. To disclose the veil of the Lourdes mystery I shall try to motivate ”the convalescent effect” from the standpoint of research the energy streams.

The grotto in Lourdes, where from time to time proceeds the convalescent action, has two known energy sources and could have more of the unknown. One of the known sources is the well in the grotto, from which about one liter of water per second runs out, the second source is the river running through in the nearness of the grotto. The unknown sources can be energy components intersecting lapidary massive, squally clouds, position of the moon etc. The suitable combination of various flowages the both water-sources together with acceptable combinations of unknown resources can create the property of energy space, which could be the starting mechanism for healing effect.

The similar medical equipment existed already in the olden ancestry but in much more perfect fulfillment. In megalithic constructions, which were constructed for healing effect, the patients did not need to wait quantity of days or weeks till the miracle comes, the healing setting could be prepared for the rated time. The energy of flowing water was accumulated in the mass of buildings, which were situated to the energy components of water-sources. Without end moving the water flowage affected the quantity of accumulate energy, therefore the regulation stone conduit to later buildings was installed. The energy could be also modified with the combinations of minerals, minerals with gemstones, mica, sand with the content of heavy metals, etc. Thereof can be readily derived that people long ago understood what kind of value needs the energy space for invoking the healing action

Before entering into the healing surrounding the people had to be enough disposed. The labyrinths built-in the flooring constructions of some buildings infer what kind of such preparation could have the course. The method how to relax – to put off stresses can be done by lot of ways, but for this purpose the labyrinth appears like an optimum equipment. The preparation could be more exacting but what I describe has been derived from the structure of buildings.


Thus can be state that no miracles happen in Lourdes. The phenomenon what convalesces is the pure energy – energy of watercourses, its principle to the science remained hidden. The reality that no miracle happens anyway does not sink the convalescent phenomenon from the standpoint of religion, only specifies it. It can be understand so that the Creator of nature created her principles too.

From the ancestry can be by deduction derived that the energy of watercourses was exploited also in the later era as well as in the Middle Ages. The Etruscan people past 7th century before Christ built gigantic constructions what reached the average even 40 meters, (conformable to the mounds on American continent). The Celts before the ritual ceremony charged the stones by fire, similarly was charged the circular construction Stonehange.

The Cistercian monasteries were built into the energy components of watercourse. The regulation stone water pipeline was installed under their churches as well as by some megalithic constructions. Chartreuse gothic cathedral was built on the hillock, which was in the Christian era one of the most haunt of France. The Druids sooner gathered there and more formerly the whole Celtic world. The cathedral was built above the dolmen and the Celtic well. The labyrinth in the stone pavement of the cathedral in present time is situated under the benches.

The similar sanitary equipment such as the buildings of megalithic culture we could construct nowadays providing that we chart the energy of watercourse and further natural and civilize energy sources. Since the long-ago constructions nothing changed out from the energy standpoint, every building has its energy value, we do not know only what of kind. It can be useful, but it can harm to us too. The correct reply can be given only by the research.
I shall not be surprised if the specialists do not believe all what I describe, I did not believe it at first too. Really is impossible to give the man with a stone chopper in hand to context with the regulated energy of building. It is really illogical, the historians therefore have to do something with the stone chopper.


The expressive example of the energetic regulated construction is the plateau Nazca. Till this time nobody has given the reason for this structure. The underground water canals are complicated regulation system what enabled to affect the visualized energy zones on the plateau. The underground water canals under the area of mounds and artificial water tanks in San Lorenzo had the same function – they ensured the energy regulation of the construction. The water tank constructed on pyramid Akapana was for the structure together with the water pipeline the regulation equipment. Just like that it was by Osireion and another constructions where the resembling regulation system was built. By the others constructions without regulation like menhirs the people had to wait for the right water passage, in contrast to us they knew for what to wait. The detailed description each of the mentioned construction as well as the interpretation of energy watercourses, you can find in http://www.pribram.cz/centrum
The paradoxical position to which we come in connection with the long past ancestry cannot be valued so that the people of megalithic culture overtook our era. It was our united evolution that continued, something was only forgotten. One of the reasons could be the fact that the megalithic constructions were specified like the ethnic fetishes and therefore some of the constructions were removed. The another reasons could be, that only by the dowsing-rod could be the energy of watercourse identified and it is yet an unscientific instrument whereby the serious scientists do not wish to be engaged. Approximately it could have been but it is already the history.
snip------------------------------------------------------------------------------






A4Ever, if it is a book review, then by all means, please post a link on the book...:)

"Although I am against the religious god creationism, you must consider this: Isn't science the new religion in a way?"

A man who will become a theist looks at the sky and says; "I don't know why the sky is blue. God must have done it"
A man who will become a scientist looks at the sky and says; "I don't know why the sky is blue. I'll go do some experiments and investigations to find out why."

Science is not a religion. People who believe everything a scientist says without first investigating and understanding how the scientist reached his/her conclusion may as well be a theist though.

Originally posted by Banshee

The grotto in Lourdes, where from time to time proceeds the convalescent action, has two known energy sources and could have more of the unknown. Obviously it was a tighter cocoon than I had, at fist, suspected. :rolleyes:

Well, you cannot expect that I am going to cut in an article. You were asking for evidence, no? I cannot help that people are having such a bad way of writing things down though.

For real evidence you should read some good books on ancient history and what kind of energy is used through history. It does not depend on only an internet article, does it?

Do not complain when someone tries to give some info to you in the manner required here at Sciforums. With an internet link.

Whatever you do with the info is totally up to everyone him/herself...

Better yet, why don't you go see for yourself? In stead of complaining about one sentence in an article?

quoth banshee:

I read somewhere, that people have forgotten about the gods, who were worshiped in ancient times, among the ancient ones like the Walhalla and the like? And what gods were ruling there?

And what about the ancient roman gods? Where do you think names like Mars, Apollo, Venus, Jupiter, Neptune and so on come from?

Have you people all forgotten about this? How sad.

Not forgotten, only replaced with rational thinking, the kind of thinking which allows you to have an internet connection, running water, variety of food, etc... It really wouldn't take much for you to return to those days. Simply move out of your house, leaving everything behind, and move into a cave.

I am in the same kind of discussion on another Forum and I'm just a little angry about all knowledge and wisdom, coming from the elders who were inhabiting Earth.

You are mistaking knowledge and wisdom for myths and legends, sorcery and witchcraft, fairy tales and make-believe, all of which is best left to the likes of Hollywood producers.

the old ones had knowledge Q...

Pyramids, StoneHenge (sp) , Temples in South America etc

even nowadays we don't understand how they were constructed and some we can't recreate with our present day technology

don't be so fast to say that they were brainless idiots who ate raw meat

Originally posted by Avatar

don't be so fast to say that they were brainless idiots who ate raw meat They are not the ones to be judged - I worry far more about the "brainlass idiots" who swallow anything and everything fed to them.

Originally posted by (Q)
You are mistaking knowledge and wisdom for myths and legends, sorcery and witchcraft, fairy tales and make-believe, all of which is best left to the likes of Hollywood producers.

Myths and legends?

Oh, my humble apologies to the mighty (Q) who has the wisdom to explain everything after his likings.:rolleyes:

I do not see why someone has to live in a cave though,. What does it have to do with ancient history and the ways the elders handled energy? Is it necessarry to live in a cave to accomplish what they did?

Enlighten me oh mighty (Q)...

Variety of food? Hahaha, in the US you mean? It is all genetically engineered and there are tons of garbage added to the food. Nothing natural about it anymore. It is no more than human creationism. Made possible through science.

How evolving...

