Why MT doesn't believe in this.

[WD-40]

End? End!? Never! We have only started! Lets go for 100!
Yanoda

Heh heh heh...I'll be watchin!
51 !!

[haasd0gg]

8400 views...

[FaiL.?]

8400 views...

[Yanoda]

Guess I have to jump start the topic again.
I would still like some points addressed:

- Why should one religious text (ie. Bible) be the only valid book based on religion and God's position? Remember that there are likely over 1000 holy/religious books/texts throughout the world. Link provides a list of some of them: http://www.adherents.com/adh_influbooks.html
Link goes into a little more detail of the most common religions/texts: http://www.unification.net/ws/wsintr4.htm

- If the Bible is God's word, then why were several texts modified and or removed? (Lilith & Jesus' childhood for example).

- Based on the point above, doesn't it go against God's word and indicate that the Bible has indeed been changed over the past 2000 years?

- I ask again, provide data that indicate God(s) exists, so far nothing has been given except claims from the religious texts (Bible mainly).

- If the same argument persists "need to disprove God(s) existence" or "we can't collect data on God(s)", then I ask you this: We cannot disprove the existence of Leprechauns, Lochness Mosters and other 'mythical beings' (or even observe/research) yet the majority would say they do not exist. Then why is the concept of God(s) an exception?

Cheers

Yanoda

[11_Panama_]

Guess I have to jump start the topic again.
I would still like some points addressed:

- Why should one religious text (ie. Bible) be the only valid book based on religion and God's position? Remember that there are likely over 1000 holy/religious books/texts throughout the world. Link provides a list of some of them: http://www.adherents.com/adh_influbooks.html
Link goes into a little more detail of the most common religions/texts: http://www.unification.net/ws/wsintr4.htm

- If the Bible is God's word, then why were several texts modified and or removed? (Lilith & Jesus' childhood for example).

- Based on the point above, doesn't it go against God's word and indicate that the Bible has indeed been changed over the past 2000 years?

- I ask again, provide data that indicate God(s) exists, so far nothing has been given except claims from the religious texts (Bible mainly).

- If the same argument persists "need to disprove God(s) existence" or "we can't collect data on God(s)", then I ask you this: We cannot disprove the existence of Leprechauns, Lochness Mosters and other 'mythical beings' (or even observe/research) yet the majority would say they do not exist. Then why is the concept of God(s) an exception?

Cheers

Yanoda

Man added/omitted passages in the Bible...not God. In the proven/disproven argument....all your references are someone elses findings. Have you yourself proven or disproven anything? Or are you basing all this "evidence" on someones elses "findings"? To believe in science, also requires a bit of "faith"..faith in believing the facts are real. Unless you, yourself conducted these experiments, you are also using faith in believing they're true.

[Darth Crater]

Man added/omitted passages in the Bible...not God.

From this, it logically follows that the Bible as read today is not God's word. This is exactly Yanoda's point.

In the proven/disproven argument....all your references are someone elses findings. Have you yourself proven or disproven anything? Or are you basing all this "evidence" on someones elses "findings"? To believe in science, also requires a bit of "faith"..faith in believing the facts are real. Unless you, yourself conducted these experiments, you are also using faith in believing they're true.

Where, exactly, is he referencing someone else's findings? And what indication do you have that he's doing it without any accepted evidence? I'd argue that a scientific paper is actually higher-confidence evidence than an experiment you conducted on your own. It was done by experts in the field, under more controlled conditions and with better tools, and probably peer-reviewed at some point.

[11_Panama_]

Using references is a faith based assumption. You're putting faith in what you are reading is true. Now, the fact that scientists and their peers, witness and review findings is subject to debate. While we are being pounded with "evidence" of global warming by the scientific community, there are countless of others scientists that are refutting those findings. Just an example.

[Yanoda]

Man added/omitted passages in the Bible...not God.

Thank you for verifying my statement that the Bible has been modified by man over the course of history. Now the big question is:
How do we know what God actually wants/stated/demands if the books have been modified by man over the centuries?

