There's too many hate for Christians around the World

[Derangel]

1 hour ago, colonelsofcorn said:

Trust me, if someone can find evidence that reasonably conforms to the scientific method, I'm all game. 

 

Several have been posted and there are literally thousands out there. The problem is that you have zero understanding of what the scientific method is and are instead using hypocritical statements to try and disprove something. You have nothing but blind faith in your beliefs. There is no scientific proof of any religion being right, period. There are some pretty good theories on when and why Christianity formed and none of them have anything to do with burning bushes or pretend men in the sky talking to people. Various version of the "Jesus" story existed long before Christianity and from multiple different religions. Some dating back long before he was supposed to have been alive. There was the Persian savior go Mithra who was supposedly crucified somewhere between 600 and 400 B.C. Going back further there is Chrishna from India, supposedly crucified in 1200 B.C. In fact there were 16 supposed crucifixions of gods before Jesus and about half of them were supposed to have been born from Virgins, some were even supposedly born when Christians celebrate Jesus' birthday.

 

Christianity likely came about around 235 A.D. and was an amalgamation of several different religions, created due to Emperor Constantine of Rome believing that all the different religions of the time were causing too much conflict and there needed to be one religion for the Roman Empire. This is why there are so many weird inaccuracies and continuity errors in the bible (at least with the Old Testament). It's trying to merge the myths and legends of several religions into one and create a coherent narrative. This Emperor Constantine is the same one that murdered his own wife and son and was later made into a Saint.

[colonelsofcorn]

1 hour ago, Albatross said:

What do you accept as "reasonable"?

Reasonable would mean that it follows all the steps of the scientific method as I learned them. 

[colonelsofcorn]

22 minutes ago, MrDynamicMan said:

So we call the Bullshit now or later? Evolution has been observed, in modern day gala pages finches. There's was one island species that scientists had observed the population of. Gradually, over a couple years, the population began to diverge. The beaks were either abnormally large or abnormally small. The larger beaded finches had evolved like that to Crack nuts, while the smaller beaks were more adept at fishing out grubs from bark. You're gonna counter with "buts that's micro evolution, that doesn't prove macro evolution!" Thing is, there is no difference. A "Macro evolution" is simply a large enough accumulation of micro evolutions so that the two populations of a species can no longer breed and become separate species. 

It all sounds reasonable, really, but since we cannot observe these large scale changes I cannot in good conscience accept their supposed occurrence as fact. 

[MrDynamicMan]

17 minutes ago, colonelsofcorn said:

It all sounds reasonable, really, but since we cannot observe these large scale changes I cannot in good conscience accept their supposed occurrence as fact. 

 

Did I mention willfully ignorant? 

But sure, let's turn this argument the other way. When exactly did you measure God. 

[stconquest]

Whoever taught him the scientific method failed miserably.

 

Pro Tip:  If someone comes to a conclusion by irrational means, no amount of rationale will aid to correct that conclusion.

[MrDynamicMan]

4 hours ago, colonelsofcorn said:

Reasonable would mean that it follows all the steps of the scientific method as I learned them. 

You had a crap teacher. 

 

Also, another thing I'd like to say. You insist evolution is Bullshit because you're a skeptic and it isn't rationale... So the logic conclusion is an impossible, all powerful being that controls everything and created the universe...? Can you spell hypocritical? 

[colonelsofcorn]

17 minutes ago, MrDynamicMan said:

You had a crap teacher. 

 

Also, another thing I'd like to say. You insist evolution is Bullshit because you're a skeptic and it isn't rationale... So the logic conclusion is an impossible, all powerful being that controls everything and created the universe...? Can you spell hypocritical? 

As I've previously mentioned in this thread: barring all religion and creationism in me, I still cannot see how evolution holds up scientifically. 

[colonelsofcorn]

3 hours ago, stconquest said:

Whoever taught him the scientific method failed miserably.

 

Pro Tip:  If someone comes to a conclusion by irrational means, no amount of rationale will aid to correct that conclusion.

It's entirely possible. My schools have been the worst. How I learned it was that you cannot come to a conclusion without observing the reaction/experiment/poll (etc) without seeing it through from start to finish. 

[stconquest]

45 minutes ago, colonelsofcorn said:

It's entirely possible. My schools have been the worst. How I learned it was that you cannot come to a conclusion without observing the reaction/experiment/poll (etc) without seeing it through from start to finish. 

Hold on... how have you experimented with life to determine whether or not evolution is a plausible theory?

[Bhav]

Evolution has been observed. New species arising from old ones is not what evolution is only about, this is just an extrapolated hypothesis based on rational logic from what we have observed with hereditary and variation. The main crux of evolution is simply different genes = different features. Genes had not yet been discovered when Darwin made his original theory, but after they were they proved that just about everything Darwin had observed and hypothesized about his plants and finches was irrefutibly correct.

