The Great Heated Debate 1.

[Excel]

I'm sure he would love to hear that Aramir, but he's busy with college work right now and said that it will be a few days before he can get a chance to post again. So he told me to take over for him for a little while (eep)>.<

But I really don't know what to say. I want to stay neutral with topics as deep as these anyway so I don't cause offence to anybody. And yeah...just how DID the people that long ago know what was best? I really am speechless. ;D

[Aramir]

That is a good question, that you will have to answer for yourself.

[ZeldAClown]

Sorry to hold things up abit, but I just so happen to have some spare time on my hands.

Aramir said:

They did not know anything about prothrombin levels. Coincidence? Possibly, but you know what I think ; )

Um, how does 'trial and error' sound? If you are constantly 'snipping' new born babies, it doesn't take a genius to spot that they bleed less on a certain day. I really don't think that this desision (like many others) was due to divine intervention. From there, well, you already know what I think .Actually, this reminds me of a list of 'anti-science' stuff that sombody once showed me:

THE BIBLE
(2,000–3,000 years ago)

1) The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22)
2) Innumerable stars (Jeremiah 33:22)
3) Free float of earth in space (Job 26:7).
4) Creation made of invisible elements (Hebrews 11:3).
5) Each star is different (1 Corinthians 15:41).
6) Light moves (Job 38:19,20).
7) Air has weight (Job 28:25).
8) Winds blow in cyclones (Ecclesiastes 1:6).
9) Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11).
10) Ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains (2 Samuel 22:16; Jonah 2:6).
11) Ocean contains springs (Job 38:16).
12) When dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13)

SCIENCE THEN.

1) The earth was a flat disk.
2) Only 1,100 stars.
3) Earth sat on a large animal.
4) Science was ignorant on the subject.
5) All stars were the same.
6) Light was fixed in place.
7) Air was weightless.
8) Winds blew straight.
9) Sick people must be bled.
10) The ocean floor was flat.
11) Ocean fed only by rivers and rain.
12) Hands washed in still water.

SCIENCE NOW.

1) The earth is a sphere.
2) Innumerable stars.
3) Free float of earth in space.
4) Creation made of invisible elements (atoms).
5) Each star is different
6) Light moves
7) Air has weight.
8) Winds blow in cyclones.
9) Blood is the source of life and health.
10) Ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains.
11) Ocean contains springs.
12) When dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water.

If you ask me, the only fact there, is that somebody a few thousand years ago made some pretty astute observations. The difference between science and the Bible is the reason for things being the way they are.

I personally find scientific explanations (which tend to be more detailed) more believable than "God made it that way, stop asking questions".

Aramir said:

When most people argue about this subject, they usually just throw out a bunch of brainless arguments that have no evidence to back them up.

You used the magic word, there Aramir- evidence. Science has a ton of it. How much does the Bible have? I've not seen much that didn't smack off people desperately trying to come up with something to "prove" something that's supposed to be based on arbirtary personal beliefs in the first place.

Ashley Montague wrote:
Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof.

This has to be one of the best quotes in existance as it pins down the essence of why Evolutionists and Creationists are in conflict. Furthermore, looking at the quote, it's obvious which side I would rather be on.

*Okay, i'm done for now*

[rocklord2004]

personally i beleive that the more you say the easier it is to throw in unnoticed contradictions and also say pointless things to make your point sound more valid

[Aramir]

Well, Zelda_Clown, once again, you make interesting observations, however, this debate (Historically) will never have an end until we die and find out for ourselves. Science can no more disprove that there is a God, than it could prove it. I would like to say that I love science. Anyone moron that would be anti-science, is just that; a moron. Science serves a good purpose in life, as does religion.

[ZeldAClown]

rocklord2004 said:

personally i beleive that the more you say the easier it is to throw in unnoticed contradictions and also say pointless things to make your point sound more valid

Then by all means, point out my errors.

[rocklord2004]

well the fact that you seem to dodge most of aramirs questions by stating pointless stuff is one way. i dont think youve honestly answered a single post of his.(i dont feel like reviewing to see) i do know he is almost done arguing because you dont seem to listen or be open to new ideas.

[Excel]

Okay...now i'm confused.

I like reading this thread, and as far as I can tell, ZeldAClown answerd every question with a responce...infact, I can see some questions raised by ZeldAClown that were not answerd by either you or Aramir. And I can tell you now from first hand experience that ZeldAClown does keep a very open mind about pretty much everything, and he says that he maintains his strong position becuase nobody has offered an argument that he couldn't counter in any serious way.

I hope this thread continues to grow, It really is GREAT entertainment. ^^

[Aramir]

I apologize if I have failed to reply to anything on this thread. It was certainly not my intention to do so. We all have to realize that there are just some things that science has no answer for and there are some things that religion has no scientific answer for, therefore this debate could go on forever. Both sides will always be in conflict. Atheists will say "show me proof", while religous people will say "prove me wrong". Bottom line, science cannot prove that there is not a God. Religion, for the most part, cannot prove (SCIENTIFICALLY) that there is a God. Religion is largely based on faith, and faith is also involved in science. Back to the beginning of the Universe, both sides believe in something that cannot be scientifically proven. Creationists believe that God has always existed and he created the universe, while science says that rocks, gas, dust, (The building blocks of the universe) have always existed and that they created the universe. Scientifically, neither side can prove either of these things, therefore, it will just be back and forth until we die. That having been said, I would like to point something out. What happens if you believe in God, and when you die, you find out that there is no God? Asolutely nothing. You don't gain anything, you don't lose anything. What happens if you don't believe in God, and when you die, you find out that there is a God? What have you gained? Nothing. What have you lost? Everything. Finally, I would like to say that extreme views are ridiculous. There has to be a happy medium. I am a Christian, but I believe science is extremely important in life. Science provides us medicine, life saving technology, and excellent video games among other things. Whether you believe in a religion or not, you have to admit that it does serve and important purpose in society. It instills good morals and ethics and provides us with hope and love. Now, given, you can have good morals, ethics, hope, and love without religion (I know many atheists that are really good people), but almost all ideas of morals, ethics, etc. come from religion. No one in history has ever been able to prove that the Bible is wrong. Many have tried. Many historic empires have tried to eradicate the Bible and its teachings, and yet it has prevailed. Voltaire said that Christianity would be dead by the 1850's, but yet it endures today. Final thoughts: Science vs. Religion: they will both always exist, and I am glad that both of them will exist.

[Aramir]

Oh and by the way, your trial and error theory about the isrealites knowing when to circumcise their children does not hold water, because, it wasn't the fact that they bled less on certain days, it was the fact that their blood contained higher levels of prothrombin which allowed the blood to clot. There was no way they could have known about that. Now, maybe your argument would be, "well that's just a coincidence", and that's always a valid conclusion.

[rocklord2004]

i would also like to state that science is a wonderful thing. if there was no science i would not be here today. i would have died around the age of 6. but either way you have to ask your self one question. eternity, smoking or non-smoking?

[renewal]

Non-Smoking for me thank you!!! Hee hee

[Excel]

I guess that's the end of it then All that's left now is for ZeldAClown to post his final statement. I wonder what he'll say?

[rocklord2004]

i hope it has something to do with monkeys. i like monkeys they are fun. i wanna be a monkey a monkey monkey monkey.

[Rauru]

B..ut, but what if you are already a monkey? I mean... oops!