Creationism vs Evolution thread.

[Vousielle]

Though with the small twist that the Higgs Believers try their utmost best to disprove its existence; building expensive machinery to do so

To prove it, just to prove it.
If it never catches anything - then either the collider wasn't large enough or the hardons weren't hard enough.

You do not appear to understand how science works. You come up with an idea based on the evidence, and then you repeatedly attempt to prove that idea wrong. If you cant, you use those results as evidence for a new idea. Sometimes you have to backtrack. We still dont know for sure if Newton or Einstein were right!

[The Alma Mater]

Though with the small twist that the Higgs Believers try their utmost best to disprove its existence; building expensive machinery to do so

To prove it, just to prove it.
If it never catches anything - then either the collider wasn't large enough or the hardons weren't hard enough.

But they did set the goalposts True, the current detector can not reach the upper bounds of the energy that might be needed - but those upper bounds were stated, defined and included in the theories. It will be possible to reach them in the next few decades - and if still not found then the scientists will have proven the thing simply does not exist, and therefor the theories need to be rewritten.

Now we turn to the creationists and ask them what they would accept as valid proof to show creationism is wrong.
Note: that creationism is wrong. Not that evolution is right. After all, creationism is supposed to be able to stand on its own without having to constantly refer to that evilution thingy.

[Leepaidamba]

...

You seem to be a little behind the curve on all this.

What? Protons definitely aren't hardons, they're hadrons.

[Vault 1]

Now we turn to the creationists and ask them what they would accept as valid proof to show creationism is wrong.

A second coming of Jesus where he explains it to his disciples and amends the Genesis.

[The Cummunist State]

Now we turn to the creationists and ask them what they would accept as valid proof to show creationism is wrong.

A second coming of Jesus where he explains it to his disciples and amends the Genesis.

I'll stop believin' Jaesus is real when he comes on down and tells me he don't exist!

[Leepaidamba]

Now we turn to the creationists and ask them what they would accept as valid proof to show creationism is wrong.

A second coming of Jesus where he explains it to his disciples and amends the Genesis.

What if Mercurius came down and told you instead?

[The Alma Mater]

Evolution may disprove the bible, so creationism is wrong. No doubt. However, it does not cast doubt on Intelligent Design, so it is still a viable theory.

ID is an attempt by the discovery institute to teach creationism in classes. There is no difference between ID and creationism - it is even so that the textbooks are identical; just with the word creationist replaced by "design proponents". Except in that one sentence where it became "cdesign proponentsists"

[Catan]

Now we turn to the creationists and ask them what they would accept as valid proof to show creationism is wrong.

A second coming of Jesus where he explains it to his disciples and amends the Genesis.

You are a fanatic who places belief over logic and faith over reason. Now, you can beleive what you want, but when you come into the scientific arena and mess with proven biological theories, expect to be disproved.

PS: Keep in mind that faith and belief have no affect on what is truth.

[The Alma Mater]

Now we turn to the creationists and ask them what they would accept as valid proof to show creationism is wrong.

A second coming of Jesus where he explains it to his disciples and amends the Genesis.

Hmm. Something else perhaps ? Something we can actively test NOW, or at least in the next few decades ?
Unless the second coming is certain to be due in that time.

[The Alma Mater]

A second coming of Jesus where he explains it to his disciples and amends the Genesis.

You are a fanatic who places belief over logic and faith over reason.

Vault 1 does not believe any of the things he is saying.

[Vault 1]

What if Mercurius came down and told you instead?

Jesus, got to be.
Unless Mercurius can prove he's undercover Jesus.

[Archem States]

An important difference between religion and science is that you don't use faith when it comes to scientific theories. You accept that it is the most likely scenario and base future theories on top of it. If it were to be proven in the future that previous theories were wrong (say, it is possible to break the speed of light barrier) then we can simply change all theories built on that to fit the new evidence.
Religion, on the other hand is of the opinion that if new evidence contridicts previously held beliefs then the new evidence is wrong, not the theory.
The mark of a true scientist is to be able to believe every theory while at the same time trying to disprove them.
The mark of a true religious fanatic in to believe one theory and hate, discriminate or destroy anyone or anything that disproves said theory.

[The Cummunist State]

A second coming of Jesus where he explains it to his disciples and amends the Genesis.

Hmm. Something else perhaps ? Something we can actively test NOW, or at least in the next few decades ?
Unless the second coming is certain to be due in that time.

Test your FAITH.
except it failed, so god must not exist

[Condunum]

What if Mercurius came down and told you instead?

Jesus, got to be.
Unless Mercurius can prove he's undercover Jesus.

Isn't divinity enough proof?

[The Alma Mater]

The mark of a true scientist is to be able to believe every theory while at the same time trying to disprove them.
The mark of a true religious fanatic in to believe one theory and hate, discriminate or destroy anyone or anything that disproves said theory.

And the mark of a creationist is to desire that people see their theory as science, but do not try to do sciencey things ike questioning it.

[Archem States]

The mark of a true scientist is to be able to believe every theory while at the same time trying to disprove them.
The mark of a true religious fanatic in to believe one theory and hate, discriminate or destroy anyone or anything that disproves said theory.

