The problem with religion & science image - Atheists, Agnostics, and Anti-theists of ModDB

"Its stupid"
"Then call it Elffriend"

Yep, that pic fits to Elf.

ouch, that hurt my feelings...

*goes and cries in a corner*

The only reason why I feel a bit sorry to throw those harsh words at you is because you try to be a nice person, but the way you try to justify your faith is just stupid and clearly showed several times that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Did you just say that believing a certain poor scientific theory makes someone smart? Remember a lot of very intelligent people failed the education system because they didn't agree with it, they knew (or thought) that what the education system taught was wrong. Had people blindly accepted the idea that there were just four elements without anyone saying "wait a second this is wrong! There is much more then just four elements." Then we would have never advanced much as a society. Of course one might argue that evolution is the new way of looking at data, but even if its new it doesn't make it right until it can be proven right. This is why I do not accept evolution there is no science experiment that I can do to get the same thing over and over again proving that life evolved. Everyone has a bais, your bias is that God doesn't exist, my bias is that God exists. It's as if you have green glasses and are saying the world is green and I have blue glasses and I'm saying no the world is blue. So which bias is right? Of course you'll say your bias is right and ill say my bias is right. Anyways I focus on stuff I can actually test and measure. I don't care about how life got here, since too me God made it and if he didn't then what's the problem of being a scientist that believes in a different origin story. How much does a persons view on orgins affect how well they can make chemical reactions, measure and predict the movement of stuff, study the human brain, create new CPUs, GPUs, RAM, etc. how much do origins affect expirimental science?

I think both of us can agree that 2Na + 2H2O --> 2NaOH + H2 if for some reason you disagree then go and test it:) I like science I can actually test, not stuff that sound like "long long ago..." And unfortunately origins didn't happen last night. We either appeared by the work of God about 6000 years or we randomly, due to mutations and adaptations became humans over millions of years. The only written record of origins is the bible, but you guys dismiss it as a flawed book that is in no way a historical document. If you wanted to know how old someone was would you 1. Ask them. 2. Check their birth certificate. 3. Try measuring his age by the use of radiometric dating and/or other similar processes. Well hopefully that's me done for tonight. I should get some sleep. Good thing it's exam break:)

We either appeared by the work of God about 6000 years or we randomly, due to mutations and adaptations became humans over millions of years.

For the young earth creation we wouldnt expect to find transitional fossiles and the scientific data would support that the earth would be very young. Both cases are false, so young earth creation has been debunked once again.

The only written record of origins is the bible, but you guys dismiss it as a flawed book that is in no way a historical document.

It is NOT a record of factual history, rather than a historical record of cultures and cultural beliefs of certain regions from the middle east to europe. And it is flawed, indeed. And you can burn your straw-man that followed the quoted text.

But don't we find quite a bit of stuff that trouble old earth believers. Instead of me painfully listing a ton of points that can prove that this world is young and unfortunatly miss out on some much needed sleep(I really should stop checking my emails before going to bed) anyways this will greatly save me a lot of work and effort listing stuff you might never read: Creation.mobi
Hopefully you at least take a look at that:)

An old world is easier to comprehend than a young one. There is no trouble with a the old earth stuff, but the young earth assumptions leaves you with a whole bunch of fact that contradict it. Besides, Im not an "old earth believer", I rather know - since its knowledge, gathered through science and not some belief - that the earth is old. I have no belief regarding the earths age, I could not care less, only your kind of stupidity makes it nessecary.

Science can function perfectly well without evolution. Evolution's main purpose is to understand origins since we all want to know where we, humans, came from. I agree that some parts of evolution are right. Natural selection, variation between a species, etc. are observable. What I have yet to see is a creature changing into a completely different creature. If life evolves like you guys say it does then I would be expecting simple phylums to be changing into more complexed phylums today. So there should be a creature that is in the process of getting a complete gut, or a closed circulatory system, etc. but we don't. Why? Also I don't even know if there is fossil evidence of when, why or how the creatures evolved to traits. Now like I said a scientist could very easily advance science while rejecting evolution(phylum to phylum kind) completely. There are many fields of science in case you didn't know...

