I'm going to make an argument about that, because it awfully sounds ridiculous. Clearly, we are required to learn a language to understand. Counting has became part of the language to develop ways to understand 'how many there are', 'how long the distance', 'how it works'. With language, we can learn math. As we progress through math, we can translate something absolutely complicated to establish accuracy.

I'm pretty sure that if it weren't for math, we wouldn't have houses, or ever kept track how many 'things' we have.

We don't "believe" 1+1 is 2, we know it through language. If Math fails, then why does it seem everything is accurate?

That has nothing to do with what I said. I was counter-acting to what FaZ was saying. And if you can really give me a 'proof' to 1+1=2 'mathematically', then you win. (Of course you won't, it's called propositional thesis- and the best part is it isn't even able to be proven at all.)

But then again, the people who are claiming facts are still wrong.

Let's say I believe in evolution. Keyword being believe. How did I get this belief?
Someone told me about Science and Evolution (magazine, teacher, parents, whatever.). But how did they know about it?
Someone told them about it. But how did the person that told them about it know about it?
Someone told them about it. But how did the person that told them about it know about it?

And it goes on and on until it reaches the source. Or, let's say, the few scientist that made such a "discovery".
What makes you so sure they are not lying? You can say that other people have found the same "evidence" but what makes YOU so sure that they are not in on it. What makes you so sure that your mind isn't deciving you?
Before you know it, more and more people start believing in it without seeing the actual evidence, if there is any.

Religion is, of course, the same way. But I am sick and tired of hearing people say "Science is factual, Religion is just crazy ideals." When really religion and science have so much in common.

Sure, one party may be right while the other is wrong. But there is absoloutly no way to 100% state something such as 'Evolution' is a complete fact or even close to it. Until someone can travel back in time, and watch it happen and be able to provide that exact same evidence to everyone in the world.

People who believe in Science are JUST as ignorant as people who believe in Religion.
Ignorance is bliss.

You have faith in Science.
I have faith in God.

It's about faith, not facts.
And debating the two is as useless as a poopy flavored lolly pop.

http://everything2.com/e2node/War%2520is%2520peace%252C%2520Freedom%2520is%2520slavery%252C%2520Ignorance%2520is%2520strength

Did you know that in order for something to be "science," is has to be a repeatable experiment. I've nevr seen anything in religion that is testable or repeatable. I don't believe you truely understand how science works...

And... wow, two sentences that just debunked a long and agonizing post. And, just so you know, someone reported your post -- mainly so that no one else wastes their time trying to debunk your horrible logic.

So, to all readers, please ignore his post, I just don't feel right deleting it.

Sure. And you might not be real. In fact, this desk may not be real. After all, all I know is that I myself am real. This could all be an illusion.

Mathematics is not based in faith. We have to assume some axioms, and 2 is effectively defined by 1+1 anyway.

Just a quick point.
The largest Christian movement in the world (The Catholic Church) accepts evolution as a theory. Oh and, the Catholic Church represents over half the Christian population in the world, and a 1/6th of the world's population.

Its all your American fucktarded Evangelists and Pentecostals that go around preaching that Evolution is false.

So be careful with the blanket term "Christian"

The general Christian movement has done terrors against science. Galileo is one example. And the only thing I see it bringing is ignorance (and, yes, hope) to the lower masses. It's good for those lower masses, but it's bad for the evolution of humanity.

Oh, and can you link how Catholics accept evolution?

This would be the correct situation for a "NO U". Math didn't exist before people did, people made math, therefore, we can make it whatever we want. The Babylonians had a base 60 number system, we have a base 10. We know that 1 + 1 = 2 because we said that two is the number after one, and adding moves further in the sequence by the number being added. No faith involved.

Also, something general for everyone who has a religion, what makes yours true and everyone else' false? Most of them have an old book that says they're right, too...

Pope John Paul II

Although in the past you would be correct, the church RADICALLY changed during the 20th Century, today the Catholic Church takes the stance that faith and scientific findings are not in conflict, and thus have no direct opposition to them.

Also, i hate the link Wikipedia as a source, but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church


Wonder if you read that whole article, cause it get's into some pretty crazy stuff, probably not the most credible source, but then again, I DID link Wikipedia...

I'm not really interested in the discussion going on, just wanted to point out some context for y'all.

