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

[hitch22]

let's see.

I need to slap you over the head. To borrow Bruce Lee's line "WHEN I POINT AT SOMETHING, DON'T LOOK AT THE FINGER!"

WRONG ANSWER. haha. before the heliocentric model there was the theory of geocentric and it was the popular astronomy of that period. When Galileo finally solidified Copernicus heliocentric model, his fellow scientists opposed him strongly. tsk tsk! The Church's affiliation to geocentric astronomy propagated by the scientists of that time moved them to persecute Galileo.

You didnt know that? no? now the idiot pointer shifts to you. I thought your going to shed the argument into pieces. I think you just cut your finger.

TELL ME, WHO PERSECUTED GALILEO? WHICH INSTITUTION PLACED HIM UNDER HOUSE ARREST? BECAUSE IF WE'RE TALKING INSTITUTIONS, YOU KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER IS. Once again, I'm correct: THE VATICAN.

Stephen Hawking once visited the Vatican upon the invitation of the Pope. As the story goes, the Pope asked him if he had any requests. Hawking answered "I'd like to see the records of the trial of Galileo." HAWKING AGREES WITH ME.

Was there an organization of scientists in those days who zealously upheld Ptolemy's geocentrism? BY THE WAY, ZEALOTRY IS NOT PART OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. THAT BELONGS TO RELIGION. There was no 'scientific community' in those days. Astronomy was very crude. The prevailing pseudo-science at the time was Astrology. There was hardly any science at the time until Galileo came in and introduced experimentation as a method of testing the truth. The men who embraced the Ptolemaic view at the time were philosophers.

Galileo's the Father of Modern Science. So how can there have been scientists who's persecuting him when there were no proper scientists to speak of? It seems like you're attempting to stir the pot, but forgot to put anything in it.

SORRY. THE IDIOT FINGER STILL POINTS AT YOU.

hahaha, i heard this one many times over. okay i think you didnt get the point, so from X to Y, tell me how did X became Y ? lets see your explanation but be very careful I know where to hit you. Your logical fallacies: appealing to popularity, appealing to authority are just examples of your own ignorance in debates.

by the way you didnt hit any bird at all. Assumptions are powerless, you offer no defense you just assumed.

AGAIN, YOU ARE CLEARLY IGNORANT OF WHAT EVOLUTION MEANS. Evolution consists of changes in the heritable traits of a population of organisms as successive generations replace one another. It is populations of organisms that evolve, not individual organisms. The living species we see today are a result of small incremental changes of that kind over billions of years, brought about by genetic variations and random mutations and acted upon by natural selection pressures (and perhaps other natural forces as well, as some scientists have argued). ONE THING EVERYONE HAS TO ADJUST TO IS TO THINK IN TERMS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS TO GET MAJOR SPECIATION.

APPEAL TO AUTHORITY? I've told you again and again, the reason I brought up the NAS' position on Evolution was to show you that Darwin's Theory is upheld unanimously by the mainstream scientific community...exactly to counter your statement (REMEMBER THIS):

Now Science ah no no no, not Science but Evolutionists w/c most of them are Atheists and not Scientists

The NAS' position clearly overthrows your lie that Evolution is not accepted in mainstream science.

AND YES. The NAS' puts more confidence on our side of the argument. It's nice to know that you have 200 Nobel-prize winners agreeing with you. To borrow one US Christian Fundamentalists' comment, when asked about bilingualism in the US, "IF ENGLISH IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR JESUS, IT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME." So, that's one right back at ya!

thank you for the effort but the chess analogy can't patch the hole, still the issue remains, theory changes, in other words what is true today can be a lie tomorrow. Remember the battle between the proponents of the geocentric and heliocentric model.

YES, the battle between geocentrists and heliocentrists was a battle between the Inquisition (a Roman Catholic enforcer) and little ol' Galileo. Who censored Copernican books and told Galileo not to promote his heliocentric view of the universe? Cardinal Robert Bellarmine.

Since Galileo is considered to be the Father of Modern Science, Geocentrism cannot be called a scientific theory, in the strict sense of the word. The method used to infer the Geocentric view did not follow the scientific method. AND IF YOU GO BY THE EXPLANATION I'VE GIVEN ABOUT SCIENTIFIC THEORIES, YOU KNOW VERY WELL THAT SCIENTIFIC THEORIES THAT ARE TRUE TODAY WILL CONTINUE TO BE TRUE TOMORROW...IT ONLY GETS MORE PRECISE. Again, you don't even know what a scientific theory is, otherwise you wouldn't be saying such non-sense.

and again the NAS approval thing holds nothing. Theory changes. Yes Evolution is still no science and not a fact. okay prove to me Darwinian Evolution, that if you can.

