|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:35 am
thelovelyLIZ GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 You can't. And it's not fair. If we have to disprove their science using science, then they should disprove our Bible using the Bible. And their has been no person in history who has disproven the Bible. Those who have tried have all become Christians. Yeah! Like Anton Lavey! scream Oh, yeah... rolleyes Who? And it's logical too.
And that's an interesting idea, on the note of science disproving science and the Bible disproving the Bible.The problem with it is that science does not merely describe a "scientific world". It describes the natural world. The Bible, on the other hand, describes Judeo-Christian lore. They are hardly comparable. They were created for entirely different reasons. Besides, you can't possible prove or disprove the Bible only using the Bible because the terms "prove" and "disprove" are concepts of logic, and logic is a scientific concept.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 2:23 pm
Lethkhar thelovelyLIZ GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 You can't. And it's not fair. If we have to disprove their science using science, then they should disprove our Bible using the Bible. And their has been no person in history who has disproven the Bible. Those who have tried have all become Christians. Yeah! Like Anton Lavey! scream Oh, yeah... rolleyes Who? And it's logical too.
And that's an interesting idea, on the note of science disproving science and the Bible disproving the Bible.The problem with it is that science does not merely describe a "scientific world". It describes the natural world. The Bible, on the other hand, describes Judeo-Christian lore. They are hardly comparable. They were created for entirely different reasons. Besides, you can't possible prove or disprove the Bible only using the Bible because the terms "prove" and "disprove" are concepts of logic, and logic is a scientific concept. Exactly my point. You have made it so we can't win. Fine, I'll play by your rules. You say that you are allowed to disprove the Bible by science. To make it fair, I say that I'm allowed to disprove evolution by the Bible. "Evolution is false because the Bible says the world was created by God." Haha, I win!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 5:27 pm
GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar thelovelyLIZ GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 You can't. And it's not fair. If we have to disprove their science using science, then they should disprove our Bible using the Bible. And their has been no person in history who has disproven the Bible. Those who have tried have all become Christians. Yeah! Like Anton Lavey! scream Oh, yeah... rolleyes Who? And it's logical too.
And that's an interesting idea, on the note of science disproving science and the Bible disproving the Bible.The problem with it is that science does not merely describe a "scientific world". It describes the natural world. The Bible, on the other hand, describes Judeo-Christian lore. They are hardly comparable. They were created for entirely different reasons. Besides, you can't possible prove or disprove the Bible only using the Bible because the terms "prove" and "disprove" are concepts of logic, and logic is a scientific concept. Exactly my point. You have made it so we can't win. Fine, I'll play by your rules. You say that you are allowed to disprove the Bible by science. To make it fair, I say that I'm allowed to disprove evolution by the Bible. "Evolution is false because the Bible says the world was created by God." Haha, I win! And you know what? You can go ahead and do that. Of course, it defies one of the fundamental principles of logic (You can't prove a statement to be true using itself as evidence), but there's nothing to keep me from telling you to not do so. If you deny logic, there is nothing I can logically say to to contradict it that will convince you of anything. Of course, I could now easily "disprove" your statement with this: The Bible is false. Therefore, the Bible is false. OR: Elephants are purple. Therefore, Evolution is correct. But by now surely you will begin to see that we've left behind any possibility of rational discourse, and the conversation will progressively get more and more absurd. The problem is that you see science as one big idea or doctrine, like the Bible. Science, in reality, is the combination of millions of different ideas that support one another. Evolution is supported by evidence in biology, not science in general. In fact, most facets of science have nothing to do with evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 7:14 pm
Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar thelovelyLIZ GuardianAngel44 Who? And it's logical too.
And that's an interesting idea, on the note of science disproving science and the Bible disproving the Bible.The problem with it is that science does not merely describe a "scientific world". It describes the natural world. The Bible, on the other hand, describes Judeo-Christian lore. They are hardly comparable. They were created for entirely different reasons. Besides, you can't possible prove or disprove the Bible only using the Bible because the terms "prove" and "disprove" are concepts of logic, and logic is a scientific concept. Exactly my point. You have made it so we can't win. Fine, I'll play by your rules. You say that you are allowed to disprove the Bible by science. To make it fair, I say that I'm allowed to disprove evolution by the Bible. "Evolution is false because the Bible says the world was created by God." Haha, I win! And you know what? You can go ahead and do that. Of course, it defies one of the fundamental principles of logic (You can't prove a statement to be true using itself as evidence), but there's nothing to keep me from telling you to not do so. If you deny logic, there is nothing I can logically say to to contradict it that will convince you of anything. Of course, I could now easily "disprove" your statement with this: The Bible is false. Therefore, the Bible is false. OR: Elephants are purple. Therefore, Evolution is correct. But by now surely you will begin to see that we've left behind any possibility of rational discourse, and the conversation will progressively get more and more absurd. The problem is that you see science as one big idea or doctrine, like the Bible. Science, in reality, is the combination of millions of different ideas that support one another. Evolution is supported by evidence in biology, not science in general. In fact, most facets of science have nothing to do with evolution. But the problem still remains that you will only accept science as proof of anything. You always win. To prove evolution, you use science. To prove the Bible, you use science. That's unfair. How would you feel if we became a totally Christian nation (hypothetically, of course. It's not like we're plotting anything. . . twisted ) and made you prove everything with the Bible?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:59 pm
GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar thelovelyLIZ The guy who founded the Church of Satan, yes? Or am I getting names confused again?
