Evolutionary Theory

[PFC1]

Here's something interesting...

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/ ... FORM=VIRE7

Bret

[machine shop tom]

Here's something interesting...
........Bret

Of course, the concept of time and it's divisions are an entirely human fabrication, and the manipulation of events and their timing can be used to justify the need for a creator in any circumstance.

tom

[F1Fever]

man that doesn't even really make sense?

[DrillDawg]

I think that he believes the BS that he's dishing out. I loved it when he counted out the zeros, like that would make any difference.

[F1Fever]

I was talking to Tom, as far as the video it would be cool to see the actual math on it.

[DrillDawg]

Tom made more sense then the video

[machine shop tom]

Tom made more sense then the video

That's not hard to do.

tom

[David Redszus]

A religious debate can only consider theological arguments and can never include scientific arguments.

A scientific argument can only consider science based arguments and can never include religious dogma.

Religious issues are belief based systems; scientific issues are fact based systems.
They have nothing in common. Neither can be used to prove anything about the other.

Which is why this country's founders specifically restricted the involvement and existence of any religion in our form of government and its laws.

Sadly, it has occasionally snuck in the back door.

[machine shop tom]

...............
Which is why this country's founders specifically restricted the involvement and existence of any religion in our form of government and its laws.

Sadly, it has occasionally snuck in the back door.

Kinda like religion sodomizing government...............

tom

[Brian S]

Kinda like religion sodomizing government...............tom

The Government sodomizes everyone in the form of taxes.....everyone except the Church of course. When are religions going to start paying their fair share?

[F1Fever]

A religious debate can only consider theological arguments and can never include scientific arguments.

A scientific argument can only consider science based arguments and can never include religious dogma.

I disagree.

Religious issues are belief based systems; scientific issues are fact based systems.

so then I take it that, strictly speaking, Evolutionary Theory is a religion?

They have nothing in common. Neither can be used to prove anything about the other.

again, I disagree.

I see that this thread has began to provide evidence to show the "creator" outweighing "spontaneous life"... just as most of the greatest/legendry scientific minds have said.

[machine shop tom]

A religious debate can only consider theological arguments and can never include scientific arguments.

A scientific argument can only consider science based arguments and can never include religious dogma.

I disagree.

Religious issues are belief based systems; scientific issues are fact based systems.

so then I take it that, strictly speaking, Evolutionary Theory is a religion?

They have nothing in common. Neither can be used to prove anything about the other.

again, I disagree.

I see that this thread has began to provide evidence to show the "creator" outweighing "spontaneous life"... just as most of the greatest/legendry scientific minds have said.

You can disagree all you want to with part 1, but that IS the basic difference between the two.

Part two you apparently don't understand why.

Part three, I disagree.

tom

[machine shop tom]

Kinda like religion sodomizing government...............tom

The Government sodomizes everyone in the form of taxes.....everyone except the Church of course. When are religions going to start paying their fair share?

As the government cuts back (as it should) on all sorts of social aid, it will fall back on religious organizations to take up the slack. I have no objection for them having to use the tax breaks to fund that.

tom

[F1Fever]

A religious debate can only consider theological arguments and can never include scientific arguments.

A scientific argument can only consider science based arguments and can never include religious dogma.

I disagree. A religious debate cannot exclude scientific fact. For the matter no honest debate can exclude anything that is proven to be true whether the debate is religious or scientific in nature.

Religious issues are belief based systems; scientific issues are fact based systems.

so then I take it that, strictly speaking, Evolutionary Theory is a religion?

They have nothing in common. Neither can be used to prove anything about the other.

again, I disagree. Let me use an absurd example to show the folly... say a space probe visits a martian planet and discovers a tablet explaining God's intervention into the world. This would be science proving a 'religion'.

I see that this thread has began to provide evidence to show the "creator" outweighing "spontaneous life"... just as most of the greatest/legendry scientific minds have said.

You can disagree all you want to with part 1, but that IS the basic difference between the two.

Part two you apparently don't understand why. I say this b/c it is only a belief, it is not proven fact. The greatest stumbling block is the creation of life itself. Good luck with that.

Part three, I disagree.

tom

[Brian S]

As the government cuts back (as it should) on all sorts of social aid, it will fall back on religious organizations to take up the slack. I have no objection for them having to use the tax breaks to fund that.
tom

I don't object to any business getting tax breaks for making charitable donations. Unfortunately, the Government isn't cutting back on much of anything. Maybe they could cut back if wealthy religions did more to help poor people instead of constructing their 193 million dollar cathedrals.