YEAH RIGHT. AND EVERYONE'S HOLDING THEIR BREATH FOR YOUR APPROVAL. SORRY, BUT IT'S CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN THAT THE LOLzZz-centric view of the universe is B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T!

[orcgod]

God can be tested.
God canot be measured bcos he is infinite.
God can be felt.

Snakes and bats are good examples.

The fact remains nobody has proven beyond reasonable doubt that God does not exist. I guess you need to change your defense.

God CAN be tested? but CANNOT be measured? OMG, your contradicting your own statement. clearly a confuse mind.

You must be a desperate, unsuccessful biologist turned into a God Delusional Fanatic for your obsession of Snakes and Bats.

We all here are so curious about how you tested your Gods existence. How about put up your video cam, record it, and test your Gods existence, and post your video here. that way, we will all bow down to your God.

[INRI]

by the way you present your argument, yes you don't.

Irony is wasted on the stupid, that is so true, i have you in my mind.



yes maybe there is something wrog with you. You jumped in w/o first reading the discussion prior to your first post against my argument.

you've been there? nah...your effort was not enough judging from where you are now.

I did, I told you to scroll up, you might find something there that would tell you how to know God.

Islam claim that we have the same God, the only difference is in the rituals and traditions. You dont know that do you? haha, you see before you strut your argument to me be very sure that you have the right stuff.

Hindus would also tell you that the source of all their thousands of Gods and including the Christian God is One.

so who is the true God? you decide.

why can't he create a perfect world? you didnt read the book? the reason is all there.

what has he been doing to the poor? are you blaming God for the plight of the poor? haha. let me tell you a story, I have heard a lot of stories of poor people whose needs were met by God because of their faith in Him.

He messed up his book? ow hictch's bible study? haha, its has poor hermeneutics. the exegesis are terrible. hahaha! oh but you wouldnt know that.

Yah I did try to check but sorry I didn't find your extraordinary proof. Why? coz you're much of a talker and poor in presenting your evidence. If I were you I would follow orcgod's suggestion to record your god in a video and post it here.

Islam and Christianity might share something in common since they all come from the same region. But Islam doesn't believe in your holy trinity and doesn't consider jesus as their god but I know you're aware of that, you're the Mr. know-it-all guy.
A christian god among the Hindu deities? who could that be? educate me sir..

Hmmm..who's the true god..I have a hard time deciding..
ohhh wait..Why should I decide who's the true God, i'm not even a theist
it's up to you to decide..who is it then?

If your god cannot create a perfect world, cannot do something about disasters that kills thousands including the innocent children, cannot do something about hunger, poverty or injustice then stop defining him as omniscience, omnipotent, omnipresent or omnibenevolent

Hitchs bible study has a poor hermeneutics and terrible exegesis?
why not bother refuting and telling him that.

[LOLzZz]

I need to slap you over the head. To borrow Bruce Lee's line "WHEN I POINT AT SOMETHING, DON'T LOOK AT THE FINGER!"

maybe your pointing at nothing so the only thing to see is your finger.

TELL ME, WHO PERSECUTED GALILEO? WHICH INSTITUTION PLACED HIM UNDER HOUSE ARREST? BECAUSE IF WE'RE TALKING INSTITUTIONS, YOU KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER IS. Once again, I'm correct: THE VATICAN.

Stephen Hawking once visited the Vatican upon the invitation of the Pope. As the story goes, the Pope asked him if he had any requests. Hawking answered "I'd like to see the records of the trial of Galileo." HAWKING AGREES WITH ME.

huh? I did mention about the church but you forgot something, so i have to educate you. Read it again. youre solely blaming the church when in fact the Science community attacked Galileo for believing in the Heliocentric model. Right now we see Science persecuting Creationism.

Was there an organization of scientists in those days who zealously upheld Ptolemy's geocentrism? BY THE WAY, ZEALOTRY IS NOT PART OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. THAT BELONGS TO RELIGION. There was no 'scientific community' in those days. Astronomy was very crude. The prevailing pseudo-science at the time was Astrology. There was hardly any science at the time until Galileo came in and introduced experimentation as a method of testing the truth. The men who embraced the Ptolemaic view at the time were philosophers.

you are good in leaving other information, are you doing it on purpose?

the issue isnt about if there was or not a science organization. Geocentrism was taught in most respected schools of that time.

Ptolemy was a mathematician,geographer,astrologer,astronomer so please dont reduce him.