Originally posted by Banshee


Enlighten me oh mighty (Q)... Anyone know where I can pick up some moth balls?

Gee ReasonableDoubt, I see why it is that evolution of the human mind/brain is not going any further.

Don't need scientific evidence to just see that for a fact.

You create the most beautiful examples...

Originally posted by Banshee


Yes I can dig up some evidence of how Earth energy was used in earlier time periods.I'm waiting for your evidence and you're flapping your ...

... wings. :D

ReasonableDoubt,

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

-- Stephen Roberts, quoted from Rob Fenton, in a letter to Cliff Walker (September 29, 2000)

I would dismiss or not focus my energies of gods, because when focusing on the Supreme God, all previous desires seems petty and futile.

Now why would he dismiss mine?

You might find The Documentary Hypothesis: Evidence to be of some interest. The referenced book by R. E. Friedman is also quite good.

Thanks, but they seem to be only asking questions based on their own understanding. At that rate we would, at best be going round in circles.

You are, of course, kidding I trust.

It is a poor theory, when you take into consideration the variety within this universe, plus the universe itself.
I’m not alone in my thoughts either,

"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.

Tyler,


Jan is one of those unique individuals who believes she and she alone holds the ultimate truth and it's some odd mix of the few religions she has studied in depth.

Tyler, have you bothered to check the thread, or doesn’t that matter to you.

Don't bother giving her actual evidence of anything contrary to her view,

Evidence of what?
Certainly not the origin of the universe.

Avatar,
I very well remember A4Ever
particullary one discussion at religion forum long ago (don't remember the title)

Similar situation as this, you said God was a murderer and a rapist, due to your self satisfying misunderstanding of the Bible, I disagreed.

Gosh! fancy disagreeing, especially on a religion forum.

I thought I was going mad

Maybe you are. :)

Frencheneeze,

Well,
I don't exactly want to debate with "believers". I consider people who take the bible literally to be, bluntly, idiots and fanatic dumb@s$es.

Wowwwww……….you must be soooooooo intelligent.

Obviously it was not written by god, or was it. I am no theologist, so why dont you believers tell me where YOU think (or in your case probably, know) where the bible came from.

You mean you don’t know?
That means you don’t know whether it is true or not.
And here was I admiring you’re intelligence. :(
Charming!

It is my -belief- that the bible has been written….

Oh! You wanna believe now, do you?
What happened to, :o "scientific proof of evidence?"
Not convenient eh? :rolleyes:

….while science is about prooving and understanding rather than taking things for granted….

Like your belief in how and when the Bbible was written. :p

As part of my extremely open-minded yet critical beliefs,

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!! :p:D
You had me going for a moment, I thought this post was serious.

I do believe that there can be a god,

Please post more, you are very, very, very informative, not to mention inspirational. :eek:

A4ever,

We have good conversations. I never feel pushed in any direction.

Errr….that was in the past, but my friend, the time has come. Here’s what you must do.

You gatsta believe in the God that I believes in, you gatsta eats, sleeps, walks and thinks the wayz I doos. You gatsta wipes everythings outa ya minds and fills it with my concepts.

:p L8ers

Love

Jan Ardena.

Errr….that was in the past, but my friend, the time has come. Here’s what you must do.

You gatsta believe in the God that I believes in, you gatsta eats, sleeps, walks and thinks the wayz I doos. You gatsta wipes everythings outa ya minds and fills it with my concepts.

*LOL*

hi, hopfully i can make this shorter than normal (i hate the idea that my stuff is too long for you all to read:)

"Isn't science the new religion in a way?" Banshee

Yes and no. Science is not religion because it tries to draw proofs from observation, while religion is based on unprooved faith. BUT, many people decide that they -believe in- science and just take it for granted. These people, as ive heard by someone else, might as well be theists. Those type of people usually don't have much understanding for science and believe whatever a "scientist writes." So while science is not religion, the followers of it that "follow" without first thinking about it are not exactly part of science. Damnit its already long.

"-People are all up to believing in what scientists may find and what theories they present. There is proof for a lot of it yes. It doesn't say science holds all the answers though.-" banshee

Thats what i said, and its not the scientists fault. Your right, it doesn't hold all the answers. But the reason people are so facinated with science is that we think it might EVENTUALLY hold all the answers, once we get the theories absoluetly correct. Of course there are also scientific theories that state that that is impossible. Every theory, law, or hypothesis is only an idea that has not been disprooven by observations yet. They all have the possibility of being broken, in which case a new theory will have to be written and perhaps many others becuase of it.

"-I disagree on the words that evolution is happening right now. Humans are utterly selfish and not evolving at all. Why do you say that? On what is it based? On the scientific theories?-" banshee

First of all, it was not an opinion. Second, what if being selfish is what keeps us alive? This would mean the evolution of a non-selfish person might leave him dead or unable to reproduce. This is what evolution is.
If a man survives BECAUSE he is selfish, chances are it will stay with the species or turn into a new species. And yes on scientific theories and observation. The key is observation, if we dont have that it is only a hypothesis.
People HAVE observed changes in microbes that make them resistent or even immune to the chemicals that were used to kill them.

Answer me this: have you HEARD about resistent viruses? and do you believe it? and how do YOU explain it?


"-Once there was a time, humans knew how to work together with energy from Earth. That knowledge is all forgotten or ridiculed away. -"

I can't say anything about this because i know nothing about this. Would you please explain what an "earth energy" is? I know about geothermal energy and of course natural phenomenon that allows us to get -electricity- from them (like a river or wind).

Well hopefully that wasn't too long. Ill look forward to your response.

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

I love that quote!

So now im talking to Jan... hmm.

"-I would dismiss or not focus my energies of gods, because when focusing on the Supreme God, all previous desires seems petty and futile. -"

What does this mean..... Sounds to me like we got a new -Jan- of Arc, huh?

Im sorry, jan. I don't want to rail on you. I've had many discussions with religious people, and they are quite obstinate about not liking to dish out proof to just -anyone- who comes along.
Either I'd like a serious discussion with you, or you can tell me you are a true believer in the bible and thats that, then ill just ignore you. Because its kind of annoying to seriously put something down and get a few badly articulated insults thrown at the words of my sentences.
Let me remind you that not one thing you said about my shpeal was serious, they were all laughing and jeering and sarcastic. Thanks but no thanks id rather have a disscussion than a religious zeal and macho demonstration. Ill just put out a few discussion points for you.

"It is a poor theory" Jan - Disproove it for us? will you?

"Like your belief in how and when the Bbible was written" Jan

I'm sorry, this was a very obscure imatation of the religious beliefs, it was sarcasm. ;) But dont go all out over it!

Fine you want me to say more about god?
I do think there CAN be a god, im just saying, unless he does stuff NOW, hes history. Science is about how things work, not how stuff was. (ok ok some science is about history, but those are theories with limited observational capacity, and since there are no direct observations, the theories are going to be a bit inaccurate)
I think that there is no proof god exists and therefore no reason for people to believe he exists. This is my whole train of thought, proof before faith. I can not believe something that does not have evidence. Why do you think we have to be PROOVEN guilty before are innocense is taken away. If people just had faith that some where guilty, wed back in the times of the inquisition.

Anything is possible, but the only thing we have to go on is our senses. If we don't trust our senses, what can we trust?

Frencheneesz

Quoted by Banshee
http://www.pribram.cz/centrum

Cosmic Energy

1. Dowsing rods have never been shown to have any statistical validity.
2. The addition of invented vocabulary (E-zones, intermediate zones, energy space, P-charge) suggests that these "researchers" are not familiar with existent physics vocabulary and is specious. (The markings of psuedo-science.)
3. A lot is said but very little explanation is given. No data at all is given. The rigor and statistical variation of the "research" is not given. This is not science. Sorry.
For instance: "On the very first day we came to the conclusion that the phenomenon is of the same character as that of capacitors." - Why? Based upon what theory or evidence?

