Religious thing this gay kid from my school posted

[Mysteroo]

evolution is visible in microorganisms and has explanations as to why bacteria changes every year, and is visible in real time. while god isn't disprovable, he isn't provable either. god exists in the same way an invisible unicorn that you can't sense exists, it's possible and unprovable, but overall improbable. while Einstein was very smart, he grew up in a society where god was a social norm, and so he grew up with those ideals. the professor didn't think ahead and made an argument without knowing the other side's ammunition against him, and so he failed. this is why i actually pay attention in classes such as theology, because the more i know about something the more qualified i am to disprove or argue against it.

In microorganisms, I thought that it was micro-evolution. It's changing, sure, but not enough to be considered something entirely different. As for einstein, I guess that idea might work, but it's just a guess. There isn't any proof that he didn't evaluate the idea of atheism to the fullest.
     Also, I don't think any so called evidence for evolution, the big bang, or even an old earth is good enough to prove any of those theories. So technically, those "theories" could also exist "in the same way an invisible unicorn that you can't sense exists."

[Ad Bot]

[Thar]

evolution is visible in microorganisms and has explanations as to why bacteria changes every year, and is visible in real time. while god isn't disprovable, he isn't provable either. god exists in the same way an invisible unicorn that you can't sense exists, it's possible and unprovable, but overall improbable. while Einstein was very smart, he grew up in a society where god was a social norm, and so he grew up with those ideals. the professor didn't think ahead and made an argument without knowing the other side's ammunition against him, and so he failed. this is why i actually pay attention in classes such as theology, because the more i know about something the more qualified i am to disprove or argue against it.

I agree. Except the historical evidence and the philosphical evidence is enough for me to come to the conclusion that it is MOST LIKELY the case that God does not exist. However, I accept the fact that I could be wrong.

    Also, I don't think any so called evidence for evolution, the big bang, or even an old earth is good enough to prove any of those theories. So technically, those "theories" could also exist "in the same way an invisible unicorn that you can't sense exists."

There is evidence for all of these theories.

Also, I would like to point out the scientific definitions for theories and laws.

A law is a statement that something happens or is. For instance, "The water is wet."

A theory is a statement that something happens or is and also provides an explanation as to WHY. For instance, "The water is wet because the molecules are not tightly bound together, allowing for fluid motion."

These "theories" are not like the traditional sense of the term theory. They have evidence to back them up.

[ultimamax]

The only fallacies that seem plausible are the ones used in everyday common sense.

So yeah, some fallacies are automatic. I'm talking about the ones that are randomly pulled up to degrade a pretty damn good argument.

Yes, using fallacies alone to prove someone wrong is wrong. You need fact, too.

There is A LOT of proof of God existing, like this topic!  Also, there is faith, and all of the miracles that have happened over the years.  Guess what, people think Jesus is NOT the Messiah, guess what, he is, how would he have risen from the dead?  Also, how would he have kept all of these people fooled for all of these years? Can you answer that?  No one has ever proven him fake from what I've seen.  Also, like Einstein said, just because you can't see something, doesn't mean it's not real.  (In the professor's logic) You can't see air, so it is not real. (End of professor's logic)
I just have to say, there is much proof out there, you you do not believe, I hope this helped you to believe.

Please show me this proof. Miracles, being far and in between, can be easily put off as coincidences, especially since most of them are mother mary appearing on toast or walls. He kept them fooled because there was no other explanation, so people just believed in what they were raised to believe. You haven't seen it been proved fake because you are not searching for proof against Christianity. Air is observable, it has parts to it, etc. So is the brain.

evolution dictates that there be species in between the common ancestor and the current species.
if this is true, then where are the in-between species?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#Genus_Homo
Humans are linked to apes by a common ancestor. We did not evolve from apes. At that common ancestor, we broke off into two different species.

ITT wannabe athiest douchebags hate on some facebook kid for being a christian

It seems the gay kid posted it unprovoked, just to circlejerk or something. I don't hate this kid at all, but the chain letter is easily disprovable.

Micro evolution (Species adapting to their environment through natural selection) is fact. Macro evolution (monkeys evolving into humans etc.) isn't fully concluded.

