Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: HotSnoJ on August 19, 2003, 06:02:14 pm
-
Wanna earn $250,000? Then head over here to find out more http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=250k
[EDIT]I'd like to see what CP would send in. ;7
-
hey how come you have a shivan swarm avatar and i don't :p
-
http://www.cdc.gov/od/nvpo/pandemics/flu3.htm
-
Originally posted by Stealth
hey how come you have a shivan swarm avatar and i don't :p
'Cuz they never took it away from me. The project is dead you know.
Anyway, back on topic. :p
-
Originally posted by PhReAk
http://www.cdc.gov/od/nvpo/pandemics/flu3.htm
:confused: I don't get it.
-
yeah i know it's been dead. one of many. and due to a lazy leader.
yeah, i don't believe in evolution myself, so i won't even try ;)
-
Mike Wong's site (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/index.shtml) is my evidence. Read ALL OF IT. The theory is much stronger than you think.
Oh, here's something: give me hard evidence for creationism. The Bible DOES NOT QUALIFY AS EVIDENCE. I mean real FACTS, not just a religious text whose only support is the faith of its followers. I don't care if the entire fucking WORLD believes it; it is not valid evidence because the only "proof" of its claims are the faith of hundreds of millions of human sheep.
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
Mike Wong's site (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/index.shtml) is my evidence. Read ALL OF IT. The theory is much stronger than you think.
I noticed something about that sites title "Creationism vs Science". If creationism is a faith and science is an absolute, then what is evolution? If it should be titled anything it should either be "Creationism vs. Evolution" since that is what it is. Science is pre-technology or better put, technology is applied science.
Oh, here's something: give me hard evidence for creationism. The Bible DOES NOT QUALIFY AS EVIDENCE. I mean real FACTS, not just a religious text whose only support is the faith of its followers. I don't care if the entire fucking WORLD believes it; it is not valid evidence because the only "proof" of its claims are the faith of hundreds of millions of human sheep.
Now why one earth would I do that (use that bible to prove itself)? The only reason I'd do that is if I was trying to prove that it is coherant in all it says. The article I pointed to saysIf you are convinced that evolution is an indisputable fact, may I suggest that you offer $250,000 for any empirical or historical evidence against the general theory of evolution.
Someone once told me, "Evidence does not equal proof. It is how you interpert the evidence."
-
I think that what Phreak is trying to point out is that Flu is continually evolving and changing, visually, and within a short time frame. These are not different Bacteria, these are the same Bacteria changing, not conciously I might add, it is merely the axiom of 'survival of the fittest'. That does not mean things evolve to be 'fit to survive' it just means that millions of tiny mutations take place and the ones that are lucky enough to change in the right way at the time are the ones that survive.
This could be defined as 'Micro Evolution' which is only one of the 6 points mentioned, but what the writer of the website fails to understand is that the bigger the change, the longer it takes. And also fails to understand that we do NOT take the other 5 for granted and that it is HE who is conciously dividing the types of evolution up, to me they are just several levels of the same thing. The cells in our own bodies are mutating constantly, when it goes wrong you get such things as Cancer. So to ask someone for 'Hard evidence' makes me wonder what he wants, a film of a frog evolving into an elephant perhaps?
I have stated this before, but as an evolutionist, I can say that man was once far more primitive millions of years ago, until his brain evolved, my evidence is primitive cave drawings, stone tools etc. Carbon dating etc helps back up my claim.
A creationist will believe otherwise, and they are perfectly entitled to, but when I ask about the stone tools and cave drawings, they were apparently put there to test my faith.
Well.... it's tested ;)
We may not be 100% right about how evolution works, but in my own opinion, we have a lot more evidence for evolution than creation :)
Flipside :D
-
Waste of time. You'll never prove to this guy that creationism is wrong. No matter what evidence you present him with he will just ignore it or refuse to believe it. I urge you not to waste your breath even attempting it.
That is the saddest thing about this whole debate. Present a scientist with empirical proof of something and they'll examine it. Present a creationist with any kind of proof and they'll ignore it or come up with some cock and bull story about it.
The simple fact is that evolution has been proved. Phreaks link is a great example of this as you can follow the evolution of drug resistant strains of bacteria and virii over the course of the last 100 years. There is no other credible explaination. All other explainations hide behind the shield of "God did it" which is a rejection of science.
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
I noticed something about that sites title "Creationism vs Science". If creationism is a faith and science is an absolute, then what is evolution? If it should be titled anything it should either be "Creationism vs. Evolution" since that is what it is. Science is pre-technology or better put, technology is applied science.
a rather large article on the site is devoted to the title
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Arguments/AttackScience.shtml
-
i want to find that article about the bacteria found in nuke reactors
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Waste of time. You'll never prove to this guy that creationism is wrong. No matter what evidence you present him with he will just ignore it or refuse to believe it. I urge you not to waste your breath even attempting it.
That is the saddest thing about this whole debate. Present a scientist with empirical proof of something and they'll examine it. Present a creationist with any kind of proof and they'll ignore it or come up with some cock and bull story about it.
The simple fact is that evolution has been proved. Phreaks link is a great example of this as you can follow the evolution of drug resistant strains of bacteria and virii over the course of the last 100 years. There is no other credible explaination. All other explainations hide behind the shield of "God did it" which is a rejection of science.
exactly:
a scientist will take the evidence and make a theory with it (and changing the theory in light of new evidence)
a creationist will take the 'theory' and make the evidence fit (ignoring all evidence thatdoes not fit the 'theory').
oddly enough they're nothing different from die-hard communists in that respect (who'll gladly ignore the truth in favour of propaganda).
-
Besides all this the reward for creationists proving their arguement is bigger.
Prove God exists under laboratory conditions and this guy (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html) will give you one MILLION dollars rather than a poxy quarter of a million.
-
It's quite impossible to prove that microevolution doesn't exist. And if macroevolution doesn't exist, then God really likes practical jokes to have planted all that evidence :p
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
Now why one earth would I do that (use that bible to prove itself)? The only reason I'd do that is if I was trying to prove that it is coherant in all it says. The article I pointed to says
There are some creationists stupid enough to use that form of circular logic. Then again, that's no surprise, as the majority of the population is composed of stupid people. Just look at the ratings of "reality TV" shows and American Idol.
-
*rips hair out*
You guy's are totally missing the point. My point is that evolution is a faith not a science. No one has ever seen a kind change into another kind (think cat and dog two different kinds).
-
well in that perspective, no-one ever saw god create the universe either :doubt:
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
*rips hair out*
You guy's are totally missing the point. My point is that evolution is a faith not a science. No one has ever seen a kind change into another kind (think cat and dog two different kinds).
Au contraire, my friend. In actuality, we have seen cats and dogs evolve over the last few millenia. Specifically, we have seen dogs evolve from Canis lupis, (the grey wolf) to Canis familiaris, the common dog. Admittedly, this was selective breeding as opposed to natural selection, but the same truth remains. We have caused wolves to evolve into dogs.
And if you want natural selection, just take a look at diseases. The cold, for example. People, as you know, develop antibodies when exposed to a virus. In a world without evolution, the cold would swiftly be caused to become extinct, as all people would develop antibodies to it. But we have suffered from colds for thousands of years. The reason? The cold mutates, causing the antibodies to be ineffective. The cold evolves to beat our protections. And unlike the example of the dog, this one IS natural selection.
-
Evolution theory does not describe one species suddenly transforming into a species of a completely different family. In fact, such an event would be eloquent disproof of evolution theory, because it would contradict the evolutionary concept of inter-species homology within families and the need for evolutionary processes to explain such homology.
Woolie. this site is amazing. i've seen it before, but never told you
edit: just because something is observable doesn't mean we know how it works. we can observe gravity, but we haven't found the force carrier (gravitons) yet. yes, we have observed some forms of evolution, but we still have to find the mechanism which causes it. im no biological scientist. are there any here?
-
Evolution has not been proved. Neither has creationism. The acceptance of either one requires faith - granted, evolution a lot less faith than creationism. Baldly challenging a widely-held tenet of science while making little effort to argue your case is a poor way to win converts.
Another thing is that microevolution is all over the place - most promiently in bacteria. People see this and automatically believe that macroevolution is true also. They aren't willing to give the matter further thought because they think it isn't needed.