Measuring instrument and dowsing rod

No evidence at all here, simply a testimonial. So what.

Stress Zones

pH is a measure of acidity/alkalinity not "energy". Other than that this section makes no sense at all. What is a "Stress Zone" anyway?

Forest Dieback

Causal nexus? Shall I start chanting or should I power up the hyperdrive to warp 8?

Other than the attempt to link this to the rest of the pseudo science, yes, strong electromagnetic fields can have an affect on living things. Science has demonstrated this quite nicely. Again, I must wonder at their inventive terminology and their failure to prove any real data.

Mesmerism
"The teachings of the Vienna doctor Franz Anton Mesmer (1734 – 1815) on animal magnetism has attracted great interest by doctors for more than fifty years beginning in the eighteenth century."

And utterly rejected by science. The effects of magnetism on the body have yet to be scientifically demonstrated. Studies so far with standard ferrous magnates indicate no measureable affect.


LOURDES

The placebo effect can be a powerful thing. Can anyone demonstrate: 1. Any variation above that of a control group. 2. Any variation beyond a group using some other method of "miracle healing" or placebo? The Answer; No.

What are the actual statistics? How many people visited the shrine in 1858? 3500 people were supposedly healed… but how many weren't? This info is useless.

ENERGY OF BERMUDA TRIANGLE

The Bermuda Triangle shows no statistical variance. That is, there is no increased likelihood of ships or planes getting lost, disappearing, or crashing in this area than over any other part of any other ocean. Utter bunk.

The energy raster…

Huh?

Ugh. Forget it… more of the same meaningless tripe. Many claims... no evidence. No rigor or data. I've yet to even see a testable hypothesis or method given. This is pseudoscientific crap. If there is any validity to any of these claims it is buried by an insurmountable pile of horseshit.

~Raithere

What does this mean.....

Why build different wells for different purposes, when the river, the source of the wells, can be utilised for all purposes, and without unecassery toil.

Sounds to me like we got a new -Jan- of Arc, huh?

Last chance! :rolleyes:
You want a proper conversation? :bugeye:
Then cut that shit out. :mad:

Im sorry, jan. I don't want to rail on you. I've had many discussions with religious people, and they are quite obstinate about not liking to dish out proof to just -anyone- who comes along.

What, exactly do you have proof of, and can you demonstrate it?

Let me remind you that not one thing you said about my shpeal was serious, they were all laughing and jeering and sarcastic.

I don’t know, I think some were true. It depends on how you look at it.

I do think there CAN be a god, im just saying, unless he does stuff NOW, hes history.

Your first mistake is, you only have an idea of God through revealed scripture. In those scriptures God reveals aspects of His character and personality, part of which is, He is the creator, maintainer and destroyer of the universe and everything therein. He is depicted as the Supreme Lord (controller), but then you put demands on Him, and your little knowledge cannot even account for what lies at the end of this temporary life.
When did you arrive at the point where you thought you were that important.
If you want to discuss God, then you should accept His character and personality as depicted in the scripture, whether you believe in Him or not, then take it from there.

This is my whole train of thought, proof before faith. I can not believe something that does not have evidence.

Something can only be proven to yourself.
You have to acquire faith in so many things just in order to believe something.
If you are talking about faith in God, then you should stipulate it, and use the meaning of the word as used in the scripture, otherwise we will be talking about different things, which doesn't make for good debate.

Why do you think we have to be PROOVEN guilty before are innocense is taken away.

Because man is imperfect.
If someone commits a crime and is found innocent by the courts, do you think that person is innocent?
The obvious truth is, as soon as someone commits a crime they are guilty, regardless of evidence or lack of.
The person knows they are guilty, so this is real knowledge.
It is knowledge in this vein that constitutes reality.


If people just had faith that some where guilty, wed back in the times of the inquisition.

Faith is the key, but once you unlock the door, there is knowledge, real knowledge.

Anything is possible, but the only thing we have to go on is our senses. If we don't trust our senses, what can we trust?

That is not a very intelligent move…………our senses are imperfect and would lead us up many a garden path.
Better off finding the source of your senses. :)

Love

Jan Ardena.

Jan Ardena wrote:

Faith is the key, but once you unlock the door, there is knowledge, real knowledge.
This is the terminal assertion for which there can be no refutation. I wish you the best.

Sorry Jan, looks like no real discussion is coming out of this. You didn't answer my question either. You talk in mystical lofty phrases that have no concrete meaning, and you seem very closed minded. I can discuss religious stuff with people who want to speak in an understandable way, but with you, its hard to even see through that mess.
In other words, you sound much like every other literal religious person ive heard. I will just ignore everything you say from now on unless it makes sence (as in i so can understand it, not that i have to agree). Im not going to discuss when there is no disscussion.

But thanks anyway - - - Frencheneesz

OH, by the way,
What are the sources of our sences?

The church used that one to debunk scientist in the 1500's. But it got old. Now we realize that the sences are all we got.


What other input do we have jan, tell me please. If we can't trust are sences what is there huh. If our sences are so imperfect, why do you believe what is running through your eyes right now to be the writing of a real person? How do you go through life knowing that it might not be what time you think it is, or where you think you are?

What if you could be sleeping in a world where everyone's sleeping and instead see the world around you? If you can't trust your sences you are in a world of trouble. How do you trust that your fingers are typing on that thing that your sences tell you is a keyboard?

how do you know that computer works? Your eyes are imperfect and so might tell you the computer is on when it is really off....

How do you know wheather it is night or day if you can't trust your eyes and ears?

How do you know that you aren't burning alive when you really feel fine if you can't trust your sences?

What if you are eating sewage when your mouth tells you it tastes like chicken (maybe sewage does taste like chicken, everything else seems to.)

Why do you even bother talking to someone if what you hear yourself say is not actually what you are saying, or even if the person is there at all?


This is the only place for faith in science: you must trust in observation through your sences, because life would not be worth living if those were false. It seems you have some lack of faith in your own body. YOU may not even exist if you can't trust your sences. THERE IS NOTHING BUT OUR SENCES TO TRUST.

If you can't believe that then im going to have to get very angry at you. DONT talk to me in scripture any more, be your god damn self for god damn once. You are not some kind of Fking prophesy. SAY SOMETHING MEANINGFUL and answer all my questions if you can BWAHAHHAHAH........

DAMN it Frencheneesz

You didn't answer my question either.

I did too, maybe you didn’t understand it.
Oh by the way you didn’t answer mine, here it is again in case you missed it.

What, exactly do you have proof of, and can you demonstrate it?

You talk in mystical lofty phrases that have no concrete meaning, and you seem very closed minded.

What exactly am I closing my mind to?

I will just ignore everything you say from now on unless it makes sence (as in i so can understand it, not that i have to agree). Im not going to discuss when there is no disscussion.

What a cop out!
You sound just like so many other blockheads I have discussed with.

The church used that one to debunk scientist in the 1500's. But it got old. Now we realize that the sences are all we got.

If the church is the source of your religious knowledge, then it is little wonder you have very little knowledge if any, about God.

If we can't trust are sences what is there huh.

Knowledge.

If our sences are so imperfect, why do you believe what is running through your eyes right now to be the writing of a real person?

Because only a real person could write. If it was somehow mechanically written, then somebody would have built and programmed the machine. :rolleyes:

Just out of curiosity, what else could it be the writing of? :confused:

How do you go through life knowing that it might not be what time you think it is, or where you think you are?

