American Christians, do you feel persecuted?

[Col. Hstar]

Narg if you're tired of reading these posts then keep on scrolling. No one is forcing you to read them.

@ Outrider: You seem to think I want to debate the merit of the evolutionary theory, I don't need to. You have your beliefs and I have mine neither of us is going change. That being said my point in entering this topic is to show that not beliving in God doesn't make you an "educated" person, and not accepting evolution as a fact does not make you an ignorant person.
Answer this one question. Do you know 100% what caused life and everything else in the universe to come into existance. Don't mince words with the question. You know what I'm asking. You either say no you're info is incomplete but you believe your evidence gives you a good idea, or you say yes I know because I am 10,000,000 years old and I saw it all happen.
Both sides must have faith that they are correct in there beliefs. It doesn't take education or ignorance it just takes faith one way or the other.

[Outrider]

You seem to think I want to debate the merit of the evolutionary theory, I don't need to. You have your beliefs and I have mine neither of us is going change. That being said my point in entering this topic is to show that not beliving in God doesn't make you an "educated" person, and not accepting evolution as a fact does not make you an ignorant person.

You seem to be under the impression that evolution is flawed, and you continually refer it and the origin of life as one entity, despite acknowledging that they are two seperate entities. A person who is knowledgeable of what evolution entails would see the complete distinction between the two. It is true that science hasn't progressed far enough yet to produce a definitive theory regarding the origin of life, but evolution, on the other hand, is just as valid as any scientific theory out there. Your misconception that evolution is not scientifically sound couple with your categorizing it with work-in-progresses abiogenesis theories lead you to believe that accepting evolution requires a leap of faith since it is, according to you, full of holes.

Answer this one question. Do you know 100% what caused life and everything else in the universe to come into existance. Don't mince words with the question. You know what I'm asking. You either say no you're info is incomplete but you believe your evidence gives you a good idea, or you say yes I know because I am 10,000,000 years old and I saw it all happen.
Both sides must have faith that they are correct in there beliefs. It doesn't take education or ignorance it just takes faith one way or the other.

My answer is no, because those fields of scientific study (neither of which have to do with evolution, by the way) are work-in-progresses and are subject to change, but I trust (not have faith in) science due to a good previous track record in producing enough evidence to verify what those causes may be. Whatever scrap of "faith" required to fill in for the 0.01% uncertainty or so due to one being incapable of being there in time and space to see if something happened is insignificant next to the 100% faith required to immediately say God did it.

[Col. Hstar]

You seem to be under the impression that evolution is flawed

Yes As I said that's my opinion. We are each entitled to one

My answer is no, because those fields of scientific study (neither of which have to do with evolution, by the way) are work-in-progresses and are subject to change, but I trust (not have faith in) science due to a good previous track record in producing enough evidence to verify what those causes may be. Whatever scrap of "faith" required to fill in for the 0.01% uncertainty or so due to one being incapable of being there in time and space to see if something happened is insignificant next to the 100% faith required to immediately say God did it.

This works for me. When it comes to faith 0.01% and 100% might as well be equal.

BTW loved this:

I trust (not have faith in) science

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

[Outrider]

Yes As I said that's my opinion. We are each entitled to one

Well, your opinion is factually inaccuarate.

This works for me. When it comes to faith 0.01% and 100% might as well be equal.

And for me, 99.99% certainty might as well be 100% certainty, hence the first instance of "faith" was in quotation marks because none is actually required to accept a scientific theory.

BTW loved this:

I trust (not have faith in) science

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

Faith is blind trust. I have no reason to blindly trust science.

[Col. Hstar]

And for me, 99.99% certainty might as well be 100% certainty, hence the first instance of "faith" was in quotation marks because none is actually required to accept a scientific theory.

[/quote]

And yet you couldn't say 100%........

[Yanoda]

And for me, 99.99% certainty might as well be 100% certainty, hence the first instance of "faith" was in quotation marks because none is actually required to accept a scientific theory.

And yet you didn't say 100%........

Science never states that something is absolute, it is always open for revision and expanding in knowledge/information. Whereas those with religious affiliations claim to know the a deity exists, this would imply that they know 100% that a deity exists despite the lack of direct evidence of the existence of such deity. This is the difference:
- Science never claims to know everything but provides the largest amount of evidence to support the claim.
- Religion/faith claims to know the existence of deities but does not provide evidence to support the claim.

Based on this, it would be more rational and logical to support the claim with the largest and validated evidence - Science.

Cheers

Yanoda

[Col. Hstar]

Science is a study of facts and data used to confirm theories and ideas. It is not a belief system. You like to say that this argument is about science vs religion when it's belief vs belief. Mainly because saying you have science on your side makes you feel more comfortable. If you chose to say that science lends more evidence to your side thats still a belief, it's not a comfirmation.

People today are very materialistic, putting stock in only what you can see, touch, and measure. Unfortunately that thinking limits what you allow yourself to believe. If you give yourself those limitations it's easy to consider yourself rational, educated, and not ignorant.

Believing or allowing room for belief in God doesn't put limits on yourself. It gives you a new perspective with which to look at the scientific data that's out there. And yes statistics can be viewed differently for instance a cup that is filled 50% with water can be view half empty or half full it all depends on the perspective from which you look at it.

[[m'kay]]

And yes statistics can be viewed differently for instance a cup that is filled 50% with water can be view half empty or half full it all depends on the perspective from which you look at it.

No. That is incredibly wrong. A cup that is 50% full is 50% full. That is a statistic. When you're operating by statistics, you don't say "aw [poo] man well I guess it's half full or somethin' [m'kay] it lets get a beer", you use very precise and objective language. Anyway, that's all I wanted to say. Have fun making yourselves look stupider and stupider with every idiotic post you make!

[Darth Crater]

Sorry for dragging this on, Narg. The thread was destined to go this way from the start, I'm afraid.

Science is a study of facts and data used to confirm theories and ideas. It is not a belief system.

Hey, Homestar's actually making sense!

You like to say that this argument is about science vs religion when it's belief vs belief. Mainly because saying you have science on your side makes you feel more comfortable. If you chose to say that science lends more evidence to your side thats still a belief, it's not a comfirmation.

Wait, no, never mind that. Carry on.

People today are very materialistic, putting stock in only what you can see, touch, and measure. Unfortunately that thinking limits what you allow yourself to believe. If you give yourself those limitations it's easy to consider yourself rational, educated, and not ignorant.

And if there was any reason at all to believe in things we can't see, touch, or measure, I would care whether I was limited or not.If you can't measure it or detect it (even indirectly), not only can you not know whether it exists, it doesn't matter whether it exists.

[Col. Hstar]

And yes statistics can be viewed differently for instance a cup that is filled 50% with water can be view half empty or half full it all depends on the perspective from which you look at it.

No. That is incredibly wrong. A cup that is 50% full is 50% full. That is a statistic. When you're operating by statistics, you don't say "aw [poo] man well I guess it's half full or somethin' [m'kay] it lets get a beer", you use very precise and objective language. Anyway, that's all I wanted to say. Have fun making yourselves look stupider and stupider with every idiotic post you make!

Hey look narg is still reading these post I guess he has just as much time to waste as the rest of us.

@ Crater if you don't think something you can't see touch or measure ers that's your choice to make. But it's still a belief.