C'jais Posted November 26, 2002 Author Share Posted November 26, 2002 Originally posted by ZDawg Oh really? last time I checked, the meaning of Evil was "Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant."... I Dunno about you but that doesn't sound like it has ANYTHING to do with God. Evil is entirely subjective - you have your set of morals and I have mine. To one man, it is immoral to kill another man, to yet another man, it is survival. There is no such thing as universally wrong or right. Your opinion is God, mine is just a set of principles. Even if you convinced the entire world that it'd be wrong to kill people, it still wouldn't, in the universal view of things. God is not on your side here, because he is formed of your opinion. BTW, if God can forgive everything, why do we need to follow some absurd code if we're going to heaven anyway? If he can't forgive anything, then show me what he refuses to forgive, and I will invent my own, better God... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted November 26, 2002 Share Posted November 26, 2002 [Force:Absurdlylongpost] Originally posted by Redwing I know for certain you can't do that. Besides, even I can come up with conjectures like "Maybe they had a mental problem" or "Some of the people involved were obviously mistaken" which are the most common miracle explanations Your point being? BTW: You still have failed to produce examples. Originally posted by Redwing In theory. If I think God did it, there's exactly the same amount of proof as for evolution doing so. You have made a grave mistake here. Very grave indeed. Evolution does nothing. I repeat for clarification: Evolution does nothing. There, everyone can breathe again. Evolution is a model. Keyword: Model. That means that it is a way to describe what we see. And what we see is this: Life on Earth changes slowly over the cause of millions of years. There are no rapid changes (rapid meaning over the cause of one or two generations), and the changes that do occur result in specialisation, the occupation of a new niche, or adaption to a new environment (actually a class of microorganisms capable of engineering their DNA code has been found, these could produce rapid changes, but the engineering is entirely biological). The model that best fits this is the Theory of Evolution. Why? The result and rate of the changes would indicate that the those who are best able to survive in any given environment survive to pass on their genes. Beneficial gene combinations accumulate, because the rest are removed. That is the most logical conclusion. Originally posted by Redwing You're assuming the world worked then just as it does now. If the world is degenerating, then obviously it was a much different - and healthier - place. Besides, Noah didn't take any samples. God sent everything to his ark. You're assuming I believe God just kick-started things off at Creation and left it to run on its own. Remember, I have a God who can do anything. It took him over a hundred years to build the ship (people and animals lived longer then), too. The animals could have hibernated. 1) You have failed to account for the survival of infectous, disease-causing parasites such as Cholera, the Black Plague, Hepatitis B, ect. Survival of these species would seem incompatible with human survival when every human being on the face of the planet was huddled inside an Ark. 2) The aquatic biospheres would still be destroyed. Anything that needed to be remotely near the seabed for some reason would be squashed by the increasing pressure. And all life adapted to salt/fresh conditions (ie: Half the number of aquatic species) would be utterly destroyed. The presence of these brances today cannot possibly be explained through "adaption". 3) On what grounds do you say that the world is degenerating? 4) Inbreeding. 5) Where did all the water go then? Originally posted by Redwing Well, no...so we would have stars, silly. Now you are the one who is being silly. If She wanted us to have stars (why would She want that BTW?) She could just place them there, end of story (this is actually a theological debate, making it irrellevant). Originally posted by Redwing quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You forget I'm not disagreeing with evolution. I just think God did more, because he said he did. Because he said he did? You mean: "Because the bible told me so". -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Exactly. ^_~ See my above post on the credibility of the (Un)Holy Bible. Quite apart from that, it seems that you are taking a fundamentalistic veiwpoint. Correct me if I am wrong, but when I last checked fundamentalism was the chief cause of the Crusades, Apartheid, and the 11/9-01 incident. Originally posted by Redwing I have faith. And even if you're right, so what? I'm only trying to show you can't prove God wrong. But since Evolution hasn't been proved wrong either, and there is a ton of evidence for Evolution, and none at all for God, Evolution is the best model. Originally posted by Redwing Why is it folly to believe in something? Because you have to belive it. Also see above on fundamentalism. Originally posted by Redwing We both believe in science that we cannot see with our own two eyes, that we blindly trust others to be telling the truth about. SkinWalker had an exelent point about science being peer-reviewed. So we don't "blindly trust others to be telling the truth". Originally posted by Redwing You may be convinced but you really can't ever be sure. You can't even be sure our very existence isn't the product of your fantasy, or the mental engineering of Super Termites from Planet Una, any more than I can be sure God exists. But you're sure, right? To the point where it affects your existence as a person? ^_~ Which is the exact reason for working empirically. Se my above post on what science wants. Originally posted by Redwing Supernatural - as in "attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces" is only what science cannot explain. if science could theoretically eventually explain everything, supernatural would have no definition. And God would be explained by science, which like I pointed out above, is impossible because human understanding couldn't possibly fathom God. Science neither wants, needs, nor claims to be able to explain everything. It can 'only' explain everything relavant. Originally posted by Redwing Science - as in "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena, such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena, such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study" cannot fathom everything as it exists right now. Theories are fantasies. The line blurs there. Science to fantasy to supernatural. You are raping the English language. And yet your mistake is quite simple: THEORIES AREN'T FANTASIES. Check Fifteen Answers To Creationist nonsense (this link: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF) for a full explanation, as I grow increasingly tired of repeating myself over that mistake. No lines are blurry. If it is veryfiable, it's science. If not: It's useless. Originally posted by Redwing What I was talking about in the article - the article showed that science doesn't explain everything, and "When you go one step beyond the mundane system, you only excite an inquisitive humor, which it is impossible ever to satisfy". Thus you can't rule out supernatural, because you can't explain everything with science. See above. Originally posted by Redwing quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Bible is wrong in so many places, why should this one be right. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reaaaalllly. Do tell. ^.^ Well, for one thing, there is the Flood. For another Genesis has more holes in it that puff-stone. A third: Jesus was militant, not pacifist. Originally posted by Redwing But when you say "fact" in all fairness you have to use the majority definition. I was not aware that there are multiple definitions. Originally posted by Redwing You cannot say that "God's existence is fictional", therefore you shouldn't be telling the world that "It is a fact that God does not exist." Philosophy, if I may? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And most Christians can argue there is not an absence of evidence. Besides, your knowledge of the dictionary and clever wording of a sentence to make it inflammatory cannot prove God doesn't exist ^_~ You are wrong on all accounts save the last one. Everything that can be documented is factual. Anything else is infactual, and therefore, fictional (at least it was that way last time I checked). It is a fact that God doesn't exist. Keyword: Fact. While absense of evidence does not signify evidence of absense, it does signify absence of relavance. I still have seen no evidence (I'll get back to you, ZDawg, in short order) that God exists. And lastly: I didn't intend to make anything inflammable. I intended to raise awareness of the definition of a commonly used word, in this case through an example. Sorry if I stepped on some toes. Originally posted by Redwing Also, without time travel, you can't prove the world came into being on its own steam. Therefore I could say "All your theories of evolution did not happen. That is a fact." Because neither you nor science can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that that is truth. Actually, by your usage nothing known to us as fallible humans is a fact. And now I'm babbling. Neither I nor science need to prove that Evolution happened "beyond a shadow of doubt". I, and science, only need to prove that it is the most probable. Originally posted by Redwing 1: Theory is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. So there is such a thing as "Creation theory". ^_^ Exerpt from "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense" (link here: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF) According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." Creation fails the "well-substatiated"-criterium. It is therefore a hypothesis at best. Originally posted by Redwing I think they're confused as to where the water is supposed to have come from. From "the fountains of the deep" and the "firmament" breaking and raining down. They obviously haven't read the Bible they're trying to refute. Not all that flood water was rain. It says so right there. [...] He didn't try to save any of the sea creatures. And he didn't save things such as, for example, the dinosaurs? Most of them would have died out in the post-Flood conditions and the atmospheric changes. He would have had them on the Ark but they of course ended up dying out anyway. This was destruction, not creation. That still leaves alot of problems with the Flood 'model' (see above). Originally posted by Redwing Oh, well that doesn't exactly prove the point I thought it was supposed to prove (the evolution of a completely new species from an old). But you don't need to argue that with me, because I believe it does happen. A newly-discovered bacterium affects the mating behavior and gender of the insects that it infects. The result of this is, in short, that at least one species of insects is currently splitting into two (I can source that if you want, it's Sciam stuff, but I don't have my 'collection' at hand right now). Originally posted by Redwing Why then are you trying to use science to disprove God? What good does it do you? [...] Why then are you trying to use science to disprove an explanation of how we came into existence? Again, what good does it do you? [...] Yup. But scientist are not science, and hence my purpose for arguing. Science isn't going about to prove God doesn't exist. People are using science to try to prove God doesn't exist. All of this can be boiled down to the following: I do not try to disprove anything. I try to prove that something is most probable, and therefore should be used in reasoning. I think that the reason for pro-scientific people trying to disprove religious belifs stem from the fact that most people refuse to reason based on the best model available, so you need to show them that the model that they reason by is wrong. Also religion has a nasty history of burning works of math and science (eg the Great Library of Alexandria) along with their writers (19th-century scientists). Originally posted by Redwing But...but...I've never flamed Hence the "start". Seriously, though, it was nothing but a manner of speaking. Originally posted by Redwing But that isn't proving. Proof is "the evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true". Then what constitutes proof is dependent on the gullibility of the listener. Clearly that is useless when debating matters scientific. I suggest that you find a science sourcebook. Originally posted by Redwing Well now. How do you know how long a biosphere takes to develop in what must have been totally different conditions? You need to define "totally different conditions" in a more exact way. A rainforest, for example, is totally different, in many ways, from an arctic tundra, yet the two are totally similar in the sense that the basic laws of nature work the same way in both places. See above for more problems with the Flood. Originally posted by Redwing The Biblical authors did not put down what they were thinking when they were writing it. How do you know this, then? Besides, the entire Bible isn't under debate here. Just the few portions that deal with "how we got here" and the portions that assert God created us. [...] Books from the Bible have been found from about the time they were written with only a few word's difference from what they are now. Besides, the current books of the Bible were put through a serious grinder and what was to be "accepted". Or the Bible would be thousands of book long, instead of 66. The entire Bible is debatable in the sense that its credibility is questionable. And since it is not credible it is a bad source for knowledge. Every text is biassed. The author will always twist the story to his own ends or belifs, wether he knows it or not (save when he will get his butt flamed off for it, but since all the 'profets' went manno-a-manno with God, there were no-one to check that they did it right). Also, the Bible is, mainly, a chronicle. This means that it will be fit to the agenda of the person writing it (as was the case with the chronicles of Saxo eg). Originally posted by Redwing "We" are not scientific theories. My belief is that we need God, as in "we" - "people". ^_~ Hence the "...". Originally posted by Redwing You misread me. ^.