Mathematics relies on our language, as others pointed out. Gravity hasn't been proven mathematically in any sense of the word. Proven by definition means that we know without all doubt that it is true. Think of a scenario where gravity is untrue; an incorrect theorem? Because of the fact that you can do so, by very definition it's not proven.

I think you're completely misunderstanding me, these things taken as scientific fact aren't proven, but the vast likelihood of such a proposition being the correct one leads science to base itself on such theorems and work outward.

I'm very surprised to read that statement by the former Pope, I'm actually more surprised that I haven't seen it before. It seems to me that the more science develops the more the Church yields ground.

It yields ground that it took by force because, for so long, no one dared challenge the church's bullying. For over a thousand years they've monopolized the explanation for everything in furtherance of their own agenda. They can't behave the way they did in medieval times anymore though, and they're realizing that science's explanations for things make more sense than theirs - and there's too many people that agree. More than can be dealt with in a "civilized" society. So rather than continue sounding delusional, they yield ground (although it often takes 100+ years, like it did for them to forgive Galileo or even make this [The Pope's] statement some 150 years after Darwin formed his theory). What puzzles is me is why don't religious people see this trend? The old explanations are getting refuted again and again. Why not just realize that maybe, just maybe, everything else in their religious text will be dis proven eventually?

Is religion or faith really that comforting? Is it not just an extension of one's narcissism to believe that the all-knowing, all-creating master of the universe is going to be your best buddy and give you everything you want?

If you haven't learned anything, you shouldn't be the one to talk when Isaac Newton really did prove Gravity with mathematics. Proving in this sense is making the community accept that it is a viable explanation of things. I know you've gone into some whack dillema that nothing can be true and they are all incorrect because we're human, and because you're really a kid who didn't even learn the definition of mathematics and science.

Well thats all true. In the essence of 'truth', nothing really can be proven because we cannot observe everything. We're not omnipotent. That is why we dont dig deeper into the meaning of truth, and it won't apply to things called 'prove' especially in the scientifical sense. Proving doesn't make it necessarily true. If you've learned something right here right now, just go learn some more 'things' before you even start to debate because I tire of your incompetent blabberies.

On another note, you should just try and say everything can't be true and we're all delusional.

People, stop getting so existential. It makes you look stupid when you're arguing about things like this.

And Gravity has been proven within the scope of itself, but would anyone care to show me how it fits into quantum theory? We have the who and what of Gravity, but not the how, why, or where.

God did it.[/sarcasm]

Any religion can just say that things are the way they are because it just IS. But why confine oneself like that? Why hinder a greater truth that can be found? If someone wants to explore why something the way it is, good for them -- nothing should stop them. But that's the problem, religion always gets in the way because they are scared that this new found truth will contradict their view of the world.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Dec 21 2008, 7:01 am by A_of-s_t.

The theory of evolution has many holes in it, we don't see any new species popping up, all we see is survival of the fittest, and while you could say it's a new species, all it really is is the strongest of the last one, and many of the traits evolved are so useless, such as getting old, that them happening because of evolution is preposterous, there's no reason that such a diverse amount of life would have evolved when they all face the same basic problems, I believe in survival of the fittest, and through that a sort of extinction evolution, but it's really just the slow loss of species, not a gain like evolution implies.

ya, 'cause ongoing and entirely gradual processes which take longer than credible and accurate historical human observation extends back to sure are things that one would expect to see on a daily basis, were they true.
lolol "getting old". Everything we've seen ages, on some time scale, so for an immortal creature to be suddenly born is just absurd. And when we're talking on a molecular/atomic level like biological aging/decay takes place on, there's no distinction between "creature" and "all the arbitrarily definable patterns one can observe in the universe".
Games "all face the same basic problems", yet they've turned up in their own vastly numerous varieties.

I give you, the immortal creature.

If that's how you're defining proven, then evolution has been proven, because the vast majority of the scientific community accepts it as fact. Again, you show the same lack of comprehension I tried to stop after your last post: unproven does not in any way mean false. It means unproven. Please don't dish out the insults of how my mind is whack when you can't understand that basic logic.

Falkoner, the only speciation event that I'm aware of it that of: the London Underground Mosquito. Over the past 150 years or so, which is an incredibly short time but due to the fast reproductive rate of these creatures is evidently a sufficient number of generations, they have undergone change and adapted to the railway system. They feed primarily on humans and will NOT mate easily with the mosquito from which they evolved, which fed almost entirely on birds.