Kinsa jud imo gituohan kung diin jud tah gikan, ang Bible or Science?

[schmuck]

---

Here's how that conversation always look like:
Why is your religion true?
Because it's based on the Bible and the Bible is the word of God.
Why do you think the Bible is the word of God?
Because the Bible says so and it is the word of God.

Sometimes, I have to wonder if the direction of the circularity goes the other way around at the South Pole.

I have a visual aides for this. haha want?

[kenites]

Checkmate na because the bible said so!

bungot check this link:
YouTube - Checkmate, Atheists!

[SioDenz]

it's up to you bai be it spiritual or scientific.
It's your time to shine lage..cge go!
explain ayaw lang para sa ako para pud sa mga follower ani nga thread

No need to Shine bro ka Shine nang daan. ikaw nuon para padaghan sa imu post bah..

[INRI]

No need to Shine bro ka Shine nang daan. ikaw nuon para padaghan sa imu post bah..

Padaghanay diay ni ug post dire no? karon pa ko kabalo..tnx for informing ha

Ok then..no need to shine..kay shine nman kaha daan...ang imo opaw

just prove the existence of your God so that we'll have a discussion here


Mao mani imo post oh...explain na dayon aron walay daghan istorya..ikaw na bahala if spiritual or scientific imo gamiton..

ikaw man magpa explain, kay way gamit if explainan taka ug spiritual nga paagi di man ghapon ka mutuo mao ask ko nimu if science bah imu gusto...

Basin diay convincing kaayo imo spiritual or scientific explanation..
Sama ra gud na sa Science side..ngano mo post pa man sila dre ug mga evidence nga di man gihapon mo-tou ang Religious side..
Siguro in this way we can have a good discussion...di ba

[bungot25]

YouTube - RDF TV - Show me the intermediate fossils! - Nebraska Vignettes #1 - Richard Dawkins
But then fossils are just icing on the cake bungot.
When you look at the evidence at the genetic level, an inheritance tree can clearly be constructed. Do you understand any of this? Dili lang fossils tan-awn oi, its at the genetic level. lolz

Wala ka nitubag kung Catholico ka or basin miswording ra to imong previous post.

ok you are basing on dawkins...why ni too man si dawkins about intelligent design be....lols
i rest my case....this is pure agnosticism

[bungot25]

I rest my case.

It always boils down to this. When asked why your religion is true, they will invariably say "BECAUSE WE HAVE TO" or "BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS SO". I'm sorry to find this circular logic hilarious. It's like watching a dog trying to catch its own tail.

Here's how that conversation always look like:
Why is your religion true?
Because it's based on the Bible and the Bible is the word of God.
Why do you think the Bible is the word of God?
Because the Bible says so and it is the word of God.

Sometimes, I have to wonder if the direction of the circularity goes the other way around at the South Pole.

heheheh...rediculousss..cowardly fasion na pod ni siya! lols

Evolution is A HOAX brader...........

[bungot25]

@smuck

empirical evidence like what.....fossilssss ?
do you have legit scientific proofs to prove evolution theory..

this question is not yet been answered....pls guys be honest! what made life man..

[anjerika]

You may want to read this, it's from the National Geographic Magazine.


Was Darwin Wrong? @ National Geographic Magazine


Trivia for the day: Charles Darwin was an agnostic.

[hitch22]

You may want to read this, it's from the National Geographic Magazine.

Was Darwin Wrong? @ National Geographic Magazine

Trivia for the day: Charles Darwin was an agnostic.

Thanks for the link, Anjerika.

It's important to note that the link to the whole article is provided at the end of that page...the part where it says To print the whole National Geographic story, click here.

Here's the bit which, again, reinforces the argument on our side of the fence:

Still, skeptics of evolutionary theory ask: Can we see evolution in action? Can it be observed in the wild? Can it be measured in the laboratory?

The answer is yes. Peter and Rosemary Grant, two British-born researchers who have spent decades where Charles Darwin spent weeks, have captured a glimpse of evolution with their long-term studies of beak size among Galápagos finches. William R. Rice and George W. Salt achieved something similar in their lab, through an experiment involving 35 generations of the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. Richard E. Lenski and his colleagues at Michigan State University have done it too, tracking 20,000 generations of evolution in the bacterium Escherichia coli. Such field studies and lab experiments document anagenesis—that is, slow evolutionary change within a single, unsplit lineage. With patience it can be seen, like the movement of a minute hand on a clock.

How many times have we kept saying this? EVOLUTION IS TRUE! (Read the whole article if you thought the writer was about to debunk Darwin's Theory)

[hitch22]

heheheh...rediculousss..cowardly fasion na pod ni siya! lols

Evolution is A HOAX brader...........

You want my defense of evolution? Start reading page 10 (my second post on that page deals with the Theory of Evolution as explicitly terse as possible) of this thread and follow my posts thereafter. In fact, if you've followed the conversations from page 1, people like FAQ, chad_tukes, orcgod, kenites and many others have provided a lot of information and links about the definition of scientific theory and on why evolution is true.

It's easy to just say Evolution is a Hoax. Well, what do you understand about Darwin's Theory of Evolution? Name me one claim that it makes which has been proven to be false.

IS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION PART OF MAINSTREAM SCIENCE? Which organization can very well speak on behalf of the scientific community? I'll tell you where you should turn to for these matters:THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES.