Jesus said that the world would know us by the way we conduct our lives. Anyone can argue - some people are very good at it. But a Christian's life sets him apart. At least, it does in Asia, India, and Africa - American Christians in particular have become very worldly.
By the way, microevolution is not "evolution" in the ideal sense. While bacteria adapt to changing conditions quite effectively, it happens with a loss of genetic information through mutation - not a gain.
-
evolution is not faith, I beleve it only becase I have seen it before my eyes, you close you're eyes, I will not force you to open them, as I would not want you to force mine closed
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
By the way, microevolution is not "evolution" in the ideal sense. While bacteria adapt to changing conditions quite effectively, it happens with a loss of genetic information through mutation - not a gain.
Actually, evolution does not require an increase in genetic information. And what else is bacteria adapting but evolution in it's purest, Darwinian sense? The bacteria's DNA is altered (in other words, it mutates) due to stimuli inside it's enviroment, which results in a change. This change does not necessarily increase or decrease the amount of genetic material within the organism.
The change may or may not be expressed within the organism. If it is expressed, it may allow the bacteria to function more effectively, allowing it to reproduce in greater numbers. It may also negatively affect its function, which would cause it to reproduce in smaller quantities.
What else is this but "Survival of the fittest"? The organism more suited to the enviroment will eventually cause the extinction of the organism that is more poorly suited.
However, assuming a open worldview, evolution does not, in fact, disprove Creationism. All it disproves is a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis.
It is quite possible to combine both Evolution and Creationism. If we start with the assumption that the universe began with a single cluster of molecules containing all the mass and energy of our entire universe, it leads to the question of what caused the universal constants to function just right for life to be produced?
That is the niche which cannot be filled by Science. The question of "How?" is the role of science. The question of "Why?", however, is purely the domain of Philosophy and Theology. And possibly, the question of "Who?".....
I'll end this post with a famous line which applies to this entire discussion:
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Hamlet, Act I, Scene V
-
complexity != more evolved
more complex things have more that can go wrong a more stream lined design is oftem more efishent and more reliable and thus oftine more 'evolved',
interesting thought; everything that is alive currently is just as evolved as everything else, you are no more 'evolved' than bacteria, yes you are more complex and have greater capabilitys, but the fact is a bacteria (or more apropriately a whole freaking lot of them) is more likely to cause the extinction of us as we are of them, so how can you claimed to be more evolved than them when the only reason they don't anialate you now is becase they have evolved to take advantage of us like paracites rather than mearly consume us (super preditors when not in the presence of properly adapted prey die as they kil off there food suply)
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
[BYou guy's are totally missing the point. My point is that evolution is a faith not a science. No one has ever seen a kind change into another kind (think cat and dog two different kinds). [/B]
No. You miss the point. Whenever creationists start feeling threatened by scientific arguements they always resort to calling evolution a faith. This is both stupid and incorrect.
Evolution is NOT a faith. Evolution IS science. It follows all the rules involved in science. Every single theory and law of evolution has been published in peer reviewed journals. Show me a single case of anything in evolutionary theory that doesn't follow the rules of science.
Evolutionary theory has taken no steps that weren't involved in every single other field of science yet because creationists are threatened by the arguements of people who understand evolution they feel they need to seperate evolution from the rest of the scientific world and present it as an unproven theory or a faith.
Sadly for them evolution is no more an unproven theory or faith than gravity.
Secondly much of the arguement I see presented here is presented from a standpoint of huge ignorance of evolutionary theory. Try understanding it before you tell people who do that it is wrong.
-
Snoj, evolution can be witnessed in labs around the world. Sure, you're not going to see macroevolution unless you live for a few undred thousand years - or you accept that neanderthal fossils and the like are our ancestors' remains. But what I think worries the religions is that science has proven that there is no difference between the processes which control our development and the development of microscopic bacteria.
-
There is quite a lot of geological evidence that the world is very old.
-
I don't know why people usually don't consider that (from a Christian viewpoint) God drove creation by what we call evolution. Seems to make a fair amount of sense to me.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Sadly for them evolution is no more an unproven theory or faith than gravity.
But there is no gravity! It's God pushing is down!!!
:p
-
Personally I don't give a rats ass how the world/universe was created... For all I care it started out as Gods turd in the holy sewers of heaven.
I live now and I'll die somewhere in the future. No use figuring out how the world came to be. IMO its better to look for a way to keep it alive and not end up like Mars.
-
well in that perspective, no-one ever saw god create the universe either
Wow, you're finally catching on. :nod:
Au contraire, my friend. In actuality, we have seen cats and dogs evolve over the last few millenia. Specifically, we have seen dogs evolve from Canis lupis, (the grey wolf) to Canis familiaris, the common dog. Admittedly, this was selective breeding as opposed to natural selection, but the same truth remains. We have caused wolves to evolve into dogs. And if you want natural selection, just take a look at diseases. The cold, for example. People, as you know, develop antibodies when exposed to a virus. In a world without evolution, the cold would swiftly be caused to become extinct, as all people would develop antibodies to it. But we have suffered from colds for thousands of years. The reason? The cold mutates, causing the antibodies to be ineffective. The cold evolves to beat our protections. And unlike the example of the dog, this one IS natural selection.
I'd like to point out that wolfs and dogs are canines, as in the same kind. They can still mate and have offspring with each other. And the cold, it's still a cold, not hot or a lukewarm, it's still a cold :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Bobboau
evolution is not faith, I beleve it only becase I have seen it before my eyes, you close you're eyes, I will not force you to open them, as I would not want you to force mine closed
"Evidence does not equal proof. It is how you interpert the evidence." I have pointed out already the evolution as well as creationism are faiths.
No. You miss the point. Whenever creationists start feeling threatened by scientific arguements they always resort to calling evolution a faith. This is both stupid and incorrect.
But it is a faith.
Evolution is NOT a faith. Evolution IS science. It follows all the rules involved in science. Every single theory and law of evolution has been published in peer reviewed journals. Show me a single case of anything in evolutionary theory that doesn't follow the rules of science. Evolutionary theory has taken no steps that weren't involved in every single other field of science yet because creationists are threatened by the arguements of people who understand evolution they feel they need to seperate evolution from the rest of the scientific world and present it as an unproven theory or a faith.
Science is evolution as much as creationism is science, science can backups the claims of evolutionists or creationists adepending on how you interpute the evidence. Science can however deliver 'evidence' to support a claim but we cannot tell for sure through science how the world came into being. Science observes and with those observations it tests them in a controled envierment then with those findings people use it in technology.
Snoj, evolution can be witnessed in labs around the world. Sure, you're not going to see macroevolution unless you live for a few undred thousand years - or you accept that neanderthal fossils and the like are our ancestors' remains. But what I think worries the religions is that science has proven that there is no difference between the processes which control our development and the development of microscopic bacteria.
Thank you for helping me with my argument for pointing me to a new way of looking at it. You see you are pointing out that I'd have to live a long time to see evolution happening. But since I obviously won't live for a few hundred thousand years and recorded human history isn't that old either. How on earth then I am to tell if evolutionism or creationism is true? And please don't point out your precious bones because they have been proven to be human or ape and/or a hoax. Ok now onto bacteria and such. I'm going to site Linux for an analogy. I'm siteing it since it's dev is documented and windows isn't. Would you say Linux 2.0 is the same as 3.0? No of course not. But is it still Linux? Acording to your logic Linux 3.0 is a totally new and original OS with part of the same name as Linux 2.0. I know that's not the best analogy but most never are.
[EDIT]Almost forgot this. What evidence would you people accept from me to support my views?
-
Look, do me a favour. For the sake of whatever vestiges of respect you still have left, go get Sesquipedalian. At leats he argues religion with a modicum of knowledge. Failing that, remember that it's better to stay silent and appear ignorant than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Lets get on with this shall we?
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
I'd like to point out that wolfs and dogs are canines, as in the same kind. They can still mate and have offspring with each other. And the cold, it's still a cold, not hot or a lukewarm, it's still a cold :rolleyes:
Actually, naturally, Wolves (Canis Lupis) and Dogs (Canis Familiaris) Can’t naturally have offspring together. That's one of the defining characteristics of a species (That's the funny name that comes after the Genus - the one that's actually different). And as for the cold, yes, it's still a cold, but it's radically different to the cold of a hundred years ago, and more so of that from two hundred. The symptoms are similar, but its resistance to the various antibodies in the human body, and its virulence levels are all different. It changes to suit its environment, and to penetrate its victims more efficiently. This is evolution. It does this because the ones that are capable of surviving infect people do so, because they are more resistant, more virulent etc. Those that are not do not survive. This is natural selection, and its going on all over the world, right now.
