MegaGlest Forum

Off topic => Off topic => Topic started by: Omega on 11 March 2010, 03:07:30

Title: Religous Debates
Post by: Omega on 11 March 2010, 03:07:30
With an offtopic board, all religious debates should be separate from the old thread. Feel free to post here, simply keep it approriant and don't flame the posters, flame the poster's IDEAS.

I'll start it off:
For those who don't believe in creationism:
This is an alternate theory I've heard before (not necessarily what I believe in, but an alternate theory nonetheless). How long is a day to god? Obviously not necessarily the same as it is to us (he *is* immortal after all). Science's 'big bang' could easily have been caused by god. The creation of life could be very gradual (a long day), thus fitting in the theory of evolution. The 'day' stated by genesis (also worthy to note right now that Genesis was created over possibly hundreds of years by multiple authors), is most likely simply a method of breaking the creation into manageable parts. Science isn't totally accurate, but it certainly fits loosely into such a theory (for those hard to believe) as long as you cut that crap about things evolving...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: modman on 13 March 2010, 03:02:59
I tend to think that the people who most doubt evolution do so because they do not understand it.

For those who don't believe in creationism:
Unfortunately what follows is no more of a theory than a literal interpretation of Genesis, creationism, or intelligent design.

Shall we continue what I had back in the main OT thread?

Quote
Why do you make assertions like this in a debate atmosphere?  Where is your undeniable, irrefutable proof?  There is none.

Oh there is you just ignored it!

I actually presented evidence first, which you then dismissed.  Those three YouTube videos aren't gone, you know.  Watch them, find the parts you disagree with, and list them here.  Then, using logic or data, prove them wrong.

This is the process science has to use to debunk creationist disinformation all of the time, so it is rather tiresome when you write one or two line responses and call that "debunking".

Then, after you have debunked the videos, assuming you were right, then we will look at your mediumship evidence.  But not before.  Stop avoiding the question: what is wrong with those videos?  Cite specific examples.

exactly. evolution is believed to be a gradual process and so where are the missing blocks of the jigsaw?
Plus, even if the author isn't so confident in his theory, how can we be?
Really not sure what the missing jigsaw blocks are, but I have to comment that whatever Newton thought personally about his law of gravitation, it was correct (for the most part).  So whatever Darwin thought about evolution has nothing to do with whether it is right or not.

logically, if something came into existence following another, does it necessarily mean that the latter came from the former?
eg: Suppose a train is invented after a car, (or vice-versa) it doesnt mean that trains were invented from cars does it?
No.  Neither cars nor trains are living.  They are not subject to natural selection.  They do not reproduce.  They cannot pass DNA to their offspring.  They are not subject to mutation.  And they are known to be man-made.  Animals are known to be born from their parents, not "made" so much as birthed.  Every generation is a new mix of DNA.

a very simple argument: If humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
Because...there is no reason that monkeys would die out.  Also, we did not evolve from monkeys.  Why are creationists still asking about humans evolving from monkeys again?  I answered that already!  And seeing as though I am (nearly) the only evolutionist here willing to answer these repetitive questions, I'm a little tired of it.  Monkeys and humans evolved separately.

http://www.needananswer.co.uk/questions/monkeys.html (http://www.needananswer.co.uk/questions/monkeys.html)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nj587d5ies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDFJviGQth4

The three videos I would still like adequate responses to...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 16 March 2010, 23:35:20
all i can say is... true true true!
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Omega on 21 March 2010, 05:04:20
Right..............

We are here because we are very, very, very lucky. So how come I haven't won the lottery twenty times in a row yet? :bomb:
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 21 March 2010, 17:12:47
i guess this is "slightly" on topic, cause we used up all our luck
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: modman on 21 March 2010, 20:10:55
We are here because we are very, very, very lucky. So how come I haven't won the lottery twenty times in a row yet?

This is called the teleological argument.  It is faulty because it implies that order can only come from a designer, in this case God.  Unfortunately, the only way we differentiate "ordered" universes from those which are not is that they contain life.

Again, we are the only known life in the universe.  Saying that the universe was "designed" for life would be like saying that the Sahara desert was "designed" for man if there is one of my hairs there.

