Creation Science is what they call it.

The snake tail barely eludes to a claw.

If it is a claw jumping to conclusions is not a proof.

You have to start with some sort of assumptions and show they are good ones to base a Science upon.

It is odd you wish to belittle me by stating my mind is malfunctioning by a picture. You would strengthen your case a lot by finding a particular recent past quote of mine in PRD putting it with this one and embracing them.

I'm out for the night PM me if you want a response. Yes I will respond tomorrow (nest 24 hours) if you want and PM.

this kid seems legit.

I'm shocked at how blinded Jazz_thing is. You didn't understand Spelczechs post at all. If you can't understand a simple paragraph, how can we trust that you can interpret anything else correctly. Yes, this is ad hominem because some people are simply beyond hope. Your hate for religion has blinded you. Try becoming a little more open minded and actually learn what both science and religion have to say. You have a fundamental misunderstanding about both.

if you look at the development of a snake, there are regions present in the snake embryo that form legs in mammalian embryos.
in some snake species these regions even go on to form nublike legs beneath the skin that remain present in the adult.
article on it here http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:UwF1UsyhNjwJ:www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/aprilholladay/2005-06-10-wonderquest_x.htm

How is this not being open minded? We have been looking for answers towards the origins of man, and here it is. Where is my misunderstanding, you seem to know how I think very well.

@Whirling Dervish:
Creation science isn't science. When you set your conclusion up, and then search for information to validate it, that isn't science. That is complete invalidation of the scientific method. Creation science is about a real a science as phrenology.

Absolutely true.

Creation science implies that there was a creator of sorts which refutes the aims of science 100%. This post and #68 which was directed at Spel pretty much sum up that religion cannot be proven with MORE complicated more "Scientific" religion.

This is some of the most incoherent babble I have ever read. I'm really not lying, you give Zeus a run for his money, you just use bigger words.

I never said, or even tried to imply, that the fact that it's old means that it's true. I said that it is old and it's 100% compatible with Science, and welcomes scientific endeavors as uncovering more of God's creation. These are INCREDIBLY different statements, and I can't even begin to comprehend what made you think that was what I said, tbh. I read your big pile of copypasta regarding that poll, but your premise is ridiculously flawed - evolution doesn't disprove the Bible at all, it simply proves that the Bible must have a metaphorical account of creation, which is something that has been known among educated Christians for over a millennium.

And no, I don't understand that reasoning, because it's fucking stupid. Deeply stupid. If Science is true and Religion is true, then the point of Science is to uncover the facts of God's creation, which leaves it practically untouched as far as the main point of Science. If Religion is true, If there is a God, then Science may or may not be able to prove it at some point, I guess, but it wouldn't be the point, really - the point would be the same point it is now, understanding more things that we don't understand.

That said, you can't really use -anything- to 'prove' religion, as far as I know. I never tried to prove religion, and the fact that you think I'm "Dancing around" while you continually misinterpret my posts and fail to comprehend what I'm saying is amaaaaazing. Absolutely amazing. And no, I am not using my premise to prove my conclusion, because my conclusion isn't "Religion is true," it's "Proof of Evolution does not constitute a destruction of religion."

Your interpretation of my statements is so ridiculously incorrect that I barely even know how you managed to pull it out of my words. My point was "This religion is very old and known for its lack of flexibility, and yet it has words in its official dogmas which specifically welcome scientific advances and which are in favor of trying to understand science." Comparing their coexistence with a tumor is so ridiculously hilarious that I would lol if I didn't despair so deeply about how stupid you are. Seriously, your reading comprehension just flies out the window any time you see my username, and I sorta wish I knew why.

By Compatibility, all I mean is "Can the two be simultaneously true?" The answer is undoubtedly "Yes." There are plenty of idiots who don't think so and feel as though the Bible must be literally interpreted, but those people have been considered idiots since at least Aquinas.

Sioux was pointing out that the two have almost entirely different demesnes, which is pretty much what I have been trying to say. The two have very little to do with each other. I don't believe that science will ever "Prove" God, and I haven't said anything that is even remotely related to that idea. I have no idea where the hell you get this shit, but it is wildly inaccurate. I don't think that science will ever prove religion, and the idea of "Religion proving science" is so very laughable that I could cry.