Time and place is relevant to the person. But there is a real time and a real place.

What if you could be sleeping in a world where everyone's sleeping and instead see the world around you?

<<<<<<<<<<DOES NOT COMPUTE>>>PLEASE REPEAT QUESTION>>>>>>.<<<<<<<<<<DOES NOT COMPUTE>>>PLEASE REPEAT QUESTION>>>>>>.

If you can't trust your sences you are in a world of trouble.

Now you are getting the idea………keep it up. :)

How do you trust that your fingers are typing on that thing that your sences tell you is a keyboard?

Through basic knowledge. :eek:

That is a silly question, the type usually debated by teens who are on the verge of a coma at a party, after smoking weed and drinking cheap cider all night. :(

how do you know that computer works? Your eyes are imperfect and so might tell you the computer is on when it is really off....

My eyes are imperfect, you are correct, but they are good enough to tell me whether my computer is on or off.

How do you know that you aren't burning alive when you really feel fine if you can't trust your sences?

I said our senses are imperfect, I didn’t say they don’t work.
You must read things more carefully. :rolleyes:

imperfect. Not perfect; not complete in all its parts; wanting a part; deective; deficient.

Now can you see in the dark without the aid of artificial light. Can you see what would have happened if you turned right instead of left. Can you see a mouse or rat from 3 miles up. Can you see if you are blind. Can you see whats in peoples minds. Can you see the back of your head without a mirror or film of some kind. Can you see the mechanism which make up your eye, without any aid.??????????????????

No?

Then your eyes are imperfect.

What if you are eating sewage when your mouth tells you it tastes like chicken (maybe sewage does taste like chicken, everything else seems to.)

Again, that is relative.

This is the only place for faith in science: you must trust in observation through your sences, because life would not be worth living if those were false.

Who said they were false? I said they were imperfect, that does not mean they cannot be utalised. :rolleyes:

If you can't believe that then im going to have to get very angry at you.

You already sound very angry, be careful not to bust a blood vessel.
I would like to ask you a question in all seriousness.

Why are you so arogant? :confused:

DONT talk to me in scripture any more, be your god damn self for god damn once.

Exxxxxxxxxcccccuuuuuusssssssseeeeeee me! :mad:

When have I spoke to you in scripture, whatever language that may be?

P.S. I’m not surprised you don’t want to discuss anymore. I think your fool nature would be exposed and hung out to dry. :rolleyes:

Have fun my friend!!

Love

Jan Ardena.

banshee cornered:

Oh, my humble apologies to the mighty (Q) who has the wisdom to explain everything after his likings.

Hackles up?

I do not see why someone has to live in a cave though,. What does it have to do with ancient history and the ways the elders handled energy?

You mean the energy of slaves? I think they used whips, big ones.

Is it necessarry to live in a cave to accomplish what they did?

As long as it wasn't raining. :D

Enlighten me oh mighty (Q)...

I'm sure I had some moth balls here somewhere...

Made possible through science.

How evolving...

Humans are pesky little creatures, aren't they ? ;)

btw - hand me that piano.

avatar

the old ones had knowledge Q...

Pyramids, StoneHenge (sp) , Temples in South America etc

even nowadays we don't understand how they were constructed and some we can't recreate with our present day technology

The cutting and moving of stone are not concepts too difficult to understand. Perhaps our current tools and machineries are not made to recreate those structures however, the technology would be available. We also lack millions of slaves used to do the labor. Safety first.

LOL, safty first


ANyway,

Hey Jan you didn't talk in scripture! I like it. How bout i roust up some of that scripture for you

"I would dismiss or not focus my energies of gods, because when focusing on the Supreme God, all previous desires seems petty and futile."

"Faith is the key, but once you unlock the door, there is knowledge, real knowledge."

"our senses are imperfect and would lead us up many a garden path"

"He is depicted as the Supreme Lord (controller), but then you put demands on Him, and your little knowledge cannot even account for what lies at the end of this temporary life."


Those are the examples i can find, and a lot of the rest makes it sound like you have the all encompassing knowledge of god.


You said the sences are imperfect, and i can agree. I can also say either that everything is imperfect, or what is your definition of perfect anyhow?


So youll answer my questions ill answer yours (by the way, it looks like its imposible for me to ignore you, since you are mostly the only one talking). But let me remind you that you didn't answer my question: what is the source of our sences?

Oh what do i have proof of? Well... that is a very broad question. What i consider proof is observation, if you consider proof to be anything else you have to tell me because i wouldn't consider it conventional.

I have proof that i exist, i do not have proof that you exist, only that your writing exists. I can infer through your writing that probably someone exists who wrote it.

Maybe what i meant is not proof, but evidence. While nothing can be prooved for certainty, things can build up quite a lot of evidence. Again i consider observation to be evidence.

This forum is creationism vs science and i do have Evidence (given that proof does not exist for anything that is the most i can give) for evolution (proably what they mean by science).

Ill try to not flame at you, but I can't list to that garden path crap. "our senses are imperfect and would lead us up many a garden path"

Where can you draw the line between where you can trust your sences and where you have to leave off?

besides who has the authority to say where you have to leave off anyway? certainly you can agree not you or I!

you want evidence ill give you some evidence. Right now, viruses that infect people are becoming resistent to the medicine we use to treat the illness. The organisms have definately not been around before because the med used to work. Now the med is becoming increasingly less usefull.
The evolution explanation is, the organisms that had the most resistence through genetic mutation survived longer than ones will less resistence, and so while the ones with less resistence get killed by the med, the ones with more resistence survive the med to reproduce and spread.

By the way, i answered your questions, i kinda want mine answered too, ill bold them for you.

Hey Jan you didn't talk in scripture! I like it. How bout i roust up some of that scripture for you

"I would dismiss or not focus my energies of gods, because when focusing on the Supreme God, all previous desires seems petty and futile."

"Faith is the key, but once you unlock the door, there is knowledge, real knowledge."

"our senses are imperfect and would lead us up many a garden path"

"He is depicted as the Supreme Lord (controller), but then you put demands on Him, and your little knowledge cannot even account for what lies at the end of this temporary life."

Poor Frencheez, :( those did not come from the scriptures. However, thank you for the compliment, but trust me, it is most undeserved.

Those are the examples i can find, and a lot of the rest makes it sound like you have the all encompassing knowledge of god.

Again, thanks for the compliment, but all I have is basic, analytical knowledge of God. The real knowledge and understanding starts when you live the life.

You said the sences are imperfect, and i can agree. I can also say either that everything is imperfect, or what is your definition of perfect anyhow?

perfect; Brought to consummation or completeness; completed; not defective nor redundant; having all the properties or qualities requisite to its nature and kind; without flaw, fault, or blemish; without error; mature; whole; pure; sound; right; correct.
To make perfect; to finish or complete, so as to leave nothing wanting; to give to anything all that is requisite to its nature and kind.

Things can be perfect, but only as far as their use is concerned, if utalised properly, then perfection can be reached. But the ultimate perfect isssssssssssss…………………………..that’s right Frencheez, you hit the nail on the head, the one, the only……………….Ladies and gentlemen, may I present…….God! :p

So youll answer my questions ill answer yours (by the way, it looks like its imposible for me to ignore you, since you are mostly the only one talking).

Why on Gods green and pleasant earth would you want to ignore me, what type of discussion was you expecting?? :confused:
What is it you want to discuss?

let me remind you that you didn't answer my question: what is the source of our sences?