Galileo's the Father of Modern Science. So how can there have been scientists who's persecuting him when there were no proper scientists to speak of? It seems like you're attempting to stir the pot, but forgot to put anything in it.

SORRY. THE IDIOT FINGER STILL POINTS AT YOU.

hahahahaha..there was no scientists at that period? oh my FSM!(credit goes to schmuck) where do you think Galileo got the idea of the heliocentric model? lols!!!!! wow..the idiot finger is still on you, it never moved. haha.

AGAIN, YOU ARE CLEARLY IGNORANT OF WHAT EVOLUTION MEANS. Evolution consists of changes in the heritable traits of a population of organisms as successive generations replace one another. It is populations of organisms that evolve, not individual organisms. The living species we see today are a result of small incremental changes of that kind over billions of years, brought about by genetic variations and random mutations and acted upon by natural selection pressures (and perhaps other natural forces as well, as some scientists have argued). ONE THING EVERYONE HAS TO ADJUST TO IS TO THINK IN TERMS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS TO GET MAJOR SPECIATION.

no no, I know what evolution is. impressive theory. any evidence? proofs? and can i have an answer to my question?

so a cat given a million years will evolved into creature A then B then C then YOU?

Here is your problem...there is zero evidence to support that theory. We are talking about science here not philosophy. what millions of years can do is degeneration. A mutated creature cannot even survived for hundreds of years. and mutation downgrades the information of your genes sa bisaya pa ma abnormal ka. makuhaan ang information, instead naa kay ilong na taas because of mutation mahimong mobo. kungnaa man gani positive mutation it doesnt prove Darwinian Evolution.


I will continue later. work calls

[bungot25]

darwins theory is still a hoax! NAS didnt refute it but it still holds it is a theory! you guys are just basing on your non sense illogical bigot!lols

here is my rebuttal

zero refutes
zero scientific proofs)
all i get is assumptions which is so absurd
zero logical explanations...

vatican before where not fully aware about heliocentrism because most of the scientists
believe in geocentrism. galileo seem to contradict their beliefs but galileo was not really condemed,he was on trial defending his position and was absolve..the vatican only appealed on such belief because they were not
aware of it..but papacy didnt declare any dogma...

[orcgod]

darwins theory is still a hoax! NAS didnt refute it but it still holds it is a theory! you guys are just basing on your non sense illogical bigot!lols

here is my rebuttal

zero refutes
zero scientific proofs)
all i get is assumptions which is so absurd
zero logical explanations...

vatican before where not fully aware about heliocentrism because most of the scientists
believe in geocentrism. galileo seem to contradict their beliefs but galileo was not really condemed,he was on trial defending his position and was absolve..the vatican only appealed on such belief because they were not
aware of it..but papacy didnt declare any dogma...

Oh Vatican, i Love Vatican, thats why they were proven to be FAKE
check out the video please YouTube - Shroud of Turin - Carbon 14 test proves false

[hitch22]

...the only thing to see is your finger.

I NEED TO SLAP YOUR HEAD AGAIN! Stop focusing on the finger.

huh? I did mention about the church but you forgot something, so i have to educate you. Read it again. youre solely blaming the church when in fact the Science community attacked Galileo for believing in the Heliocentric model.

WHAT SCIENCE COMMUNITY? WHO WERE THEY? PLEASE NAME NAMES. AND CAN YOU RIGHTFULLY CALL THEM SCIENTISTS? WHAT DISTINGUISHES SCIENTISTS FROM PSEUDO-SCIENTISTS?

REMEMBER, YOU BLAMED SCIENCE FOR PERSECUTING GALILEO. I SAID NO. THERE MAY BE PEOPLE WHO WERE COUNTED UPON FOR THEIR "EXPERTISE" ABOUT THE MOVEMENT OF THE STARS. BUT THE FACT THEY GOT THE EARTH-CENTER THEORY WRONG POINTS TO THEIR FAILURE TO ADHERE TO SCIENTIFIC METHODS...WHICH WAS NOT THAT SYSTEMATIC AT THE TIME.

FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, GEOCENTRISM WAS A PSEUDO-SCIENCE. GEOCENTRISM, HOWEVER, AGREED WITH THE SCRIPTURES, THAT'S WHY THE CHURCH SUPPORTED IT. IT WAS SAID IN THE BIBLE THAT JOSHUA ORDERED THE SUN TO STAY STILL AND NOT THE EARTH. YOU NEED TO BE EDUCATED ON SCRIPTURE BY A NON-BELIEVER?

the issue isnt about if there was or not a science organization. Geocentrism was taught in most respected schools of that time.