 

A chimpanzee and human are 99% genetically similar, a human and a mouse 90%, a human and a banana plant 70%. Let that sink in, its definitely rational from the evidence to believe that different species arrised from millions of years of eventual evolution and mutations.

[Bhav]

4 minutes ago, AlexTheRose said:

So what is the rest of our DNA doing? If we have 70% of our DNA in common with a fucking banana, what is that 70% in common?

Cellular division and functions of organelles. Stuff like RNA transcription of DNA.

[stconquest]

2 minutes ago, AlexTheRose said:

So what is the rest of our DNA doing? If we have 70% of our DNA in common with a fucking banana, what is that 70% in common?

I remember something about the method by which we process sugar as similar to how plants do it.  That maybe one thing.

[Bhav]

Just now, AlexTheRose said:

That’s quite a lot of DNA for some basic shit, but then again what do I know, haha. I thought we were very different from bananas, but maybe not after all.

 

Isn’t it true that for billions of years there were just plants, and no animals for a long time?

Well we are very different, it just doesnt take much DNA variation to create a lot of difference.

[stconquest]

Just now, Bhav said:

Well we are very different, it just doesnt take much DNA variation to create a lot of difference.

What is the difference between chimps and us... a single set of chromosomes that fused with another set in humans and stayed distinct in chimps?

[Bhav]

8 minutes ago, stconquest said:

What is the difference between chimps and us... a single set of chromosomes that fused with another set in humans and stayed distinct in chimps?

I cant say for sure as I only studied human biology. There was no involvement of plant or animal DNA in my modules, and I mainly focused on Immunology and Genetics (wanted to go into either one or both with immunogenetics).

 

Didnt get a 2.1 though so its not worth anything, nowhere would take me on with a 2.2 for any postgrad stuff.

[MrDynamicMan]

1 hour ago, colonelsofcorn said:

As I've previously mentioned in this thread: barring all religion and creationism in me, I still cannot see how evolution holds up scientifically. 

And I'll say it again, if you are that much of a critic why believe in God? 

[ThinkWithPortals]

22 minutes ago, AlexTheRose said:

I thought we were very different from bananas

Some people, it seems, share much more than their DNA with bananas. Their IQs, for example.

[MrDynamicMan]

1 hour ago, colonelsofcorn said:

 

^can't unquote for some reason. Sorry. 

_______

5 minutes ago, AlexTheRose said:

“Religion is the period in human evolution where we are intelligent enough to ask profound questions but not intelligent enough to answer them.” —An atheist, somewhere.

Awww you.

[BuckGup]

9 hours ago, Bhav said:

And btw Hitler was a Chrisrian.

Some dude just said he wasn't religious at all. 

[BLoCkZ420]

[dalekphalm]

8 minutes ago, SamStrecker said:

Some dude just said he wasn't religious at all. 

He was raised a Christian.

 

Whether you still want to call him one as an "Adult" is questionable. I do not believe he "identified" as a Christian, nor did he actively practice, as an adult, during his rise to power.

 

So he might have been Christian at one point, but that had absolutely no impact on his actions during the Third Reich.

[spwath]

On 8/4/2016 at 7:33 AM, Misanthrope said:

Is not only not sanctioned is explicitly forbidden. And not that I want to incite an in war here though I am genuinely curious: How do you deal with Christians that say "Oh well Jesus didn't forbid it, the old testament is only for Jewish people" which is an argument I've heard from Christians countless of times, even on this thread (I think).

Wow, GOD'S WORD® puts it harshly....

Quote

They deserve to die.

 

[colonelsofcorn]

5 hours ago, MrDynamicMan said:

And I'll say it again, if you are that much of a critic why believe in God? 

Because it's the most viable answer I've been able to find. It's pretty easily backed up, too, one book explains everything.

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, colonelsofcorn said:

Because it's the most viable answer I've been able to find. It's pretty easily backed up, too, one book explains everything.

One book, written by people over a span of 1800 years. Hell, most of the stuff and accounts in the New Testament were written between decades and centuries after Jesus died, by people who didn't witness any of the events being written about.

 

Do you also think the Book of Mormon is factual? That's a book, after all. And that seems to be the extent of the logic that you're using.

[bob345]

8 hours ago, colonelsofcorn said:

It's entirely possible. My schools have been the worst. How I learned it was that you cannot come to a conclusion without observing the reaction/experiment/poll (etc) without seeing it through from start to finish. 

So then by that logic, all electronics are fake and dont actually exist because you have not directly observed a transistor functioning. All you see is the outcome. Therefor the internet is fake and this post doesn't even exist.