Civil Discussion About Religion

the reason they cannot be proven is becaue they are just theoies. why is it people need scientific proof to know if something exists ? i believe some poeple who are non believers use science as a crutch. they are fearfull of what happens after death and they say to themselves "well i can't see god and there's not enough scientific evidence to prove he is real, so i'll just continue to not believe".

can you see the wind ? no, but you can see and feel the effects of the wind. what is your reasoning for believing there is a thing called wind? is it because some scientists created a way to measure the speed of it.

Very, very good post.
I also noticed the same thing. Evolution can't be proven, but it is universally beleived by athiests / agnostics etc. God can not be proven, but He is universally dismissed by the same people. Why is God dismissed, but evolution embraced? Niether can be proven 100%. Doesn't make sense to me.

Will your system work in Russian Roulette? :food-smil

hahaha,
no...but it would work better if you were the first to pull the trigger. AT least then you have a 1 in 8 shot of it not getting you. I would just personally rather play with money..I can make more of that, I can't create another life. Not worth the odds.

The only reason the theories can't be proven was because we weren't around to record history over the course of billions of years. I'd love for you to go into details, because all of the arguments against the theory of evolution are scientifically flimsy at best.
The arguments against evolution are a lot stronger than the arguments for it. Evolution has basically been proven to be false. The scientists just have no other ideas against a creator, so they are sticking with evolution.

The arguments against evolution are a lot stronger than the arguments for it. Evolution has basically been proven to be false. The scientists just have no other ideas against a creator, so they are sticking with evolution.

Can you please provide a link to some information that has proven evolution to be false?

Because now you're just making things up.

That's not even close to being true.

Glad to see you got my point. :rolleyes:

However, I will tell you this, I have NEVER lost in roulette. In fact I have paid for my cruises with my system...and I have written a short "book" on how anyone can do it. I've won my mother (a complete idiot in gambling) lots of money. There are several keys, like never bet a ton of money, but what I bank on is that the wheel will always right itself. Just because you can't understand how I win, doesn't mean it is not possible. Also, you never stay at the wheel more than approximately 5 minutes at a time...I will not divulge my system, especially to such a person that only wants to pick it apart without looking at it...but I will give my basics to anyone that wants them via private message. (please only people that have played it before, it takes too long to explain the entire table)

You ask why I don't live in Vegas?
1- Since I figured out that the world will right itself somehow / equal the field, I have won over 10k in 4 years. (hope the tax man isn't watching) However, it comes at a price. It takes time and energy.
2- It's not fun. I had fun when I started, but inevitably, you will lose some and then have to gain it back to win overall. It's work.
3- There ARE people that make a career out of it, and make a very good living. It's not your fault you don't know, you're just skeptical.

ps- flipping a coin is not like playing roulette, you have 38 options in roulette, only 2 with flipping a coin. But I will say this, try flipping a coin 100 times and always use more or less umph when flipping (like a roulette dealer will use more or less umph to toss the ball on the wheel) and keep track of how many times it hits heads or tails. If you flip the same way every time, it will hit one more than the other, but if you change it up the coin will hit heads anywhere from 40-60% of the time, so why does it not hit say 10% of the time? Or 15% of the time?
I actually did a long study of how many numbers were hit and how often..I did over 10,000 rolls on the roulette system, and I noticed patterns. Like, don't EVER pick the actual numbers, you will lose.

I made this way too long...especially since you likely will not listen.

After thinking about it, I don't think a PM could explain the system since it doesn't have enough room, I'd need to e-mail the system.

You're right, I definitely am not listening. Your system is full of crap. If you really believed that strongly in it, you'd be in Vegas making tons of money. You actually mean to tell me that betting roullette in Vegas is hard work?

Find me one mathemetician or one expert on gaming that would agree that patterns exist in roullette.

the reason they cannot be proven is becaue they are just theoies. why is it people need scientific proof to know if something exists ? i believe some poeple who are non believers use science as a crutch. they are fearfull of what happens after death and they say to themselves "well i can't see god and there's not enough scientific evidence to prove he is real, so i'll just continue to not believe".

can you see the wind ? no, but you can see and feel the effects of the wind. what is your reasoning for believing there is a thing called wind? is it because some scientists created a way to measure the speed of it.

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.

to say that you have NEVER lost in roulette, either you have only played a handful of times, or are full of it. because sooner or later, its always about the money

Actually you are not arguing what is "most likely the truth". You are arguing what is "most likely your opinion". Because what is most likely the truth is that there is a higher being of some sort, and science proves that. Like I said before, science goes as far back as it can, then scientists say that something had to have started it all. Everything has a beginning, everything, the only thing (in theory) that doesn't, is a "devine" being. Also, ask a doctor how the human body was made, and he / she will say it's too complex to be by accident. Does this prove the existance of God? Not definitively, no. But it certainly would lean more towards the truth being that there is a God, not that there isn't.
If you want to feel that everything that happened to us and everything around you is just one giant coincidence, that's your choice.

Science proves that there's a divine being? Please provide a link.

Doctors say life is too complex to be made by accident? Please provide a link.

I don't believe a word you're telling me. It makes it very difficult to have a serious debate when someone just makes things up.

If you can substantiate it, then I'll continue this discussion. If you can't, well then you've wasted enough of my time already.

Can you please provide a link to some information that has proven evolution to be false?

Because now you're just making things up.

That's not even close to being true.
Top Evidences Against the Theory of Evolution (http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm)

It can be noted that natural selection as a driving mechanism for evolution is totally inadequate. Natural selection (along with mutation) is said to have caused organisms to evolve from one basic kind (animals which can reproduce with one another) into another basic kind. This is prohibited genetically since all of the information for the development of an organism has already been encoded in the DNA of its parent. Variation to organisms must remain within its basic kind. For example, genetically, a wide variety of dogs can come to exist, but a dog can never become anything other than a dog. It remains in its kind. It does not have the genetic ability to become anything more. Admitting this, evolutionists have tried to explain that natural selection happened in conjunction with mutations to the genetic code. This could not produce evolution, however, since mutations do not create new genetic potential, they just alter what is already there. Furthermore, mutations are small, random, and harmful alterations to the genetic code. This also makes evolution from mutations impossible. For example, a working wristwatch does not improve but is harmed when its inside parts are randomly altered. Natural selection also contradicts the second law of thermodynamics which states that, left to themselves, all things tend to deteriorate rather than develop, while evolution wants to go in the opposite direction. "Survival of the fittest" demonstrates only how an organism has survived, not how it has evolved.

Just click on the link. It will tell you even more.

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.

thank you, you are actually proving my point when you say "you don't have to see something to know it exists". that's the exact reason i know god does exist. just like the wind, i've never seen him but also just like the wind, i have seen and felt the effects of him.
we can debate this until we're both blue in the face but the fact is god has changed me, he has made me into a different person, that is a fact you can never argue against. i'm living proof that god does exist.