It seems to me that, if nothing else, the universe was designed to not have life in it, just as the Sahara was more designed for sand than people. :)
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: modman on 29 March 2010, 02:58:11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpeHrkbx9LU

Archmage,
Just because you're a moderator doesn't mean you've lost your opinions!  Just try to back them up this time! :)
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 29 March 2010, 11:41:26
Sorry, Evolution is too obviously unworkable... :P

I don't have to answer to Evolution, YOU have to answer to.......psychic abilities.........love...............

You have a ton to disprove, you have to disprove that we are spiritual beings, and I far as I know quantum physics is related with all this stuff, but I'm no expert there....

I don't care how much proof you think you have, you have to tell us all why Evolution doesn't fit what's been happening. ::)
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: modman on 30 March 2010, 00:55:01
I don't have to answer to Evolution, YOU have to answer to.......psychic abilities.........love...............
You are correct in your assertion that the burden of proof lies on me for love, psychic abilities, well...I always notice that psychics are most "skilled" at their "craft" when it is impossible to disprove what they are saying and also when your money is in their pockets. :D

You have a ton to disprove, you have to disprove that we are spiritual beings...
Well, the burden of proof actually lies on you for this one.  You have to show that there is such a thing as a spirit, 'k?

...and I far as I know quantum physics is related with all this stuff, but I'm no expert there....
In the same way quantum physics relates to fairies.  Not really.

It's interesting you bring up QP though, because I wanted to point out that it has proved that not everything has a cause, for example the random decay of a radioactive uranium atom.  What caused that?

I don't care how much proof you think you have, you have to tell us all why Evolution doesn't fit what's been happening. ::)
You may want to elaborate here.  But elaboration is good.  Healthy skepticism is good as well; religion is all that this will hurt.  I want to share a video with y'all:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rqw4krMOug

BTW what's up wit' the youtube button?  I'm using the new theme if that helps...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: ultifd on 30 March 2010, 01:04:15
BTW what's up wit' the youtube button?  I'm using the new theme if that helps...
Omega didn't fix that yet... I think.  ::)

As for the discussion, umm...  :|  ::)
 :thumbup:
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Omega on 30 March 2010, 16:44:13
Omega didn't fix that yet... I think.  ::)
Whats wrong with the youtube button?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: ultifd on 30 March 2010, 23:22:09
Omega didn't fix that yet... I think.  ::)
Whats wrong with the youtube button?
Umm... it's not there....  ::)  (for me at least  ::)
Modman probably has a different problem...I think.  :|
Code: [Select]
[URL=http://img532.imageshack.us/i/ss12h.jpg/][IMG]http://img532.imageshack.us/img532/9705/ss12h.jpg[/img][/URL]
Quote
Also, something is wrong with the...  ::)
Code: [Select]
[URL=http://img44.imageshack.us/i/screenshot23i.jpg/][IMG]http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/1234/screenshot23i.jpg[/img][/URL]
What is wrong with it? Are you refering to the slight bit of white around the buttons? I suppose I MIGHT be able to fix that by replacing the alpha with an actual grey, although it would mean no background changes (ie: it's grey now, it'll always be grey).
Umm...let's see. yeah.
I also didn't see any youtube bbcode or spoiler.  ::)

But uh.... continue this discussion in the Board Changes topic...  ::)
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Omega on 3 April 2010, 03:04:09
Happy easter ya'all! Good friday here!

Now, as the ULTIMATE religious discussion, all atheists bow down before jesus for giving you a week off of school. At least ACT grateful!  :angel:
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: modman on 4 April 2010, 01:36:39
Now, as the ULTIMATE religious discussion, all atheists bow down before jesus for giving you a week off of school. At least ACT grateful!  :angel:

They can't give us any less than 36 weeks of school in my district, and they don't want any more.  Giving a week off of school in the middle of the school year is better to them than tacking it on to the twelve I get in summer.  So there. :D

Plus, it's called "spring break" here.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Loronal on 4 April 2010, 12:45:08
Love doesnt exist it doesnt have logic nor does attraction in all terms God doesnt have logic so I deny his existince. All though I do want the afterlife to have floating people serving milkshakes ;D
  Wait so acording to omega jesus is the easter bunny?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: modman on 4 April 2010, 16:22:49
All though I do want the afterlife to have floating people serving milkshakes ;D