The fact that people believe in god over macro-evolution, which has irrefutable evidence (there are a few missing links left I believe) makes no sense, but I won't go into it, risk starting another religion war. However, the fact that some people can agree with micro-evolution itself is proof for macro-evolution, which is only hard to observe because it happens over millions of years.

evolution is visible in microorganisms and has explanations as to why bacteria changes every year, and is visible in real time. while god isn't disprovable, he isn't provable either. god exists in the same way an invisible unicorn that you can't sense exists, it's possible and unprovable, but overall improbable. while Einstein was very smart, he grew up in a society where god was a social norm, and so he grew up with those ideals. the professor didn't think ahead and made an argument without knowing the other side's ammunition against him, and so he failed. this is why i actually pay attention in classes such as theology, because the more i know about something the more qualified i am to disprove or argue against it.

Agreed.

In microorganisms, I thought that it was micro-evolution. It's changing, sure, but not enough to be considered something entirely different. As for einstein, I guess that idea might work, but it's just a guess. There isn't any proof that he didn't evaluate the idea of atheism to the fullest.
     Also, I don't think any so called evidence for evolution, the big bang, or even an old earth is good enough to prove any of those theories. So technically, those "theories" could also exist "in the same way an invisible unicorn that you can't sense exists."

See my response to Camera as an answer to your first paragraph. ^^
Evidence is prominent in life in general. (e.g This guy's fingerprints are on this gun. He probably shot the guy.) You can't just take evidence in every aspect of life but suddenly ignore it for evolution, the big bang, etc. Gravity is also a theory, yet widely accepted as fact, even by Creationists, so why is evolution suddenly out of the picture? It's only because your holy book says otherwise.

[fred da kiko]

i like how people don't know the scientific meaning of the word theory, then say "it's just a theory."

[Thar]

i like how people don't know the scientific meaning of the word theory, then say "it's just a theory."

Holy stuff this pisses me off. I hope that their logic is right and then the theory of gravity turns off and they float the forget away.

[ultimamax]

Picking apart the chain letter. You can use it if you want, OP.

Professor : You are a Christian, aren’t you, son ?

Student : Yes, sir.

Professor: So, you believe in GOD ?

Student : Absolutely, sir.

Professor : Is GOD good ?

Student : Sure.

Professor: Is GOD all powerful ?

Student : Yes.

Professor: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to GOD to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But GOD didn’t. How is this GOD good then? Hmm?

(Student was silent.) Student never disproves this?

Professor: You can’t answer, can you ? Let’s start again, young fella. Is GOD good?

Student : Yes.

Professor: Is satan good ?

Student : No.

Professor: Where does satan come from ? The Prof. could have also said "If god is omnipotent, couldn't he just destroy Satan"

Student : From … GOD …

Professor: That’s right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?

Student : Yes.

Professor: Evil is everywhere, isn’t it ? And GOD did make everything. Correct?

Student : Yes.

Professor: So who created evil ?

(Student did not answer.)

Professor: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don’t they?

Student : Yes, sir.

Professor: So, who created them ?

(Student had no answer.)

Professor: Science says you have 5 Senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son, have you ever seen GOD?

Student : No, sir.

Professor: Tell us if you have ever heard your GOD?

Student : No , sir.

Professor: Have you ever felt your GOD, tasted your GOD, smelt your GOD? Have you ever had any sensory perception of GOD for that matter?

Student : No, sir. I’m afraid I haven’t.

Professor: Yet you still believe in Him?

Student : Yes.

Professor : According to Empirical, Testable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says your GOD doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son?

Student : Nothing. I only have my faith. Chain letter proves there is no intelligent evidence of god, only faith that he exists, because a book says he exist, a book that is his word. Do you see the circular reasoning?

Professor: Yes, faith. And that is the problem Science has.

Student : Professor, is there such a thing as heat?

Professor: Yes.

Student : And is there such a thing as cold?

Professor: Yes.

Student : No, sir. There isn’t.

(The lecture theater became very quiet with this turn of events.)

Student : Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don’t have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it. The absence of heat is defined as cold. We can also feel heat and cold. Therefore, they exist.

(There was pin-drop silence in the lecture theater.)

Student : What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?

Professor: Yes. What is night if there isn’t darkness?