JUST BECAUSE GEOCENTRISM WAS BEING TAUGHT DOESN'T MEAN IT WAS SCIENCE. SCIENCE IS NOT A LOOSE WORD. IT ENTAILS STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE SCIENTIFIC METHODS...WHICH I'LL EXPLAIN IN DETAIL LATER ON...IF YOU'LL JUST STOP LITTERING THE THREAD WITH YOUR COPIOUS DROPPINGS FOR ME TO CLEAN UP.

Ptolemy was a mathematician,geographer,astrologer,astronomer so please dont reduce him.

THE FACT YOU CAN PUT THE WORDS "ASTROLOGER" AND "ASTRONOMER" TO DESCRIBE PTOLEMY ALREADY TELLS YOU THE KIND OF "SCIENCE" THAT EXISTED IN THOSE DAYS.

I DIDN'T REDUCE PTOLEMY. HE JUST GOT HIS EARTH-CENTERED UNIVERSE THEORY WRONG.

A MATHEMATICIAN? YES. A STARGAZER? YES. A SCIENTIST? NOT IN THE STRICT SENSE OF THE WORD.

hahahahaha..there was no scientists at that period? oh my FSM!(credit goes to schmuck) where do you think Galileo got the idea of the heliocentric model? lols!!!!! wow..the idiot finger is still on you, it never moved. haha.

LIKE I SAID, GALILEO WAS THE FATHER OF MODERN SCIENCE. HE STARTED THE METHOD OF EXPERIMENTATION AS A TEST FOR SCIENTIFIC TRUTH. PEOPLE IN THOSE DAYS USE OBSERVATION AND PHILOSOPHY...AND SOMETIMES SCRIPTURE...TO MAKE SENSE OF PHENOMENA.

IF GALILEO WAS THE PIONEER OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, WHAT DO YOU CALL THE PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T USE THOSE METHODS AND ATTACKED HIM? THEY'RE NOT SCIENTISTS, BY OUR DEFINITION.

Once again, my argument holds true.

no no, I know what evolution is. impressive theory. any evidence? proofs? and can i have an answer to my question?

I think this debate on who persecuted Galileo is not only out of topic, but also going nowhere. SCIENTISTS PERSECUTED GALILEO? Can you provide me with that link? THIS CERTAINLY SOUNDS LIKE AN ATTEMPT BY JESUITS AT HISTORICAL OBSCURANTISM. In other words, you can always make it come out right in due time and everyone will be none the wiser.

I have already presented evidences and arguments in favor of evolution somewhere in this thread. I don't know if I'll be wasting my time if I'm going to indulge you with another exposition of the theory, about which you've already made up your mind. ARE YOU A PRIEST OR SOMEONE IN HOLY ORDER? ARE YOU A BIBLICAL FUNDAMENTALIST? ARE YOU A DYED-IN-THE-WOOL CREATIONIST? If you answer YES to any of these questions, then I'm sorry...I'll just be wasting my time. It will be like, as the parable goes, "the seeds that fell on the pavement and trampled upon by passers-by".

[schmuck]

i wont understand its pretty obvious! you cant seem to produce any of those facts that proves evolution is valid! you cant even defend dawkins theory!!! hahaha...defense mode napod ni sa mga evolution believers,, wat a nutCase!! lolss

Humor me bungot, what specifically are you looking for? What constitutes evidence for evolution to you? Because every evidence presented to you, you simply dismiss them(without proper explanation btw). So go ahead, what are you looking for?

by the way you present your argument, yes you don't.

Irony is wasted on the stupid, that is so true, i have you in my mind.

Every reason you come up with not to believe in the FSM is the very same reason I don't believe in your god. Think about that for a while. Think and think until you think a whole in the ground.

[LOLzZz]

I NEED TO SLAP YOUR HEAD AGAIN! Stop focusing on the finger.

well stop pointing your finger at nothing.

WHAT SCIENCE COMMUNITY? WHO WERE THEY? PLEASE NAME NAMES. AND CAN YOU RIGHTFULLY CALL THEM SCIENTISTS? WHAT DISTINGUISHES SCIENTISTS FROM PSEUDO-SCIENTISTS?

there were already schools, where do you think Galileo got his education? of course they were scientists. you call there science psuedo science? haha...get your facts right.

REMEMBER, YOU BLAMED SCIENCE FOR PERSECUTING GALILEO. I SAID NO. THERE MAY BE PEOPLE WHO WERE COUNTED UPON FOR THEIR "EXPERTISE" ABOUT THE MOVEMENT OF THE STARS. BUT THE FACT THEY GOT THE EARTH-CENTER THEORY WRONG POINTS TO THEIR FAILURE TO ADHERE TO SCIENTIFIC METHODS...WHICH WAS NOT THAT SYSTEMATIC AT THE TIME.

