Civil Discussion About Religion

I wasn't going to respond to this, but since Jsarno actually bought this crap, now I feel the need.

You can see and feel the effects of the wind because it has been scientifically proven to exist. Wind is caused by the movement of air molecules (oxygen, nitrogen, etc.) which moves due to differences in high and low barometric pressure. Those molecules are gaseous matter. They move towards low pressure pockets in the atmosphere. You can measure the wind's velocity - our weathermen can tell us when wind gusts hit 50 mph. This isn't voodoo. It's science.

And pretty simple science at that.

This post of yours makes me feel very disappointed in the American education system, specifically the math & science departments. You don't have to see something to know it exists. There are other ways to prove it. However, there is no proof that God exists.

Yet another example of you missing the point.

Why does something have to be "scientifically proven" ie: thought to be true by MAN, for you to beleive it?
There are galaxies farther away from us than we can see or touch, a ton of them beyond our technologies...do they exist? By your standards, they don't. Only what can be seen or touched is true. I would hate to be limited by what a flawed man tells me to be true.

He was talking about the air not being able to be seen, but it still exists. Please understand what people are saying, because to have to explain things twice gets annoying. We're all listening to you, listen to everyone else too. You don't have to agree, just don't jump to conclusions.

ps- there are fish / creatures that live deep in the oceans that we have yet to reach, there is a whole world in our seas that we have not tapped...do they exist? There is literally millions upon millions of things that man has yet to prove, does that mean it doesn't exist? Is cancer curable? Is there an answer to birth defects? What is the meaning of life...ok I threw that one in for giggles.

What a fucking joke. Give me a scientific journal or some other source with credibility. I mean give me an effing break, the Vatican can't even put out anything that disproves the theory of evolution.

Have you ever heard the expression that when you point your finger, there are 3 pointing back at you?
You have talked about having lively debate, but most everyone here has been calm and provided ample info to wrap your mind around (for or against religion / evolution) but you use anger, profanity and demean people. Why?
This is my last response to you. Some people are just closed minded and they can't think outside the box...you my friend are the poster child at this point.
When you make a comment we look at it and evaluate it. When we make a comment, it's like you don't even read the entire post, you just instantly go into attack mode. It doesn't make for lively debate.
I'm not trying to attack you, if you feel I have, I am sorry for that. Just remember you can learn something from the oldest man, or the youngest child. I learn something every day from the oddest places.

If you read my entire post, you will see that I say you will lose if you stay too long. I have lost small battles, but have always won the war...in other words, I have always walked away from my time at playing (sometimes a 4 or 5 times a day, for 5 straight days) with money in my pocket. Does that help you understand what I meant?

No. It actually makes no mathematical sense. The more you play, the more you lose. It's a basic law of averages.

Yet another example of you missing the point.

Why does something have to be "scientifically proven" ie: thought to be true by MAN, for you to beleive it?
There are galaxies farther away from us than we can see or touch, a ton of them beyond our technologies...do they exist? By your standards, they don't. Only what can be seen or touched is true. I would hate to be limited by what a flawed man tells me to be true.

He was talking about the air not being able to be seen, but it still exists. Please understand what people are saying, because to have to explain things twice gets annoying. We're all listening to you, listen to everyone else too. You don't have to agree, just don't jump to conclusions.

ps- there are fish / creatures that live deep in the oceans that we have yet to reach, there is a whole world in our seas that we have not tapped...do they exist? There is literally millions upon millions of things that man has yet to prove, does that mean it doesn't exist? Is cancer curable? Is there an answer to birth defects? What is the meaning of life...ok I threw that one in for giggles.

No you're misunderstanding me. I understood his point, he said just because you can't see the wind doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Likewise, you can't see God, but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist. I got the point. Now here's mine: I only believe that things exist if there is scientific evidence that it exists. I don't have to see the evidence with my eyes, but there has to be evidence. Wind: you don't see it, but you feel it on your skin, and you can measure its velocity. Chemical scanners can analyze it and tell you that it's made up of oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, and other gases. Other stars in space: detected by Hubble.

I don't believe God exists because there's no evidence of it. People who believe in him go on faith. In the bolded part above, you're simply asking the fundamental question. Do you or don't you believe God exists? I don't. I need evidence. There is NONE. There is only faith. That's not enough for me. If it is for you, that's fine. But please, don't try to tell me that because I can't see the wind, and because I can't see God, therefore he exists. That's the most retarded logic in the world.

You call this "proof"???

"There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present."

That doesn't prove anything. All that says is that evolution has not been proven. It definitely does not say that evolution has been disproven.

PS Don't give me a link to a ridiculous site done by some hack named Doug LaPointe and pass it off as scientific proof.

What a fucking joke. Give me a scientific journal or some other source with credibility. I mean give me an effing break, the Vatican can't even put out anything that disproves the theory of evolution.
Here is some more "proof." Scientific Evidence against Evolution (concise and short) (http://www.changinglivesonline.org/evolution.html)
If it's all so wrong, why don't you disprove it, instead of taking two sentences and saying that this doesn't disprove evolution. What you said didn't prove anything about evolution either.

Have you ever heard the expression that when you point your finger, there are 3 pointing back at you?
You have talked about having lively debate, but most everyone here has been calm and provided ample info to wrap your mind around (for or against religion / evolution) but you use anger, profanity and demean people. Why?
This is my last response to you. Some people are just closed minded and they can't think outside the box...you my friend are the poster child at this point.
When you make a comment we look at it and evaluate it. When we make a comment, it's like you don't even read the entire post, you just instantly go into attack mode. It doesn't make for lively debate.
I'm not trying to attack you, if you feel I have, I am sorry for that. Just remember you can learn something from the oldest man, or the youngest child. I learn something every day from the oddest places.

