Darkforum.com - Dark Stories, Dark Art, Poetry, Photography, Debates and Discussions
Home Register FAQ
Go Back   Darkforum.com - Dark Stories, Dark Art, Poetry, Photography, Debates and Discussions > Discussions > Topic Discussions
Reload this Page Science Disproves Evolution
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-18-10   #41
Jordyn
paraphiliac
 
Jordyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: the Big Sky Country
Posts: 24,684
Jordyn is on a distinguished road
Credits: 825,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by thefr0g View Post
No. Because science is infinitely more awe-inspiring than any religion or spirituality could ever hope to be. Reality is so much more wondrous than the pathetic claptrap that you use in an attempt to justify your own existence. The universe, in its vastness and unpredictability will never be fully explained, duplicated, understood, or documented, and thats what makes it so

fucking

amazing.

God doesn't stand a chance.
why couldn't you have said that before?

i'd have agreed with you.

however i don't need to justify my existence with God, i exist therefore i am...but dark messiah is on to something.
__________________
blah, blah, blah...
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-10   #42
Dyshade
The King Douche
Admin
 
Dyshade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Whispers
Posts: 22,148
Dyshade will become famous soon enoughDyshade will become famous soon enough
Credits: 804,463
Splinters of god and all that. Mankind during its tumultuous existence has spawned more imaginary Gods than one can count even using your toes. If you attempt to validate one God you must take into consideration the existence of all the others. Basically if one imaginary being exists, why not more.

The only God out there is you yourself. You dictate your life, allowing the belief of a God gives a person an excuse. It is Gods Will and all that poppycock.

It is only through your own will that changes will be made, you are in direct control of your life. Not some idiots god.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
S.O.D.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-10   #43
thefr0g
Ooglemagthorpe
Admin
 
thefr0g's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,769
thefr0g will become famous soon enough
Credits: 50,470,223
I may have posted this before, or maybe DM did once, but it pretty accurately sums up my thoughts on the subject.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-10   #44
Pahu
Feared by the Devil
 
Pahu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 724
Pahu is on a distinguished road
Credits: 169,498

Complex Molecules and Organs 4


[continued]

b. Many leading scientists have commented on the staggering complexity of the human eye. What some do not appreciate is how many diverse types of eyes there are, each of which adds to the problem for evolution.

One of the strangest is a multiple-lensed, compound eye found in fossilized worms! [See Donald G. Mikulic et al., “A Silurian Soft-Bodied Biota,” Science, Vol. 228, 10 May 1985, pp. 715–717.]

Another type of eye belonged to some trilobites, a thumb-size, extinct, sea-bottom creature. Evolutionists claim that they were very early forms of life. Trilobite eyes had compound lenses, sophisticated designs for eliminating image distortion (spherical aberration). Only the best cameras and telescopes contain compound lenses. Some trilobite eyes contained 280 lenses, allowing vision in all directions, day and night. [See Richard Fortey and Brian Chatterton, “A Devonian Trilobite with an Eyeshade,” Science, Vol. 301, 19 September 2003, p. 1689.] Trilobite eyes “represent an all-time feat of function optimization.” [Riccardo Levi-Setti, Trilobites, 2nd edition (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1993), pp. 29–74.] Shawver described trilobite eyes as having “the most sophisticated eye lenses ever produced by nature.” [Lisa J. Shawver, “Trilobite Eyes: An Impressive Feat of Early Evolution,” Science News, Vol. 105, 2 February 1974, p. 72.] Gould admitted that “The eyes of early trilobites, for example, have never been exceeded for complexity or acuity by later arthropods.... I regard the failure to find a clear ‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record.” [Stephen Jay Gould, “The Ediacaran Experiment,” Natural History, Vol. 93, February 1984, pp. 22–23.]

The brittlestar, an animal similar to a 5-arm starfish, has, as part of its skeleton, thousands of eyes, each smaller than the diameter of a human hair. Each eye consists of a calcium carbonate crystal that acts as a compound lens and precisely focuses light on a bundle of nerves. If an arm is lost, a new arm regenerates along with its array of eyes mounted on the upper-back side of the arm. While evolutionists had considered these animals primitive, Sambles admits that “Once again we find that nature foreshadowed our technical developments.” Roy Sambles, “Armed for Light Sensing,” Nature, Vol. 412, 23 August 2001, p. 783. The capabilities of these light-focusing lenses exceed today’s technology.

