Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Firstly, why do people still believe that mankind descended from Adam and Eve in the face of Sheer scientific fact?

because they have faith that adam and eve were real. the science facts mean nothing to those who dont believe in them. those who believe in religioun wont change unless they choose to. "science facts" are another form of faith. you believe that the scientists are true. you didnt personally find these things out, so it is faith that you believe in evolution.

And secondly, how long will it be before Science completely disproves the theory of how god made earth and validates the big bang theory?

probebly never. and if it ever happens, wont be for hundereds and hundereds of years.

Thirdly, once that happends, would faithfuls continue to blindly ignore scientific facts and follow disproven religious texts?

yes. just because they have been disproven doesnt mean that religioun isnt true to others.

science or any other influence will never change people's beliefes. they might influence them but never change them. the best thing to do is believe in what you believe in and let others do the same.

The tomoto shall rule all!!!

look at previous page...

you can say all day long that evolution is proven but in reality, it can never ever be proven. it is historical science, neither observable nor reroducable, but on that note so is christianity. if evolution is absolutely true then explain away the presence of a hammer, footprints, handprints etc found near dinosaur footprints in the same rock layer kind of hard isnt it. or how about the ice age, improbable using evolutionary views, creationist views however it has an explanation, you say that ash clouded out the sun freezing the surface and killing dinosaurs but the problem with that is that for there to be snow, there has to be evaporation and for evaporation there has to be heat. now lets use the post flood conditions, increased volcanic activity producing ash and lava heating the oceans, you have the ash to block the sun, the heat to produce the snow, the cold to kill the dinos.

Lets look at it in terms of positives and negatives, done to the world.

They both have extreme ups and downs:
Science is responsible for the atomic bomb
Whereas religion is responsible for most charities and helping those who can't help themselves
But Science is responsible for curing diseases and working towards extending the human life span
Whereas religion is responsible for extremists, wars, rape, thousands of years of bloodshed (and I don't just mean Islam or Christianity) and widespread descrimination.

Now lets pick which we'd rather back.

i wont make you change your views. because that is imposible. however i would hope you dont actually tell people who are religious this stuff in an attempt to convert them. giving them info is ok, but an attepmt to convert them will always fail.

if you attempt to convert people here, thats prefectly ok, because we dont know who you are.
but if you were to try to convert someone face to face, you could get your face smashed.

i say this because too many people get hurt when they try to convert others. its for your sake.

now, anyways. my beliefe is that what ever you believe in is true.

if you believe there is a god, there is a god.
if you belive there is no god, then there is no god.
if you belive that there are multiple gods, then there are multiple gods.

also i blieve that what comes around goes around.

At 1/20/07 06:11 AM, shin-tenshu wrote: i wont make you change your views.

What like Christians do?

At 1/20/07 06:11 AM, shin-tenshu wrote:
now, anyways. my beliefe is that what ever you believe in is true.

"I believe the rape of children is fully justified." I think you need to clarify your theory a bit.

I wonder if the people rejecting evolution on the grounds of 'no hard proof' might also like to reject all sources of visible light, on the grounds that we cannot prove they exist, only measure their effects. Same goes for gravity. Same goes for other people living in the world.

Evolution is about as well backed up as any theory in science. Sure, when dealing with 40,000 years of evolution, over the surface of the entire world, we're unlikely to find every link you request. But, equally, creationists (or ID proponents) have yet to provide a single shred of evidence which cannot be ripped apart by anyone with half a mind to do so.

I'll keep backing evolution, then, until the balance of evidence is against it.

Exactly!

Thats what I'm talking about!

Simply put, the balance of evidence. Nothing more.

At 1/19/07 08:24 PM, RocketBoy004 wrote: you can say all day long that evolution is proven but in reality, it can never ever be proven.

No it can be "proven" since natural science doesn't work with axioms. Do you want a cookie for being the first to discover that it can't be proven?

:it is historical science, neither observable nor reroducable, but on that note so is christianity.

No...the principles of evolution can be observed, in the development of bacteria. And evolution itself is evident from the shitloads of evidence, like transitional fossils and the way foeti develop. None of such evidence exists for creationism.

:if evolution is absolutely true then explain away the presence of a hammer, footprints, handprints etc found near dinosaur footprints in the same rock layer kind of hard isnt it.

