I beileive that the magical centaur in the sky is bisexual, not gay! I'm going to break away and start my own church!
Fine, but this means you can't marry my daughter you heretic! D:<
You state this as if it's not true.
Considering your username, maybe it's you!
I bow before you, lord! I am not worthy! o/
Psh, maybe? It totes is me.
BOW DOWN TO MY AWESOME POWER.
You fools, the magical gay centaur does not exist. The universe was always here, and everything that is here today got to so by fuckolution. Fuckolution is where all things fuck each other, biotic and abiotic, and then reproduce and eventually shit happens and they turn into new things.
Now that's a theory I can get behind . . . metaphorically speaking of course.
yep burden of proof lies with the claimer, not the disclaimer. too bad those dumb religious idiots cant seem to get that fact and always scream at the rest of us to disprove it
I think you mixed it up. He's saying if he said god exist it would be his job to prove it, not yours to prove him wrong.
No, he got it right. The burden of proof lies on the claimer; meaning, it is the burden of whoever proposes that something exists to prove that it does.
Not necessarily. Sometimes religion is a claim. For example, some people claim that a religious creation myth is a fact. That is something that can be proved or disproved. In other cases, religion is just a philosophy, a code of behavior, or a way of seeing things. In that case, there is no "burden of proof". You can't prove a spiritual philosophy anymore any more than you can prove Transcendentalism or pan-critical rationalism.
I disagree, partially.
Yes, you need some basis for your claims, other than your own word cough joseph smith cough. But, if it lines up with verifiable facts, then yeah, you disprove it. Especially if, like some things, you cannot prove it, even if everybody knows it's true.
Example: they cannot prove that smoking causes cancer. It's impossible. Is it known, yes. Is it proven? No way.
DUDE. D00D. DEWD.
WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU FUCKING TALKING ABOUT!?! That example was so stupid and ignorant! Do you even research shit!?!
They can't prove smoking is related to lung cancer. But it's absolutely certain that it causes lung cancer. Nearly 100%. But it cannot be scientifically proven.
"Example: they cannot prove that smoking causes cancer. It's impossible. Is it known, yes. Is it proven? No way."
You are saying there that cancer is not proven to be caused by smoking.
"They can't prove smoking is related to lung cancer. But it's absolutely certain that it causes lung cancer."
Then it is PROVEN.
You're contradicting yourself, and I'm going to assume your age range is around 12-16, perhaps an average student attending a public school who doesn't realize a damned thing he is saying, attempting to sound intellectual but failing dramatically at presenting a well performed argument.
That, or you're trolling.
No, I'm on a phone, so it's annoying to construct logically sound arguments.
Research it. They know it's true, but they can't prove it. Why? Because it'd be inhumane to prove it.
They'd have to take babies, separate them, and force one group to inhale the smoke, and the other to never be exposed to it. That's seriously messed up. So, they don't have incontrovertible proof that smoking causes lung cancer. But they know it. But it's not proven.
If it is true then it is proven, if it is untrue then it is not proven. If it hasn't been proven then it is not a fact.
So far this is a theory, and don't be mistaken. A theory is the highest status for a statement or idea.
Dude are you listening. You don't seem to understand anything. It's not proven; it's not a fact. However, they KNOW, through the overwhelming circumstances supporting it, that it causes lung cancer. However, they cannot PROVE it, for it could be an incredible coincidence. But they think/know that it causes lung cancer.
Then it is a thesis.
If it hasn't been proven, I don't blame then for propagandizing it as a fact. Smoking is being highly frowned upon in modern society and adults will do anything in their power to attempt and get us to stop it. Correlation =/= Causation, as it's said.
Yeah. I was right. They know it's causing lung cancer; but it can't be proven.
... Do you understand how cancer works? Cancer cells are mutated normal cells. Smoking kills normal cells in your lungs (this is proven) thus increasing the chance a mutated cell will come along. The same with skin cancer caused by spending too much time in the sun.
Also, you seem incredibly arrogant and smug about your logic.
I don't assume you watch QualiaSoup's video on YouTube? If not, start watching them now. You could learn a lot, and perhaps stop being so damn closed-minded by stating such and such as fact, and instead be open-minded by researching the topics you're given. And no, that does not mean clicking on 1-3 websites that say you're correct and you're finished.
Try something unbiased. It really helps your education, and your job, and your social life, and your perception of reality.
People call me a scrantoncity spawn all the time (cause like you, I believe global warming is a myth, evolution is a lie) and after I looked at your profile, I decided that was a compliment, and anyway, I just wanted to say, I think it's pretty cool that people compare me to you (sorry if I used bad grammar, I know how you hate that)
Global warming is a natural process. Of course it's not a myth. The Earth fluctuates between hot and cold periods of time due to orbit variations. Heard of the Ice Age?