I wouldn't mind going to any paradise.  I also would like a million bucks to drive up in my driveway too.  But I realize that neither is likely, and the latter is actually more likely.  This is because we can prove that such a thing as $ million exists, however no one can honestly say that they can prove the existence of any afterlife.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Mark on 4 April 2010, 18:05:51
Hey Omega, you spelled 'religious' wrong.  You spelled it r-e-l-i-g-o-u-s, it is spelled r-e-l-i-g-i-o-u-s.  Please change that before someone else notices.

In other news, Arch, no offense intended (I really only want you to rephrase your rhetoric) but your argument about answering to psychic abilities and love is confusing if it is to be taken seriously.  Psychic abilities are very often fakes, and for that matter very few have ever been accepted by the scientific community.  One American actor, when hypnotized, could recall five previous lifetimes, could speak fluid French, and provided an accurate depiction of life as a renaissance-era cavalryman.  When he emerged, he could do none of these things.  This may be one of the few cases ever really acknowledged, and the ones like it are completely irrelevant to the debate of evolution's veracity, Yahweh's existence, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  About love- nothing in the human love concept escapes that which is seen in the wild, or can be explained logically by combining the human factors of heightened creativity and abstract thinking and what is seen in the aforementioned wilderness.  Monkeys and great apes love and have been shown to have complex feelings of passion for each other, and each other's well-being.  Even lions often fight to the death to defend their cubs and lionesses from marauding coalitions of young lions.  Case in point, what exactly does love show in humans that makes creation more likely than evolution, not the other way around?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: modman on 4 April 2010, 18:45:22
How does creationism explain why all mammals share many of the same physical traits?  These include live birth, fur, etc.  For a more complete list, look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal#Distinguishing_features).

If creationism were true, we could expect that each of these features would be distributed just about evenly throughout the animal kingdom; this is obviously not the case.

Response?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 5 April 2010, 18:24:12
There are signs of creation everywhere, why do animals have all the right instincts so that they survive on their own.
Why does my body keep breathing, why do I wake up when I have to go pee in the middle of the night?

You guys have yet to present your view of evolution, just say exactly how you think evolution works, because it seems that there are a lot of different understandings here....

Why the hell can I walk, why is it that my body is designed well enough so I can run, why don't my hands randomly flutter around disconnect and crawl away, why is it that we are nothing like robots?

I mean, seriously, where are the half monkey half humans, there really should be more of them than Humans!

There may not be a "god", but there must be a powerful being with the ability to create things!
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: modman on 5 April 2010, 19:50:14
There are signs of creation everywhere

If there were, why does my Spidey sense tell me that each of the phenomena you're about to point out are predicted by evolution?  In other words, find something evolution does not predict, and this means you'll have to research the topic yourself.  And a gaming forum is not the place to do this.

I genuinely think you would not be having this debate if you had an understanding of at least how evolution works.  This is the case with the majority of creationists.

why do animals have all the right instincts so that they survive on their own.

By now I've realized you'll never watch the videos I posted above in their entirety.  I'll answer your question, though.  The answer is that if animals did not have the right instincts to survive, they would die.  This means they would have fewer offspring.

Why does my body keep breathing

*Sigh* This is controlled by the Brainstem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstem) unconsciously.  Animals like fish lack basically everything but the brainstem.  This makes them less intelligent/aware.  As life evolved from simpler life forms, the brain added to the brainstem, not replaced it.

why do I wake up when I have to go pee in the middle of the night?

So you don't...pee on yourself?!  Seriously though, not everyone does (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocturnal_enuresis). <---Link

You guys have yet to present your view of evolution, just say exactly how you think evolution works, because it seems that there are a lot of different understandings here....

No, there is yours (not sure we can consider it an understanding since you want an explanation) and that of the scientific community.  Anyways, I thought I explained it very well:

Quote
Do you deny any of these properties? If so, which ones, and most importantly, why?

The reason that watches and everything else which is created (i.e. not life) does not evolve is simple: watches do not die or reproduce, and are thus not subject to natural selection.