Give a source for that claim then. Besides, nothing special about it if those marks were made recently, which is quite probably the case.

:or how about the ice age, improbable using evolutionary views,

Wha? How would the ice age be improbable in evolution? They're barely even related. The origin of ice ages are a different field of science all together

creationist views however it has an explanation, you say that ash clouded out the sun freezing the surface and killing dinosaurs but the problem with that is that for there to be snow, there has to be evaporation and for evaporation there has to be heat.

Uhm no, snow is frozen water. If there's no water, there's no snow. And there doesn't have to be evaporation either. Besides that's not even related to creationism. Creationism says "God made the earth 6000 years ago". Unrelated for the flood, although many people seem think if that they can prove that there was some huge flood like the one described in the Bible, that it would automatically mean that God created the Earth. Since there's obviously HUGE correlation between the two. (yes that's sarcasm)

:now lets use the post flood conditions, increased volcanic activity producing ash and lava heating the oceans, you have the ash to block the sun, the heat to produce the snow, the cold to kill the dinos.

That theory is basically the same theory as the scientific one, with the addition of the word "post flood" in order to explain "heat to produce snow". Since when heat produces snow, I haven't got a clue, but whatever, creationism doesn't make sense either way. And "heating the oceans"? Are you serious? Do you have any idea what the specific heat of water is, and just how much water there is? In order to heat up the oceans by 50 degrees, there would need to be at least one fifth of the total water mass in lava, all in direct contact with the water. I hope you realize just how ridiculous that is...

Snow and flood are completely unrelated to the death of dinosaurs. It's the radical change in climate that killed them.

Exactly!

And also, further more on the point of God creating the earth 6000 years ago, many chinese scriptures date human history back beyond 6000 years ago, some even stretch as far back as 10,000 years.

However most christians dismiss this proof out of hand and claim it to be "chinese devilry" which is ignorant, racist and descriminatory.

At 1/20/07 08:25 AM, DJ-Jerakai wrote:

At 1/20/07 06:11 AM, shin-tenshu wrote: i wont make you change your views.

What like Christians do?

christians dont change people's views. and its not all christians. all religiouns have their own groups within them selves.

you the christians that keep to themselves.
you have the christans who give offer other people bibles and ask them to look at it if they want.

there are also the ones your thinking about. the christians with an agenda. they try to get others to be christian no matter what it takes.

but they cant make people go their way. no matter what. because in the end it is the induvidual's choice.

At 1/21/07 12:39 AM, shin-tenshu wrote: christians dont change people's views. and its not all christians. all religiouns have their own groups within them selves.

you the christians that keep to themselves.
you have the christans who give offer other people bibles and ask them to look at it if they want.

there are also the ones your thinking about. the christians with an agenda. they try to get others to be christian no matter what it takes.

but they cant make people go their way. no matter what. because in the end it is the induvidual's choice.

That's false. When the government starts teaching crackpot theories as facts in science class, within a couple of generations you'll have huge amounts of believers in the crackpot theories.

In the end it's the individual's choice you say, but why do you think that there are such large populations of christians in Africa? Do you really believe they accidentally came across a copy of the Bible and loudly screamed "EAT MY SHORTS ALLAH, I BELIEVE IN JESUS NOW!!!" ?

My country was highly religious 60 years ago, nowadays the churches are nearly empty. Education and what's considered "normal" (in short, peer pressure) is very, very important. There's a reason why the chinese are so obsessed with propaganda and censorship.

Every religious group has groups within itself, that's true.
But you'll be very hard pressed to find a mainstream atheist group that advocates teaching that God doesn't exist in religion class. However, there's a lot of people that advocate teaching crackpot religion in science class (creationists), or placing the ten commandments in court buildings.

I'm not saying that rabid atheists are any better than rabid christians, but there are far more rabid christians than there are rabid atheists.

Exactly!
Thats been my point all along.

The people that force their beliefs are more religious than not.
In Singapore the society here is litrally socially exclusive if you don't follow Christianity or Islam.

People litrally refuse to talk to you once you tell them you're an athiest.

And at first the response is "whats an athiest?"

But if you say "whats a catholic?" they take offence?

Now I don't take offence to them not being familiar with the concept of science over religion.
Why should they take offence to me posing the same question in return about the same topic?