[continue]

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp1008873]
__________________
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-10   #45
Dark Messiah
Half-Wit Intellectual
Admin
 
Dark Messiah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Beautiful Sona-nyl
Posts: 14,837
Dark Messiah will become famous soon enough
Credits: 2,809
It wasn't me.

Honestly, I don't have a problem with people who postulate the existence of a God. I do have a problem with people who argue for a God that is unknowable to science, and then at the same time demand that science conform to what they imagine this God to be. I have a problem with people who imagine that the incredibly sophisticated and wonderful world we live in was created by a God who will stop and shatter the laws that govern its movements if (but only if) people praise him enough.
__________________
Like any spelling mistake, mutations cannot give rise to information, but rather damage that which already exists.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-10   #46
Dyshade
The King Douche
Admin
 
Dyshade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Whispers
Posts: 22,148
Dyshade will become famous soon enoughDyshade will become famous soon enough
Credits: 804,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pahu View Post

Complex Molecules and Organs 4


[continued]

b. Many leading scientists have commented on the staggering complexity of the human eye. What some do not appreciate is how many diverse types of eyes there are, each of which adds to the problem for evolution.

One of the strangest is a multiple-lensed, compound eye found in fossilized worms! [See Donald G. Mikulic et al., “A Silurian Soft-Bodied Biota,” Science, Vol. 228, 10 May 1985, pp. 715–717.]

Another type of eye belonged to some trilobites, a thumb-size, extinct, sea-bottom creature. Evolutionists claim that they were very early forms of life. Trilobite eyes had compound lenses, sophisticated designs for eliminating image distortion (spherical aberration). Only the best cameras and telescopes contain compound lenses. Some trilobite eyes contained 280 lenses, allowing vision in all directions, day and night. [See Richard Fortey and Brian Chatterton, “A Devonian Trilobite with an Eyeshade,” Science, Vol. 301, 19 September 2003, p. 1689.] Trilobite eyes “represent an all-time feat of function optimization.” [Riccardo Levi-Setti, Trilobites, 2nd edition (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 199, pp. 29–74.] Shawver described trilobite eyes as having “the most sophisticated eye lenses ever produced by nature.” [Lisa J. Shawver, “Trilobite Eyes: An Impressive Feat of Early Evolution,” Science News, Vol. 105, 2 February 1974, p. 72.] Gould admitted that “The eyes of early trilobites, for example, have never been exceeded for complexity or acuity by later arthropods.... I regard the failure to find a clear ‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record.” [Stephen Jay Gould, “The Ediacaran Experiment,” Natural History, Vol. 93, February 1984, pp. 22–23.]

The brittlestar, an animal similar to a 5-arm starfish, has, as part of its skeleton, thousands of eyes, each smaller than the diameter of a human hair. Each eye consists of a calcium carbonate crystal that acts as a compound lens and precisely focuses light on a bundle of nerves. If an arm is lost, a new arm regenerates along with its array of eyes mounted on the upper-back side of the arm. While evolutionists had considered these animals primitive, Sambles admits that “Once again we find that nature foreshadowed our technical developments.” Roy Sambles, “Armed for Light Sensing,” Nature, Vol. 412, 23 August 2001, p. 783. The capabilities of these light-focusing lenses exceed today’s technology.

[continue]

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp1008873]
Walt Brown is ludicrous. You were having a better time of it with your own words. At the least you did not fit the profile of a SPAMMER. Use the intelligence you believe was gifted by god and use your own words. More SPAM will not launch this thread toward anything more lofty than a humorous funny bone giggler.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
S.O.D.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-10   #47
Pahu
Feared by the Devil
 
Pahu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 724
Pahu is on a distinguished road
Credits: 169,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyshade View Post

Walt Brown is ludicrous.
Why do you believe that Walt Brown is so foolish, unreasonable, or out of place as to be amusing; ridiculous? What has he said to give you that impression? What have the scientists and authorities that he quotes said to give you that impression? Most of the scientists he quotes do not believe in creation, and yet their observations point in that direction. Here is a list of the scientists he quotes:

Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, etc.