And that's an interesting idea, on the note of science disproving science and the Bible disproving the Bible. The problem with it is that science does not merely describe a "scientific world". It describes the natural world. The Bible, on the other hand, describes Judeo-Christian lore. They are hardly comparable. They were created for entirely different reasons. Besides, you can't possible prove or disprove the Bible only using the Bible because the terms "prove" and "disprove" are concepts of logic, and logic is a scientific concept. Exactly my point. You have made it so we can't win. Fine, I'll play by your rules. You say that you are allowed to disprove the Bible by science. To make it fair, I say that I'm allowed to disprove evolution by the Bible. "Evolution is false because the Bible says the world was created by God." Haha, I win! And you know what? You can go ahead and do that. Of course, it defies one of the fundamental principles of logic (You can't prove a statement to be true using itself as evidence), but there's nothing to keep me from telling you to not do so. If you deny logic, there is nothing I can logically say to to contradict it that will convince you of anything. Of course, I could now easily "disprove" your statement with this: The Bible is false. Therefore, the Bible is false. OR: Elephants are purple. Therefore, Evolution is correct. But by now surely you will begin to see that we've left behind any possibility of rational discourse, and the conversation will progressively get more and more absurd. The problem is that you see science as one big idea or doctrine, like the Bible. Science, in reality, is the combination of millions of different ideas that support one another. Evolution is supported by evidence in biology, not science in general. In fact, most facets of science have nothing to do with evolution. But the problem still remains that you will only accept science as proof of anything. You always win. To prove evolution, you use science. To prove the Bible, you use science. That's unfair. No; I "prove" evolution using evidence. To prove the Bible, I suppose I would have to use evidence as well. I don't see what else you'd have to go on. If I proved evolution like you're suggesting I prove the Bible, it would be something like,"Evolution is true, therefore evolution is true." Quote: How would you feel if we became a totally Christian nation (hypothetically, of course. It's not like we're plotting anything. . . twisted ) and made you prove everything with the Bible? I would contact the ACLU, I suppose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:44 pm
Whether or not evolution is true, behind both theories (creation and evolution) is God. Either God created us exactly as the Bible says, or He created the universe with everything necessary for us, His most precious and beloved creations, to come about. Does it matter how it happened? It could even cover Adam and Eve. Perhaps Adam and Eve were the first real humans (as we know humans to be today), who had the full mental and emotional capacity to reflect and worship God. Evolution doesn't have to exclude God. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Businesswoman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:54 am
I can't say I've ever felt the need to disprove evolution. As far as I am concerned, people with greater expertise than I hold it to be true, so I am happy to go with it. It doesn't strike me as anti-Christian - the Bible and science take rather different perspectives on the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:00 pm
Hmm...here is my opinion:
God created all life. God created life in such a way that to be successful it has to adapt. Animals, like humans (though I don't believe humans came from apes), must adapt to their surrondings to survive. If they don't, then they become extient.
We can see adaptive evolution at work every day. Put a tiny fish into a tiny fish bowl and the fish stays the same size. Put that same tiny fish into a bigger bowl and the fish will grow bigger. This is because there is more room for the fish to expand and grow. It will naturally take advantage of the extra space.
You can also see this by the Finch populations on the Galopogose (sp?) Islands.
Now, we can't see evolution in the sense of one species evolving into another. But, the more something evolves, the more it moves away from it's original design...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:30 pm
I can't provide a source to find this but I did once see a documentary wher it showed actual fossilized foot prints of human and dinosaurs next to each other.
Not I can't prove this becasue the documentary was pulled off air shortly after it was aired, and the tape that my mother had of it was lost in one of our various moves.
There was also a rumor at one point that someone had found the original Ark from the flood.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:48 pm
I heard about both things. I was really young, but I remember that the foot prints were actually a case of mistaken identity. You can go here to find out about them, or you can go here. Both sites talk about them. And the ark? I saw a documentry on the Histroy Channel and they had someone trying to find the Ark. Apparently, it's Mount Ararat, and it's supposed to be frozen over for most of the year. They have pictures from air planes of a form that they say resembles the ark, but when they went to investigate (a few years later) they found it was just a rock formation. They also found that some of the pictures were taken out of context (pictures that were taken somewhere else and applied to the site of Mount Ararat, as in that part of Turkey it's very common for boat-like rock formations to appear because of the earthquakes and the ice flow in that area) and some were doctored. To read more about it, you can go here. With a simple search you can find all sorts of information about both stories. I have nothing against these two stories if they were true. Alas, they can't stand up to scrutiny.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 2:44 pm
Wow, this has strayed from the original topic... xd
Well, really if you want to disprove evolution, just become a scientist... xd Also, research! One of my sayings is, "Know your enemy!" xd So make sure you know the details. Good luck with whatever you do, and don't forgot to pray!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 10:15 am
Sakura_Chan133 Wow, this has strayed from the original topic... xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 5:16 pm
Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar thelovelyLIZ The guy who founded the Church of Satan, yes? Or am I getting names confused again?