"Evidence does not equal proof. It is how you interpert the evidence." I have pointed out already the evolution as well as creationism are faiths.[/b]
Yes, you did point it out. Now, make it actually make some small degree of sense. Evidence is the defining characteristic of proof. Hell, the two words are practically interchangeable; the differences are at best very subtle.
Perhaps these two definitions will be useful for your continued attempts to blunder your way against the raging torrent of evidence and good sense.
Faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
TheoryA set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
But it is a faith.[/b]
No it isn't. I'd go into more detail, but a five word rebuttal that basically says "No, you're wrong I'm right" hardly warrants it.
Science is evolution as much as creationism is science, science can backups the claims of evolutionists or creationists adepending on how you interpute the evidence. Science can however deliver 'evidence' to support a claim but we cannot tell for sure through science how the world came into being. Science observes and with those observations it tests them in a controled envierment then with those findings people use it in technology.[/b]
Did your parents make you go to church during science class? Your perception of science is very, very skewed it would seem, making me believe you picked it up after class from a bunch of kids milling about outside. Science is the accumulation of data through observation and experiments. Its used for much more than technology though - ever hear of biology? What about Anthropology? Geology? Ring any bells? All non technological sciences. And the fact that you could even dare to say that Creationism is a science is beyond stupidity. Creationism is the blind following of the teachings of a book that has its roots in fifth hand stories from thousands of years ago. It is not supported by empirical nor experimental evidence, it has no need to prove itself against other competing theories as it actively discourages any form of disbelief and worse yet, it refuses to allow itself to be adjusted to fit whatever new evidence comes to light. Creationism and religion has been the greatest enemy that science has ever known. It has held back mans advancements more than you could possibly comprehend. The two don't belong in the same library together, let alone the same damn sentence.
And finally (for this particular piece of rubbish anyway) no, science can not tell us for any absolute certainty how the Earth was formed. What it can, and has done is develop a theory, not a blindly accepted truth, but a theory, that fits all the evidence we have available today. It also complies with natural laws, something that "God said be" doesn't really do, in my book.
Thank you for helping me with my argument for pointing me to a new way of looking at it. You see you are pointing out that I'd have to live a long time to see evolution happening. But since I obviously won't live for a few hundred thousand years and recorded human history isn't that old either. How on earth then I am to tell if evolutionism or creationism is true?[/b]
See below. We do have recorded human history going back far longer than that - people may not have written it down, but its there, and its thanks to science that we can read the fossil code. You obviously cant think like that, because if any knowledge doesn't come out of a book full of fifth hand hearsay and about a dozen revisions, it obviously can't be true. And as for how you can tell, maybe you could start by observing the world around you, looking for evidence to support either theory... or would that be heresy?
And please don't point out your precious bones because they have been proven to be human or ape and/or a hoax. [/b]
You know, I was planning to leave this thread alone until I saw this. I was more than willing to lurk and read and laugh as you fought just about every member on this board smarter than you are (and those are long odds, believe me). But after this, I couldn’t sit still. You're on my turf now.
You really don't have any idea do you? None whatsoever. Give me two examples where ancient bones have been proven to be anything except true evolutionary stages of the human race. Hell, I'll start you off. Piltdown man. Famous evolutionary Hoax. Now, find another one. Among all the thousands of bones, find me one other hoax or fake. And as for Human and Ape, can you even define "Human" or "Ape" when you're talking about bones that can be over 4 million years old? Do you understand the points at which the evolution of the human species changes, those incredibly ancient moments in geological time where the most profound changes occurred that moved the human race out of apehood? Didn't think so. There are thousands of skeletal remains scattered all over the world, all with defining characteristics which can be linked together into the complex chain (or more accurately web I suppose, but I wouldn't want to cloud your mind with complex concepts like that one) of human evolution. We can chart our rise to bipedalism, the changes in the size and shape of our skulls, the increasing complexities of our brains. We know more about the evolution of the human race than probably any other species in the history of the planet and you dare to cheapen those countless hours of painstaking anthropological research by lumping them into man or ape? You are below contempt. I challenge you to provide even the slightest bit of proof that allows you to say that this process did not occur.
Twit.
Ok now onto bacteria and such. I'm going to site Linux for an analogy. I'm siteing it since it's dev is documented and windows isn't. Would you say Linux 2.0 is the same as 3.0? No of course not. But is it still Linux? Acording to your logic Linux 3.0 is a totally new and original OS with part of the same name as Linux 2.0. I know that's not the best analogy but most never are.[/b]
Of course they're not the same. They're similar. Version 3 follows on from version 2. It has more capabilities, but these were put in place due to demands that version 2 could not fulfil. Eventually the new species... I mean version 3 will completely replace version 2 because it’s better suited to its environment.
You know, that process seems... familiar somehow, wouldn't you say?
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
"Evidence does not equal proof. It is how you interpert the evidence." I have pointed out already the evolution as well as creationism are faiths.
But it is a faith.
:blah: You've not pointed out anything, you've made baseless statements of pure nonsense and evidence is proof. Of course, creationists ignore things such as fact or proof.
A definition of evidence is "To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove"
-
One interesting Question is, of course, if theres no such thing as evolution and these fossils are put there as a 'test of faith', why are we now finding that some of these 'tests' are alive and well about 2 miles under the ocean?
Flipside :D
-
all this discussion on religion makes me want to watch Dogma :p
-
LOL!
'So, how do you know I'm an Angel, apart from the Fiery entrance and the larger than average wingspan?'
Flipside :D
-
My entry would be to write "Evolution is right. It just is, trust me" in a book and mail it to them, with the note attached "This is as far as you've gotten, right?"
:lol: :lol:
-
Originally posted by Styxx
But there is no gravity! It's God pushing is down!!!
:p
I can see every flag in the middle east now having: "God is Gravity" instead of "God is Great" on them. :rolleyes:
Anyway this is very applicable to this thread:
GOD, PLEASE PROTECT ME FROM YOUR FOLLOWERS
-
Snoj. Take a good long look at my earlier comment about arguing from a point of ignorance.
Seriously what arrogance you must have to insist that you are correct and nobel prize winners must be wrong despite the fact you know nothing about evolution.
Would you go up to Steven Hawking and tell him that he's wrong about Black Holes? Actually strike that. If it said so in the bible you almost certainly would.
Do yourself a favour. Buy yourself a copy of The Selfish Gene and read it from cover to cover. Then come back and argue with me once you have the slightest inkling what you're talking about.
-
Originally posted by Ace
GOD, PLEASE PROTECT ME FROM YOUR FOLLOWERS
:nod::D
-
I'll regret it, but here goes.
This guy's basic argument is broken on so many points that it hurts to read, but I'll address them all.
Observed phenomena:
Most thinking people will agree that--
1. A highly ordered universe exists.
2. At least one planet in this complex universe contains
an amazing variety of life forms.
3. Man appears to be the most advanced form of life on this planet.
[/b]
Well, I'm with him so far. Point 3 seems to be mostly opinion, but being a human, I'm willing to buy into it.
Known options:
Choices of how the observed phenomena came into being--
1. The universe was created by God.
2. The universe always existed.
3. The universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes (known as evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed.
[/b]
See, I'm with him on the possibilities until he gets his science utterly wrong. Evolution has nothing to do with the creation, or development of the universe. Time for a trip back to "On the Origin of Species". The creation and development of the universe is the subject of cosmology. some people might refer to the development of the universe over time as 'evolution' but that's strictly a misnomer.
Evolution has been acclaimed as being the only process capable of causing
the observed phenomena.
Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:
1. Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing.
[/b]
WRONG. The theory of evolution does not state or imply anything about the creation of the universe.
2. Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least
nine planets around the sun. (This process is often referred
to as cosmic evolution.)
[/b]
WRONG. The theory of evolution does not state or imply anything about the accretion of galactic, solar or planetary systems.
3. Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets
from nonliving matter (chemical evolution).
[/b]
WRONG. The theory of evolution does not state or imply anything about the origins of life. Though some people may think it does, they need to go back and read "On the Origin of Species". Darwin makes no claims as to the origin of life in his theory.
4. Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in
reproducing themselves.
[/b]
I'd have to say that by the strict tenets of the principle of survival of the fittest (in a species context), only organisms that felt the urge to reproduce and then did so would have offspring. The ones that don't reproduce, naturally have no offspring. Basically, as the old saying goes, "life is a(n) (a)sexually transmitted disease."
5. Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different
forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth
today (biological evolution).
[/b]
There's an assumption here that I find rather interesting: that there was a 'first' life form. I can see no logical reason why there can't have been many 'first' life form. If there can be many 'first' life-forms (IE sources for branching diversity), then diversity and complexity are built into the system from the beginning.
People believe in evolution; they do not know that it is true. While
beliefs are certainly fine to have, it is not fair to force on the
students in our public school system the teaching of one belief, at
taxpayers’ expense. It is my contention that evolutionism is a religious
worldview that is not supported by science, Scripture, popular opinion,
or common sense. The exclusive teaching of this dangerous, mind-altering
philosophy in tax-supported schools, parks, museums, etc., is also a
clear violation of the First Amendment.
Evolution is not a 'belief'. It is a theory and as such, could be wrong. It
does explain, quite nicely, why human embryos develop and lose gills during
gestation, why they develop and lose tails. It also explains why the basic
skeletal system of all vertebrates are so very similar. At no point, however,
does this theory ever purport to be anything other than a theory.
In the end he makes a very important mistake. He declares evolution to be a "religious
worldview that is not supported by science". The problem here, is that evolution IS
supported by science. It is a theory based on known data, presents a hypothesis to
explain the data, and makes certain predictions that can be tested (albeit in a very
long time frame). That makes it science, and good science at that. No, evolution is
not supported by Scripture. Scripture has the problem of being political, not
scientific. Because the body of Scripture as we know it today is the product of several
editorial rewrites (notably the Dueteronomists) and retranslations (such as the dubious
translation of the word 'maiden' into the greek word for 'virgin') and political
choices (notably the decision in the third century AD to include the Gospel of John
as Canon, but to actively hide the Gospel of Thomas), we can hardly trust its Word.
Popular opinion matters not at all in scientific matters. Popular opinion was once that
the Earth was the center of the Universe. That did not make it so.
"Common sense" is hardly ever "common". Common (european) sense once said that the
Earth was flat, while common (chinese) sense held it to be round before Christ was born.
If ever an alternative, fact-based, scientifically reasoned theory that explained
the origin of life on this planet was created, I'm sure it would be given equal time
with evolution in our tax-supported schools, museums, etc (probably not parks, since
I know of know park dedicated to evolution). Evolution is, again, a theory, not a fact.
The First Amendment does not even come into play on the discussion of evolution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or
the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for
a redress of grievances.
By teaching evolution as a scientific theory, schools are not establishing a religion,
abridging free speech, the free press, free assembly or redress of greivances.
Really now, folks, hasn't this been done to death? Let it rest. Its just a theory,
in the strictest scientific sense of the word.
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
And please don't point out your precious bones because they have been proven to be human or ape and/or a hoax.
Then please don't point out your precious book, as I'm not going to accept that it's true because it claims to be. And as for the human/ape/hoax bit, you've just shown us that no idea at all about the evolution of human beings, so I'm bowing out of the debate. Thanks, it was fun.
Oh, and God asked me to say hi.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
One interesting Question is, of course, if theres no such thing as evolution and these fossils are put there as a 'test of faith', why are we now finding that some of these 'tests' are alive and well about 2 miles under the ocean?
One more question. Do these "test of faith" people ever consider the fact that christianity might actually itself be a test of faith set by Vishnu and that they've in fact failed?
Worse yet what if it's a test by Amon-Ra and everybody since the ancient egyptians has failed? :lol:
-
why human embryos develop and lose gills during gestation
What?! Human embryos never have gills, it's just skin that is wrinkled so it looks like gills.
-
Well, I'm a religious person, but I'm NOT creationist. I know the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution are right. Not the faith the theory. I like to think that instead of God watching us all the time and controlling everything, he just created the universe with all the scientific laws and rules it has and let things happen on their own from there.... um yeah creationism is crazy
-
HotSnoJ: I've got one for you. Why is it that Creationists can't simply concider the possibility that "Adam and Eve" were ancient man (Neanderthal, etc-Sorry don't feel like looking up proper names :P )?
I was raised Roman Catholic,...and even when I was a kid I wondered,..."Ok God made man in his own image eh? Who the hell said that image is MY image currently? ?"
Why can't it be that perhaps God's image at the time was a caveman? Especially being it's image,...not carbon copy.
Seriously thou,...at least an Evolutionist will listen to a theory, concept, belief, etc,...then concider and analize it against what is known true. Beats the hell out of :
"NO you're wrong! Why?! Because a BOOK that was written hundreds of Years ago by a MAN said so!!! So that man claimed he heard from God,..and today we lock ppl up for saying that..."
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
What?! Human embryos never have gills, it's just skin that is wrinkled so it looks like gills.
Denial is the most predictable creationist response :p
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
What?! Human embryos never have gills, it's just skin that is wrinkled so it looks like gills.
Your lack of understanding of embryonic development astounds me. A quick trip to any developmental biology text will show you that yes, indeed, human embryos develop gill structures, not 'wrinkled' skin.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Your lack of understanding of embryonic development astounds me. A quick trip to any developmental biology text will show you that yes, indeed, human embryos develop gill structures, not 'wrinkled' skin.
Something I learned in grade 12 Biology. Its a proven fact.
I'm with mik... Give it a rest... you're beating a dead horse...
-
Ok like Galileo I'll drop it for now even though I know I'm right.
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
even though I know I'm right.
:lol: :lol: :lol: Been taking lessons from our Iraqi friend?
-
Yeah, SURE you're right...:rolleyes:
-
Ooooh, ahhhhh.... the dogma aura illuminates the thread in an eerie glow...
-
Google image search is far better than the website search, on this subject, as it cuts out all the creationism stuff and replaces it with funny pictures.
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Ooooh, ahhhhh.... the dogma aura illuminates the thread in an eerie glow...
You do know, that dogma's a *****. :nod:
-
Once again, just when I was becoming happy about being an evolutionist, some christian orginazation wants to start *****ing about how the constitution of the country they live in dosent apply to them. I can not stand it when this kind of bull**** get dredged up from the bottom of the 'couse of the moment' tank. You would think, that after countless attempts at it, that these people would give up and let non-followers live their lives in peace.
Why is it that when you christians see somebody leading a happy non-christian life, you have to force your beliefs on us? I am a happy evolutionist and I dont want 'the light of god' and I dont care about 'the fires of hell'. I've got no problem letting others practice the beliefs that they want to, why dont you?
The christian church has been demonizing everything not conforming to their grand scheme of divinity since it was formed. You all know this, believers and non believers, and yet nothing is done about it. Why do you suppose that is?
-
<(((++<
/\/\
ASCI evolved
-
:wtf:
-
thats what I was going for :)
-
well what the hell is it supposed to be?
-
look in the sig directly above it
-
so a fish with legs and no eyes
sometimes i worry, i dont know why :blah:
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
look in the sig directly above it
I put in the fish when I registered as a tribute to "vasudanswuvfishes"
But I can see how it could be associated with the popular christian bumper decoration. I will not remove it for any reason, though.
EDIT: Bob, think of the eye as -off and it's a little easier to cope with.
-
I was not sugesting you do
eyes are of no use to a ASCI creature, it's just wasted energy makeing them when they live in a world of digital information
http://www.evolvefish.com/
-
Originally posted by redsniper
Well, I'm a religious person, but I'm NOT creationist. I know the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution are right. Not the faith the theory. I like to think that instead of God watching us all the time and controlling everything, he just created the universe with all the scientific laws and rules it has and let things happen on their own from there.... um yeah creationism is crazy
I could go for that. I mean, the more I learn about the devlopment of the Universe, the more unlikely it all seems. Having someone with a blueprint and a huge screwdriver set running the show would make some sense... but I just don't want to belive in an invisible guy who sits on a cloud and tells me what to do :)
****ing good link by the way, Bob. Time to get me a t-shirt :nod:
[EDIT] Actually, on second thoughts, those shirts are all a bit crap.