By senses you mean the five knowledge aquring senses, namely, hearing, seeing, touching/feeling, smelling and tasteing. The source of these is……………………..you got it…..God.
To explain how this is so, would take a long post with references to the language of scripture, and as you are opposed to that language, you’ll just have to take my word for it.

Oh what do i have proof of? Well... that is a very broad question. What i consider………………..

Oh come on, just admit you have presentable proof of nothing. :D

i have proof that i exist,

Of course you do, that is knowledge. ;)

I do not have proof that you exist, only that your writing exists.
I can infer through your writing that probably someone exists who wrote it.

Well there you go dude, that wasn’t hard was it?
It doesn’t matter whether it was me or not, the point is what is written.
I am willing to bet that your name is not really Frencheez, but who cares, I am responding to what is written. :rolleyes:


Maybe what i meant is not proof, but evidence. While nothing can be prooved for certainty, things can build up quite a lot of evidence. Again i consider observation to be evidence.

Evidence is basically information which does or doesn't confirm something as fact, but fact still remains, and always will regardless of evidence. Soooooooo it make a lot more sense seek out facts.

This forum is creationism vs science and i do have Evidence (given that proof does not exist for anything that is the most i can give) for evolution (proably what they mean by science).

Then, in that vain, so do I.
About 5000 years ago God constructed a city by the name of Dwaraka on the western coast of India (then Bharat varsha). When He had completed His pastimes here on earth, He ordered the god of the sea to emerse the city under its waves. It did. And it is still there. :o

Ill try to not flame at you, but I can't list to that garden path crap. "our senses are imperfect and would lead us up many a garden path"

Blockheadz really make me laugh. You think you have power, but the power remains only in your head. You can flame if you like, in fact, bring it on, I am most certainly in the mood, but remember it is not me you are flaming, all you are doing is bringing up the crap that exists in your mind.

You see you have nothing to go on other than some demonic delusion that this world came out of nothing and all life started from nothing. Such nonsense. :rolleyes: Even the progenitor of this nonsense realised that it is a load of kak.

"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.

Where can you draw the line between where you can trust your sences and where you have to leave off?

Through self-realisation, through understanding that you are not your body or senses. That if you misuse your senses, you are sometimes happy and sometimes sad, which eventually leads to misery, and proper use means you are happy in any situation you may find yourself in.

besides who has the authority to say where you have to leave off anyway? certainly you can agree not you or I!

We have the authority within this body/life, because the Supreme Authority has granted it.

The evolution explanation is, the organisms that had the most resistence through genetic mutation survived longer than ones will less resistence, and so while the ones with less resistence get killed by the med, the ones with more resistence survive the med to reproduce and spread.

So what you are saying is, they have evolved to the state where the old med cannot affect them, yes? That’s cool, that’s called survival, evolution is fact, the theory of evolution regarding the origin of the universe and life therein is false. Your point does not explain how the universe or ourselves got here though.

By the way, i answered your questions, i kinda want mine answered too, ill bold them for you.

I’ll be right here dude. ;)

Love

Jan Ardena.

ok,
First of all, please don't interpret what I say to mean i have power... Did i say i thought i had power? where did that come from.....
What I meant by scripture is not things that came from old unauthored writing, but stuff that sounds old and poetic, yet only has meaning in a vaugue sence, or has double meanings. What i really meant is stuff that sounds old and grand, yet doesn't mean much.

By definition, perfect is all opinionated. How can someone prove that something is perfect? You can say that something is without flaw, but someone else may say it has flaw. You can debate opinion, but i'd rather not because I think its pointless.

I think a more important issue before we discuss ANYTHING, is what you feel about proof (ie evidence). Science exists for the very reason that we do NOT know everything. The purpose of science is to discover all that we can about how things work and how things are.
Can you think of any other way to further knowledge without some sort of observational proof?

"Evidence is basically information which does or doesn't confirm something as fact, but fact still remains, and always will regardless of evidence. Soooooooo it make a lot more sense seek out facts. " Jan

of course fact still remains, but we do not know all the facts. Science exists for us to learn those facts. The only way we can find facts are through observation, looking and recording what happened. Those are facts, and through these facts we can think of reasons why those facts happened, those are called theories.
Science does seek out facts, it also seeks out evidence to proove its theories so they might be closer to being facts.
You do not just find a fact laying on the grass and put it into the science books. You have to find evidence for a theory. That is science.

"About 5000 years ago God constructed a city by the name of Dwaraka on the western coast of India (then Bharat varsha). When He had completed His pastimes here on earth, He ordered the god of the sea to emerse the city under its waves. It did. And it is still there." Jan

this is evidence of.... god's existence? Where is the evidence that GOD created the city? How do we know that people didn't make the city or that the city was flooded by natural processes?

""You think you have power, but the power remains only in your head. You can flame if you like, in fact, bring it on, I am most certainly in the mood, but remember it is not me you are flaming, all you are doing is bringing up the crap that exists in your mind. ""

Again where did this come from? By the way, im bringing up the crap that exists in my mind when i remeber your words....

"You see you have nothing to go on other than some demonic delusion that this world came out of nothing and all life started from nothing. Such nonsense. Even the progenitor of this nonsense realised that it is a load of kak."

demonic? hey, i think id be very insulted if I were christian... I do not think the world came from nothing and life started from nothing. WE DO NOT KNOW HOW THE UNIVERSE STARTED, and we still have much to learn about how life started on earth.
THIS is what science is for, we DO NOT know everything, thus we need (more like want actually) to learn it. Oh and what is progenitor?

" As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139. "

These are just questions, questions don't provide evidence that the theory is wrong. The question are there for science to answer. We have found transitional forms, and many creatures are halfway species. Amphibians bear a very strong resemblence to reptiles AND water creatures (other than fish). This would be good evidence of the transitional amphibians bridging the water and the land.

"Through self-realisation, through understanding that you are not your body or senses. That if you misuse your senses, you are sometimes happy and sometimes sad, which eventually leads to misery, and proper use means you are happy in any situation you may find yourself in. "

Must I ask, What?

"We have the authority within this body/life, because the Supreme Authority has granted it. "

This comes back to the evidence thing, do you have evidence that there IS a supreme authority, or that they have granted that we know where our sences start sucking?

"So what you are saying is, they have evolved to the state where the old med cannot affect them, yes? That’s cool, that’s called survival, evolution is fact, the theory of evolution regarding the origin of the universe and life therein is false. Your point does not explain how the universe or ourselves got here though. "

No evolution is not fact, it is a theory. But the theory about the origin of the universe and life is not part of that theory. The theory of evolution is Charles Darwin's theory and states that "natural selection" governs how species evolve. It tells nothing about the origin of life or the universe, that is a different theory.

Big bang theory is the main theory on the origin of the universe, and I don't know what the theory on the origin of life on earth is called, but they are all different theories.

But I will say that scientists managed to make "living material" out of what they thought to be junk that would be found in early earth. The sparked it with electricity and the main compounds of living organisms were found after they sparked it in a mass spectrometer analysis.

This is EVIDENCE that life can be formed from something as turbulent as ancient earth.

Tell me what you think about evidence, proof, and observation. Do you think they are nessisary to belif?
Do you think that if there was no evidence of gods existence (I certainly dont have any), it wouldn't matter, you would believe anyway? or not?

Those are the most important philosophical questions, because if we disagree on them, we might be just talking to ourselves...


Frencheneesz

Science exists for the very reason that we do NOT know

Well at least we agree on something.
Science is an external education, it is there so that we can understand the mechanism of the world around us, our bodies and minds, depending on what branch of science we deal with. Would you agree with that?

Real religion is an internal education, it is there to remind us of our real self, our true identity, and the origin of everything. As you can see, there is a difference between the two subjects, but in actuality they are interconnected.