I'll provide links of evidence now:
1)
Code: [Select]
[url=http://aklemai.com/albums/forum/obvious.gif]Everything dies[/url].
2) Organisms who are suited to their environment live longer to produce more offspring (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060814163525AAKrWPE). 
Code: [Select]
[url=http://206.130.110.244/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/saratanis2007-08-20fish_out_of_water1.JPG]The converse is also true[/url].
3) Offspring are different than their parents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaria#Evolutionary_pressure_of_malaria_on_human_genes).

Why the hell can I walk, why is it that my body is designed well enough so I can run


Because animals that don’t run well enough will be killed.

Code: [Select]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1QxdSTrwwE&feature=related[/youtube]
why don't my hands randomly flutter around disconnect and crawl away, why is it that we are nothing like robots?

I think you’re a little confused.  You’re arguing against evolution by natural processes, not against design.  Robots are designed.  So may I posit the question to you?  I won’t; I know you’ll write off the complexity of life by using a supernatural being you nor I have or will see who has infinite supposed powers.

I mean, seriously, where are the half monkey half humans, there really should be more of them than Humans!

Code: [Select]
[url=http://www.darwiniana.org/hominid.htm]There are plenty of them.[/url]  You just can’t decide which ones are all ape and which are all human.  That’s because they’re transitional; they’re not supposed to be just one or the other.

But please explain, using your knowledge of evolution, why there really should be more “half monkey half humans” than humans if humans are better suited to their environment.

That’s like saying that because they came first, there should be more Model-T’s than Dodge Vipers.

There may not be a "god", but there must be a powerful being with the ability to create things!

Wonderful.  If you could please provide some valid, sound evidence, you would be the first in the history of man.  But thanks for the opinion.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 5 April 2010, 20:14:53
Thanks for not answering most of my questions, I'm done arguing with you, you're just avoiding the truth.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: modman on 6 April 2010, 18:01:40
Thanks for not answering most of my questions, I'm done arguing with you, you're just avoiding the truth.

First off, I see writing a 600+ character post as an odd way to not answer questions.  If I was really interested in not doing so, I would simply have ignored this topic.

Secondly, if you say I did not answer most of your questions, this means that you consider a portion of them answered.  Might you address them?

If you do not want the appearance of avoiding the truth yourself, you should not stop debating.  But leaving a debate and accusing me of "avoiding the truth" is a mark of immaturity.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 6 April 2010, 18:06:12
I really don't care what you believe, it's very very very obvious that we were created, by what, no one knows, but we must have been created, and I'm going to kinda retreat from this debate now, because it's pointless, it uses my time, and no one here is going to convince anyone else of anything.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 6 April 2010, 18:14:43
arch, you push everything onto us, give me ONE post, were you actually responded with intelligence...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: modman on 6 April 2010, 19:41:06
Code: [Select]
[img]http://www.marsesa.9f.com/slide_shows/AS10-32-4822/ThreeWiseMonkeys_A1.jpg[/img]
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 6 April 2010, 20:08:47
You believe what you like, I'm not really ready to face you guys in a debate just yet, after I watch those college level courses on the matter, I'll be a bit more ready. :)

Although, I have some more sets of questions, that I doubt you'll be able to answer.
If you started from one cell, then:

Why do Humans reproduce sexually, instead of asexually?
-Nothing is random, but Evolution is as close as it gets, so where are all of Evolutions mistakes?

-Why can I do what I want, even if what I want doesn't make sense, or is illogical?
 You really think that complicated pieces of meat have a will?
 Why do you think that a complicated piece of meat would care about where it came from?
 Why should one complicated piece of meat care about another complicated piece of meat?

-Why can I express anger?
 Sure I have chemicals in my brain that cause me to look angry, but why should those chemicals elevate, why don't they just stay the same?

I bet I could come up with a lot more, but I'm lazy, why am I lazy?



Quote
arch, you push everything onto us, give me ONE post, were you actually responded with intelligence...

Well, if Evolution is so true, then why do you care if I hit you with everything I got?
Besides, if you're just a piece of meat, why should you want a post from me?