Scientific areas like astro-physics and quantum mechanics can work well without evolution, but archeology, paleontology, genetics and biology as well as robotics, neurosciences, even some areas of engineering and many more subjects are based on evolution. So your arguemtn is (at least partial of not entirely) wrong. Not to mention that the mechanics of evolution technically can be applied nearly everywhere, but that would be off-topic. And what we cannot observe a creature changing into another in real time, because it needs alot of time and certain enviromental changes. We can only observe changes that already happened, thanks to fossil records, biology and genetics!

"So there should be a creature that is in the process of getting a complete gut,"

There was.

"or a closed circulatory system,"

See above.

"scientist could very easily advance science while rejecting evolution"

No, they couldn't. Without evolution, Biology collapses. Biology does not function without Evolution.

"What I have yet to see is a creature changing into a completely different creature."

Because one creature giving birth to a creature of a different species would be strong evidence against evolution. It doesn't ******* work like that.

This is why I do not accept evolution there is no science experiment that I can do to get the same thing over and over again proving that life evolved.

This is where YOU fail, not science or those people who work with it. And even those who "blindly except" evolution understand better then you just showed. Lets skip your failed bias-argument (significant invalid) and move on to your real next fail:

Anyways I focus on stuff I can actually test and measure.

No, you dont. Evolution is one of those things you can test and measure. But who am I kidden, you will not understand it anyway.

How much does a persons view on orgins affect how well they can make chemical reactions, measure and predict the movement of stuff, study the human brain, create new CPUs, GPUs, RAM, etc. how much do origins affect expirimental science?

Believing that the world was created 6000-10000 years ago, even if the scientific evidences speak completly against those beliefs, can affect your work. You use your credibility if you spread disinformation that fits into your beliefs, but not into the data.

Lol, can you "test and measure" the bible? Can you find ANY valid backup for the bible other than your belief, and an assortment of 'facts' which over time could be entirely made up? Or the 'tests' run by creationists who clearly manipulate results or delibirately misuse equipment? Or the flawed arguments Christian fundamentalists construct to fend off logic and reason with ignorance and idiocy?

Because if not, you have a gaping flaw in your philosophy. If the evidence for EVOLUTION doesn't even satisfy you, then you certainly can't claim there's enough biblical 'evidence' to satisfy you.

Quote me where I said that.... Since I am 99.99999999.....percent certain that I said that neither can be measured or observed. (I mean measured or observed by us today) We chose to believe either or. And until we add time travel to the mix we will never be able to go back and see the actual beginning.

We dont need time travel for this. The past can be studied by what we can observe and measure today without making assumptions and beliefs. Funny, huh?

"What I have yet to see is a creature changing into a completely different creature."

Dude, you are aware that this takes thousands if now millions of years do you? Look at the fossils and you will find what you're looking for, no "time travel" needed, and, for your information, the dating of the fossils are extremely accurate and it is, in my opinion, the strongest evidence of Evolution.

Yes I know it takes a long time which is why I don't accept evolution as valid empirical science. As for the fossil record how can someone prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the fossil reproduced, and/or didn't have some illness that made it look slightly differently then it should have. I mean really all we know for certain from dead stuff is that it DIED:) we can't exactly prove that it reproduced, even if we find similar fossils it could just be that the disease affected a larger population. There is quite a lot of factors to consider. Just like dating methods seem to assume that there were zero of the substance that they use to measure the age of something.

Your argument would only be valid if those diseases would affect a specific species or in worst case several, but not all through the bench - fishs and tetrapods alike. Also the DNA would show much, much less complexity. So you are talking stupid **** again... When will you learn from your fails?

In my opinion, it would have to affect a lot of species for millions of years for it to be "valid".

"We either appeared by the work of God about 6000 years or we randomly, due to mutations and adaptations became humans over millions of years."

First of all, if God created the Earth 6000 years ago, then why do fossils have millions of years old :o?

Oh and for the fifth time, Elf:

EVOLUTION ARE NOT F#CKING MUTATIONS!

"Anyways I focus on stuff I can actually test and measure."

No, you focus on the bible, which cannot be tested or be logically proven. Or even logically considered.

And good lord, I'm just facepalming with every comment further >_< GAHHHHHH!!!

Look elf, here's the thing. Evolution is a proven science. Microevolution can be observed, in a laboratory. If you deny microevolution, it's a blatant denial of facts which you can clearly observe (in contrast to a blatant denial of facts otherwise). Macroevolution is the logical extension of that.