^ I don't think the idea that science disproves God should be taught in schools. Or that people should be told "this did happen" when we don't know "this" happened. Especially when "this" means "God doesn't exist". It would be much fairer and more accurate to say "this is what we think happened." And of course science should be taught in schools ^_~ Science proves, scientifically, that God doesn't exist. As long as people understand the abilities and limitations of science, there is no problem. Until then it is preferable that they accept the scientific explanation as truth (though it isn't) for a wide varity of reasons, such as the ones that I stated in my original post. Besides: Religion doesn't show science the same favor, so your statement is rather hypocritical. Originally posted by Redwing Neither the Catholic Church nor Catholiscism necessarily has to have anything to do with Christianity as a whole. I am a Protestant, called such because my predecessors "protested' against the beliefs and actions of the Catholic Church, which is the church you are referring to. The differences in dogma, belif structure, organisation, ect. is academic. Besides, while Protestantism didn't react as violently against science as Catholicism (mainly because it lacked the resources) the better part of the witch burnings were a protestant passtime. Protestantism also clearly has a great deal of responsability when it comes to the extermination of the aboriginal cultures of Africa, North and South America, and Australia. So Protestantism and Catholecism have no basis for critisizing each other IMO. *Delivers a dressing-down from C'Jais* [/Force:Absurdlylongpost] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted November 26, 2002 Share Posted November 26, 2002 Originally posted by ZDawg Dude listen up, when your being crushed by a tractor and you hear the bones in your fingers snap along with your leg and parts of your arm science doesn’t mean jack to you. My friend, when I looked up I saw an ANGEL, ANGEL (angelic being). It was no flash of light or dilutions, it’s was an ANGEL, Do you get my point? Near-death-experience research has documented that the mind, when under conditions of extreme stress, creates hallucinations based on a combination of hope, fear, memory, belif, and imagination. It also releases large doses of anaesthetics that could have hallucinogenic effects. In short: It overloads, causing people to see thing that aren't there. Can anyone confirm your sighting. Originally posted by ZDawg What I saw was there! Standing next to me, I don’t need any friggin science to try and prove anything, I saw what I saw and the Creator of the earth HEALED me. The 'Creator' healed you? Does that mean that there were no paramedics? No ambulances? No hospital? No rehab center? No nothing? How much time did your healing take BTW. Originally posted by ZDawg Can you tell I don’t care about science? I kindda get the picture. Yet you are using its products. That's bigotry IMO. *Sees that C'Jais said almost the same already* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted November 26, 2002 Share Posted November 26, 2002 Originally posted by Cjais By all means, people should believe what they want, but they can't just walk around saying their beliefs are true and force them upon others, dictate their lives and scare them, unless they have scientific proof of it. And if they worked scientifically, they would never claim that their theories were truth, rendering this point academic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted November 26, 2002 Share Posted November 26, 2002 @Sith Maximus: I have been thinking along very similiar lines. But I think that Hitler would just have found some other group to scapegoat. What you really need to ask yourself is: What could he have done with Al Qaida or the modern equivelant of the Knights Templar at his back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted November 26, 2002 Share Posted November 26, 2002 Originally posted by SkinWalker But I think there is a social reason to believe in God. It gives us purpose, senses of right and wrong, Which is exactly what makes it addictive and dangerous. "purpose, senses of right and wrong" ect. were the driving forces behind 11/9-02. Originally posted by SkinWalker Another thing Dan Old-Elk used to tell me: "The Earth does not belong to us, we belong to her." Which is typically the difference between religion and spiritism/shamanism. This alternate center of the world (the world being the master, and Man a part of it, instead of Man mastering the world) means that shamanism will typically be less militant, selfish, dogmatic, and fundamentalistic than religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted November 26, 2002 Share Posted November 26, 2002 Originally posted by ZDawg I Understand what your saying, but science cannot prove what I saw or give an explanation, nor do I need one. "Has your vaunted religion really made you so blind?" -Zeratûl. C'Jais and I have provided more than adequate explanations. Originally posted by ZDawg I didn’t have time to think about Anything... I just turned around and BAM! it happened. There where 25 year veteran paramedics that said that there was no reason I should have lived. You have to be more specific still. "No reason" that you should have survived could just mean that they thought that you were filthy lucky that it wasn't your chest that was run over, or that survival chances in that kind of crashes are, figurativly speaking, one in a million. BTW: I am sure that they would appreaciate a little more gratitude for helping fetch your bacon from the bonfire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted November 26, 2002 Share Posted November 26, 2002 Originally posted by Mandolorian54 The guy above me did. Well he said that we don't need an explanation for why it rains and so there should be no need to believe in gods. But we do need an explanation for why it rains it's just more like why thers rain not why it rains. you know *Failed to accept your point due to the following error(s) of logic: God-of-the-gaps error. OR Purpose-assumed-relevant error.* Purpose is entirely irrellevant to the debate. Empirically nature works fine without a purpose. Therefore, lack of purpose does not disprove a model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted November 26, 2002 Share Posted November 26, 2002 Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider Man you guys will believe anything is from chance. 'We guys' don't belive at all. That's the point. When there is no evidence whatsoever it is simply more logical to say "we don't know yet, so we assume that it just happened", that saying "some intangible, unseen, unfelt, unheard, unproved, omnipotent (did I miss anything?) ETI did it". Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider By the way if there is no evil. Then what the terrorist did on 9/11 was ok right? Three words: Point of View. I have no doubt whatsoever that the 11/9 sonsofmotherlessgoats were acting on direct orders from Allah, were doing the right thing, and had all the justification that they needed. From their own (religious I might add) point of view. Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider I have done some math lately. The world from the Bible point of view would be about 15,000 years old. (If you would like to know how I got it I will be happy to explain.) Still too young. By far shot. Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider And also my point about C-14 dateing is that there is no outside proof. Ever hear about substitution in algebra? I know how to solve two equations with two unknowns each, thank you very much. Trick is, though: Here there is only one variable: The amount of C-14 in a piece of wood depends on the following factors: How much C-14 was in it to begin with, the rate of decay and the time passed. The percentage of C-14 in the atmosphere is constant, as C-14 is created by cosmic bombardment. The rate of decay is also constant. That leaves us with how many variables? Aaand the answer is: 1 BTW: You still haven't told me why you wanted to know my backing in Chemistry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elijah Posted November 26, 2002 Share Posted November 26, 2002 Originally posted by ShadowTemplar Near-death-experience research has documented that the mind, when under conditions of extreme stress, creates hallucinations based on a combination of hope, fear, memory, belif, and imagination. It also releases large doses of anaesthetics that could have hallucinogenic effects. In short: It overloads, causing people to see thing that aren't there. Can anyone confirm your sighting. My 2 Brothers and my dad Saw it, let me explain: When I was run over, The Tractor was backing up at a 45 Degree angle and I was behind it next to a brick wall. The Tractor turned straight and the bucket smashed me (several thousand pounds) into the brick wall... Now, the size I was at the time I was about chest high to the top of the bucket... Anyways, before the bucket hit me, something PICKED ME UP (apx) 4 feet in the air and the bucket didn’t hit my chest or head... what picked me up? I would like that question answer, if it was just pain/stress that I saw an Angle please do tell me what lifted me 4 feet in the air before the tractor hit me? The 'Creator' healed you? Does that mean that there were no paramedics? No ambulances? No hospital? No rehab center? No nothing? How much time did your healing take BTW. Paramedics picked me up and took my to the hospital, I Quote the paramedic "What the hell?! Its a Miracle this kid Is Not Dead", the doctor said the same... he told me the chances were very very high that I wouldn’t walk again, and even if I did I'd have extreme knee problems... Ironic that after friends and family prayed for me I was on crutches at just 6 weeks. (Although I do have knee problems, but that’s from something different) ...they thought that you were filthy lucky that it wasn't your chest that was run over As I said, the bucket would have hit my chest and crushed it falt... Somthing picked me up into the Air, Explain how this happens... please, do tell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted November 26, 2002 Author Share Posted November 26, 2002 Impressive story ZDawg. Maybe your family weren't in a position to see exactly what happened? Did they see you get lifted up as well? Regardless, that incident does not prove God: It might just be some natural law/phenomena that we haven't discovered yet. That your family didn't see the angel is something to consider as well. BTW, why didn't my friend get saved when he got killed by a car as he was lying on the road? Until every person in a near death situation escapes it that way, I will not begin to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandalorian54 Posted November 26, 2002 Share Posted November 26, 2002 The water cycle came from natual conincidences. It took billions of years to make, since it needed ALOT of hydrogen and oxygen molecules to combine. Wow tyrion you sure did catch evrythin that evolutionist said during class... cept the last little bit... that evolution is impossible and not true! That's right I've said it before evolutionists say evolution is not true. If anyone should be believing in a pink elephant it should be you. A pink elephant is more probable than evolution. This is not made to offend you Tyrion and I dont mean to be insulting if you took it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted November 26, 2002 Share Posted November 26, 2002 Originally posted by Mandolorian54 Wow tyrion you sure did catch evrythin that evolutionist said during class... cept the last little bit... that evolution is impossible and not true! That's right I've said it before evolutionists say evolution is not true. If anyone should be believing in a pink elephant it should be you. A pink elephant is more probable than evolution. This is not made to offend you Tyrion and I dont mean to be insulting if you took it that way. Actually..it isnt more proboble. Because for an elephant to breed new ones into an Pink elephant,it needs to elvove it's genes to get a pink DNA thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elijah Posted November 27, 2002 Share Posted November 27, 2002 Originally posted by Cjais Maybe your family weren't in a position to see exactly what happened? Did they see you get lifted up as well? Yes, they saw it all, every bit of it. Regardless, that incident does not prove God: It might just be some natural law/phenomena that we haven't discovered yet. You people never sease to amaze me... you have unexplainable things put before you eyes and just because you chose not to believe in God you make up some lame story. That your family didn't see the angel is something to consider as well. What? If you read my post above they DID see the angle, as clear as I saw it. BTW, why didn't my friend get saved when he got killed by a car as he was lying on the road? Until every person in a near death situation escapes it that way, I will not begin to believe. Often have I asked the same question when friends have died before my very eyes... Its a questions I cannot answer yet I wish I could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwing Posted November 27, 2002 Share Posted November 27, 2002 This argument is becoming far too hostile for my tastes. This will probably my last ultralong post. ^.^ So I'll try not to say too much that needs replies (that I would need to answer). quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Redwing I know for certain you can't do that. Besides, even I can come up with conjectures like "Maybe they had a mental problem" or "Some of the people involved were obviously mistaken" which are the most common miracle explanations -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Your point being? BTW: You still have failed to produce examples. My point was that I wasn't going to bother producing examples, and I was explaining why. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Redwing In theory. If I think God did it, there's exactly the same amount of proof as for evolution doing so. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You have made a grave mistake here. Very grave indeed. Evolution does nothing. I repeat for clarification: Evolution does nothing. There, everyone can breathe again. Evolution is a model. Keyword: Model. That means that it is a way to describe what we see. And what we see is this: Life on Earth changes slowly over the cause of millions of years. There are no rapid changes (rapid meaning over the cause of one or two generations), and the changes that do occur result in specialisation, the occupation of a new niche, or adaption to a new environment (actually a class of microorganisms capable of engineering their DNA code has been found, these could produce rapid changes, but the engineering is entirely biological). The model that best fits this is the Theory of Evolution. Why? The result and rate of the changes would indicate that the those who are best able to survive in any given environment survive to pass on their genes. Beneficial gene combinations accumulate, because the rest are removed. That is the most logical conclusion. I understand this. I just didn't feel like spelling it out. -.