Comon, Omega, Elim, can't you guys help out?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: ElimiNator on 6 April 2010, 20:23:22
You ask a question Ill answer.

And what is the squished pick about?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 6 April 2010, 20:28:25
Quote
If you started from one cell, then:

Why do Humans reproduce sexually, instead of asexually?
-Nothing is random, but Evolution is as close as it gets, so where are all of Evolutions mistakes?

Humans produce sexually, well, i answer two questions in one, that might be one of evolutions mistakes, or it might be a advantage (i see it as a advantage :O)

Quote
-Why can I do what I want, even if what I want doesn't make sense, or is illogical?
 You really think that complicated pieces of meat have a will?
 Why do you think that a complicated piece of meat would care about where it came from?
 Why should one complicated piece of meat care about another complicated piece of meat?

Why do you brign in will? though of what if will did not exist, what if the entire universe were like a movie, that happens because that happend infinity?

Do you do things that are illogical? if it is illogical it would not serve any purpose, and whatever you do, it has a purpose, if i ran naked around in a town, jumping on strangers, it would have made me "hated" by alot of people, then it would served a purpose.
Quote
-Why can I express anger?
 Sure I have chemicals in my brain that cause me to look angry, but why should those chemicals elevate, why don't they just stay the same?

Soryy, but my english come a little too short here, you do not express anger, you do something because something happened, aka, a chemical reaction, here my english comes short, elevate?? do you mean, like change? like one atom changes to another to make you look angry? let me tell you, that is not what happens, your eyes, see something, transmit to the brain, then, your angry! same thing with ears, taste etc.

Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 6 April 2010, 20:37:24
How the hell did your post jump before mine, when i checked after posting i was first ????
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 6 April 2010, 20:49:57
Quote
Quote
If you started from one cell, then:

Why do Humans reproduce sexually, instead of asexually?
-Nothing is random, but Evolution is as close as it gets, so where are all of Evolutions mistakes?

Humans produce sexually, well, i answer two questions in one, that might be one of evolutions mistakes, or it might be a advantage (i see it as a advantage Laughing)

Don't be like Modman, I want to hear how evolution could have gotten sexual from asexual.
Sorry, that was a poorly stated question.



Quote
Quote
-Why can I do what I want, even if what I want doesn't make sense, or is illogical?
 You really think that complicated pieces of meat have a will?
 Why do you think that a complicated piece of meat would care about where it came from?
 Why should one complicated piece of meat care about another complicated piece of meat?

Why do you brign in will? though of what if will did not exist, what if the entire universe were like a movie, that happens because that happend infinity?

Do you do things that are illogical? if it is illogical it would not serve any purpose, and whatever you do, it has a purpose, if i ran naked around in a town, jumping on strangers, it would have made me "hated" by alot of people, then it would served a purpose.

No offense dude, but that was a terrible answer, because, why should a piece of meat care about purposes?
I don't see why anything should matter to a piece of meat...



Quote
Soryy, but my english come a little too short here, you do not express anger, you do something because something happened, aka, a chemical reaction, here my english comes short, elevate?? do you mean, like change? like one atom changes to another to make you look angry? let me tell you, that is not what happens, your eyes, see something, transmit to the brain, then, your angry! same thing with ears, taste etc.

Uh, I don't think so......... ::)

Why should I get angry, how can I have a cause to get angry if I'm just a piece of meat?
Yet, people get angry at each other all the time, there's something about Evolution that makes absolutely no sense. :P



Quote
You ask a question Ill answer.

And what is the squished pick about?

Cool, I have some defenses now! :cheesy:
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 6 April 2010, 20:53:09
Quote
Quote
If you started from one cell, then:

Why do Humans reproduce sexually, instead of asexually?
-Nothing is random, but Evolution is as close as it gets, so where are all of Evolutions mistakes?

Humans produce sexually, well, i answer two questions in one, that might be one of evolutions mistakes, or it might be a advantage (i see it as a advantage Laughing)

Don't be like Modman, I want to hear how evolution could have gotten sexual from asexual.
Sorry, that was a poorly stated question.