You said No . tsk tsk..it proves your ignorance. Geocentrism is the accepted model of that period upheld by the scientists of that century. Was not systematic? hahahahahahaha....who told you that? they used Babylonian mathematics where we derive our algebra,geometry and other from of arithmetics. wow...another evidence that you don' really know what you are talking about.

FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, GEOCENTRISM WAS A PSEUDO-SCIENCE. GEOCENTRISM, HOWEVER, AGREED WITH THE SCRIPTURES, THAT'S WHY THE CHURCH SUPPORTED IT. IT WAS SAID IN THE BIBLE THAT JOSHUA ORDERED THE SUN TO STAY STILL AND NOT THE EARTH. YOU NEED TO BE EDUCATED ON SCRIPTURE BY A NON-BELIEVER?

whoa! who told you that geocentrism was a pseudo-science during their time? anyways its obvious that you have lapses. this discussion proves that even if communities or school of sciences has accepted a certain theory still its subject to change. So NAS approval of evolution means nothing.

JUST BECAUSE GEOCENTRISM WAS BEING TAUGHT DOESN'T MEAN IT WAS SCIENCE. SCIENCE IS NOT A LOOSE WORD. IT ENTAILS STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE SCIENTIFIC METHODS...WHICH I'LL EXPLAIN IN DETAIL LATER ON...IF YOU JUST STOP LITTERING THE THREAD WITH COPIOUS DROPPINGS FOR ME TO CLEAN UP.

ow it was science according to the great minds of old. you can call it whatever you like tho.

THE FACT YOU CAN PUT THE WORDS "ASTROLOGER" AND "ASTRONOMER" TO DESCRIBE PTOLEMY ALREADY TELLS YOU THE KIND OF "SCIENCE" THAT EXISTED IN THOSE DAYS.

I DIDN'T REDUCE PTOLEMY. HE JUST GOT HIS EARTH-CENTERED UNIVERSE THEORY WRONG.

A MATHEMATICIAN? YES. A STARGAZER? YES. A SCIENTIST? NOT IN THE STRICT SENSE OF THE WORD.

oh you didnt get it. Ptolemy is both and astronomer and astrologer. has nothing to do with the science of that time. its like saying that Dawkings is both a scientist and atheist.

LIKE I SAID, GALILEO WAS THE FATHER OF MODERN SCIENCE. HE STARTED THE METHOD OF EXPERIMENTATION AS A TEST FOR SCIENTIFIC TRUTH. PEOPLE IN THOSE DAYS USE OBSERVATION AND PHILOSOPHY...AND SOMETIMES SCRIPTURE...TO MAKE SENSE OF PHENOMENA.

IF GALILEO WAS THE PIONEER OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, WHAT DO YOU CALL THE PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T USE THOSE METHODS AND ATTACKED HIM? THEY'RE NOT SCIENTISTS, BY OUR DEFINITION.

Once again, my argument holds true.

wrong. the fact that you used the word modern science indicates that there was a science before that. they were scientists, they chart the heavens using mathematical equations.

think this debate on who persecuted Galileo is not only out of topic, but also going nowhere. SCIENTISTS PERSECUTED GALILEO? Can you provide me with that link? THIS CERTAINLY SOUNDS LIKE AN ATTEMPT BY JESUITS AT HISTORICAL OBSCURANTISM. In other words, you can always make it come out right in due time and everyone will be none the wiser.

I have already presented evidences and arguments in favor of evolution somewhere in this thread. I don't know if I'll be wasting my time if I'm going to indulge you with another exposition of the theory, about which you've already made up your mind. ARE YOU A PRIEST OR SOMEONE IN HOLY ORDER? ARE YOU A BIBLICAL FUNDAMENTALIST? ARE YOU A DYED-IN-THE-WOOL CREATIONIST? If you answer YES to any of these questions, then I'm sorry...I'll just be wasting my time. It will be like, as the parable goes, "the seeds that fell on the pavement and trampled upon by passers-by".

link? hahaha...i have a different source, im not a google instant genius.

right and those arguments have a lot of defects, you even evaded my question and you havent provided any hard evidence that a creature can evolve into a different creature if it is given millions of years.

evidence please not semantics.

[LOLzZz]

Every reason you come up with not to believe in the FSM is the very same reason I don't believe in your god. Think about that for a while. Think and think until you think a whole in the ground.

how can i believe in FSM when there are no records that shows that it exist. is tis FSM of yours have Life? omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent?