What man are you talking about? I've made no claims here, and you're acting as if I'm attacking your beliefs!

I've never asked for proof, and was merely remarking on the essence of debate. You've either misread my post, or are applying a false agenda to my intentions.

He did not do a bait and switch. This is simply the way the conversation has gone. His OP was him saying that when you make a claim you should be the one to prove it. You should not make a claim and then tell someone else to prove your claim. That was his original message

You did kind of reiterate my point about it being more about the types of fats and sugars you eat by bringing up refined sugars. That is about processed foods and how that changes the nutritional value of the food. Fresh food is obviously better. But you are wrong is thinking that even fresh meat doesn't have blood in it. In crime scene investigation one of the key principles you learn is that every where you go and everything you do you take something with you and you leave something behind. This is talking about trace evidence. Fibers from your shirt, hairs from your head and sometimes even dirt from your shoe can become evidence of where you have been.

No matter how much you try you will not get rid of all the blood in the meat you consume. It may be very small amounts and the chances of you getting sick from it are very small as long as you cook it properly. But it is there. It's in the capillaries and other blood vessels in the meat.

This is like an episode of Mythbusters I watched where they found that fecal coliforms are found on your tooth brush regardless as to if you keep it in the bathroom or the kitchen. The thing is that it's such a small amount that the likely hood of you getting sick from it is very small. You would probably have to be in the advanced stages of AIDS for it to hurt you.

This could also be a problem of language barriers.

It could be, which would be better than the alternative. I just hope "milesoftheusa" can understand what I was trying to say.

that's not even worth an answer. its all in thier

Actually the paradigm is on scientist.We have simply defy what faith based (no evidence required) deity crap believe.
Yet there are those who still believed back in the day that a imaginary being existed yet "scientist do to heresy had to pretend it existed and in the mean time went on with questioning why is it that there's this god thingy yet the bible is full of contradictions to known science.
See known science and theist take it find a bible verse and try to relate it to it.Funny thing when covalent bonding occurs it has nothing to do with a zeus or judeic/christian god.It's simple chemicals form the ribosome the ribosome itself takes the amino acids forms it on the exons bar which becomes the introns bar to the gaglionic apparatis which does protien folding.From there during the mitosis a H2O barrier is formed do to oil based chemicals.
These nonionic bonding organic molecules fell from space to a planet that could sustain life do to a actual ozone layered atmosphere that eventually became oxygen.Ozone is 3 oxygen molecules oxygen is 2.
This is where life began,want to ask where the gaglionic apparatus came from?Simple the same chemicals we are made of it's all microscopic please stop telling your kids god did it it's a insult to those that know logical and rational thinking.
I get paid alot of money for this info so feel privilegde you got this.

I'll even let you in on a little secret that most don't know H,H2,He3,He4 and Li7 are the elements of the early universe or the elements of a universe that has always existed.
You will never get this from anyone else for free.

I apologize to those who thought they knew me on here i'm really a physicist that will never ever claim that geneticist and biochemicist are liars unlike the angel pictures.
So other than lying to your kids about a deity any of you theist have evidence for your deity?

amazing how the Father of Science we now know wrote more about the scriptures than he did science. where do u think he got his science from? How do you think Nostradomus stopped the plague.

Perhaps we could get back on topic now.

It's funny how people really don't see the nasty egos and rampages that go on in physics.Go to NASA or MIT or Huntington and debate 78 year old physicist about time dialation,say "time doesn't exist".They will literally flip on your a s s.

The reason that Newtons laws of gravity had violations is because of Einsteins general relativity.
Newton was a brilliant man and hid a lot of what he discovered along with his calculus he invented or it may have been Leibnez because of heresy.
Although he spent way to much time trying to figure out when the rapture was going to happen because back then basically you either pretended to believe in the bible,did believe in the bible or die.

i have to go to sleep.Goodnight.

After watching this thread develop, I still think mixing religion and proof is difficult at best and hopeless in most cases.

One of the major ways science makes a "proof" is with statistics. If, for example, 50% of black men create 90% of crime, one can make the association that there is a problem connecting race and crime. It doesn't apply to any given person or give reasons why it is true but is still true.

Most beliefs in religion are unprovable, nor do they need to be. There can be exceptions to all rules of belief such as the facts concerning Jesus. Statistically, was there enough evidence from enough witnesses to prove Jesus rose from the grave? Many will say of course there were and some will not believe the story no matter what.

The same logic can be applied to God in general. Some want to believe that God rules and controls every moment of every day while others believe that free will allows events to be controlled by men. Of course some believe God doesn't exist and has nothing to do with anything. Perhaps, in the most unprovable of all religious concepts, God snapped his fingers and created the big bang, and the rest just fell out of the science that he created to go with it.

you better hope there will never be proof of God,because your whole religious House of Cards will come crashing down!
It would be the end of Religion! POOF!


It has often been noted that a proof of God would be fatal to religion: a God susceptible of proof would have to be finite and limited; He would be one entity among others within the universe, not a mystic omnipotence transcending science and reality. What nourishes the spirit of religion is not proof, but faith, i.e., the undercutting of man's mind.



Leonard Peikoff, Maybe You are Wrong.
The Objectivist Forum, April 1981, 12

I have cleaned up this topic. If you can't debate the topic without making it personal towards other members, then do not post.

Discuss the topic at hand

Kim

Conrad: assertions don't make things true. How do you know that with evidence of god he would be finite?

for example: if I had infinite life, how does that mean I cannot leave proof of my existence?

If god were real and basically a really old spirit. Then couldn't he choose not to leave evidence?

a Creator who could create the world, could choose to do whatever it wished,,,

it would not be confined to mortal and physical boundaries at all, being the one that controlled them

That's what I was thinking. Also figuring that if there is a god then to have that much power he would have to be a very old spirit.

Also, an imaginary "creator" could be said to do whatever humans might imagine or fantasize.

True dat.