Re: Creation and evolution aside,
Quote:
Originally Posted by luvfightgame
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missy
Quote:
Originally Posted by luvfightgame
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missy
How can I be angry at something that doesn't exist. ;)
You have a god because you are mentally weak.
Oh, so you are too tough for God.....
You don't know me to be able to make a judgement about my strength. I doubt if you did you would make that statement, physically or mentally.
I can and you're a spacker.
I don't know what that is................ Anyway think what you want, but it isn't out of weakness. I don't need to present my resume to support my beliefs, but trust me nobody has ever called me weak. Asshole, prick, too aggressive, thickheaded, plenty of names to toss at me, but not once have I ever been called weak.
Never been called a fag either, why do they call you that??
Re: Creation and evolution aside,
See religion is a blind faith. There is not much proof to say there is a god but yet people need to believe there is something else after death. They need to believe that there is someone who is looking out for them. Isnt it obvious when all the boxers who pray in there corner before going out to fight, they mostly lose. I once heard a commentator say "do you think that will help him " (talking about a boxer praying) to which the other replies "not if he cant fight'.
Re: Creation and evolution aside,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snakey
See religion is a blind faith. There is not much proof to say there is a god but yet people need to believe there is something else after death. They need to believe that there is someone who is looking out for them. Isnt it obvious when all the boxers who pray in there corner before going out to fight, they mostly lose. I once heard a commentator say "do you think that will help him " (talking about a boxer praying) to which the other replies "not if he cant fight'.
That's a nice opinion but you are quite wrong. Almost every great champion prays before there fights, so it is impossible that they mostly lose. When both fighters pray one of them is going to lose, so that is the only way your scenario works. Lets see who prays....
Holifield, pacquio, Brewster, Liakhovich, Calvin Brock, Chris Byrd, Ebo Elder, Robert Guerro, Sechew Powell, Ann Wolfe, George Foreman, Joe Frazier...
Need any more? There are plenty more. See the whole point of this topic isn't to convince anyone that they should agree with my faith. But to understand that they too are operating on faith. It takes just as much faith to believe the evolution theory as the creation theory.
Re: Creation and evolution aside,
Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
Quote:
Originally Posted by luvfightgame
Can you read????
I will write it real big for you.....
[size=10pt]I DIDN'T TRY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT MY BELIEFS. I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I BELIEVE THE BIBLE BY FAITH. NOT EVIDENCE.[/size]
You wouldn't know if fact has any bearing on me cause you haven't presented any. You got pissed off and resorted to name calling when you couldn't answer a couple of simple questions.
I can read quite well, and yes, I did get somewhat irritable with you. No real offence intended but your "faith" can be a little tedious when I am suffering from tiredness and jetlag! :-\
At the end of the day, and I will reiterate once more. Science tries to offer more than just faith. It tries to offer theories and also recordable evidence to either support or disprove the said theory. This is way more palatable to me than to just read the bible and say "good stories. I may as well base my life on this then". I cannot and will not follow a faith blindly.
The big bang is indeed just a theory itself, but we have evidence to support the theory. That is good enough for me.
My point to you is that you are exercising blind faith also. You have no evidence to support your beliefs. It is based on an observation made through a telescope.
Here's your theory in a nutshell....
Big Bang Theory - Evidence for the Theory
What are the major evidences which support the Big Bang theory?
* First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
* Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
* Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
* Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.
Pretty solid. I think I will build my life on this....... The key words here are "try" and "think". This theory that many claim is truth is entirely speculation. Please explain to me how your belief is scientific and mine's not. Anyone, please. Explain why this theory is taught as if it were true in every public school in the world, when this is all they have to support it. Anyone????
Re: Creation and evolution aside,
I've always wondered how much different prizefighters would be if they didn't think there's always some supernatural force who intends to put a W on their record
Re: Creation and evolution aside,
Quote:
Originally Posted by luvfightgame
Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
Quote:
Originally Posted by luvfightgame
Can you read????
I will write it real big for you.....
[size=10pt]I DIDN'T TRY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT MY BELIEFS. I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I BELIEVE THE BIBLE BY FAITH. NOT EVIDENCE.[/size]
You wouldn't know if fact has any bearing on me cause you haven't presented any. You got pissed off and resorted to name calling when you couldn't answer a couple of simple questions.
I can read quite well, and yes, I did get somewhat irritable with you. No real offence intended but your "faith" can be a little tedious when I am suffering from tiredness and jetlag! :-\
At the end of the day, and I will reiterate once more. Science tries to offer more than just faith. It tries to offer theories and also recordable evidence to either support or disprove the said theory. This is way more palatable to me than to just read the bible and say "good stories. I may as well base my life on this then". I cannot and will not follow a faith blindly.
The big bang is indeed just a theory itself, but we have evidence to support the theory. That is good enough for me.
My point to you is that you are exercising blind faith also. You have no evidence to support your beliefs. It is based on an observation made through a telescope.
Here's your theory in a nutshell....
Big Bang Theory - Evidence for the Theory
What are the major evidences which support the Big Bang theory?