Einstein explained it thus,

"True religion is real living; living with all one's soul, with all one's goodness and righteousness."

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
_Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium_ (1941) ch. 13

The only way we can find facts are through observation, looking and recording what happened.

Here I have to disagree, there are a number of ways we can obtain facts, i.e. from someone or from experience or by accident.

Science does seek out facts, it also seeks out evidence to proove its theories so they might be closer to being facts.

I am not disputing that, but there are definitely areas where science cannot be used, don’t you agree?

You do not just find a fact laying on the grass and put it into the science books.

Surely there would be no need, because you would have already found a fact (hypothetically speaking) which is the point of science.

You have to find evidence for a theory. That is science.

My understanding of science is “knowledge.” Knowledge incorporates facts. Sometimes it is nesaccery to find evidence for a theory, when the facts are not known, but what is the point of evidence if something is already known?

Where is the evidence that GOD created the city?

That, you would have to find out, but I’m sure evidence exists. My point is though, it doesn’t matter whether you can find evidence or not. If you cannot find evidence, then does that mean God does not exist? That being the case, do you then give up believing in God because you could not find any empirical evidence.

demonic? hey, i think id be very insulted if I were christian...

Why? You were not insulted.
What do you think “demonic” means.

WE DO NOT KNOW HOW THE UNIVERSE STARTED, and we still have much to learn about how life started on earth.

That’s a fair enough statement. You say you have much to learn, but you do not consult the vedas, why is this?
Do you already know what “vedas” contains?
Do you understand the Bible so well, that you do not need it to be explained?
How can you develop any knowledge, if right from the start you feel you know what is right and what is wrong?
Einstein and Newton, two landmark scientists do not dismiss God, why do you?

These are just questions, questions don't provide evidence that the theory is wrong.

But very important questions, questions that have not been sufficiently answered. For us to believe this theory we must be satisfied within ourselves, in fact that goes for belief in anything.

The question are there for science to answer.

That seems rather ironic, as science put those questions there in the first place.

We have found transitional forms, and many creatures are halfway species. Amphibians bear a very strong resemblence to reptiles AND water creatures (other than fish). This would be good evidence of the transitional amphibians bridging the water and the land.

Amphibians are amphibians, reptiles are reptiles, they may look similar in some circumstances, but they are different, so really the evidence is so weak it is not worth mentioning.
I’d say that is a desperate shot in the dark.

This comes back to the evidence thing, do you have evidence that there IS a supreme authority, or that they have granted that we know where our sences start sucking?

This is not a question evasion tactic.
Earlier you said you “know” you exist, would it be possible for you to display for all to see, the evidence which allowed you to come to this conlusion?

I need you to answer this, so my answer will be more clearer.

How do we know that people didn't make the city

Where would they have got the tools, the diamonds, pearls and gold. Where would they obtain the mechanisms to construct such tall skyscraper buildings, and such elaborate palaces, which went miles out into the Arabian sea.
This is the Gujarat province of India we are talking about.

or that the city was flooded by natural processes?

Yes, by the sea.

No evolution is not fact, it is a theory.

Well lets see shall we!

evolution; The act of unfolding or unrolling; hence, in the process of growth; development; as, the evolution of a flower from a bud, or an animal from the egg.[/I]

Do you still think it is a theory?

But I will say that scientists managed to make "living material" out of what they thought to be junk that would be found in early earth. The sparked it with electricity and the main compounds of living organisms were found after they sparked it in a mass spectrometer analysis.

Do you believe that?
Have you seen the experiment?

Tell me what you think about evidence, proof, and observation.

They are what they are, in some cases they are extremely necassery, and in some cases they are not enough to come to any concrete conclusions.
Please don’t get me wrong, I am for science, and all the great work done by some scientists.

Do you think they are nessisary to belief?

I don’t think it is a case of necessity, it is built into your humanity, in fact into all beings.

Do you think that if there was no evidence of gods existence
(I certainly dont have any), it wouldn't matter, you would believe anyway? or not?

You see, it doesn’t boil down to evidence, I boils down to you. Having a relationship with God is just basically that, having a relationship. In such mellows, one does not require proof. If you are currently in a loving relationship, or you have real good friends and family whom you love, then maybe you can understand. There are just some things you can’t hold in your hand and say “here it is.”

I’m afraid mundane science cannot enter into that realm. Soz! :(

Those are the most important philosophical questions, because if we disagree on them, we might be just talking to ourselves...

I don’t think so, maybe you should study the works of both theist and atheist scientists, read/hear some scripture, and try and understand what God is, it doesn’t mean you have to accept that He exists, it will just broaden your mind, when in such a discussion.

Love

Jan Ardena.

"Creationism Vs. Science", for me, comes down to one thing.

There are those, when watching a magician at work when they are young, go "ooooh, aaaah" and see an event unfolding without any obvious explanation. Some of those kids, however, will say" wow, cool... now, how was that trick done?"

These kids grow up to be, respectively, religious or scientists. Simplified.

I always have enjoyed watching David Coperfield and I have to confess- I have no idea how he does his levitation tricks

I always have enjoyed watching David Coperfield and I have to confess- I have no idea how he does his levitation tricks

He is an excellent magician.
From a modern scientific point of veiw, how can you say they are tricks, (when what you see is real), without evidence.

Is it possible to prove that what he performs are tricks?

Just curious. :)

Love

Jan Ardena.

Is it possible to prove that what he performs are tricks?
only if he himself reveals how he does them

and tricks and science is hard to seperate- especially nowadays, when magicians use some heavy equipment


Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
ARTHUR C. CLARKE

Hi,
once again,
"Science is an external education, it is there so that we can understand the mechanism of the world around us, our bodies and minds, depending on what branch of science we deal with. Would you agree with that?"

Im glad you asked and not just told, (as you sometimes do). I would agree with everything after the word education. As for the external education part, you might have to define that, because i dont want to draw conclustions.

"Real religion is an internal education, it is there to remind us of our real self, our true identity, and the origin of everything. As you can see, there is a difference between the two subjects, but in actuality they are interconnected. "

again, you have to define internal and external education, but i dont like whats coming... And i can see that they are interconnected in the way that everything is interconnected.

---Einstein explained it thus,
"True religion is real living; living with all one's soul, with all one's goodness and righteousness."

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
_Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium_ (1941) ch. 13 ---

This was in a time when most people were religios. One is shaped by their time just like I am. To me that doesn't mean much, nor does it remind me of what i think of as einstein. Besides, just because einstein said it, does not mean it is true....
Even if it was less vauge.

--The only way we can find facts are through observation, looking and recording what happened. -- (that was me)

"Here I have to disagree, there are a number of ways we can obtain facts, i.e. from someone or from experience or by accident."

What do you think observation is? An experience is what you observe happening as a result of your actions. Also, an experiment is an observation of what happens when you do certain things. In effect and experience is an unscientific observation. By accident, ... that is a little hard, give an example of accidental learning.

Let me remind you that everything we see learn and sense must come through SOME SORT of input. Weather that INPUT is what YOU call a sence or not is up to you, i guess.

---Science does seek out facts, it also seeks out evidence to proove its theories so they might be closer to being facts.--- (me)
"I am not disputing that, but there are definitely areas where science cannot be used, don’t you agree?"

Id have to have an example. The purpose of science is to come up with laws that have no exceptions, and though this rarely happens now, we are getting ever closer to it. Where would science not be able to be used?

----You do not just find a fact laying on the grass and put it into the science books. -----
"Surely there would be no need, because you would have already found a fact (hypothetically speaking) which is the point of science."

where would that fact come from? Science uses facts to "proove" hypotheses and theories. These facts are observations. This is the only thing science takes for granted, that your observations are real.