Also, the fact that you once again say something about the strawman horseshit of me trying to "Prove" religion while calling me an idiot made me lol so fucking hard. You're actually retarded, aren't you? It's the only thing that makes sense, at this point. You are retarded and your retardation makes you so sad that you have to project that retardation on others. Is that it?

Also, way to concede that Religion can be proven with Science by the end of your post. I didn't even say it, I never claimed it in the least, and yet you're already conceding the argument right there at the end. It's kinda cute, I guess, but it has absolutely fuck-all to do with anything that I ever said, ever, in my entire life, ever, to anyone at all. I don't think that religion will ever be "Proven," period. I think that proof would belie the entire point of religion, wutai.

ETA: If you read my post sideways and can line up the frowns with the first seven stars above the crab nebula, my post rearranges itself into the proof that God exists.

This post was edited by AiNedeSpelCzech on May 22 2009 11:29am

Since when was Science a metaphor? Its like trying to say that Sodium and Chlorine form Salt in some metaphorical sense and it is still the same thing as saying Na- + Cl + -> NaCl

Do you understand that these two concepts no matter what, if they are old, boring, eternal are NOT, the same statement, or even the same idea, and they never purport the same concept. I will quote you saying that since religion is older than science, it is verily truer:



Do you suffer from short term memory loss? You said you proved that they are compatible, thus it is true. Only in your mind are they compatible, and in REALITY they are not. Can you get that past your glasses and into your brain? The computer screen seems to be reflecting the actual content of my posts.

Oh, so now if you don't understand it, its stupid. Good job Spel, you have proven that you are Ignorant. Personally I know for a fact that Science and Religion are not compatible because Religion cannot establish objective causality, if you even know what the damn word "causality" means.

Science will prove the origins of the Universe, just like Science has proved the origins of man. Eventually there will be so much evidence within the Model of the Universe to substantiate exactly what caused the existence of the universe that the notion of a Creation would be absolutely inconceivable and at best a junked schema of human hope.

The big bang is not creation spel, it is a fundamental process of the universe that has yet to be explained by Science. Religion at best has the worst description of what actually happened and if anything diverts our attention from establishing the OBJECTIVE CAUSALITY of the universe.

You said you proved Religion's compatibility with Science, if this is true then every contention that Science makes is under the wing of religious pretext. Which is absolutely hypocritical and invalid. If you can't use anything to prove that Religion exists, then why bother trying to prove that it is compatible with anything in the first place? The answer is it has no place in science and at best science is more certainty than religion will ever provide.

Yes it does, because if God didn't create man then who did? The universe, the Earth, and pretty much events that could never be cataloged by religion. This is the most resounding defeat for religion. They have clinged to the supposed "Missing Link" invalidation of scientific process, unfortunately Religion has been slammed once again as Galileo did, as Newton Did, as Einstein did, as Francis Bacon did etc. Even though these men were all religious, they were deconstructing the foundations of religious truth one sinew at a time. That is my point.

Scientific advances do not welcome more truth in favor of religion, it just splinters its elegance into a useless crass.

You are the funniest poster because you do not make any sense of yourself and you claim everyone else to look idiotic or retarded. When in fact your posts somehow attempt to sunder the underlying fact that religion has been proven wrong. Again.

Religion and science have very little to do with each other yes, that means they are INCOMPATIBLE, spel you chase your own tail like a dog. The unadulterated objective of science is to PROVE things, establish objective causality.

I am not retarded, come up with better arguments, more evidence and less sad faces. At least if you want to sound in the least bit as smart as you claim to be by reducing practically everyone Else's posts by calling them "stupid" or "retarded" or using a one liner. (Sadface needed)

The amount of sadfaces you post is directly related to your desire to somehow establish that you are a sad and pitiful person. Congratulations, you have done so.

This post was edited by Jazz_Thing on May 22 2009 12:01pm

Why do you two hate each other? Every post where you both post turns into an argument.

Jazz, the ultimate goal of science or even a minor goal, is not that of displacing or disproving religion. The ultimate goal of science is to seek the truth, if that truth happens to directly oppose religion, its merely coincidence. The only reason evolution has so much debate from the religious camp, is because they made it an issue.

Ainedespelczech, keep up the good fight.