Quote
Quote
-Why can I do what I want, even if what I want doesn't make sense, or is illogical?
 You really think that complicated pieces of meat have a will?
 Why do you think that a complicated piece of meat would care about where it came from?
 Why should one complicated piece of meat care about another complicated piece of meat?

Why do you brign in will? though of what if will did not exist, what if the entire universe were like a movie, that happens because that happend infinity?

Do you do things that are illogical? if it is illogical it would not serve any purpose, and whatever you do, it has a purpose, if i ran naked around in a town, jumping on strangers, it would have made me "hated" by alot of people, then it would served a purpose.

No offense dude, but that was a terrible answer, because, why should a piece of meat care about purposes?
I don't see why anything should matter to a piece of meat...



Quote
Soryy, but my english come a little too short here, you do not express anger, you do something because something happened, aka, a chemical reaction, here my english comes short, elevate?? do you mean, like change? like one atom changes to another to make you look angry? let me tell you, that is not what happens, your eyes, see something, transmit to the brain, then, your angry! same thing with ears, taste etc.

Uh, I don't think so......... ::)

Why should I get angry, how can I have a cause to get angry if I'm just a piece of meat?
Yet, people get angry at each other all the time, there's something about Evolution that makes absolutely no sense. :P



Quote
You ask a question Ill answer.

And what is the squished pick about?

Cool, I have some defenses now! :cheesy:

Can only answer one thing, sorry i must go to bed now, and no im not reatreating from the debate, a CHEMICAL PIECE OF MEAT would care for purposes, if the chemical reaction "told" it to...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: modman on 6 April 2010, 21:19:06
Good.  But let's keep in mind that these are less arguments than questions which are pursuits of past or modern biology.

Another thing to keep in mind is that I or science in general will admit ignorance, while religion will never do this.  Gap theology attempts to exploit this, but history shows us that even if we don't know why lightning happens, why plagues strike certain people, or why crops fail, supernaturalism is not necessarily responsible.

Why do Humans reproduce sexually, instead of asexually?
Science genuinely does not have an answer to this question right now.  The separation from asexual reproduction was a big leap, but I would suspect personally that it could be traced back to creatures like slime molds that reproduce in both ways.

Nothing is random, but Evolution is as close as it gets, so where are all of Evolutions mistakes?
"Mistake" implies a specified purpose, but in evolution there is none.  The closest thing to a "mistake" could be extinctions.

And if you think nothing is random, research electron clouds.

Why can I do what I want, even if what I want doesn't make sense, or is illogical?
You can't.  Things that are illogical are also impossible.  Example: a round square, exceeding the speed of light, etc.

Additionally, that's a strawman if you're trying to imply that evolution restricts actions to actions which "make sense".

Why can I express anger?
Sure I have chemicals in my brain that cause me to look angry, but why should those chemicals elevate, why don't they just stay the same?
Since neuropsychology is not a layman's hobby, I challenge you to show that this is relevant.  Not that there isn't an answer, but you're just as capable of finding it as I, if that is really your desire.

Quote
arch, you push everything onto us, give me ONE post, were you actually responded with intelligence...

Well, if Evolution is so true, then why do you care if I hit you with everything I got?
Because if you consider "everything [you] got" to be re-stating your initial position, you might as well write a cohesive thesis statement and call it a term paper.

Comon, Omega, Elim, can't you guys help out?
Oh, you mean Eliminator, the one who has a difficulty discerning childish name calling from rhetoric?

Quote
Soryy, but my english come a little too short here, you do not express anger, you do something because something happened, aka, a chemical reaction, here my english comes short, elevate?? do you mean, like change? like one atom changes to another to make you look angry? let me tell you, that is not what happens, your eyes, see something, transmit to the brain, then, your angry! same thing with ears, taste etc.

Uh, I don't think so......... ::)

Why should I get angry, how can I have a cause to get angry if I'm just a piece of meat?
Yet, people get angry at each other all the time, there's something about Evolution that makes absolutely no sense. :P

Are you honestly confused on the differences between a life form and a "piece of meat"?  Do I really have to go through this?

Pieces of meat do not die (They're dead.  That's as nonsensical as saying that you could kill a rock).  They do not reproduce (let alone with variation).  Pieces of meat do not evolve.