"My understanding of science is “knowledge.” Knowledge incorporates facts. Sometimes it is nesaccery to find evidence for a theory, when the facts are not known, but what is the point of evidence if something is already known?"

Actually, a theory ALWAYS needs evidence, otherwise it is a hypothesis without support. The facts ARE the evidence. The point of evidence is to see weather what people think they know is correct or not. The church knew that the universe revolved around earth, did they not?

"If you cannot find evidence, then does that mean God does not exist?"

If you can't find evidence, you can't draw conclusions at all, in otherwords without proof you can't proove anything.... If i have not evidence that god exists, i won't believe in him. If i have evidence against his existence i will be wary of people who don't recognize the evidence. If there is evidence for god, then i will believe in him as long as the evidence is sound.

"do you then give up believing in God because you could not find any empirical evidence."

I do not see it as giving up, because i was not looking for a god. I just see no reason to believe in a god, because there is no evidence.

---demonic? hey, i think id be very insulted if I were christian... --
"Why? You were not insulted.
What do you think “demonic” means. "

Why? because christians believe in the devil. I was not insulted because i don't believe in the devil. It is not a word im used to being called, and it is fairly regularly refferenced in old writing as a very bad insult. Demonic - sounds like demon to me....
Must mean of or like the devil, dont you think?

"You say you have much to learn, but you do not consult the vedas, why is this?
Do you already know what “vedas” contains? (nope)
Do you understand the Bible so well, that you do not need it to be explained?

I don't know what the vedas is. If it is something religious, i would think I need to learn what they think, I do know stuff about religions, given that i go to school. I don't have the deepest, most spiritual and anylitical understanding of the bible, because i have not read it, but i have seen parts of it and heard stories from it, but it is not something i consider to have a very high probablitiy of enjoyable reading for me or a high learning experience for me.
I do not need the bible explained, because i don't consider it to be either accurate nor proof of anything. I consider the bible to be a guide to life. Pretty much boils down to, I don't read it because im not religious, and i am not interested.

How can you develop any knowledge, if right from the start you feel you know what is right and what is wrong?
Einstein and Newton, two landmark scientists do not dismiss God, why do you? "

Well, who said we do? And if we do (which i can believe), I wouldn't think that feeling is not amendable....
Einstein and Newton lived in times when most people were religious. As I said before, one is shaped by their time. Just because they made great scientific insights, does not mean they were close to perfect. It does not mean that I should be religious because they are. They had different backgrounds than I have. They grew up with religion, i did not. Why should i not dismiss god?

"But very important questions, questions that have not been sufficiently answered. For us to believe this theory we must be satisfied within ourselves, in fact that goes for belief in anything."

Science is about answering those questions. If there were no questions to answer, we would not need science, not to mention we have far advanced technology.

"That seems rather ironic, as science put those questions there in the first place."

Why ironic, who else is going to answer the questions?

"Amphibians are amphibians, reptiles are reptiles, they may look similar in some circumstances, but they are different, so really the evidence is so weak it is not worth mentioning.
I’d say that is a desperate shot in the dark."

With this kind of response, i would suspect you don't know as much about the theory as you think. There are not direct transition forms anymore, because they have evolved into something that suited its environment even better, and the transitional form died out. I don't think i can prove the theory of evolution to you if you already think it is a poor theory. That would be something for you to look up more information on.

Evolution is not straght forward, things evolve, things die out, and things evolve more. There might be be a far distant ancestor that we and flys evolved from, but they drew paths so long ago that there is no distinction. I might not say no distinction, the DNA in our bodies is so similar to any creature we can test that it draws the conclution that we and animals must have come from some distant common ancestor. How do you explain that the DNA of humans and an Amoeba are something like 90% similar?

--This comes back to the evidence thing, do you have evidence that there IS a supreme authority, or that they have granted that we know where our sences start sucking?----

"This is not a question evasion tactic.
Earlier you said you “know” you exist, would it be possible for you to display for all to see, the evidence which allowed you to come to this conlusion?"

Since you didn't answer my question, you did effectively evade the question, so why dont you answer it now?

I 'know' i exist, but it would not be possible for me to display for all to see, the evidence that allowed me to come to that conclusion. The fact that I can see things coming through my eyes, ears, and other sences indicate that i exist. Even if i could connect my brain to someone else, i would be giving them external input and that can all be in the imagination.
Havent you ever heard the famous quote, "i think, therefore I am" - must have been aristotle or somthing

"Where would they have got the tools, the diamonds, pearls and gold. Where would they obtain the mechanisms to construct such tall skyscraper buildings, and such elaborate palaces, which went miles out into the Arabian sea."

Wow, if i had heard about underwater skyscrapers, I would have a whole different outlook on the world. I looked it up real quick and almost none of the articles looked scientific. I've never heard about it. I'm sure that would be the biggest discovery of all time, so I would doubt its existence. Unless you could direct me to a believable information site for it (non-religious based).

"evolution; The act of unfolding or unrolling; hence, in the process of growth; development; as, the evolution of a flower from a bud, or an animal from the egg.[/I]

Do you still think it is a theory?"

Im sorry, that is not the theory of evolution, that is the english class dictionary definition of evolution, because, like most words, evolution has more than one implication too. I do still think it is a theory and it is not that definition.
If i were to define it like that i might say the THEORY of evolution is: the act of changing by genectic mutation from parent to child, hence, in the process of changing to suit their environment, as the evolution of a fish from a bacteria, or a bird from a dinosour.

"Do you believe that?
Have you seen the experiment?"

I do, only because it makes sence with my understanding of biology. I have not seen the experiment no. I just heard of it so, although it makes sence to me, it doesn't proove anything.

"in some cases they are extremely necassery, and in some cases they are not enough to come to any concrete conclusions. "

In science, id think they are always neccessary. In some cases the observations do not provide enough support to a hypothesis to effectively proove it. Then either you need a new hypothesis or more information.

"I don’t think it is a case of necessity, it is built into your humanity, in fact into all beings."

Its built into my humanity? Can you proove that it is built into all beings? If you can't it is not a "fact". Sorry if im taking that too literally.

You see, it doesn’t boil down to evidence, I boils down to you. Having a relationship with God is just basically that, having a relationship. In such mellows, one does not require proof. If you are currently in a loving relationship, or you have real good friends and family whom you love, then maybe you can understand. There are just some things you can’t hold in your hand and say “here it is.”

If im in a loving relationship, id be quick to end it if i were having it with an imaginary friend. If I can't provide proof to myself that my partner exists through observation, then i think I can't have a relationship, period. You can't have a relationship with an entity that either does not exist or provides no feed back to you (in otherwords proof that it exists).

"I don’t think so, maybe you should study the works of both theist and atheist scientists, read/hear some scripture, and try and understand what God is, it doesn’t mean you have to accept that He exists, it will just broaden your mind, when in such a discussion. "

Fine fine, but I would greatly doubt YOUR understanding if you can't accept that people have believed in more than one god, and that people currently believe in different gods. The christian god might be different from the puritan god, or the separatist's god. God is not one thing, but a list of different beliefs and religions. I have learned about such things as to have the idea that it is not needed for me to "get to know" one god over another. Why would I believe in your god over another?

Frencheneesz

Hi,
once again,
"Science is an external education, it is there so that we can understand the mechanism of the world around us, our bodies and minds, depending on what branch of science we deal with. Would you agree with that?"

Im glad you asked and not just told, (as you sometimes do). I would agree with everything after the word education. As for the external education part, you might have to define that, because i dont want to draw conclustions.