Yeah, but I'm saying, it's not happening now.
The change is constantly happening, it takes thousands of years. We're currently in the "hot" part of the cycle, called the interglacial.
Don't bother with this guy. He's not serious. Or he is, and he's just irrational. He doesn't even require proof for himself, so he won't need yours no matter how convincing or legitimate.
I'm sort of a "radical" on amirite. Maybe we can tag team the debates.
Yeah, radically ignorant.
Oh really? You sure about that? Of course you are; it's not hard to believe something like that if you already believe evolution.
Lol, I've been trying to find some websites that provide evidence against evolution and global warming, do you know any?
Try looking at some Christian extremist sites. Might I suggest the Westboro Baptist Church for help?
Let's resort to derogatory remarks about extremists instead of actually debating like normal people! Good job!
The original trolls, lol.
If your not on Gods side, than your going too hell just to warn you buddy
That threat doesn't work on people who don't think hell exists.
Not really. Creation.com is a good source. Really, I listened to Kent Hovind's seminar. Do you know him? He's a great evangelist who can explain it all.
Unfortunately he's ah overzealous, and is locked up for tax fraud. Says he won't pay the government, for God deserves his money.
I've never heard of him, and he does sound overzealous. Besides, Jesus said "Render to Cesar the things which are Cesar's" or something like that.
Doesn't change the fact that he is an incredible debater. I just wish I didn't lose his seminars when my comp broke =\
That sucks, my computer is so slow. It takes 10 minute to boot up, then you have to click on something 8 times for it to do anything, so I use the mobile site most often.
Yeah, now I am.
It's hard to type out debates on my phone..
Do you know the difference between macroevolution and microevolution/adaptation?
Sorta... I couldn't get very scientific about it, but I'll give it a shot. Macroevolltion is when a species changes to a whole new species, or somthing major like a a horse turning into a unicorn. And microevolution is just small changes in the the genes. How'd I do? (keep in mind, I'm 14, and didn't google it)
Yeah that's right.
So the scientists give examples of adaptation (finches, squirrels, etc.) and then say that causes macroevolution. Which is stupid.
That's like saying because my tv is linked to my stereo every tv is connected to a stereo. You just can't do that.
Makes me mad, haha
wow you are one fucked up dude. Ignorant christians, you can never convince them. Shame
Haha I love how you just insult me with no reason why. Makes me so happy to know how cowardly and weak-minded you are.
Why are you anon? Too scared to tell me what you really think? In case you haven't noticed, I'm not much of a flamer. Excluding one person, I'm generally respectful. If you're man enough to stop hiding behind the cloak of anonymity. Coward.
Yeah, like Noah probably only had one kind of dog on the ark. Then that dog microevolved into the hundreds of breeds we have today. (right?)
Yeah. And probably wolves.
Different species cannot breed with each other. Wolves can breed with dogs. They are the same kind.
I cannot believe evolutionists think that life came from rocks. I mean really!
So what, even if the sludge had all the necessary parts for life. It's still eons away from becoming even the most primitive cell.
Sorry for that rant. Evolution is so preposterous.
"I cannot believe evolutionists think that life came from rocks."
This is incorrect. You're thinking of abiogenesis, which is the theory that explains how life came to be. Evolution explains how life changed after forming.
You entire discussion with Phil is completely unscientific. You guys are just "supposing" about things that you basically make up on the spot without understanding any underlying concepts. Explain how it is rational to be willfully ignorant of the thing you're arguing against. I just don't see how you guys convince yourselves with these underdeveloped ideas.
Okay, first off, evolution isn't a theory without abiogenesis. It isn't. Because without the first life, evolution theory can't start. Creation is an entire theory, because it explains all components, frontwards and backwards.
Secondly, I was trying to find out exactly what Phil believed. We don't differ. That wasn't an argument; it didn't have to be scientific. That was and exchange of information.
If you wish, we can debate evolution, or abiogenesis, right now. Or start of the universe. I hear Stephen hawking thinks gravity can act upon nothing to create something. That is one smart guy right there. Nothing into something. Makes me laugh every time.
So, wanna discuss examples or "proof" of evolution? Archaopteryx? He definitely lines up with the evolution time line. Pre-Cambrian explosion? Falsifying fossils? Lying in textbooks? Huh?
Did God not create something out of nothing? Makes me laugh every time.
Tell me, if an all powerful being exists, he'd be able to create something from nothing, right? Well, that's better than nothing evolving into something like some scientists argue.
Saying some evidence-less thing is better than some other evidence-less thing is pointless. I'm not arguing that the scientists are right, or that you are wrong. Just that what you said could be applied to your beliefs too.
Are you saying that there's no evidence for an all powerful being(s)?
Or are you saying that you've witnessed nothing transform into something?
Nice. That confuses me. I was under the impression that administrators weren't all powerful.