- I understand what evolution is ^_~ I'm sorry. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Redwing You're assuming the world worked then just as it does now. If the world is degenerating, then obviously it was a much different - and healthier - place. Besides, Noah didn't take any samples. God sent everything to his ark. You're assuming I believe God just kick-started things off at Creation and left it to run on its own. Remember, I have a God who can do anything. It took him over a hundred years to build the ship (people and animals lived longer then), too. The animals could have hibernated. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) You have failed to account for the survival of infectous, disease-causing parasites such as Cholera, the Black Plague, Hepatitis B, ect. Survival of these species would seem incompatible with human survival when every human being on the face of the planet was huddled inside an Ark. 2) The aquatic biospheres would still be destroyed. Anything that needed to be remotely near the seabed for some reason would be squashed by the increasing pressure. And all life adapted to salt/fresh conditions (ie: Half the number of aquatic species) would be utterly destroyed. The presence of these brances today cannot possibly be explained through "adaption". 3) On what grounds do you say that the world is degenerating? 4) Inbreeding. 5) Where did all the water go then? 1) Dead bodies. Dormant in live ones. C'mon, you could think of an explanation for that really easily if you believed it. 2) But it can possibly be explained through evolution. If you read any of my earlier responses instead of just assuming everything about me you would have known that. 3) It's an assumed part of creation theory - "the world used to be better". Besides, even if it wasn't, Man is certainly doing the degenerating himself right now. 4) I answered this. 5) Um, the seas? The space in the fountains of the deep would still have been there, even when broken up. Volcanic activity would have caused cracks in the earth to appear for water to drain. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Redwing Well, no...so we would have stars, silly. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now you are the one who is being silly. If She wanted us to have stars (why would She want that BTW?) She could just place them there, end of story (this is actually a theological debate, making it irrellevant). (Sheheit. I'm not one of those people who care, in fact I think God personified himself as a male to alleviate male arrogance ) I don't know. Why would he want to make us? Why would he want to want us to have...raccoons? Fish? Besides, the stars are beautiful. That's not a valid scientific reason, but God is a person. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Redwing quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You forget I'm not disagreeing with evolution. I just think God did more, because he said he did. Because he said he did? You mean: "Because the bible told me so". -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Exactly. ^_~ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- See my above post on the credibility of the (Un)Holy Bible. Quite apart from that, it seems that you are taking a fundamentalistic veiwpoint. Correct me if I am wrong, but when I last checked fundamentalism was the chief cause of the Crusades, Apartheid, and the 11/9-01 incident. I've heard the arguments about the incredibility of the Bible and they're all based on conjecture. And you are VERY VERY VERY WRONG. I'll let it slide for ignorance because I am lazy *snicker* Note: "Fundamentalism" is one of the most misused terms ever. Technically I am taking a extremely fundamentalist viewpoint, but anyone who knew me that YOU (I assume) would term a fundamentalist would say I am so liberal I don't deserve to call myself a Christian. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Redwing I have faith. And even if you're right, so what? I'm only trying to show you can't prove God wrong. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But since Evolution hasn't been proved wrong either, and there is a ton of evidence for Evolution, and none at all for God, Evolution is the best model. A) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. B) You aren't counting people's lives or testimonies as evidence. I am. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Redwing Why is it folly to believe in something? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Because you have to belive it. Also see above on fundamentalism. You believe what you are told. Everything you have been taught could be a lie. How do you know? You cannot honestly say that you don't have to believe in everything you think exists to accept it. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Redwing We both believe in science that we cannot see with our own two eyes, that we blindly trust others to be telling the truth about. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SkinWalker had an exelent point about science being peer-reviewed. So we don't "blindly trust others to be telling the truth". How do you know that? You can't see your peers. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Redwing Science - as in "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena, such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena, such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study" cannot fathom everything as it exists right now. Theories are fantasies. The line blurs there. Science to fantasy to supernatural. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are raping the English language. And yet your mistake is quite simple: THEORIES AREN'T FANTASIES. Check Fifteen Answers To Creationist nonsense (this link: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?ch...E49809EC588EEDF) for a full explanation, as I grow increasingly tired of repeating myself over that mistake. No lines are blurry. If it is veryfiable, it's science. If not: It's useless. You are crossing the line to flaming. Please stop. I'm not even going to give your post the time of day if you can't keep it insult free. Sorry ^.^ Well, for one thing, there is the Flood. For another Genesis has more holes in it that puff-stone. A third: Jesus was militant, not pacifist. Post proof. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Redwing But when you say "fact" in all fairness you have to use the majority definition. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I was not aware that there are multiple definitions. [/quote[ Check out a dictionary. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Redwing You cannot say that "God's existence is fictional", therefore you shouldn't be telling the world that "It is a fact that God does not exist." Philosophy, if I may? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And most Christians can argue there is not an absence of evidence. Besides, your knowledge of the dictionary and clever wording of a sentence to make it inflammatory cannot prove God doesn't exist ^_~ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are wrong on all accounts save the last one. Everything that can be documented is factual. Anything else is infactual, and therefore, fictional (at least it was that way last time I checked). It is a fact that God doesn't exist. Keyword: Fact. While absense of evidence does not signify evidence of absense, it does signify absence of relavance. I still have seen no evidence (I'll get back to you, ZDawg, in short order) that God exists. And lastly: I didn't intend to make anything inflammable. I intended to raise awareness of the definition of a commonly used word, in this case through an example. Sorry if I stepped on some toes. I find that hard to believe considering your replies earlier. You're implying that you can prove that God does not exist, which is not something you yourself are able to prove. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Redwing Also, without time travel, you can't prove the world came into being on its own steam. Therefore I could say "All your theories of evolution did not happen. That is a fact." Because neither you nor science can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that that is truth. Actually, by your usage nothing known to us as fallible humans is a fact. And now I'm babbling. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Neither I nor science need to prove that Evolution happened "beyond a shadow of doubt". I, and science, only need to prove that it is the most probable. To what end? quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Redwing 1: Theory is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. So there is such a thing as "Creation theory". ^_^ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Exerpt from "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense" (link here: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?ch...49809EC588EEDF) According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Creation fails the "well-substatiated"-criterium. It is therefore a hypothesis at best. According to their definition. Which is modified from what can be found in the dictionary. How convenient. Purely psychological, I admit, but cheap nonetheless. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Redwing I think they're confused as to where the water is supposed to have come from. From "the fountains of the deep" and the "firmament" breaking and raining down. They obviously haven't read the Bible they're trying to refute. Not all that flood water was rain. It says so right there. [...] He didn't try to save any of the sea creatures. And he didn't save things such as, for example, the dinosaurs? Most of them would have died out in the post-Flood conditions and the atmospheric changes. He would have had them on the Ark but they of course ended up dying out anyway. This was destruction, not creation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That still leaves alot of problems with the Flood 'model' (see above). See above. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Redwing Why then are you trying to use science to disprove God? What good does it do you? [...] Why then are you trying to use science to disprove an explanation of how we came into existence? Again, what good does it do you? [...] Yup. But scientist are not science, and hence my purpose for arguing. Science isn't going about to prove God doesn't exist. People are using science to try to prove God doesn't exist. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All of this can be boiled down to the following: I do not try to disprove anything. I try to prove that something is most probable, and therefore should be used in reasoning. I think that the reason for pro-scientific people trying to disprove religious belifs stem from the fact that most people refuse to reason based on the best model available, so you need to show them that the model that they reason by is wrong. I accept that. The reason I am debating is to defend against that. Also religion has a nasty history of burning works of math and science (eg the Great Library of Alexandria) along with their writers (19th-century scientists). Jerks. Don't blame me. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Redwing But...but...I've never flamed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hence the "start". Seriously, though, it was nothing but a manner of speaking. What? I have flamed exactly once in my forum life, and I deeply regret it. I read that as inflammatory. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Redwing But that isn't proving. Proof is "the evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true". -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Then what constitutes proof is dependent on the gullibility of the listener. Clearly that is useless when debating matters scientific. I suggest that you find a science sourcebook. We are not debating matters scientific alone here. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Redwing The Biblical authors did not put down what they were thinking when they were writing it. How do you know this, then? Besides, the entire Bible isn't under debate here. Just the few portions that deal with "how we got here" and the portions that assert God created us. [...] Books from the Bible have been found from about the time they were written with only a few word's difference from what they are now. Besides, the current books of the Bible were put through a serious grinder and what was to be "accepted". Or the Bible would be thousands of book long, instead of 66. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The entire Bible is debatable in the sense that its credibility is questionable. And since it is not credible it is a bad source for knowledge. Every text is biassed. The author will always twist the story to his own ends or belifs, wether he knows it or not (save when he will get his butt flamed off for it, but since all the 'profets' went manno-a-manno with God, there were no-one to check that they did it right). Prophets. They only wrote part of the Bible. Also, the Bible is, mainly, a chronicle. This means that it will be fit to the agenda of the person writing it (as was the case with the chronicles of Saxo eg). There were many agreeing authors often totally unrelated to one another and would have never met. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Redwing "We" are not scientific theories. My belief is that we need God, as in "we" - "people". ^_~ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hence the "...". ? quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Redwing You misread me. ^.