-
becase of all the talk about dogma I just DLed and wached that movie, damn that thing kicks ass!
now, as I am posting this I am wondering if any creationists would be able to fully enjoy a movie that promoted a veiw on reality that they were diametricly oposed to?
granted most of that type consiter the movie Dogma to be blasfamy and hericy wich is funny becase that sort of atitude is what the movie is about, it is one of the most briliant works of art I have ever seen becase it elisets the exact reaction that it is trying make a statment about, and in so makes it's mesage even more pertanent.
and it does all this with Jay and Bob in it too!
oh, ****!
-
(http://www.newsaskew.com/dogmarc/dogma-jesus.jpg)
-
(http://mindprod.com/images/devil.jpg)
-
espically since jesus' cousin was played by chris rock and god was a "woman"
-
God was bloody Alanis Morisette...
The only bad part of the movie....
-
To HotSnoJ:
From One Christian to Another
I completely understand the point that you're making here. You're not only advertising that - thing, but you're also proclaiming the infallable truth of the Bible, the only valid Christian Doctrine. (Achtung! Catholics, Anglicans, and Episcopalians take heed!) Creationism is, along with the rest of the Bible, is absolute truth. But one thing that I have come to understand is that Born-Again or immature Christians (I still think myself as one.) can sometimes jump the gun a bit quicker and not analyzing the entire portrait. No, I'm not speaking in advocation for evolution. But I think that you, HotSnoJ, are doing this on your own with little primary/secondary sources to support your argument. From what I have read, you have given no plausible evidence against the false theory of evolution. You, like me, attack it at point-blank range. I have suffered many consequences due to this and gained nothing but scars. By recognizing that the world is a corrupt, perverted, and evil institution is the first path to Christian maturity. That's right! We can't live without Jesus. Spreading the Gospel is the thing to do. But the approach method must be correct. To not attempt to shove Jesus or the Bible down other people's throats because that'll never get to them. You'll only provoke the masses. You MUST outplay them at their own game. When you find yourself not to be invulnerable, you will then stop hitting your head on this sinful world. It'll only hurt your head. (Word of advice. :D)
Sincerely,
Rampage
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
http://www.csicop.org/webmaster/creationism/creationism.gif
Is this picture proclaiming that only rednecks, southerners, Republicans, WASPs, non-intellectual hillbillies, and in-breeders ready the Bible? [I hate that stereotype.]
-
I read the Bible (sometimes)
and I believe in evolution. :p
-
I dunno, its a picture applicable to the situation in which some people blindly refuse to listen to reason, the fact the person is missing teeth does not make them a redneck, or stupid or a republican or in-bred. Its not intended to hurt anyone's feelings, i,ve tried to avoid that. I'm sorry if i did.
The Bible is the truth yes, there no doubting that in my opinion. Its just not the literal truth, nor Gods exact words(unlike the Koran, which muslims believe is all Gods words), it teaches the message as a parable of sorts. Stories written so that they could be understood at the time, as evidently, people did not know about such things as space, the stars etc, so the story of creation had to been applicable to the times and it does that. It quite clearly, wraps up a few billion years of developed into a easy to understand allegory of the creation of the universe.
-
Originally posted by Rampage
To HotSnoJ:
...but you're also proclaiming the infallable truth of the Bible, the only valid Christian Doctrine. (Achtung! Catholics, Anglicans, and Episcopalians take heed!) ...
I'm rather amazed at this statement. Do you actually know the first thing about the differences between, say Anglicans and Catholics and Episcopalians and 'Born Again Christianity'?
Given that this particular brand of Christianity that you espouse is younger even than Mormonism, you've really got a lot of nerve declaring it to be absolute Truth.
Just tell me something: how can something be True and Not True at the same time? Given Jesus' last words and the timing of the Crucifiction are different depending on which gospel you're reading (and which translation!), which one is Truth? If A is True and B is True and A contradicts B we have something called a logical discontinuity. IE, you've made a mistake with your reasoning some where.
I'm not saying you're wrong Rampage, nor you, HotSnoJ, but I am saying that perhaps your faith is a little blind.
-
I'm inclined to be concerned here, by all means, let's argue our differences and points out the flaws in one anothers arguments, and scientific argument has as many flaws as any other, my own beliefs are exactly that, my own :)
Let's just not let it degenerate into slagging off each others religion. While I'm all behind reasonable, (and occasionally unreasonable) debate, I always get a bit nervous when posts go along the lines of 'The problem with your religion is......'.
Peace :D
Flipside :)
-
Originally posted by mikhael
I'm not saying you're wrong Rampage, nor you, HotSnoJ, but I am saying that perhaps your faith is a little blind.
By being on this planet for 38 years, I can conclude that faith in Jesus is blind. If it weren't blind, we would be soobjective that He wouldn't be able to lead us. Jesus is the Father who leads his son blindfolded to a surprise. Faith in Christ means 100% subjugation!
The same thing goes with the Bible. One must see through its "paradoxes" and understand it at face value because we are not given the right to interpret it. (Of course, symbolism is used quite oftenly in the Bible and we should see them symbolically, not at face value.) We can never interpret it correctly. We are not God and never will be. Thus, we must debase ourselved to absolute trust in the Father and absolute servitude of the Father.
Admins, please close this thread down. Thanks.
-
[Deep Comment]
Well, to be honest, I'd rather have a Father who tried to earn my trust and who wanted my respect, not my subjugation. Part of being a Father means accepting that your children are people in their own right with beliefs and opinions of their own, and a Father can accept and love their child regardless of their differences to Himself. It is how I would like to treat my own children :) And in a way a human being evolves from the child who sees his Father as an all encompassing prescence, to a Man, who sees his father as a Friend and companion.
[/Deep Comment]
-
Originally posted by Rampage
...
The same thing goes with the Bible. One must see through its "paradoxes" and understand it at face value because we are not given the right to interpret it. (Of course, symbolism is used quite oftenly in the Bible and we should see them symbolically, not at face value.)
...
Who gets to decide which things in the Bible are allegorical and which are factual? Who gets to decide which translation we'll read and which we won't? For that matter who gets to decide the content of the Bible (witness the amazing method of chosing the Canon in the 3rd Century AD)?
Admins, please close this thread down. Thanks.
Is there a particular reason you want the debate to end? I would urge the admins to keep the thread open, so long as the debate remains genial and civil. You, however, are free to leave at any time, though you are welcome to stay and continue.
-
Originally posted by Rampage
By being on this planet for 38 years, I can conclude that faith in Jesus is blind. If it weren't blind, we would be soobjective that He wouldn't be able to lead us. Jesus is the Father who leads his son blindfolded to a surprise. Faith in Christ means 100% subjugation!
The same thing goes with the Bible. One must see through its "paradoxes" and understand it at face value because we are not given the right to interpret it. (Of course, symbolism is used quite oftenly in the Bible and we should see them symbolically, not at face value.) We can never interpret it correctly. We are not God and never will be. Thus, we must debase ourselved to absolute trust in the Father and absolute servitude of the Father.
I'd rather deep-fry myself than enslave myself to a deity. I find your post extremely offensive. I am a human being, and no god will take away my humanity and my free will.
-
Freedom, is a powerful motivation in any circumstance. I think the concept of such subjugation is your downfall Rampage.
Also, this thread should not close because you say so. No one has been offended, we are all just debating.
-
Ak! Now I'm at it :wtf:
I think we would fare a lot better if we stuck to evolutionism and creationism, and left the fine details of various religions alone?
Whether you believe the world is 4000 years old or several million more, and what evidence do you have to support it, that is the point of this debate?
Peace :D
Flipside :D
-
No reason to close this (yet). Go on, go on... :)
-
:lol: :lol:
Well, at least let me get my asbestos suit on ;)
Flipside
-
Rampage, I'd like to politely disagree with you on some points... :D
By being on this planet for 38 years, I can conclude that faith in Jesus is blind. If it weren't blind, we would be so objective that He wouldn't be able to lead us. Jesus is the Father who leads his son blindfolded to a surprise. Faith in Christ means 100% subjugation!