The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:

American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts

Quote:
You were having a better time of it with your own words. At the least you did not fit the profile of a SPAMMER. Use the intelligence you believe was gifted by god and use your own words. More SPAM will not launch this thread toward anything more lofty than a humorous funny bone giggler.
Why would you rather have my ignorant opinions instead of the facts of science, which you label “spam”? The reason I share information based on known laws of physics and biology is I am interested in sharing reality, rather than wishful thinking. I believe that is a good use of my God given intelligence. No one knows everything about anything. That is why I rely on those who have studied and learned the information I am sharing. If you are able to refute the information I am sharing, by all means do so.
__________________
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-10   #48
Pahu
Feared by the Devil
 
Pahu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 724
Pahu is on a distinguished road
Credits: 169,498

Complex Molecules and Organs 5


[continued]

c. “To my mind the human brain is the most marvelous and mysterious object in the whole universe and no geologic period seems too long to allow for its natural evolution.” Henry Fairfield Osborn, an influential evolutionist speaking to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in December 1929, as told by Roger Lewin, Bones of Contention (New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1987), p. 57. [Even greater capabilities of the brain have been discovered since 1929. Undoubtedly, more remain.]

“And in Man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe.” Isaac Asimov, “In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t Even Break Even,” Smithsonian, August 1970, p. 10.

Asimov forgot that the brain, and presumably most of its details, is coded by only a fraction of an individual’s DNA. Therefore, it would be more accurate to say that DNA is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter known in the universe.

The human brain is frequently likened to a supercomputer. In most respects the brain greatly exceeds any computer’s capabilities. Speed is one area where the computer beats the brain—at least in some ways. For example, few of us can quickly multiply 0.0239 times 854.95. This task is called a floating point operation, because the decimal point “floats” until we (or a computer) decide where to place it. The number of floating point operations per second (FLOPS) is a measure of a computer’s speed. As of this writing, an IBM computer can achieve 3,000 trillion FLOPS (3 petaFLOPS). One challenge is to prevent these superfast computers from overheating. Too much electrically generated heat is dissipated in too small a volume.

Overall, the human brain seems to operate at petaFLOPS speeds—without overheating. One knowledgeable observer on these ultrafast computers commented:

“The human brain itself serves, in some sense, as a proof of concept [that cool petaFLOPS machines are possible]. Its dense network of neurons apparently operates at a petaFLOPS or higher level. Yet the whole device fits in a 1 liter box and uses only about 10 watts of power. That’s a hard act to follow.” Ivars Peterson, “PetaCrunchers: Setting a Course toward Ultrafast Supercomputing,” Science News, Vol. 147, 15 April 1995, p. 235.

How, then, could the brain have evolved?

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp1008873]
__________________
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-10   #49
thefr0g
Ooglemagthorpe
Admin
 
thefr0g's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,769
thefr0g will become famous soon enough
Credits: 50,470,223
thats cool then, in the future just give us a link instead of the cut and paste, it makes it easier to scroll past our posts to more interesting ones by people who actually use their opinions and contribute to a conversation.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-10   #50
Lenina
Mad Kangaroo sex
Moderator
 
Lenina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: McFuck
Posts: 13,334
Lenina will become famous soon enough
Credits: 375,069
I found this odd too. Like he has no opinon, just a load of quoted text from a gay website.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


You'll never understand it
Try to buy and brand it
I win, you lose, cause it's my job
To keep punk rock elite
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-10   #51
Dark Messiah
Half-Wit Intellectual
Admin
 
Dark Messiah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Beautiful Sona-nyl
Posts: 14,837
Dark Messiah will become famous soon enough
Credits: 2,809
Most creationists use this tactic. It's called a barrage of objections. The idea is to drown the argument in a sea of minor, quibbling points. You don't have too much stake in any one point, because none of them are really that important; the object is to wear down the willingness of the other side to argue the point.

Here's the sum takeaway; while our knowledge of evolution is changing and imperfect, no other theory has anywhere near the massive amount of evidence and credibility as Darwin's. Most of the objections people like Pahu make are minor, or irrelevant, or anachronistic; it's not unusual for Creationists to use discredited evidence that was discredited by other proponents of evolution as proof that evolution is false, for instance.

They have no real argument, just an innate willingness to keep talking and confuse quantity with quality in a debate.