In the proven/disproven argument....all your references are someone elses findings. Have you yourself proven or disproven anything? Or are you basing all this "evidence" on someones elses "findings"?

Information is vast and it is unlikely any one person to be able to research and test/experiment everything. Scientific experiments explain the process that has been done and provides information for re-experimentation. So far the Scientific Community has reviewed and verified many findings to be considered viable. The findings have been verified by many different individuals/institutions which I consider more viable than making assumptions without having sources. Like Crater stated, there are experts that are more proficient in certain subjects than me or any other individual.

To believe in science, also requires a bit of "faith"..faith in believing the facts are real. Unless you, yourself conducted these experiments, you are also using faith in believing they're true.

Based on my previous statement, I say my arguments (which I provided sources/links etc...) more viable than making arguments without sources. I have conducted several experiments to verify scientific statements (but not related to the Topic). My conclusion based on the experiments I did do, is that the scientific statements are indeed true (that I have experimented on).
Aren't facts considered real? The very evidence that supports the argument/research/paper. I know that I do not know everything and that I trust others (who are more experienced and knowledgeable in the subject) to provide their findings as objective and accurate as possible (with current tools).

Peer-reviews (as Crater mentioned) is the review of (scientific) studies to see whether they are valid or not. Others specifically redo the experiments/research to see if they come to the same conclusion as the original paper. I admit though, that some research cannot be actively replicated by anyone (ie. Neutrino analysis with the LHC). Some research requires special tools/equipment to accurately analyze/research.

Unfortunately for your argument on 'faith' with science isn't as strong as you thought. Faith requires no proof, yet science provides the evidence on their theories/statements/research. They provide the data they received during the experimentation and one can gladly repeat them (provided one has the resources).

Edit:

Using references is a faith based assumption. You're putting faith in what you are reading is true. Now, the fact that scientists and their peers, witness and review findings is subject to debate. While we are being pounded with "evidence" of global warming by the scientific community, there are countless of others scientists that are refutting those findings. Just an example.

Ahem, the proper term is Climate Change (media has branded it as GW). Global Warming is the process of the Greenhouse Effect that enables the planet to maintain a constant temperature over the course of the days, years etc. The temperatures do vary over time though and can have effects on humans and other organisms alike if they become too extreme (Biologists and many other scientists say that 1-2'C difference can have strong impacts). The Climate has been changing over the course of over 50 years (desertification, shifts of climatic regions like tundras, sub-tropics etc.). Many of those scientists that refute these claims are actually few (but that doesn't mean they should be neglected), many of their claims have been invalidated as well. Example: The claim that solar activity is the main driving force of the global temperature shifts. Actual observance/data indicate that solar activity has been quite low over the past 10 years, yet we still had some of the warmest years recorded since over 100 years (many just occurred/recorded recently).
Aerosols (particulate er and sulphates for example) and Greenhouse Gases (CO2, Methane, Water Vapor and Ozone for example) have larger effects on the planet's temperature than solar activity. Venus has a thick atmosphere (with lots of greenhouse gases) and makes it the hottest planet in the Solar System. Venus surpasses Mercury (temperature wise) even though it is farther away from the Sun.

This was just a fraction of the Basics on the subject of Climate Change.

Now I'd like my points addressed (which some seem to avoid/overlook).

Cheers

Yanoda

[11_Panama_]

LOL..feeling good again Yanoda? I thought I'd help you revive your baby. Like an old song I heard the other day..."There is no good guy, there is no bad guy...we just disagree."

[Yanoda]

LOL..feeling good again Yanoda? I thought I'd help you revive your baby. Like an old song I heard the other day..."There is no good guy, there is no bad guy...we just disagree."

Then lets keep disagreeing! We must get to 100, no er what the cost (though I prefer no spam or the like)!
C'mon peeps! Join the fun, don't be shy!
Unless you want me to argue with myself on the Topic... *shivers*

Cheers

Yanoda