If you're referring to "blind" in the sense of not knowing the future, I agree, but you're referring to interpretation, I disagree - more on that in a bit. To digress for a moment, Jesus knew what he was in for all along. He struggled with it, certainly, but he knew what his purpose on Earth was. On the other hand, humans, being human, need to walk in faith, because they'd probably balk if they knew what they would face farther down the line. Think of what the Twelve might have done or thought at the beginning if they knew what they were getting into. :) A mountain looks imposing when seen whole, but you can climb it eventually simply by taking it one step at a time.
The same thing goes with the Bible. One must see through its "paradoxes" and understand it at face value because we are not given the right to interpret it. (Of course, symbolism is used quite oftenly in the Bible and we should see them symbolically, not at face value.)
But we are called to love God with all our soul and all our strength and all our heart and all our mind. I think that studying and interpreting the Bible is a wonderful way to worship God with our mind. Read Acts 17:11, for example. And keep in mind that God is the author of creation as well as the Bible, so they will never be in conflict. If they seem to be, then we have to recheck our understanding of one or the other.
We are not God and never will be. Thus, we must debase ourselved to absolute trust in the Father and absolute servitude of the Father.
This shouldn't mean we should strive to be puppets. Ideally, we should be in harmonious agreement and submission to God at all times, but I think God is pleased when we study the Bible and study the universe with the motivation of finding out more about God. We can't know everything God knows, but we can make the most of what we do know.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet:
The Bible is the truth yes, there no doubting that in my opinion. Its just not the literal truth, nor Gods exact words(unlike the Koran, which muslims believe is all Gods words), it teaches the message as a parable of sorts. Stories written so that they could be understood at the time, as evidently, people did not know about such things as space, the stars etc, so the story of creation had to been applicable to the times and it does that. It quite clearly, wraps up a few billion years of developed into a easy to understand allegory of the creation of the universe.
I think you hit the nail on the head, dude.
-
See, that sounds to me like you're just making up any old **** to make your beliefs sound less outmoded. No offence.
[EDIt] Ye gods, I'm turning in to an0n in my old age
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
But we are called to love God with all our soul and all our strength and all our heart and all our mind. I think that studying and interpreting the Bible is a wonderful way to worship God with our mind. Read Acts 17:11, for example. And keep in mind that God is the author of creation as well as the Bible, so they will never be in conflict. If they seem to be, then we have to recheck our understanding of one or the other.
To take a more "evil liberal Californian movie star who must die!!!!" view of things.
Everything in the universe, all religions, sciencies, etc. are created so that people can understand themselves and their relationship with existance. There is no true right or wrong path, but making existance better for your fellows both past, present, and future is something that any reasonable person would do.
You cannot shield yourself with golden lies, or hide due to fear, you must experience as much as possible and understand as many view points as possible in order to understand creation in your own way and thus be closer to its creator.
Hiding behind one faith or "truth" is only cheating yourself of what you can become, of what you could do in the name of being alive, or in the name of others.
Everyone needs to constantly recheck their reality based on what they have done.
Christ, Bhudda, Moses, and Mohammad are all part of the same thing, you cannot limit yourself or allow yourself to be blinded and perverted by not allowing yourself to experience them as a whole.
To put it this way: If got created the entire universe and placed everything here with a reason and a purpose, do you truly believe that you exist to redeem 90% of the world? Or that the 90% of the world that does not share your view has something that can contribute to you?
If you believe that you must go on a crusade and defeat everyone's ideals, you are just as bad as someone who commits murder. Destroying a history and culture destroys the cumulative works of people over thousands of years.
If murder is a sin, then ignoring or believing that those who are different then you are wrong and must be destroyed is an even greater sin.
-
That's all well and good, but as Einstein said "the tyranny of the ignorant is assured for all time"
-
Originally posted by Ace
...
I have no idea what you're talking about in most of this. What is this, some bizzare form of relativistic humanism? :wtf:
Hiding behind one faith or "truth" is only cheating yourself of what you can become, of what you could do in the name of being alive, or in the name of others.
If you have two (or more) different mutually exclusive viewpoints, they cannot all be true. Either one is true and the rest are false, or they are all false. If you are convinced what you know is the truth, why shouldn't you pursue it?
If you believe that you must go on a crusade and defeat everyone's ideals, you are just as bad as someone who commits murder. Destroying a history and culture destroys the cumulative works of people over thousands of years.
Yes, destroying an entire culture is tragic. But that's not what Christianity is doing - although some Christians, through mistake or even maliciousness, have done this. The core Christian message is compatible with all cultures. It has to be, since God wrote it.
-
I find religions scary as hell... Devoting your life to a "god" or "saviour" :shaking:
Again: :shaking:
I'm not gonna devote my life to anyone but myself. Selfish? Perhaps, but in the end you die and your life is over. Afterlife or no, I'm going to make the most of of this life for myself and not for some "god".
I don't believe in any salvation or heaven or any of that crap. IMO its just something to "soften" you up and make life easier to deal with. But it also shields you from seeing the truth as it becomes an excuse for many things. I'd rather live life the hard way then in ignorance.
However, I will not stop or do anything to hold anyone away from their beliefs. I respect those who believe and I will respect their belief systems.
(As long as they don't try to force it on me cause then I get REALLY pissed
*has some Jehova's gagged and tied down in the basement for torture*)
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
I have no idea what you're talking about in most of this. What is this, some bizzare form of relativistic humanism? :wtf:
If you have two (or more) different mutually exclusive viewpoints, they cannot all be true. Either one is true and the rest are false, or they are all false. If you are convinced what you know is the truth, why shouldn't you pursue it?
Yes, destroying an entire culture is tragic. But that's not what Christianity is doing - although some Christians, through mistake or even maliciousness, have done this. The core Christian message is compatible with all cultures. It has to be, since God wrote it.
...and god jeudaism, islam, and every other religion under the sun in one way shape or form or another. ;)
So no core message of any religion or philosiphy used by a reasonable person in truth contradicts.
-
Originally posted by Ace
So no core message of any religion or philosiphy used by a reasonable person in truth contradicts.
:wtf:
You must not pay close attention to them, then. Here's just one example: Hindus believe that a person experiences many reincarnations which further their soul toward some ultimate purpose. Christians believe that you only get one chance at life, and when you die, that's it. They can't both be right.
-
but they can both be wrong. :ha:
.... or can they?
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
:wtf:
You must not pay close attention to them, then. Here's just one example: Hindus believe that a person experiences many reincarnations which further their soul toward some ultimate purpose. Christians believe that you only get one chance at life, and when you die, that's it. They can't both be right.
You need to look past literal definitions :)
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
Christians believe that you only get one chance at life, and when you die, that's it.
No, they believe in an afterlife. Wether it be in Hell or Heaven, there is a second life according to Christians.
But I do believe when you die, thats it. No more. You are done for. Buried beneath a patch of grass. A pile of dust. No more. Gone. DEAD.
-
Bah! Heathen? I saw he's just a grade-a pessimist! Burn him at the stake boys! :p
-
VBBQ?
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Bah! Heathen? I saw he's just a grade-a pessimist! Burn him at the stake boys! :p
Pessimist? I'm quite happy with one life. If I get the most out of this life I don't need no afterlife or some reincarnation.
-
Kent Hovind (The person that runs the deeply silly site that Hotsnoj is rather fond of) is unable to give you your money anyway. He declared himself bankrupt to avoid paying taxes ages ago, as he believes that taxes are a communist concept and make the baby Jesus cry. (P.S. James Randi's million has been independently verified many times as accessable.)
Hovind (and numerous morons which believe him) is one of the more entertaining crank pots on the internet and really quite harmless (even other young earthers think he's insane). He also has no money to be able to attempt to thrust his lunacy on anyone but a small minority of very gullible people. So the best solution to his impervious stance towards reason and logic is to just point and laugh. The people that we should be worried about are those who sit on schoolboards, major organised religions and extremely wealthy and influential televangelist charletans.
-
And with that, would someone please close this thread. All points have been made.
-
All points on the generalized subject of the nature of religion, as well as the theory of evolution, science in general, and philosophy/theology have been made? Well hee yaw, guess that means that we humans never have to think again, eh? Everything's already been done, we not only have a complete understanding of the Universe but of all possible, fictitious, or erroneous Universes, there's nothing left for mankind to do but lay down and die!
I'd call you a putz, but that'd be misinterpreted as flaming and hence be liable to get you what you want. Putz.