* First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
* Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
* Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
* Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.
Pretty solid. I think I will build my life on this....... The key words here are "try" and "think". This theory that many claim is truth is entirely speculation. Please explain to me how your belief is scientific and mine's not. Anyone, please. Explain why this theory is taught as if it were true in every public school in the world, when this is all they have to support it. Anyone????
It isnt blind faith, its a faith with a little reasoning and logic behind it. The points you make about the big bang are succinct and I am well aware it is just a theory. I admit it is just a theory, but it is the theory that I hold the most credence too. I respect your belief in god and the words of holy scripture and im not out to diss that. I think god has been reading this thread and is out to stop me getting a good nights kip!!! >:mad
All this god business is really just a load of old bollocks when you are busy grappling with time zone issues. My body clock is still on british time and here I am 9 hours ahead in a distant land. Should be going to bed really, but not a hope in hell of dropping off. Its at times like this that I wish I had some valium!! :-\
Re: Creation and evolution aside,
Quote:
Originally Posted by raleights
I've always wondered how much different prizefighters would be if they didn't think there's always some supernatural force who intends to put a W on their record
They'd be exactly the same
When they win it's cause god wanted it
When they lose it's cause god wanted it
Ridiculous ;D
Re: Creation and evolution aside,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by raleights
I've always wondered how much different prizefighters would be if they didn't think there's always some supernatural force who intends to put a W on their record
They'd be exactly the same
When they win it's cause god wanted it
When they lose it's cause god wanted it
Ridiculous ;D
I quite agree with you here Fenster. I have to say this is my main problem with personal faith. As you will know from my other threads I am absolutely 100% of the belief that the biblical account of creation is true and that evolution is a lie, but my reason for this belief is based soley on weighing the evidence that I studied diligantly for 10 years.
However when it comes to people beliveing that God is with them day to day and intervenes on their behalf, well here I am a little sceptical.
I really don't see the point in praying, if you are going to win a fight, you will win because you prepared better, and worked better than your opponent.
Failing that you might win because the judges are shit and give you a gift but either way I don't see how God comes into it.
The other point that needs to be raised though is this. If praying to God actually did work, and somehow it gave a fighter the edge needed to win, wouldn't that be cheating?
Actually thinking about it logically, maybe this is why praying seems to make no difference, as God obviously is more concerned with good character than helping people who pray to him 'cheat', and so maybe he turns his ear away from them and they lose. Kind of serves them right anyhow I think. Train harder and give your best. Who wants to win a fight only because God Almighty had to help you? Do it on your own, it will feel much more rewarding ;D
Re: Creation and evolution aside,
Have alook what Lance Uppercut posted elsewhere some time ago. What do you think?
lance Uppercut
Forum P4P Champ
Rating: +85/-25
[Cool] [Sad]
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 679
Old School
10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
« on: 23-09-2006, 12:54:26 » Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep" to them.
2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited.
3. Inability to answer questions. They're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.
4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.
5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.
6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.
7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.
8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.
9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.
10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.
Re: Creation and evolution aside,
yeah but what about the flood and those bits of wood a bit like a boat on top of a small mountain in turkey. That's all I need to know right there. :-X
Re: Creation and evolution aside,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missy
yeah but what about the flood and those bits of wood a bit like a boat on top of a small mountain in turkey. That's all I need to know right there. :-X
Here's some solid evidence for you...... ??? ??? ??? That's all I need to know....
First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
* Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
* Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
* Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.
Re: Creation and evolution aside,
I can't beleive how many people in this forum are going to burn in hell. :cwm23:
just because something can't be proven, doesn't mean it isn't real. I guess all the evolutionists, who can't prove it happened, also doubt the existence of the atom. If God can't be proven, he aint there. If the atom can't be proven, it aint there. If evolution can't be proven, it didn't happen.
See, we all accept theories as fact when it supports our argument. But the theories that don't, we dismiss them as unproven, or even conspiracy.
I believe evolution happend because someone wanted it. I believe that someone is God....some cosmic power that resides over us. Just because it can't be proven, doesn't make it less real.
See, if you truly understood science, you would know that entropy renders us basically impossible. How did things become more complex? They can't. DNA couldn't have just formed frmo whatever. And then to form life from it? Come on. Couldn't have happened no mater how many BILLIOBS pon billions of years you gave it. Basic laws say that entropy increases. DNA is the very opposite. We are evidence of something that overcame the basic lws of physics. We may have come from crude forms of humans, and them from apes, but this contradicts the laws of physics. But what is striking is non-believers seem to ignore that if we did come from eviolution (which again, I don't argue), then how come no other species of life took a similar evlotionary path? What made us MAGNITUDES more advanced than the next closest animal on earth? We are not random. Someone, somewhere did this.
Re: Creation and evolution aside,
Re: Creation and evolution aside,
It's always a christian goin around sayin you're gonna burn in hell isn't it O0
There's irony for ya
Re: Creation and evolution aside,
yes. If they don't like it, forgive us.