What is the National Academy of Sciences? FROM this link: About the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) -

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is an honorific society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare.

The NAS was signed into being by President Abraham Lincoln on March 3, 1863, at the height of the Civil War. As mandated in its Act of Incorporation, the NAS has, since 1863, served to "investigate, examine, experiment, and report upon any subject of science or art" whenever called upon to do so by any department of the government.

Since 1863, the nation's leaders have often turned to the National Academies for advice on the scientific and technological issues that frequently pervade policy decisions. Most of the institution's science policy and technical work is conducted by its operating arm, the National Research Council, created expressly for this purpose. These non-profit organizations provide a public service by working outside the framework of government to ensure independent advice on matters of science, technology, and medicine. They enlist committees of the nation's top scientists, engineers, and other experts, all of whom volunteer their time to study specific concerns. The results of their deliberations have inspired some of America's most significant and lasting efforts to improve the health, education, and welfare of the population. The Academy's service to government has become so essential that Congress and the White House have issued legislation and executive orders over the years that reaffirm its unique role.

The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.

200 NOBEL PRIZE-WINNING SCIENTISTS! I don't know how much more ELITE an organization can get than that.

So, what does the NAS have to say about the Theory of Evolution? Again, let's read what they have to say. From the NAS' position paper entitled Science, Evolution, and Creationism (click here to start reading chapter 1):

Science and science-based technologies have transformed modern life. They have led to major improvements in living standards, public welfare, health, and security. They have changed how we view the universe and how we think about ourselves in relation to the world around us.

Biological evolution is one of the most important ideas of modern science. Evolution is supported by abundant evidence from many different fields of scientific investigation. It underlies the modern biological sciences, including the biomedical sciences, and has applications in many other scientific and engineering disciplines.

As individuals and societies, we are now making decisions that will have profound consequences for future generations. How should we balance the need to preserve the Earth’s plants, animals, and natural environment against other pressing concerns? Should we alter our use of fossil fuels and other natural resources to enhance the well-being of our descendants? To what extent should we use our new understanding of biology on a molecular level to alter the characteristics of living things?

None of these decisions can be made wisely without considering biological evolution. People need to understand evolution, its role within the broader scientific enterprise, and its vital implications for some of the most pressing social, cultural, and political issues of our time.

Science and technology are so pervasive in modern society that students increasingly need a sound education in the core concepts, applications, and implications of science. Because evolution has and will continue to serve as a critical foundation of the biomedical and life sciences, helping students learn about and understand the scientific evidence, mechanisms, and implications of evolution are fundamental to a high-quality science education.

Note that the above quote is taken from the CONCLUSION section of the paper. Click here to read the full CONCLUSION.

Well, what about HUMAN EVOLUTION? What does the NAS say about that? I'm glad you asked. And here's their answer...taken from this link of the National Academies Press (the link will bring you to the chapter on Human Evolution from the NAS' paper entitled Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences):

Studies in evolutionary biology have led to the conclusion that human beings arose from ancestral primates. This association was hotly debated among scientists in Darwin's day. But today there is no significant scientific doubt about the close evolutionary relationships among all primates, including humans.

Hmmm....let's see. What do they say about the so-called alternative, Intelligent Design a.k.a. Creationism? Well, the NAS have a lot to say about that too. Let's read together what they have to say. Once again, from the Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences -

Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience. Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions, but these subjects extend beyond science's realm, which is to obtain a better understanding of the natural world.

The claim that equity demands balanced treatment of evolutionary theory and special creation in science classrooms reflects a misunderstanding of what science is and how it is conducted. Scientific investigators seek to understand natural phenomena by observation and experimentation. Scientific interpretations of facts and the explanations that account for them therefore must be testable by observation and experimentation.

Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.

No body of beliefs that has its origin in doctrinal material rather than scientific observation, interpretation, and experimentation should be admissible as science in any science course. Incorporating the teaching of such doctrines into a science curriculum compromises the objectives of public education. Science has been greatly successful at explaining natural processes, and this has led not only to increased understanding of the universe but also to major improvements in technology and public health and welfare. The growing role that science plays in modem life requires that science, and not religion, be taught in science classes.

WELL, bungot, ARGUE THAT!

coward? scared? Scared of what, exactly? You have to complete your sentence, so that we'll know what we're supposed to be scared about.

As everyone knows by now, we have tackled the subject on evolution, its proofs, how it works, and what a scientific theory is (as well as its popular misconceptions). The thread is full of it and it's open for anyone's review. We just don't want to keep repeating ourselves over and over and over again.

bungot, YOU, ON THE OTHER HAND, have yet to answer my question. Remember this post:

For starters, bungot, WHAT MAKES YOU SO SURE THAT YOUR RELIGION (ROMAN CATHOLICISM) IS THE RIGHT ONE, AND NOT THE OTHER CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONS OR ISLAM OR JUDAISM OR BUDDHISM OR HINDUISM?

You are sure that your religion have "God's words" right on the money. In fact, the Vatican (where you get your religion's official stance on various matters) stated very clearly that "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved".

From our vantage point, that is such a huge claim to make: "GOD IS ON OUR SIDE". That's what you're saying. It's like that line from the Phil Collins' song "Jesus he knows me and he knows I'm right." We're very interested to know why you think this is so.

To borrow Dwayne Johnson's (The Rock) line, WHERE IN GOD'S BLUE HELL IS MY ANSWER? We're all waiting.....brader.