Sadly the only thing I can't do is create world piece.
Can you alter the time-space continuam?
It's on my to-do list, along with every mother under the age of 35.
Oh that one made me laugh there. But what about the fat ones, dude, you don't need to sink that low. I'll help get you a girl, don't worry.
No need to cry.
Well, more cushion for the pushin', so I hear. Anyway, I'd consider myself a saint for being so kind to them.
I suppose fat girls are people too. Even if they resemble whales more closely in size and appearance.
And eating habits.
I don't know why you don't think that evolution cannot stand as a theory alone, because it already does. And for you second point, you misunderstand my use of the word "argue." I did not mean it in the sense that you were fighting with anyone, I meant it in the sense that you were debating a premise.
No one knows how to universe began and anyone who claims to know is trying to sell you something. Stephen Hawking, as brilliant as he is, can only speculate at this point.
I don't really want to debate on this site because of the low character limit on comments and general messiness. If you would like to discuss this via email or on a public forum other than this, then I'd be glad to, so long as we can keep level heads. It's your call.
Archaeopteryx. My bad.
So we can't go against it until you've [dis]proved it? We cannot study other things?
after all that i feel stupid...knowing i couldnt come up with stuff such as that...
I think I've found my religion.
What are your views on abortion?
Eh, I'm kind of on the fence with abortion. I am pro-choice, but I still see abortion as a terribly sad procedure and I can definitely sympathize with a lot of pro-lifers on the issue. However it is impossible to make a blanket judgement banning all abortions under any condition and it seems silly to set up a board to decide who should have the right to one. Ultimately, it is up to the mother to make that moral decision. It is not up to the government to establish morality.
Definately found my religion :D
Great! Donations are payable directly to me, at my house. :B
I have to give money? Oh, I'm out. I'll go back to being Agnostic XD
If you say evolution happened, it's your job to prove that it's true, not my job to prove you wrong.
And if you don't believe what somebody has already proved, then that's on you.
Nobody ever proved evolution.
Where do statements like this come from?
The Bible say God created the earth, and that mean evolution is false.
Nobody ever proved the Bible. :S
Who cares, it's true.
Nice. I guess that means you're right. :P
No need for sarcasm, I'm just say that the Bible is 100% true, and anything that goes against it is wrong.
I'm not being sarcastic right now. You are so right. Your persuasive rhetoric and sharp wit have shown me to the light of Jesus. I once was blind but now can see! Thank you, Phil. God bless you. <3
bible is 100% true? so the earth is 6000 years old? everyone who works on sunday has to die..? did you even read that book?
Just let it go, it's not worth it.
Yes, I did read it, and the Bible never said you would die if you did work on saturday (the Biblical sabbith) the Phairisies (sp?) made up that rule. And yes the earth is about 6-10 thousand years old.
No, he's saying that dinosaurs were killed during the flood of Noah.
You realize that it was two of each "kind" not species?
He probably took two baby small dinos. He wasn't stupid; he didn't need to bring full grown T-Rexs.
All the "evidence" for an old earth can be attributed to the flood. All the fossils- created in the mass pressure of all the water on the earth.
Grand canyon- millions of gallons pouring through at once. This is actually really interesting. The Colorado river enters the canyon at like 3000 feet above sea level. The top of the grand canyon is 5000 feet above sea level. Now how does that work?
Catastrophes explain much.
Why wouldn't he be able to get them... God lead the animals to Noah. Either way, he could catch a penguin.
Lol, nice troll work
What!?! I never said that, diosaurs existed with Adam and Eve, my teheory is that they died in the flood. (maybe Noah didn't have room on the ark) Nobody really know when they died out.
Do you know anything about radiometric dating? No?
Seriously, that is the worst evidence. They don't even know how old something is, they get several different dates, and choose the one they want.
Actually, Noah only had to take two of each kind. Two of the entire Dino species. Probably small dinos, like compy sized or whatever.
Lol compy. Yeah that's why I'm not sure.
No really, have they? No they haven't. They haven't even come close!
Unless, they found a complete genealogy In the last week, evolution is still as false as ever.
"Hey, look at all of these million year old fossils we've found that have a few human features with our genes in it!"
"THOSE DON'T EXIST."
That is basically what you're saying. Ignorance is everywhere.
What resemblance to humans? None. Did you know that none of those "humanoid" fossils were more than 40% complete? And the scientists constructed them based on their own suppositions. They guessed what they should look like, given the flawed radiometric dating method, and constructed them to show a pattern.
It's preposterous that those are used as evidence.
What proof are you looking for? What would convince you that evolution is a valid theory?
Evidence. Anything. Actual proof.
Do you know how many inconsistencies exist in that "scientifically proven" theory?
(TailsTurrosaki): If your not on Gods side, than your going too hell just to warn you buddy