Do you believe in Evolution?

[Christmas]

you can prove a negative. It is one of only two things you can prove. Simple Boolean logic, it is or it is not. If it is, it can not. simple enough. To prove a negative, you must prove a positive that negates the negative. IE: fact: a dog ate all the food. Negative assertion: The cat ate all the food. We know that if A is a fact, B cannot be true. You assert the very same in the latter part of your post, nullifying your opening thoughts.

Either way, there is some evidence down certain 'rabit holes' for intelligent design. Some evidence for the flood, in some cases. Realistically, we just do not understand enough of A to nullify B ~ nor do many people even care. It is just a battle of bloated ego anymore.

As for evolution - I agree with many parts of the theory, but not it's entirety.

NANNY MANUS is a living example of everything NEGATIVE SMURF-ED up together.

[Discord]

we know A is a fact, granted that it was observed by someone. And if A was witnessed, then B is just a false statement.
All that proves is that the person doesn't know the difference between a dog & a cat.
I'm still waiting for someone to prove god exists.

I'm still waiting for some material evidence that links floods, boats on the mountains and funny rocks to a supernatural being.

[bipper]

we know A is a fact, granted that it was observed by someone. And if A was witnessed, then B is just a false statement.
All that proves is that the person doesn't know the difference between a dog & a cat.
I'm still waiting for someone to prove god exists.

Now, you are deluding facts. If A was true and directly oppsed B, B cannot be true. You cannot break logic to match your terms. We have to build theories to explain, and then prove or disprove these thoeries. Assumptions are only healthy in preception. They destroy logic.

[Discord]

And what exactly do the creationism theories base on? A bunch of old stories and a fairytale book?

[Raistlin]

Again, lack of evidence is THE ONLY evidence of absence. There's no such thing as absolute certainty, only degrees. Simple example: I assert that there's a tomato on my desk. However, you can't see, smell, or touch anything resembling a tomato anywhere on my desk. Does that make it absolutely certain there's not? No. You could be dreaming, you could have missed a very tiny tomato, reality could all just be a dream, etc. However, you have NO REASON available to you to believe that my assertion is true, and therefore the only logical conclusion is to reject the positive assertion.

You're completely misrepresenting the secular position of evolution. It's not saying "God - if one exists - definitely didn't do anything." Merely - "there's no objective evidence available at hand to suggest that any supernatural powers aided in creating the diversity of life we see today." Which is the truth.

EDIT: in reply to bipper. It's also amusing to see you accusing someone of "deluding facts."

[bipper]

Again, lack of evidence is THE ONLY evidence of absence. There's no such thing as absolute certainty, only degrees. Simple example: I assert that there's a tomato on my desk. However, you can't see, smell, or touch anything resembling a tomato anywhere on my desk. Does that make it absolutely certain there's not? No. You could be dreaming, you could have missed a very tiny tomato, reality could all just be a dream, etc. However, you have NO REASON available to you to believe that my assertion is true, and therefore the only logical conclusion is to reject the positive assertion.

You are jumping the logic ship in favour or a more appealing philosophical back out. According to science and logic though, the best lead we have is Boolean.

You're completely misrepresenting the secular posi<b></b>tion of evolution. It's not saying "God - if one exists - definitely didn't do anything." Merely - "there's no objective evidence available at hand to suggest that any supernatural powers aided in creating the diversity of life we see today." Which is the truth.

I am not saying anything on the subject. I am trying to stay neutral. I am just saying that saying this is the way it is, is fairly arrogant, when looking at things rationally.

EDIT: in reply to bipper. It's also amusing to see you accusing someone of "deluding facts."

lol, as it was amusing to see the philly you come out and play. I don't delude facts, I look at them as possibly being different, as in not facts at all. It is called a certain, Preception. That, and I love to smurf around - you know this.

And what exactly do the creationism theories base on? A bunch of old stories and a fairytale book?

Did google break? There is evidence, and interpetation of. Fact A can be true, there for fact B can be proven false. Depending on the spin you take. Prehapse the Cat really did eat all the food, but someone thought it was a dog - this would be a theory, and then Fact A would not be a FACT. (I dunno where you were going with that proxy). Now, when we look at all our theories and build on them as fact - what we get is a convinsing convolute where a dog can infact equal a cat.

[Discord]

That's not precisely correct though. I could say that the dog ate food at any time, however, though would be a hypothesis as I have no evidence what so ever to prove it right. If I say that the dog ate food and we find the dog's hair on the plate, I have a theory. I have evidence of the dog's presence at the crime scene and no reference to the cat at all. Of course this doesn't mean that we have absolute certainty in that assumption, but it is by far more plausible then the reference to the cat.

As far as the evolution goes, we have evidence of the bones of the beings being there that resemble humans. We have the data on the age of different fossils, which allows us linking them together and thus getting the popular "evolution of man" picture. We have retroviruses that -evolve- in the hospitals, thus proving that evolution can take place.

At this point we are certain that evolution in general takes place right now. We have very strong reasons to assume that it took place in humans. And we have no evidence or theories of Creation at all, save a couple of old far fetched and improvable hypothesises that build our culture. All else is irrelevant.