Student : You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light. But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and its called darkness, isn’t it? In reality, darkness isn’t. If it is, well you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you? Darkness is defined as the absence of light. It exists too, we can see it's effects.

Professor: So what is the point you are making, young man ?

Student : Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.

Professor: Flawed ? Can you explain how?

Student : Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good GOD and a bad GOD. You are viewing the concept of GOD as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, Science can’t even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. This is a fallacy, argument against ignorance. Just because thought cannot be explained currently does not mean it is unexplainable.

Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. The absence of life is death. Therefore it exists. This kid disproved himself? Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?

Professor: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.

Student : Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir? It is observable in micro-evolution, with many links between the species.

(The Professor shook his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument was going.)

Student : Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor. Are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher? The professor is an idiot. He couldn't explain the evidence for evolution.

(The class was in uproar.)

Student : Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor’s brain? The brain is observable with medical equipment and even with lobotomy.

(The class broke out into laughter. )

Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor’s brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established Rules of Empirical, Stable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?^^^

(The room was silent. The Professor stared at the student, his face unfathomable.)

Professor: I guess you’ll have to take them on faith, son. Professor is still handicapped.

Student : That is it sir … Exactly ! The link between man & GOD is FAITH. That is all that keeps things alive and moving.

P.S.

I believe you have enjoyed the conversation. And if so, you’ll probably want your friends / colleagues to enjoy the same, won’t you?

Forward this to increase their knowledge … or FAITH.

By the way, that student was EINSTEIN.

[SeventhSandwich]

You can see the professor's brain.

You can see evolution occur by looking at fossils whose age can be calculated by carbon-dating.

You can see how loving handicapped the maker of that copypasta is because of all the fallacies the person used to somehow validate faith in something that has no proof of existence.

[Narkro555]

If anyone has some misconceptions about the theory of Evolution, read this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
It's really useful and puts "Intelligent Design" morons in their place.

[fred da kiko]

i'd also like to see some proof that this actually happened and that the person who said it was actually einstein, because i could write this stuff down in like an hour.

[Narkro555]

i'd also like to see some proof that this actually happened and that the person who said it was actually einstein, because i could write this stuff down in like an hour.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

- Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman


I doubt it too.

[blaman]

That was the stupidest thing I've read in a while.

[Thar]

Well, hopefully it'll go viral on facebook and I can debunk it.

[SlayerZ99]

Ah can't find that quote.
Found it

"As the conversations of Creation and Evolution (for some reason) often tend towards conversations concerning the proof for or against the existence of God, I have this to add (on that topic), because it is similar to my above comments. If a Creator did indeed bring the whole fabric of creation into existence, and that Creator is God (in fact some define God simply as "The Creator"), then it is laughable to talk about evidence for (or against) the existence of such a God. This proposed Creator created it all - space, time, perception, thought, logic, laws, evidence, rabbits, and even evolution. As parts of that Creation, we are bounded by its constraints (what we can perceive, reason, or dream of). The Creator is necessarily "something else" - something beyond what the universe is composed (or is composable) of. Therefore it is (again) laughable and silly to talk amongst our selves of proof for or against such a Creator. Our many possible dimensions of understanding are not the dimensions of existence of the Creator." - Chuck T

[Menen]

>homoloveual
>posting something that essentially defends religion
>most/all religions are against homoloveuality

Wat.


What really russled my jimmies was when he said "No one has seen, felt, smelt, tasted or touched" the professors brain. You cant CAT scan the sky and see a picture of god.

Its a physical object that can be proven to exist. If you are using any of your sensory abilities on his brain he probably would be dead.

[Trifax]

i'd also like to see some proof that this actually happened and that the person who said it was actually einstein, because i could write this stuff down in like an hour.

http://www.snopes.com/religion/chalk.asp

It's not real, this page explains the idea behind posting the story and it makes sense. Just read the whole thing, or at least the part where it discusses how Einstein is basically used as a generic "genius" figure when such a story calls for a genius figure to make the story more pertinent to readers. It also discusses how the role of the atheist professor is simply a stereotype used to oppose the student. The page words it very well and explains it more efficiently than I could. Needless to say, I agree whole heartedly with the explanation.

The funniest part is, it provides multiple other stories that follow a similar, if not the same premise as the gay kid's.