It's kind of a dead giveaway once you get used to it, actually; science, and logic for that matter, don't care about quantity of errors; an argument with a single error is just as invalid as one with twenty. People that are serious are perfectly happy to explore a very small number of possible errors in a theory. A barrage is a sign that there's nothing but trivial points to quibble over.
__________________
Like any spelling mistake, mutations cannot give rise to information, but rather damage that which already exists.

Last edited by Dark Messiah; 11-23-10 at 16:30.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-10   #52
Dyshade
The King Douche
Admin
 
Dyshade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Whispers
Posts: 22,148
Dyshade will become famous soon enoughDyshade will become famous soon enough
Credits: 804,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pahu View Post
Why do you believe that Walt Brown is so foolish, unreasonable, or out of place as to be amusing; ridiculous? What has he said to give you that impression? What have the scientists and authorities that he quotes said to give you that impression? Most of the scientists he quotes do not believe in creation, and yet their observations point in that direction. Here is a list of the scientists he quotes:

Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, etc.

The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:

American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts



Why would you rather have my ignorant opinions instead of the facts of science, which you label “spam”? The reason I share information based on known laws of physics and biology is I am interested in sharing reality, rather than wishful thinking. I believe that is a good use of my God given intelligence. No one knows everything about anything. That is why I rely on those who have studied and learned the information I am sharing. If you are able to refute the information I am sharing, by all means do so.
You can quote whoever you want all day long. You are full of it. You even know deep down inside that you are full of it. It is the doubt that comes hand in hand with faith, because any human being with any sort of brain has to question faith in God.
You are not following any sort of progression with your argument. YOu are merely reposting useless information from an outdated source. Posting crap from another online source without reason or rhyme equates to SPAM. Especially when that post has no words of your own explaining why you are posting the "quote". Is it to forward an argument? To convert the heathens? Why?
I have been doing this for 10 years now, it is not very hard to spot religious SPAMMERS, they usually repost dozens of silly "facts" from even sillier sources without forwarding any opinion or stance themselves until called on it. Then they will usually cry foul

Kind of like you.

Now what I ask is easy, when you do repost this trivial crap please use your own words to convey to us why you felt the need to share the information so we have a basis in our arguments against you. Thank you.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
S.O.D.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-10   #53
Pahu
Feared by the Devil
 
Pahu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 724
Pahu is on a distinguished road
Credits: 169,498

Complex Molecules and Organs 6


An adult human brain contains over 10^14 (a hundred thousand billion) electrical connections (d), more than all the soldered electrical connections in the world. The human heart, a ten-ounce pump that will operate without maintenance or lubrication for about 75 years, is another engineering marvel (e).

d. “The human brain consists of about ten thousand million nerve cells. Each nerve cell puts out somewhere in the region of between ten thousand and one hundred thousand connecting fibres by which it makes contact with other nerve cells in the brain. Altogether the total number of connections in the human brain approaches 10^15 or a thousand million million....a much greater number of specific connections than in the entire communications network on Earth.” Denton, pp. 330–331.

“...the human brain probably contains more than 10^14 synapses...” Deborah M. Barnes, “Brain Architecture: Beyond Genes,” Science, Vol. 233, 11 July 1986, p. 155.

e. Marlyn E. Clark, Our Amazing Circulatory System, Technical Monograph No. 5 (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1976).

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp1008873]
__________________
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-10   #54
Lenina
Mad Kangaroo sex
Moderator
 
Lenina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: McFuck
Posts: 13,334
Lenina will become famous soon enough
Credits: 375,069
Pahu... You are a complete wanker. Honestly, I have came to the conclusion that you are quoting text from that lame website because you know fuck, fuck, fuck all about this subject.

You have yet to write an opnion of your own and to be honest, I don't think we will ever see one because you are a douche.

One of the many reasons people are so easy to minipulate into joining cults is that they believe everything some fucking dolt says.

Not saying creationsim is a cult but Walt Brown is a fucking dolt. We have attempted to argue with you but really, it's a bit futile when all you do is quote text from a man who is a fucking joke to the science world.

Seriously, you are a fucking douche.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


You'll never understand it
Try to buy and brand it
I win, you lose, cause it's my job
To keep punk rock elite
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-10   #55
Jordyn
paraphiliac
 
Jordyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: the Big Sky Country
Posts: 24,684
Jordyn is on a distinguished road
Credits: 825,096
i suppose ultimately science can't disprove faith and religion can not be argued at a scientific level?
__________________
blah, blah, blah...
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-10   #56
Dark Messiah
Half-Wit Intellectual
Admin
 
Dark Messiah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Beautiful Sona-nyl
Posts: 14,837
Dark Messiah will become famous soon enough
Credits: 2,809
Science can't disprove faith, but it can disprove the things that the faithful posit, supposing of course that they have the testicular fortitude to posit anything falsifiable.

