evolution can be and is proven, religion is not and will never be proven.

 

while were on the topic of things to consider, maybe its time you admit your a presumptuous ****.

 

Just as you may be convicted of believing in what you posted, I am convicted in my beliefs. I respect your choice to believe what you do and to be able to post it

Just as I expect you to respect my choice to believe in what I do and my ability to post about it.

I believe that there is one God, one Bible, and one Christ. Through the grace of Christ and faith in him one will have eternal life in Heaven. Everyone will have eternal life. Some in hell and some in Heaven.

 

my ethics teacher told me "God" wanted hurricane katrina to happen to teach people to believe

 

being bored at work has been entertaining now.

 

lol I thought I posted it in the right place

 

seriously, i love the christian response... "its just a theory".


exactly... look up what a theory is. a hypothesis is a guess a theory ios backed up by evidence. when you say "evolution is just a theory" with a smarmy look on your face you are validating the work of thousands of people and you don't even know it.

religion isnt even to the hypothesis level... it isnt clearly defined or testable.

 

To be fair, science says the whole accident thing is more credable than the "ID" version. This comes from one fact...Believe in god requires faith...


Faith: the confident belief in the truth of or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.[1] It is also used for a belief, characteristically without proof.[2] Informal usage of the word "faith" can be quite broad, and may be used standardly in place of "trust", "belief", or "hope". For example, the word "faith" can refer to a religion itself or to religion in general. As with "trust", faith involves a concept of future events or outcomes.

Science: the effort to discover and increase human understanding of how physical reality works. Its purview is the portion of reality which is independent of religious, political, cultural, or philosophical outlook. Using controlled methods, scientists collect data in the form of observations, records of observable physical evidence of natural phenomena, and analyze this information to construct theoretical explanations of how things work.

The two can not be combined. You can not observe true physical evidence, and have faith that it was caused by "god" at the same time.

 

no no no thats all wrong. god hates black people, just ask the mormons. its one of their tenets.

 

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." -Carl Sagan

 

"what the **** is juice?" - dave chappelle


neither of our quotes is relevant to the discussion

 

theres a lull in posting....

the hypochristians must be praying for guidance. heres an idea: use your brain for once instead of asking for the answer.

 

ttiwwop

 

right, i'll trust something that i can understand and make sense of. religion thus far as a whole, has been nothing but confusion. what i think is that religion was created to explain the unexplainable(dating back to the ancient egypt or greece) and to govern the society, i prefer to try and explain the unexplainable instead of creating something that fits to describe the unexplainable.

 

post of the day.... right there.