They're just more aggressive, thats it.

well science isnt better then religioun, not is religioun better then science.

just matters on who you are.

some people use science.
some people use religioun.

some people take science too far
some people take religioun too far

science sometimes is forced on people
religioun is sometimes forced on people.

both groups have extremists.

just because science has disproven things about religioun, religioun isnt about knowing whats real but what is believing what is real.

if facts are put on the table, it wont mean much to someone who doesnt believe them. it isnt because of blind ignorance. its because they believe in something else.

which way is the right way though? science or religioun.

both are the right way.

for those who feel science is the best way to go for then, then science is the right way

for those who feel religioun is the best way to go for then, then religioun is the right way.

science is about finding answers
religioun is about having a purpose

at least thats what i feel.

there is no point trying to say which one is the right one because it can never be won. both sides will say that their's is the right one.

trying to find thhe right way to go isnt as hard as it looks. the only person you need to ask is yourself. which way do you feel is best for you? once you find that out then your answer is solved.

just because something has been disproven, doesnt mean it has really been disproven.

you might have the evidence to disprove it, but if the other doesnt believe it, then it hasnt been disproven to them. it doesnt mean they are stupid or anything, it means that they strongly believe in something else.

i think DJ-Jerakai is right about this.

religion is stupid. anyone who follows it is a dumb jackass and making a fool of themselves.

i think religioun should be abolished world wide. causes nothing but problems. you dont see people killing eachother over science.

religioun goes which ever way you interpuret it, but science is what it is.

its stupid and anyone who follows religioun is stupid as well.

"well, jesus helped me get off drugs" no he didnt because he doesnt exist. what go you off drugs was because you went into rehab. and you shouldnt even been on the drugs in the first place.

so if you think religioun is a good thing, then you are an idiot.

This is a very interesting topic........... I'm Roman Cathilic and I've sorta blended the two theories into one. That God made evelution, the big bang, and everything else.
But if you don't belive in god or any of relirionius person then can't we just agree to disagree?

the big bang theory could explain the formation of planets...but logically how could the big bang create us....we are complex beings and that would not be logical....

At 1/21/07 07:51 PM, Ferris95 wrote: This is a very interesting topic........... I'm Roman Cathilic and I've sorta blended the two theories into one. That God made evelution, the big bang, and everything else.
But if you don't belive in god or any of relirionius person then can't we just agree to disagree?

because there is no god.

At 1/21/07 08:30 PM, dux19 wrote: the big bang theory could explain the formation of planets...but logically how could the big bang create us....we are complex beings and that would not be logical....

i'm curious; are you retarded?

At 1/21/07 08:34 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 1/21/07 08:30 PM, dux19 wrote: the big bang theory could explain the formation of planets...but logically how could the big bang create us....we are complex beings and that would not be logical....

i'm curious; are you retarded?

anyone who is religious is retarded. science is the only way

At 1/18/07 05:04 PM, geforce7800GT wrote: These are the visions I saw while lying in my bed...

I don't have visions. By the time I get to bed the room is spinning. :-(

At 1/21/07 08:44 PM, HogWashSoup wrote: anyone who is religious is retarded. science is the only way

A priest, a rabbi, and a minister walk into a bar. The bartender looks at them and says, "What is this, some kind of joke?"

At 1/19/07 04:37 PM, AMFYOYO wrote: Why does Science and Religion have to be opposite ideas? One can support the other in very many ways.

Because this is Newgrounds, where 15 year olds don't bother using the SEARCH function and instead start the exact same topic with the exact same title I've already seen 10 times.

AMFYOYO got it right, the rest of you are arguing semantics, technicalities, and minusha shit that doesn't have any actual bearing on anyone's daily life.

At 1/21/07 08:31 PM, HogWashSoup wrote:

At 1/21/07 07:51 PM, Ferris95 wrote: This is a very interesting topic........... I'm Roman Cathilic and I've sorta blended the two theories into one. That God made evelution, the big bang, and everything else.
But if you don't belive in god or any of relirionius person then can't we just agree to disagree?

because there is no god.

Evidence of why Christians are still more persecuted than atheists (seen in another thread).

Seriously, and WE'RE supposed to be the intolerant ones? Next jackass that brings up the Inquisition or Crusades gets my boot up their ass.

At 1/22/07 12:42 AM, Imperator wrote: Next jackass that brings up the Inquisition

nobody expects the spanish inquisition!

OH MY GOD!!! i've been quoted!

At 1/18/07 11:31 AM, DJ-Jerakai wrote: It doesnt matter if one person or one million people are wrong. If they're wrong, they're wrong

How do you know that everything you believe in isn't wrong? Just because a few numbers say something should be right doesn't mean it is. with evolution, it's just a theory. I haven't heard anything about the law of evolution. See the main problem with science is that it has all these theories with no solution. Religion answers those theories with answers that may seem absurd.

And anyways, isn't science and religion almost the same thing, plus or minus a few things? I mean, religion is just a belief in something, usually a almighty diety(or several dieties), a creation story, and an afterlife of some sort. Science is almost the exact same thing. The belief in laws and processes of science(God or a like diety), everything in the universe came from the big bang or by some other meathod(creationism), and that when you die, you just rot in the ground(afterlife).

I stick mor towards the religion size because it answers questions that science can not a never will. For instance, before everything in the universe, what was there? In religion, it would be God or allah or what ever you believe. With science, you get stuck in a loop saying "but what was before that and how did that happen"? In other words, you say the bing bang was responsible, but what came before that? a tiny pinpoint of energy so extreme that it forged an entire universe? Okay, what came before that? If you believe the elastic theory of the universe(basically like a giant rubber band, stretches so far until it snaps back), what was before that? and so on until you get to "how was that made?"

So the honest truth and fact is that you can neither disprove religion or say that science is wrong. If I want to believe that we all came into existance because the great tree spawned humans from the holy acorns of pure destiny from eons ago, you can not say that I am wrong because science would have no proof other than "It is logically impossible for man to be spawned from trees." Religion also provides something that I believe very few things in science can, hope. Religion tells us that we aren't alone, that there is something to look foreward to when you die. And it can bring nations together, if people got the right message. None of that holy jihad on the infedels or crusade against the heathens crap. Science seems to encourage destructon considering just about every piece of technology can be used as a weapon of some sort.

But anyways, I have problems with science and religion. In science, I can not and will not believe that every living thing in the known universe, or any living thing we find, came from a insignificant, tiny, impossible to see with the human eye, single-celled organisms. Nor could I believe in a god who seems so interested in us that he(or she) would cause global floods, plagues, death, destruction, etc. The only truth is what the single person percieves it to be and that can not be debated without animosity.

At 1/22/07 03:00 AM, MortalWound wrote: How do you know that everything you believe in isn't wrong? Just because a few numbers say something should be right doesn't mean it is. with evolution, it's just a theory. I haven't heard anything about the law of evolution.

thats because you don't know the meanings and uses of those words in context. (it would seem very, very few people do)

thats because you don't know the meanings and uses of those words in context. (it would seem very, very few people do)

I hope you know this holds true for both sides of the debate.....

At 1/22/07 03:17 AM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 1/22/07 03:00 AM, MortalWound wrote: How do you know that everything you believe in isn't wrong? Just because a few numbers say something should be right doesn't mean it is. with evolution, it's just a theory. I haven't heard anything about the law of evolution.

thats because you don't know the meanings and uses of those words in context. (it would seem very, very few people do)

Alas, alas :(

To shake the man's worldview: Dalton's law is wrong! It's valid for ideal gasses, but sadly, the world isn't ideal.

As for it going for both sides of the debate, I haven't seen a single supporter of science defend the claim that any theory is more fact than another, which I've seen far too many creationism supporters do. "Evolution is a theory, not a fact. The earth is round, that's a fact!"

Alas...

Sorry kiddo, but I think you mispelled "AND". It isn't spelled "VS".

There hasn't been anything in religion that sceince has disproven and no religion that can outwit science. It's impossible. You cannot deny an omipotent power, for being omnipotent it can control whatever process you call scientific. On the other hand, you cannot use an unproven set of ideas to disprove any science.

These two ideas, science and religion, work on two different levels and therefore CANNOT truly conflict. Any conflict people create between them is artificial and contrived. It is contrived to further whatever religious belief that person may have, whether it may be blind fundamentalism or arrogant lack of religion.