[bipper]

not if FAct A was a fact. Changing the fact or guising it, should not be possible, as it is a fact. OBjective fact even. Not a fact subject to interpetation

[Discord]

not if FAct A was a fact. Changing the fact or guising it, should not be possible, as it is a fact. OBjective fact even. Not a fact subject to interpetation

Is A a fact? It's only a fact if you can prove it and you cannot. Thus it is not a fact. Thus we find something that we can prove and claim it to be a theory. Do ask you like, but I prefer a theory with a base below it rather than a hypothesis that's grown popular over the years. It's your business.

On the other hand, if you try to push this hypothesis through as a fact, thus remove evolution from the school programme and replace it with creationism, we have a problem.

[bipper]

not if FAct A was a fact. Changing the fact or guising it, should not be possible, as it is a fact. OBjective fact even. Not a fact subject to interpetation

Is A a fact? It's only a fact if you can prove it and you cannot.

LOL. Yea dude, I am saying for the sake of example, that A is an absolution. Musta misread a post of mine or something -- it is very pertinant that A = True and B!= A therfore B = False.

Thus it is not a fact. Thus we find something that we can prove and claim it to be a theory. Do ask you like, but I prefer a theory with a base below it rather than a hypothesis that's grown popular over the years. It's your business.

yeas, this is what I was saying. Though you are still being very neglagent to the other side of the story (creationism - note - not saying it is right - here. Just saying it sounds rather arrogant in the terms we were talking) But yeah, I think you get what I am saying.

On the other hand, if you try to push this hypothesis through as a fact, thus remove evolution from the school programme and replace it with creationism, we have a problem.

I would be just as pissed. We need to know science, as it is the most right thing we know. Where as creation should only be taught as theology.

[Yew-Yevon]

This is just to histarical to watch! (ya go on...I know your just itchy to say somthing back huh Grinenshire?)

[Discord]

On the other hand, if you try to push this hypothesis through as a fact, thus remove evolution from the school programme and replace it with creationism, we have a problem.

I would be just as pissed. We need to know science, as it is the most right thing we know. Where as creation should only be taught as theology.

Absolutely. I think we should teach it in philosophy since it has built a rather large block of our social basis. Then again, we don't want people to convert to Christians and return back to atheism just because they saw something on the YouTube and it took a while for somebody to reply and prove the author wrong. The point being is that if you've watched the video which started this whole thread, you'd know that we're bashing this VenomX guy, who does support the removal of Evolution from the public schools. I guess we've just been talking past each other a for bit there (I do admit that I'm not sure anymore who ate the food in your original premise anymore and might have confused the two animals, thus resulting in this misunderstanding)

This is just to histarical to watch! (ya go on...I know your just itchy to say somthing back huh Grinenshire?)

Well, yes, we agreed if that what you mean, Yevon. As a matter of fact, and I do dare to take the freedom to speak for bipper in this matter (correct me if I get it wrong), we are both, more or less, neutral on the matter and like a good debate. What you call "say[ing] something back huh" is more known as deriving a counter-argument and is rather common for any discussion.

On your personal account, I didn't see you say anything even merely intelligent at all in this thread and thank God (yeah, we still use this phase), the crash relieved us of all the idiocies that you wrote/pasted in (including our star member Kent Hovind, a.k.a. the prison boy with a degree in "science"). As the matter of fact, you're the only person who didn't contribute anything constructive to the argument at all and to be frank, I doubt that you've even read most of the things that you've copy/pasted from some Christian-fundamentalist pages. Your very last post is simply called "spam".

PS: You really don't know what a 50kB sig is, do you?

[Lynx]

creationist :rolleyes2

i like how he trys to knock down evoloution and gives no proof to creationism. also he didnt do his reading or hed know more about the pentagram and that it was a misinterpretation that led to it being called a demon symbol pentagram

[sockmonkey]

When christianity came into wide circulation the church declared pretty much any symbol or idea from the old religions to be "demonic".
Many deities from the old Celtic beliefs had antlers or horns, thus horns were added to the christian devil.

[Yew-Yevon]

This is just to histarical to watch! (ya go on...I know your just itchy to say somthing back huh Grinenshire?)

Well, yes, we agreed if that what you mean, Yevon. As a matter of fact, and I do dare to take the freedom to speak for bipper in this matter (correct me if I get it wrong), we are both, more or less, neutral on the matter and like a good debate. What you call "say[ing] something back huh" is more known as deriving a counter-argument and is rather common for any discussion.

On your personal account, I didn't see you say anything even merely intelligent at all in this thread and thank God (yeah, we still use this phase), the crash relieved us of all the idiocies that you wrote/pasted in (including our star member Kent Hovind, a.k.a. the prison boy with a degree in "science"). As the matter of fact, you're the only person who didn't contribute anything constructive to the argument at all and to be frank, I doubt that you've even read most of the things that you've copy/pasted from some Christian-fundamentalist pages. Your very last post is simply called "spam".

PS: You really don't know what a 50kB sig is, do you?

Ya I'm a full fleged (bad spelling) spamer now!