Anyway. I could take potshots at the Bible all day long, and the modern (typically fundie) interpretation yet longer. Actually, since its flaws are well-documented, it'd really add up to about a minute of searching, copying, and pasting. But that's besides the point. The Bible is an excellent framework on which to found religion and/or moral codes, a good history, and an interesting (if dry and abstruse) read. You just have to keep in mind that, even if one is to take it as literally God's word and his Son's (which Jesus seems to dispute in the literal sense, actually, though it may be an error in translation), it has been passed down verbally, modified, censored (by the very bodies extant to preserve it, no less), and distorted in meaning so that the modern form is the literary equivalent of a static-ridden broadcast. Which is simultaneously picking up signals from two or three other bands, which are at times all but indistinguishable from the desired message. The problem then is, interpretation's basically in the eye of the beholder. Jerry Fallwell can read the New Testament and find his message of hate there, plain as day, and I can do the same and find the record of what amounts to recorded history's first great radical libertarian, just as clearly. His will always look like utterly contrived **** to me, and vice versa, but I'll take his word for it that that's what he sees. And there's the story of religion, and why it's so bleeding hard to convince the born-agains of anything- NOTHING can be proven or disproven incontrovertibly if one's sole common "empirical" knowledge is contained in the Bible, because it means completely different things depending on one's preconceptions.
Now. Taking this concept of all interpretations of the Bible being equally apparent to their proponents (with more or less supporting evidence, generally depending on the intellect and passion of the one looking), is it not entirely possible that this was the intention? Assuming God wrote the Bible, could He not have scrambled its message intentionally so that one had to find one's own truth? The old cultural concept of a clear divine edict, the disobedience of which inevitably leads to an extended vacation in Hell, is generally thought to be largely originating from the old authoritarian states and nations, back in the days when the old priests and kings dictated down to the common serf- it was basically a concept developed so that they could say "Do what I say, whether it's blatantly against your own interests or not, or have a naaasty time when my old friend God gets at you when you die. Which will be very shortly if you disobey him, seeing as I, God's messenger, have this big nasty spear." It is not inherent in the Bible itself, with the exception of a few cases such as the Commandments (On most other occasions, God is speaking through a proxy, and it's generally up to the reader to determine whether that proxy has god behind him at all- see the exchange rates on slavery, etc. which most people now take as just historical background). Perhaps the Bible is set up specifically this way so that people can draw their own conclusions, so that beyond a basic core of a few specific morals (violated every day, but that's irrelevant) the practice of religion is sort of a personality litmus test in itself- the way in which people show their true colors, and God's one real test of humanity's faith. Hell, makes more sense than saying that the big mean omniscient being needs to make you fall and scrape your knee to see whether you'll turn around and curse him for it or not.
I think I meant to arrive at a point in there, but it's late, I'm tired, and I'm out of chemicals. Will resume eventually. Demon is a putz.
-
Now, I realize that it's late and all that, but that is no reason to break out the flame-thrower and empty a tank. I knew that this thread would end up a flame war, and thats why I called for it to be closed. Now that I think about it, every religion thread has ended in a flame war.
I also realize that your character on the board is 'an0n's more reasonable sidekick', but you're not fooling me. You're not fooling anybody, why keep it up? Lighten up, you'll enjoy the ride more.
To get back on topic, you may very well be right. But who is to say who's right and who's wrong? Why don't we all just drop this stupid argument? What do we have to gain by fighting over religion? I know this sounds like one of those "Why can't we all just get along?" rants, but I feel that we would find the answers we seek if we did.
-
Saying he is an0n's side-kick is like saying red tastes like orange. Sure they're the same general shade, but they have different.... tas..erm.. nevermind.. that would sound funny.
point is, why try to stop a perfectly fine debate? Closing the thread would be abruptly chopping off the subject, and as such, I don't think there is any reason to at the moment.
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Saying he is an0n's side-kick is like saying red tastes like orange. Sure they're the same general shade, but they have different.... tas..erm.. nevermind.. that would sound funny.
Oranges I know, but what do Reds taste like?
-
Kool-Aide.
-
Originally posted by demon442
I knew that this thread would end up a flame war, and thats why I called for it to be closed.
Hmmm more like calling for the thread to be closed (which made no flipping sence btw) was the sole reason you got flamed. Noone else was flaming anyone in the thread, yea they may have called some guy that runs some off the wall website a moron a few times,...but for the most part this thread was actually had some interesting reading in it. If it bothers you in some way, simply don't click the link k?
-
you know that was like the most non-flame post Stryke has ever posted, you know that right...
-
Oh, goodie, a religion thread!
I am by nature a stoic, cynic, and general pessimist. I couldn't give a damn what other people believe, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone. What I DO object to is the fact that Christianity has caused more wars than ANY OTHER RELIGION! But that fact has no place here, and belongs in another topic.
The most ridiculous argument in favour of Creation is, 'If God isn't responsible for creating the universe, how come it is so well suited to the evolution of life?' Well, I'm a supporter of the many-realities theory (which is closer to being a faith than evolution, actually, and there's still a fair amount of evidence for it). If there's an infinite number of universes out there, and only a very small number have life, then if this universe WASN'T suited to life, we wouldn't be able to ask the question... And even without the many-realities theory, that answer holds true. If the miniscule probably of human evolution had not come to pass, we wouldn't be around to ask why it had because it wouldn't have done!
OK, this is philosophy rather than science, but philosophy can venture into places where science cannot go. And it can fight religion on equal terms, too. But I'm not going to try and crush religious beliefs because that isn't possible. Religion is by nature superstition; stemming from ignorance, and adhered to by faith. Religion is actually a very good thing, as it represents Man's drive to abolish ignorance. In this way, its roots are the same as the roots of science. However, while religion is based on faith, science is based on evidence and logic. Two different kinds of truth, one might say.
Religion is the truth of the soul, but if religion is wrong, there is no soul and the truth of the physical world is dominant. In which case, science is probably correct and what we know about the universe needs explaining logically.
Science is the truth of the physical world, but if science is wrong, there is no physical world and the truth of the soul is dominant. In which case, everything is put here by God and fossils don't prove anything. Nor does evolution. Or any other human observations.
Philosophy is middle ground: free thought, often outside the known realms of science but not constrained by superstition. Of course, it isn't as solid as religion or science, so it's certainly not a very good substitute, unless you like uncertainty.
On the whole, I dislike religion. I like visible or logical proof of a theory, or at least a sense that the theory is 'right'. I'm inclined to believe that macroevolution is correct, but if strong evidence to the contrary comes up and there is a replacement theory I will accept the new theory.
If ever someone comes up with strong evidence that there is a superbeing, or 'God', that watches over us, and this fits with everything we know about the universe, I will accept it. Currently, there is no such evidence. Not a small amount, not very little, but none.
The same goes for the supernatural. Under controlled tests (don't even think about picking holes in the word 'controlled' as applied to scientific testing) no evidence in favour of ghosts or 'psychic' abilities has been forthcoming.
My own beliefs in the direction of the supernatural and 'life after death' come down to one central idea: there's nothing special about life or conciousness. Because of the very nature of our conciousness, we cannot analyse it internally. Externally, it comes down to electrical impulses in brain protein. When we die, we die. There is no soul, or anything like that. We are biological computers. Nothing more, nothing less. We can only define conciousness as the ability to behave in a manner that is associated with conciousness.
OK, that's my complete universe view summed up. I emphasise: it is merely my opinion. The last paragraph in particular is only my opinion. It may be proved wrong in the future, in which case I'll change my opinion to match the 'facts'. And I have no problem with other people's opinions provided they do not affect freedom of others.
As I point out above, science and religion both have reasons for thinking that the other is wrong (the nature of truth), so the battle will never be resolved until we know EVERYTHING about the universe. So don't bother fighting. Just wait and see.
Unless you're so insecure in your beliefs that you want to eliminate all competing interpretations of the final evidence...
-
I think Zack Parsons said it best at Something Awful (http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=1621)
-
While I do not personally believe in the bible, may I make a point:
The Bible is man's interpretation of God's word, not His word. And as we know, out knowledge and understanding of the world around us influences our interpretation of philosophy etc.
Just a thot.
-
Originally posted by Descenterace
Christianity has caused more wars than ANY OTHER RELIGION!
Howabout Islam?
-
yes more than islam, though it's close, many of the ones involving both were mostly (read more than half, not all of them, yes they started quite a few) started by the christians
-
Hmm. So the side which starts a war is always also the one who causes it? Interesting...