And that's an interesting idea, on the note of science disproving science and the Bible disproving the Bible. The problem with it is that science does not merely describe a "scientific world". It describes the natural world. The Bible, on the other hand, describes Judeo-Christian lore. They are hardly comparable. They were created for entirely different reasons. Besides, you can't possible prove or disprove the Bible only using the Bible because the terms "prove" and "disprove" are concepts of logic, and logic is a scientific concept. Exactly my point. You have made it so we can't win. Fine, I'll play by your rules. You say that you are allowed to disprove the Bible by science. To make it fair, I say that I'm allowed to disprove evolution by the Bible. "Evolution is false because the Bible says the world was created by God." Haha, I win! And you know what? You can go ahead and do that. Of course, it defies one of the fundamental principles of logic (You can't prove a statement to be true using itself as evidence), but there's nothing to keep me from telling you to not do so. If you deny logic, there is nothing I can logically say to to contradict it that will convince you of anything. Of course, I could now easily "disprove" your statement with this: The Bible is false. Therefore, the Bible is false. OR: Elephants are purple. Therefore, Evolution is correct. But by now surely you will begin to see that we've left behind any possibility of rational discourse, and the conversation will progressively get more and more absurd. The problem is that you see science as one big idea or doctrine, like the Bible. Science, in reality, is the combination of millions of different ideas that support one another. Evolution is supported by evidence in biology, not science in general. In fact, most facets of science have nothing to do with evolution. But the problem still remains that you will only accept science as proof of anything. You always win. To prove evolution, you use science. To prove the Bible, you use science. That's unfair. No; I "prove" evolution using evidence. To prove the Bible, I suppose I would have to use evidence as well. I don't see what else you'd have to go on. If I proved evolution like you're suggesting I prove the Bible, it would be something like,"Evolution is true, therefore evolution is true." You're missing the point. They are two totally different types of things: Evolution is physical, the Bible is spiritual. I'm saying that you use physical things to prove physical things and spiritual things to prove spiritual things. Quote: How would you feel if we became a totally Christian nation (hypothetically, of course. It's not like we're plotting anything. . . twisted ) and made you prove everything with the Bible? I would contact the ACLU, I suppose. We would have probably disbanded it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:16 pm
GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 Exactly my point. You have made it so we can't win. Fine, I'll play by your rules. You say that you are allowed to disprove the Bible by science. To make it fair, I say that I'm allowed to disprove evolution by the Bible. "Evolution is false because the Bible says the world was created by God." Haha, I win! And you know what? You can go ahead and do that. Of course, it defies one of the fundamental principles of logic (You can't prove a statement to be true using itself as evidence), but there's nothing to keep me from telling you to not do so. If you deny logic, there is nothing I can logically say to to contradict it that will convince you of anything. Of course, I could now easily "disprove" your statement with this: The Bible is false. Therefore, the Bible is false. OR: Elephants are purple. Therefore, Evolution is correct. But by now surely you will begin to see that we've left behind any possibility of rational discourse, and the conversation will progressively get more and more absurd. The problem is that you see science as one big idea or doctrine, like the Bible. Science, in reality, is the combination of millions of different ideas that support one another. Evolution is supported by evidence in biology, not science in general. In fact, most facets of science have nothing to do with evolution. But the problem still remains that you will only accept science as proof of anything. You always win. To prove evolution, you use science. To prove the Bible, you use science. That's unfair. No; I "prove" evolution using evidence. To prove the Bible, I suppose I would have to use evidence as well. I don't see what else you'd have to go on. If I proved evolution like you're suggesting I prove the Bible, it would be something like,"Evolution is true, therefore evolution is true." You're missing the point. They are two totally different types of things: Evolution is physical, the Bible is spiritual. I'm saying that you use physical things to prove physical things and spiritual things to prove spiritual things. Quote: Quote: How would you feel if we became a totally Christian nation (hypothetically, of course. It's not like we're plotting anything. . . twisted ) and made you prove everything with the Bible? I would contact the ACLU, I suppose. We would have probably disbanded it. At that point, I think Christians forcing me to prove things using the Bible would be the least of my worries. I'd probably be a bit more concerned about my own life. After all, after civil liberties have been stripped away, what's really left? Revolution, I suppose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 9:19 pm
Lethkhar After all, after civil liberties have been stripped away, what's really left? Revolution, I suppose.
Are you revolting? lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