And the mark of a creationist is to desire that people see their theory as science, but do not try to do sciencey things ike questioning it.

Or to provide any proof as to its scientific plausibility

[The Cummunist State]

The mark of a true scientist is to be able to believe every theory while at the same time trying to disprove them.
The mark of a true religious fanatic in to believe one theory and hate, discriminate or destroy anyone or anything that disproves said theory.

And the mark of a creationist is to desire that people see their theory as science, but do not try to do sciencey things ike questioning it.

The problem is they don't even have a theory.

[Leepaidamba]

What if Mercurius came down and told you instead?

Jesus, got to be.
Unless Mercurius can prove he's undercover Jesus.

[IshCong]

No, it doesn't. One can be empirically proven, the other is unfalsifiable. It's really not that complicated at all. Accept that which has been proven. With regards to that which is unfalsifiable, rely on faith. Don't let the latter get in the way of the former, and you should be good.
Omni-benevolence is the only one that I've found any major issues with, but 'benevolence' is subjective anyway.

the only unfalsifiable gods are ones that do absolutely nothing, which bring up the question of why you would bother believing in them.

No, the only unfalsifiable gods are those who cannot be tested. They cannot be proven to do anything, nor can it be proven they do not do everything. Because that's what unfalsifiable means, you cannot know.
As for why you would bother believing in them, perhaps it is comforting to believe in something greater than yourself. Perhaps you feel a spiritual connection in some manner. There are billions of theists living, and so, billions of reasons.

On that note, why not believe in them?

[Salandriagado]

the only unfalsifiable gods are ones that do absolutely nothing, which bring up the question of why you would bother believing in them.

No, the only unfalsifiable gods are those who cannot be tested. They cannot be proven to do anything, nor can it be proven they do not do everything. Because that's what unfalsifiable means, you cannot know.
As for why you would bother believing in them, perhaps it is comforting to believe in something greater than yourself. Perhaps you feel a spiritual connection in some manner. There are billions of theists living, and so, billions of reasons.

On that note, why not believe in them?

Occam's Razor.

[The Cummunist State]

the only unfalsifiable gods are ones that do absolutely nothing, which bring up the question of why you would bother believing in them.

No, the only unfalsifiable gods are those who cannot be tested. They cannot be proven to do anything, nor can it be proven they do not do everything. Because that's what unfalsifiable means, you cannot know.
As for why you would bother believing in them, perhaps it is comforting to believe in something greater than yourself. Perhaps you feel a spiritual connection in some manner. There are billions of theists living, and so, billions of reasons.

On that note, why not believe in them?

To be in tune with reality, logic, to not have some deity judging you all the time, to see the universe as more wonderful, and I believe the universe is more wonderful with no god, such and such things. The problem with comfortable delusions is that they can get you to do crazy things and have almost no positive impact that you couldn't get from secular means.

That's just my two cents, though.

[The Ancient and Orthodox Potato Church]

No, the DM of the Dungeons and Dragons game that spawned the whole religion.

I know I say this every time, but I really feel like we shouldn't have made Jehovah the DM just because his mother has a finished basement with a refrigerator.

I'll walk into another room to get my Ginger Ale if it spares me his moody recriminating bullshit.

The only other choice was Melvar. YHWH (remember the pretentious SOB thinks he's above vowels. Personally I think he can't spell) was a preferable choice, actually.

[IshCong]

No, the only unfalsifiable gods are those who cannot be tested. They cannot be proven to do anything, nor can it be proven they do not do everything. Because that's what unfalsifiable means, you cannot know.
As for why you would bother believing in them, perhaps it is comforting to believe in something greater than yourself. Perhaps you feel a spiritual connection in some manner. There are billions of theists living, and so, billions of reasons.

On that note, why not believe in them?

Occam's Razor.

Indeed, but the Razor isn't exactly hard fact or universally true, now is it?

[The Cummunist State]

I know I say this every time, but I really feel like we shouldn't have made Jehovah the DM just because his mother has a finished basement with a refrigerator.

I'll walk into another room to get my Ginger Ale if it spares me his moody recriminating bullshit.

The only other choice was Melvar. YHWH (remember the pretentious SOB thinks he's above vowels. Personally I think he can't spell) was a preferable choice, actually.

We should have just called up Satan. He never judges us on our interests, and he's pretty fun to be around to boot. Who knows?
It's too bad the Flying Spaghetti Monster was on a cruise with his pirates.

[Samuraikoku]

Besides, what parent would agree to let their child marry a HIV carrier?

I wasn't aware marriage between two adults required the parents' consent.

Also:

[If every person has only one sex partner in life, specifically their spouse, of an opposite sex, to which they are lawfully wedded with both parents' permissions, horizontal transmission of HIV will be near eliminated.

Bunch of things to be said here.

1 - That "one sex partner in life" may very well be an HIV carrier.
2 - How do the facts that they may be spouses (a lawful circumstance), of opposite sex (because heterosexual people can't get HIV, right?), a lawful wedding (a legal act), and both parents' permissions (see above), have anything to do with HIV?

I'm waiting your answers to all those four points. One by one.