-
Realistically, the First Crusade, at least, was entirely the fault of the Vatican.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Realistically, the First Crusade, at least, was entirely the fault of the Vatican.
actually the 1st Crusade was a countermeasure to the succesfull offensive of the Sheldjuk Turks caused by their victory at Manzikert. Even if it was decades later.
And let's not forget that many people seem to ignore the fact that islam had been attacking christian lands since the foundation of islam. North Africa and the Levant were once wholly Christian.
-
I wonder why Christians often like to flaunt their spirituality just like gays like to flaunt their sexuality. No one goes around talking about how he's proud to be straight. I don't put "Look at me! I'm an atheist!" in my sig, nor does anyone mention he's Buddhist or Jewish or whatever. So you're a Christian. Big ****ing deal.
-
Actually, that might be interesting.. going around flaunting straightness that is. Although most twits would probably take it as overcompensation.
-
I've noticed some creationists (none of them here) that say that science is wrong because it doesn't explain the meaning of life or why we're here.
But,
THERE IS NO MEANING TO LIFE AND THERE'S NO "WHY". WE'RE BORN, WE LIVE, WE DIE. THERE IS NO GRAND PLAN FOR THE UNIVERSE.
The idea of a "why" everything exists or a meaning to life is a human fabrication. As the old saying goes, "It just be's that way".
-
KT, wanna organize a straight pride parade?
-
We'd need a straight city. Maybe LA or New York. Err.. not New York, scratch that.
-
(http://www.insolitology.com/images/originalimg4.jpg)
-
Stupidity, thy name is "waterdog":
http://forums.storagereview.net/index.php?showtopic=10203&st=0
Little does he know that the Moon is creeping away from Earth at the rate of 1.5 inches a year and eventually total solar eclipses will be impossible.
-
Ironically enough I did read once (In New Scientist I believe) that one person claimed that there may be a link between the fact that Earth gets total eclipses and the evolution of intelligence.
Unfortunately I can't remember what the link was and no matter how hard I think about it I can't come up with a single credible idea for what it could have been. Still it was published in a recognised scientific source so it obviously wasn't the kind of psuedoscientific rubbish it sounds like :)
-
Before the rise of Christianity, most religions (nearly all, in fact) were able to coexist peacefully. When Christianity arrived and its followers tried to impose their beliefs forcibly upon others, that's when religious wars broke out. Before Christianity, not a single war was fought for religious reasons. The only things thought to be worth fighting over were natural resources such as land.
So, chances are, Islam would not have ended up the way it has today if Christianity had never existed. However, there is no 'control variable' to test that hypothesis, so I wouldn't want to talk in absolute terms.
-
Originally posted by Descenterace
When Christianity arrived and its followers tried to impose their beliefs forcibly upon others, that's when religious wars broke out.
Have you ever looked at the early history of Christianity? :rolleyes: It was nearly exactly the opposite. It took almost a thousand years for the first Crusade, and another hundred or so for the Inquisition.
The Muslims, on the other hand, were fighting each other in a much shorter span of time.
Before Christianity, not a single war was fought for religious reasons.
How certain are you of that? I'm sure there were plenty of undocumented wars for religious reasons. And you can always look in the Old Testament for some documented wars - with Israel as both the attacker and defender.
-
Originally posted by Descenterace
Before the rise of Christianity, most religions (nearly all, in fact) were able to coexist peacefully. When Christianity arrived and its followers tried to impose their beliefs forcibly upon others, that's when religious wars broke out. Before Christianity, not a single war was fought for religious reasons. The only things thought to be worth fighting over were natural resources such as land.
So, chances are, Islam would not have ended up the way it has today if Christianity had never existed. However, there is no 'control variable' to test that hypothesis, so I wouldn't want to talk in absolute terms.
you don't know what you're talking about
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
Have you ever looked at the early history of Christianity? :rolleyes: It was nearly exactly the opposite. It took almost a thousand years for the first Crusade, and another hundred or so for the Inquisition.
true but for this little nagging fact: once christianity got the imperial seal of approval (i.e. once it moved from being persecuted to being accepted and then state religion) the christians went about closing and/or destroying pagan temples/shrines/sacred places.
Never a full scale war of conversion but not exactly peaceful either.
Remember: a monotheistic religion is by its very nature intolerant towards all religions that are different. After all: there can be only one.
-
Funny you should say that, I was just watching the Highlander:ha: :nervous:
-
Originally posted by Stealth
you don't know what you're talking about
he's partially right though. The polytheistic religions of the classical age (mainly the Roman pagan religion) was incredibly tolerant. Every religion was allowed that did not oppose Rome (that's why the Druids were all but exterminated) or the Imperial Cult (that's why Christians got to know the colliseum from teh inside).
Religions not doing that were absorbed by the romans to a very high degree.
-
And also, that was the reason for the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem in the year 70 AD. And the same period is also the source of the word Zealot, coming from a group in Israel that wanted to militarily force the Romans out of Judea/Israel/Palestine, and ultimately committed mass suicide at Masada.
-
Before I even start, let me say that I am not defending Christianity for its past.
Wars over religion are pathetic, true, but so are the majority of the wars that preceded Christianity (in other words everything that's written about from the Greeks, Egyptians, Israelis, Romans (for a time)Babylonians, etc). The near constant warring of the Greeks is probably the best example; it wasn't religious, it was just that the states couldn't stop picking fights with each other. But because they didn't really believe in the cause, they would put down their arms for events like the olympics. There are also practically all of the tribes of Africa, and no one can look at them and say "before Christianity, they were peaceful." Or for that matter, no one can say that the political turmoil on much of that continent has direct religious ties now.
I'm not going to address the crusades, as they represent a time in christianity that one man controlled religious thought for all of western society, and his own personal agendas were subject to being "incorperated" into the religion. Those weren't religious wars, they were just sold as such to most of the European populace. It isn't like that any more in the christian world, and there have not been any major religious wars involving the "Christian" community since the end of the protestant revolution. However, things like colonialism and the large-scale conversion of nomadic or "primative" people have still happened. Islam, on the other hand, has a more definitive tradition of war. There is more basis for the religiously motivated killing in Islam than in other comperable religions, though there are also many mandates against it. However, any time religion is used to justify mass murder I have to at least give it a :wtf:. That is not to say that all Muslims believe in holy war, but the religion does seem to have more of a tendency to place more power in the hands of a select few, and it does seem to promote a more primitive culture than most westerners would be willing to live with. I also don't believe that any of the recent wars in the middle east have as much to do with religion as people credit them with... the wars in Iraq were just the US throwing around some of its muscle, the Iraq-Iran war in the 80's was extremely political, and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that is going on at the moment is fueled by the fact that both ethnic groups (important distinction) claim that all of the country belongs to them. On this last one I would like to note that there are members of both sides of this issue that have repeatedly forced the religion card, but I do not see prevailing evidence that they represent the populations across the board. The Afghanistan Taliban was the closest to a religious state as has existed in recent times, and we all saw what that was like.
Anyway, what is dangerous for a religion (any religion) is the idea that [evangilist preacher voice] "I am right and I have God on my side." [/evangilist preacher voice] I've known people like this, they really scare me because it is not possible to get them to look at the other side of the issue, or even to back down from a confrontation.
On a side note, I need to make a graphic that says "StratComm's 2 cents"
-
Originally posted by StratComm
Anyway, what is dangerous for a religion (any religion) is the idea that [evangilist preacher voice] "I am right and I have God on my side." [/evangilist preacher voice] I've known people like this, they really scare me because it is not possible to get them to look at the other side of the issue, or even to back down from a confrontation.
True. And as someone said, "It is not that God should be on our side but that we should be on God's."
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
Stupidity, thy name is "waterdog":
http://forums.storagereview.net/index.php?showtopic=10203&st=0
Little does he know that the Moon is creeping away from Earth at the rate of 1.5 inches a year and eventually total solar eclipses will be impossible.
Nice one, Personally my favorite proof of god is the untrue story where Euler (famous mathematician) wanted to counter rising atheistic philosophy so blurted out a random equation as proof to a top french philosopher he was debating who had no knowledge of maths which forced him to withdraw.
Here's another dollop of the same: http://www.crank.net/proof.html
(http://members.aol.com/dwr51055/cartn-8.gif)