"Real religion is an internal education, it is there to remind us of our real self, our true identity, and the origin of everything. As you can see, there is a difference between the two subjects, but in actuality they are interconnected. "

again, you have to define internal and external education, but i dont like whats coming... And i can see that they are interconnected in the way that everything is interconnected.

---Einstein explained it thus,
"True religion is real living; living with all one's soul, with all one's goodness and righteousness."

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
_Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium_ (1941) ch. 13 ---

This was in a time when most people were religios. One is shaped by their time just like I am. To me that doesn't mean much, nor does it remind me of what i think of as einstein. Besides, just because einstein said it, does not mean it is true....
Even if it was less vauge.

--The only way we can find facts are through observation, looking and recording what happened. -- (that was me)

"Here I have to disagree, there are a number of ways we can obtain facts, i.e. from someone or from experience or by accident."

What do you think observation is? An experience is what you observe happening as a result of your actions. Also, an experiment is an observation of what happens when you do certain things. In effect and experience is an unscientific observation. By accident, ... that is a little hard, give an example of accidental learning.

Let me remind you that everything we see learn and sense must come through SOME SORT of input. Weather that INPUT is what YOU call a sence or not is up to you, i guess.

---Science does seek out facts, it also seeks out evidence to proove its theories so they might be closer to being facts.--- (me)
"I am not disputing that, but there are definitely areas where science cannot be used, don’t you agree?"

Id have to have an example. The purpose of science is to come up with laws that have no exceptions, and though this rarely happens now, we are getting ever closer to it. Where would science not be able to be used?

----You do not just find a fact laying on the grass and put it into the science books. -----
"Surely there would be no need, because you would have already found a fact (hypothetically speaking) which is the point of science."

where would that fact come from? Science uses facts to "proove" hypotheses and theories. These facts are observations. This is the only thing science takes for granted, that your observations are real.

"My understanding of science is “knowledge.” Knowledge incorporates facts. Sometimes it is nesaccery to find evidence for a theory, when the facts are not known, but what is the point of evidence if something is already known?"

Actually, a theory ALWAYS needs evidence, otherwise it is a hypothesis without support. The facts ARE the evidence. The point of evidence is to see weather what people think they know is correct or not. The church knew that the universe revolved around earth, did they not?

"If you cannot find evidence, then does that mean God does not exist?"

If you can't find evidence, you can't draw conclusions at all, in otherwords without proof you can't proove anything.... If i have not evidence that god exists, i won't believe in him. If i have evidence against his existence i will be wary of people who don't recognize the evidence. If there is evidence for god, then i will believe in him as long as the evidence is sound.

"do you then give up believing in God because you could not find any empirical evidence."

I do not see it as giving up, because i was not looking for a god. I just see no reason to believe in a god, because there is no evidence.

---demonic? hey, i think id be very insulted if I were christian... --
"Why? You were not insulted.
What do you think “demonic” means. "

Why? because christians believe in the devil. I was not insulted because i don't believe in the devil. It is not a word im used to being called, and it is fairly regularly refferenced in old writing as a very bad insult. Demonic - sounds like demon to me....
Must mean of or like the devil, dont you think?

"You say you have much to learn, but you do not consult the vedas, why is this?
Do you already know what “vedas” contains? (nope)
Do you understand the Bible so well, that you do not need it to be explained?

I don't know what the vedas is. If it is something religious, i would think I need to learn what they think, I do know stuff about religions, given that i go to school. I don't have the deepest, most spiritual and anylitical understanding of the bible, because i have not read it, but i have seen parts of it and heard stories from it, but it is not something i consider to have a very high probablitiy of enjoyable reading for me or a high learning experience for me.
I do not need the bible explained, because i don't consider it to be either accurate nor proof of anything. I consider the bible to be a guide to life. Pretty much boils down to, I don't read it because im not religious, and i am not interested.

How can you develop any knowledge, if right from the start you feel you know what is right and what is wrong?
Einstein and Newton, two landmark scientists do not dismiss God, why do you? "

Well, who said we do? And if we do (which i can believe), I wouldn't think that feeling is not amendable....
Einstein and Newton lived in times when most people were religious. As I said before, one is shaped by their time. Just because they made great scientific insights, does not mean they were close to perfect. It does not mean that I should be religious because they are. They had different backgrounds than I have. They grew up with religion, i did not. Why should i not dismiss god?

"But very important questions, questions that have not been sufficiently answered. For us to believe this theory we must be satisfied within ourselves, in fact that goes for belief in anything."

Science is about answering those questions. If there were no questions to answer, we would not need science, not to mention we have far advanced technology.

"That seems rather ironic, as science put those questions there in the first place."

Why ironic, who else is going to answer the questions?

"Amphibians are amphibians, reptiles are reptiles, they may look similar in some circumstances, but they are different, so really the evidence is so weak it is not worth mentioning.
I’d say that is a desperate shot in the dark."

With this kind of response, i would suspect you don't know as much about the theory as you think. There are not direct transition forms anymore, because they have evolved into something that suited its environment even better, and the transitional form died out. I don't think i can prove the theory of evolution to you if you already think it is a poor theory. That would be something for you to look up more information on.

Evolution is not straght forward, things evolve, things die out, and things evolve more. There might be be a far distant ancestor that we and flys evolved from, but they drew paths so long ago that there is no distinction. I might not say no distinction, the DNA in our bodies is so similar to any creature we can test that it draws the conclution that we and animals must have come from some distant common ancestor. How do you explain that the DNA of humans and an Amoeba are something like 90% similar?

--This comes back to the evidence thing, do you have evidence that there IS a supreme authority, or that they have granted that we know where our sences start sucking?----

"This is not a question evasion tactic.
Earlier you said you “know” you exist, would it be possible for you to display for all to see, the evidence which allowed you to come to this conlusion?"

Since you didn't answer my question, you did effectively evade the question, so why dont you answer it now?

I 'know' i exist, but it would not be possible for me to display for all to see, the evidence that allowed me to come to that conclusion. The fact that I can see things coming through my eyes, ears, and other sences indicate that i exist. Even if i could connect my brain to someone else, i would be giving them external input and that can all be in the imagination.
Havent you ever heard the famous quote, "i think, therefore I am" - must have been aristotle or somthing

"Where would they have got the tools, the diamonds, pearls and gold. Where would they obtain the mechanisms to construct such tall skyscraper buildings, and such elaborate palaces, which went miles out into the Arabian sea."

Wow, if i had heard about underwater skyscrapers, I would have a whole different outlook on the world. I looked it up real quick and almost none of the articles looked scientific. I've never heard about it. I'm sure that would be the biggest discovery of all time, so I would doubt its existence. Unless you could direct me to a believable information site for it (non-religious based).

"evolution; The act of unfolding or unrolling; hence, in the process of growth; development; as, the evolution of a flower from a bud, or an animal from the egg.[/I]

Do you still think it is a theory?"

Im sorry, that is not the theory of evolution, that is the english class dictionary definition of evolution, because, like most words, evolution has more than one implication too. I do still think it is a theory and it is not that definition.
If i were to define it like that i might say the THEORY of evolution is: the act of changing by genectic mutation from parent to child, hence, in the process of changing to suit their environment, as the evolution of a fish from a bacteria, or a bird from a dinosour.

"Do you believe that?
Have you seen the experiment?"

I do, only because it makes sence with my understanding of biology. I have not seen the experiment no. I just heard of it so, although it makes sence to me, it doesn't proove anything.

"in some cases they are extremely necassery, and in some cases they are not enough to come to any concrete conclusions. "

In science, id think the