I seem close minded to you because I'm unwilling to go on faith alone regarding the existence of God. I was engaging the morons in this thread who tried to present "scientific" evidence that the theory of evolution has been disproven. I won't apologize for coming harsh at someone who does that. Everyone knows that there is no scientific evidence disproving the theory of evolution. If there was, it would never be taught in our public schools again. Giving me a link to some guy's musings and passing it off as scientific proof is nothing short of retarded, and quite frankly, insulting to my intelligence.

I have no problem with your views at all. I think if you believe in it, that's great. There really is no harm in being religious at all (as long as you don't organize against other faiths or discriminate against other faiths, and I don't think you do). What I have a problem with is trying to pass off a heaping pile of crap as actual evidence. I mean we all went to high school right? We all know that evidence needs to come from credible sources, right? We know that if we write a term paper and say something like E=MC2 (my friend James told me so). No, we have to put E=MC2 (Einstein).

Just like in Redskin related threads we ask for links to news stories, I'm doing the same thing here. You can't come on the board making claims that aren't true and then go linking to some hack. Again, the problem wasn't with his or your belief. The problem was with the style of debate.

Religion is all about faith. For anyone to think they can prove the existence of God, then they don't even understand religion at all. His existence cannot be proven. You can only believe in him based on faith. That's the entire point of religion: believe in Him and ye shall be saved.

Here is some more "proof." Scientific Evidence against Evolution (concise and short) (http://www.changinglivesonline.org/evolution.html)
If it's all so wrong, why don't you disprove it, instead of taking two sentences and saying that this doesn't disprove evolution. What you said didn't prove anything about evolution either.

Dude, what don't you understand here?? You are linking to Christian websites.

I said SCIENTIFIC evidence. Did you go to high school?

Here is some more "proof." Scientific Evidence against Evolution (concise and short) (http://www.changinglivesonline.org/evolution.html)
If it's all so wrong, why don't you disprove it, instead of taking two sentences and saying that this doesn't disprove evolution. What you said didn't prove anything about evolution either.

While I would have phrased it much more diplomatically than Schneed, he is correct that the types of websites you have linked to are not scientific proof. At best, they are collections of sound-bites cobbled together to provide talking points. I think he is asking for something that follows the scientific method and that has been accepted through the peer-review process (even if peers don't agree with it).

Dude, what don't you understand here?? You are linking to Christian websites.

I said SCIENTIFIC evidence. Did you go to high school?
You're not even reading it. It is scientific evidence. Do you think there is no such thing as a scientist that believes in God? If it is all false, then why don't you disprove it?

Roulette 101: Pick a number, put down a wager, like $5. If the ball does not land on your #, you lose $5. Since you are down $5 you need to make the original wager plus your total loss. So place a $10 bet on the same number. If you lose the $10 dollars you must put in (at least) $15. You have to have sufficient funds to continue with this way of wagering until eventually your number is the one that the ball lands on. It may take a thousand dollars or more but that's about the only (and simplest) way of making cash in roulette. The key is picking the same number (or group of numbers) until you win AND you always bet more than your total loss thus far.

You actually have a good mind for what my system says. But don't bet the actual numbers. Bet the black and reds, and bet the 1st / 2nd / 3rd 12's, and the even / odds. A simple way is this...put $5 on 2nd 12, and $5 on 3rd 12. Then put $5 on red, and $5 on odd. (total of $20 on table) So let's say it hits on black 13. You won with 2nd 12, so that's $10 winning there, you also won with $5 odd, so that's $5 there, so you won $15, and get $10 back from your wager (the $5 on 2nd twelve and the $5 on odd) You lost $10 total (from 3rd 12, and black). So you now have $25 in your pocket, which means you are up $5 total. Now since you already won 2nd 12 and odd, don't play those again, but double the money in the area you did lose in. So bet $10 red this time. If You lose again, bet $20 and so on, so let's say you hit on that $20 bet. Now you win $20, but only lost $10...$15 if you count the first $5, but I already counted that in my previous numbers, so you just won $10 more. So now your first session is over and you have won / taken away from the table, $15. Repeat the process when you notice patterns. ie: Red has hit 3 times in a row, or 1st 12 hit 2 times in a row. Etc.

A non beleiver will always be a non beleiver unless they try.
So try Free Roulette: Learn to play roulette today for free (http://www.freeroulette.com) and give my basic system a try. I have a complex system that I use, but that would take a really long time to explain.
I usually only do the system once or twice, occasionally 3 times depending on the patterns, then I walk away from the table with anywhere from $15-$75. Do this 10 times, and even at the smallest amount, you are up $150. I will generally play 30 times throughout my cruises (for instance) and the first time I went on a cruise I won over 1k. But I rarely win less than $500 when I do play. That is kinda my bench mark of success.
The second you get greedy, you lose. The second you stray from the process, you lose. If you think small, and think strategically, you'll win. Never let the other players around you intimidate you to play more, just stick to the process. The reason people lose at a lot of these games is because they get greedy. The best times to play are after 00 or 0 hit, cause the chance they hit again are slimmer. But after about 10-13 times of green not hitting, put $1 on both, when they do hit, and they will, you come out on top even more, if they don't while using my system, no biggy, you lost only a few dollars but you are still up a lot.