^ I don't think the idea that science disproves God should be taught in schools. Or that people should be told "this did happen" when we don't know "this" happened. Especially when "this" means "God doesn't exist". It would be much fairer and more accurate to say "this is what we think happened." And of course science should be taught in schools ^_~ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Science proves, scientifically, that God doesn't exist. As long as people understand the abilities and limitations of science, there is no problem. Until then it is preferable that they accept the scientific explanation as truth (though it isn't) for a wide varity of reasons, such as the ones that I stated in my original post. Science has not "established the truth or validity of [God's nonexistence] by presentation of argument or evidence". I'm not sure what you mean by scientific - clarify. Because most people do not understand the abilities and limitations of science, there is a problem. "Until then it is preferable that they accept the scientific explanation as truth" Only to you. That's extraordinarily unfair... Besides: Religion doesn't show science the same favor, so your statement is rather hypocritical. I am not religion. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Redwing Neither the Catholic Church nor Catholiscism necessarily has to have anything to do with Christianity as a whole. I am a Protestant, called such because my predecessors "protested' against the beliefs and actions of the Catholic Church, which is the church you are referring to. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The differences in dogma, belif structure, organisation, ect. is academic. Besides, while Protestantism didn't react as violently against science as Catholicism (mainly because it lacked the resources) the better part of the witch burnings were a protestant passtime. Protestantism also clearly has a great deal of responsability when it comes to the extermination of the aboriginal cultures of Africa, North and South America, and Australia. So Protestantism and Catholecism have no basis for critisizing each other IMO. They are NOT only academic. Protestantism is not a whole mass like Catholicism. (That's because "we" have no Pope) I don't know what you're talking about. Do you mean the extermination of people? To be equally fair, you should point out that the Australian Aboriginies were legally murdered because they were "scientifically" found to be "evolutionarily lower" than Homo sapiens - so they were considered animals and hunted down and killed like them. Museums paid fat bounties for Aborigine skins for their displays. Almost all the Aborigines were wiped out. Now that has nothing to do with the argument. But neither did what you said. *sighs* Stopping now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted November 27, 2002 Share Posted November 27, 2002 Read all the way through to see how I prove that Creationists should teach Evolution in order to please God. Originally posted by ZDawg You people never sease to amaze me... you have unexplainable things put before you eyes and just because you chose not to believe in God you make up some lame story. Or the other way to say it would be: "You people never cease to amaze me... you have unexplainable things put before your eyes and just because you can't explain it, you make up some lame god." In looking at human history, in nearly every culture, man uses a deity to explain that which he cannot. Man relies on a deity to ease his fear of the unkown: "what happens when I die? where will I go? Is this all there is?" Answer: "No my son. To live forever, you only need to believe. Now, don't you feel better? God loves you." How's that for a self-esteem boost? God, gods, deities, angels, little gray men.... these are all man's attempts to aleviate his own fear. Religion is ultimately an anomaly of the human reaction to fear. Thousands of years ago, if lightning struck a tree near you, it had to be a sign that a god was angry. Today, a golfer gets struck on the golf course and we all agree that the stupid bastard should have used a wood instead of an iron. If there is a god, then she is right to stay hidden from man. Lest she get credit for the the decimation of millions of people and hundreds of civilizations on the North American Continent. Or the traumatization of hundreds (if not more) little boys by priests who said "fu*k chastity." Or the Nigerian government's fatwa (death sentance) issued for a journalist who spoke her mind recently. How many people in history and currently have died and are dying or suffering in the name of god? True... one could argue that religion does much good. It promotes family values, moral decisions, ethical conduct and kindness to our fellow man.... all just as equally as it does the opposite mentioned above. But all of these... good or bad, are products of man. Not god. Not religion. Man decided to hurt or help. Man decided to rape or protect, kill or preserve. God is a cultural anomaly. Nothing more. If christianity were more significant, why did god only reveal him/her self to a few folks in the Middle-East? Why not to a Sioux warrior or Hopi farmer? Why not to a Mayan mother or an Eskimo fisherman? Had any of these cultures advanced further and faster than Anglo-Saxon or Middle-Eastern ones, we might be smoking peace-pipes or dancing on a Medicine Circle on Sundays. Instead of marginalizing so many people as Christians and Islamics have throughout history, it's time for man to awaken from his stupor and evolve. Creationist ideas no longer fit in society. They are counter-productive. For religion to survive, it must adapt or it will be cast aside. To see the failure of the christian superstition, one need only look at modern teenagers. They are by and large exploring wicca and paganism... gothic cliques and hip-hop/urban behaviors are common as well. Islam is the fastest growing religion on the planet... and many representatives of this superstition advocate the killing of innocent people as a way to heaven. Israel takes land from Palestinians then proclaims them terrorists for fighting back (many are... but the point is, neither is side is right). Spiritualism should be personal. It should be a journey that one does not impose upon others. Gather with like-minded people and discuss what you each have learned. Gather with opposite-minded people and learn what they discuss. Education and knowledge should be based upon established observations of fact. The best current explainations of observed evidence suggests that: * The Earth is 4.6 billion years old. * Dinosaurs appear to have gone extinct after a collision of Earth with and asteroid about 65 million years ago, which impacted in modern day Belize and marks the end of the Cretaceous Period. * Man has been on the planet beginning about 200, 000 to 30, 000 years ago. Someone argued earlier (and it was probably not a serious point, but rather a suggestion of a possibility) that perhaps God planted evidence that we observe to make things appear as they are. If this is the case, wouldn't it be God's will that Evolutionary Theory be favored over Creationist dogma? SkinWalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elijah Posted November 27, 2002 Share Posted November 27, 2002 Originally posted by SkinWalker "You people never cease to amaze me... you have unexplainable things put before your eyes and just because you can't explain it, you make up some lame god." Its better to make up God than make up some lame story that non-life can make life and that everything happened by chance and that we have no purpose. and no, I'm not saying we made up God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted November 27, 2002 Share Posted November 27, 2002 Originally posted by ZDawg Its better to make up God than make up some lame story that non-life can make life and that everything happened by chance and that we have no purpose. and no, I'm not saying we made up God. By creation, it seems like we also have no purpose,also it seems like we are slaves to god in a sense.. And no,I am not saying that there is an god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elijah Posted November 27, 2002 Share Posted November 27, 2002 Originally posted by Tyrion By creation, it seems like we also have no purpose,also it seems like we are slaves to god in a sense.. Would that not be a purpose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted November 27, 2002 Share Posted November 27, 2002 Originally posted by ZDawg Would that not be a purpose? Strike one... But still,I'd rather feel like I have control over my life rather than feel I am predestined and used only as a minor pawn in some master plan... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elijah Posted November 27, 2002 Share Posted November 27, 2002 Originally posted by Tyrion But still,I'd rather feel like I have control over my life rather than feel I am predestined and used only as a minor pawn in some master plan... Who said we dont have Control of our lifes? the reason we are in the mess we are today was because God gave man a choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted November 27, 2002 Author Share Posted November 27, 2002 Originally posted by ZDawg Its better to make up God than make up some lame story that non-life can make life and that everything happened by chance and that we have no purpose. and no, I'm not saying we made up God. Purpose hmm? Only once we realize that we have no purpose will we be truly free. Only then can we pursue whatever purpose we deem fit. No matter how you look at it, your views are coloured by your belief in God. You are constantly influencing yourself and others around you by your belief. And yes, you did make up God - the nervecells in your brain is your counsciousness, without them you wouldn't be and neither would your God. God exists, but only for you and others who believe in him. Once you start saying that God exists for me as well, it will be forever false until I start personally believing in him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted November 27, 2002 Author Share Posted November 27, 2002 Originally posted by Redwing 3) It's an assumed part of creation theory - "the world used to be better". Besides, even if it wasn't, Man is certainly doing the degenerating himself right now. Really? Quite the contrary I would say - we're no longer as ignorant as we used to be, and there's certainly less unjustified killing going on, in the name of God. (Sheheit. I'm not one of those people who care, in fact I think God personified himself as a male to alleviate male arrogance ) He personified himself? You are saying someone actually saw him? Otherwise, It's up to each of us all to determine God's visage. but God is a person. How can you say that with certainty? I'm saying God is a elephant - have you got anything against that? A) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Let's get something straight: There's no scientific evidence of God. Everything thus far has proved that God does not exist - nothing has done the contrary, unless you count beliefs as evidence. You believe what you are told. Everything you have been taught could be a lie. How do you know? You cannot honestly say that you don't have to believe in everything you think exists to accept it. I say we keep the Matrix'esque ideas out of this - yes, the world could have been created by God - Yes, everything could have been created 10 seconds before you were born - yes, the entire world could merely exist in your mind alone - yes, God could be a product of your mind. Fact is, those who tell me something that I believe use sound calculations and research that has nothing with belief to do. According to their definition. Which is modified from what can be found in the dictionary. How convenient. Purely psychological, I admit, but cheap nonetheless. Listen, the scientific meaning of "Theory" was the original one. Then the common man stole the term and broadened it without asking the creators of it. I accept that. The reason I am debating is to defend against that. To what end? To save your postulated beliefs and views of the world? Jerks. Don't blame me. We don't. We blame Christianity, not you. We are not debating matters scientific alone here. This is the crux of the debate. If we aren't, then whatever I postulate will be just as good as the rest of you. In fact we are: This debate is about the plausibility of God creating the earth. And we are using scientific methods to prove it - if we weren't, then there'd be no debate as whatever you say would be just as true as whatever I say. I don't know what you're talking about. Do you mean the extermination of people? To be equally fair, you should point out that the Australian Aboriginies were legally murdered because they were "scientifically" found to be "evolutionarily lower" than Homo sapiens - so they were considered animals and hunted down and killed like them. Museums paid fat bounties for Aborigine skins for their displays. Almost all the Aborigines were wiped out. While science as a tool does not include built-in beliefs, religion does. That those people murdered aboriginals was pure personal opinion. That millions of people died in the crusades were the will of God - they weren't jerks since God was with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted November 27, 2002 Share Posted November 27, 2002 You know.... it occurs to me that the basis of Creationist ideology is that the Bible establishes how man came to be... and that Evolution is wrong. In this "Bible" it mentions that Joshua commanded the Sun to be still so that he could lengthen a day. Question: did the Sun orbit the Earth back then? If not, then in order to stop the sun from moving, he would have had to make the Earth still. What consequences would arise from doing this? The "Bible" also states that Jonah was swallowed by a whale, stayed there for three days, the was spewed forth onto land. WTF? Where did Cain's wife come from? Were there other people at the time? Just my $.02 worth... SkinWalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted November 27, 2002 Author Share Posted November 27, 2002 Creationists base their life on assumptions. I'm not saying that it is wrong, and it actually may be true assumptions. Nothing shows that God exists, yet you project him into everything - why? If you assume that you need God, then you do need him. I'm not assuming anything, trusting solely what I can sense and calculate. You OTOH, are assuming God exists and putting him into the equation all the time. If you could only stop for a moment, and try to remove God from your world, you'd find that it exists fine by itself, and that the belief of God is a phantom nowhere to be seen. You assume God is here, you assume you need God, you assume God created the earth, humans and animals - but that is nowhere to be seen nor calculated or scientifically proven. Science deals with what is, not what could be. You assume, we sense - God exists in you, and nowhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.