If they don't, of course, we can just say that what they have faith in is irrelevant.
__________________
Like any spelling mistake, mutations cannot give rise to information, but rather damage that which already exists.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-10   #57
Jordyn
paraphiliac
 
Jordyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: the Big Sky Country
Posts: 24,684
Jordyn is on a distinguished road
Credits: 825,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Messiah View Post
Science can't disprove faith, but it can disprove the things that the faithful posit, supposing of course that they have the testicular fortitude to posit anything falsifiable.

If they don't, of course, we can just say that what they have faith in is irrelevant.
i suppose i'll have to second this motion, it makes more sense in the grand scope of things.
__________________
blah, blah, blah...
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-10   #58
Dyshade
The King Douche
Admin
 
Dyshade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Whispers
Posts: 22,148
Dyshade will become famous soon enoughDyshade will become famous soon enough
Credits: 804,463
Usually the reason you have faith in something is because it cannot be proven. Thusly anything that has to be taken on faith is usually not factual. If it was you would not have to have faith in it.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
S.O.D.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-10   #59
Lenina
Mad Kangaroo sex
Moderator
 
Lenina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: McFuck
Posts: 13,334
Lenina will become famous soon enough
Credits: 375,069
Faith is like like a malignant tumor, you can do everything you can to remove it but in the end, it just grows back and eventually kills you.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


You'll never understand it
Try to buy and brand it
I win, you lose, cause it's my job
To keep punk rock elite
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-10   #60
Pahu
Feared by the Devil
 
Pahu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 724
Pahu is on a distinguished road
Credits: 169,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyshade View Post
Usually the reason you have faith in something is because it cannot be proven. Thusly anything that has to be taken on faith is usually not factual. If it was you would not have to have faith in it.
I have faith that the sun will rise next morning because it has been proven to rise each morning in the past. Isn't that a fact? I have faith that God's revelation in His Bible is true because He has revealed several hundred prophecies that have been fulfilled, proven by history.

Evolutionists have faith in evolution because that is what they want to believe, despite the scientific evidence to the contrary! Ditto atheism!
__________________
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The last person to post on this thread is the WINNER!!! pt2 gArGOyLe^^ Topic Discussions 4130 07-22-17 12:06
Interesting Science News articles. Panthera66 Topic Discussions 3 05-28-10 08:10
the evolution debate ShotDownStar Topic Discussions 66 12-08-06 20:14
The warped minds of the wholesome christians. Lenina Topic Discussions 122 09-21-05 02:18
Science 101! Dyshade Topic Discussions 39 07-07-04 21:37

Recent Threads
Science Disproves...
11-01-10 15:38
by Pahu
Last post by Pahu
11 Hours Ago 09:33
basic earthling rights
07-17-14 22:08
Last post by Sic Simon
23 Hours Ago 21:36
Where are the tits?
1 Day Ago 20:38
Last post by Sic Simon
23 Hours Ago 21:33
What Are you Listening...
03-21-05 07:40
By Cucking Funt
Last post by Sic Simon
23 Hours Ago 20:55
Obama sends a letter.
4 Weeks Ago 22:42
Last post by Sic Simon
1 Day Ago 14:09
Hey fr0g
4 Weeks Ago 02:49
Last post by thefr0g
1 Day Ago 21:40
Put your liter of cola...
08-06-17 20:53
Last post by Dark Messiah
3 Days Ago 23:09
My doctor
1 Week Ago 00:29
Last post by Sic Simon
6 Days Ago 21:27
How Do I Access the...
03-17-07 22:48
Last post by Sic Simon
1 Week Ago 01:55
vote or die
10-07-17 02:56
Last post by Sic Simon
1 Week Ago 00:06
Online Users: 83
0 members and 83 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 1928, 06-09-15 at 19:20.
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0 RC2


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com

© 2006 - 2016 Dark Forum | About Dark Forum | Advertisers | Investors | Legal | A member of the Crowdgather Forum Community