Higher organisms have nervous systems.
Higher organisms are capable of emotions.

Finally, emotions are complex behaviors, that unlike eating, are harder to study.  But it would be dishonest to point to any supernatural entities for the source of these.

Short answer: I don't know.  But I will honestly admit that.  I doubt Ray Comfort would ever say that.

//EDIT

Cool, I have some defenses now!
This is a debate, not a shouting contest.  It doesn't matter if you have 2 people on your side or 2000; those who present appropriate rhetoric and evidence will always defeat those who don't.

There was once a time when everyone agreed that the Earth was flat.  Now, all but the Flat Earth Society know that this planet is round.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: ElimiNator on 6 April 2010, 21:31:43
Comon, Omega, Elim, can't you guys help out?
Oh, you mean Eliminator, the one who has a difficulty discerning childish name calling from rhetoric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric)?
What are you talking about?

And why did you post this (https://forum.megaglest.org/index.php?topic=5156.msg44871#msg44871) squished pic?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: modman on 6 April 2010, 22:11:16
Comon, Omega, Elim, can't you guys help out?
Oh, you mean Eliminator, the one who has a difficulty discerning childish name calling from rhetoric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric)?
What are you talking about?

Since I can't find the actual post with the offense, I'll officially rescind that allegation.  Maybe it was deleted.

Quote
And why did you post this (https://forum.megaglest.org/index.php?topic=5156.msg44871#msg44871) squished pic?
It shouldn't be squished...

It was an image of the three apes in "Planet of the Apes" doing the old "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil", something I think about when people post that they're not interested in any other opinions (the very definition of closed-mindedness).

Closed-mindedness will hinder your critical thinking skills, and will make you a less effective debater.  Just a friendly warning to all.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 7 April 2010, 13:16:05
modman, the followers of creationists are like sheeps, the creationists won`t say that creation is wrong, plain because the gain on being a creationist leeding the "sheeps". archmage is one of those creationists leading the sheep, he sees the truth, but won`t admit it is true, just because he will loose power/honour/respect, whatever...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 7 April 2010, 13:42:30
Quote
modman, the followers of creationists are like sheeps, the creationists won`t say that creation is wrong, plain because the gain on being a creationist leeding the "sheeps". archmage is one of those creationists leading the sheep, he sees the truth, but won`t admit it is true, just because he will loose power/honour/respect, whatever...

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. :O :O :O
If you stand by that statement, then you've no clue what honor is.

I'm done debating here, for now, I'm just going to wait until Modman becomes less ignorant, you guys completely missed the point of the questions, and instead you guys answered them like idiots.

@Modman: You can do illogical things, a believe in Evolution is illogical for instance. ::)

Omega, why don't you carry this on, I'm getting tired of this, they just refuse to see logic when it's punching them in the gut. :|

PS: Gabbe, you might want to stay out of this discussion, you're making the Evolutionists look terrible. :P
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 7 April 2010, 13:55:45
my english is too bad... if i could express in norwegian it would have been better...

but arch, do people not gain respect/power/honour when they let people follow them as "sheeps" because of religion, or in this case creationism? people are told, through the bible, by a, what i defines as, creationist leader, and since they are christian, i belive they suffer, yet do not know, from those...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 7 April 2010, 14:06:35
Generically, being a leader gives you power, and influence, but not respect and honor, those qualities come from what is done as leader.
Look at Obama, sure he has some power and influence, but the american people hate his guts, and he has no honor what-so-ever.

I stand completely separate from religion, I don't even go to church, I just believe that we were created, by god, by the flying spaghetti monster, by aliens, who knows, but our design is much to smart and logical to be a strange occurance like Evolution.

I also have not read the bible. I simply stand by logic.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 7 April 2010, 14:29:42
well, evolution is not strange occurance but is a way to predict what will happen next (long term, 100000000 years)
Actually, your theroy about aliens, that i actually also belived a long time ago...Until i saw the evidence of evolution, evolution is changes, evolution is when animals changes over a long time, so, we can`t see it, or can we? yes we can! this however, may be a little not-like-evolution, yet it somehow is. in 40 years, some people managed to get wolves, behave like dogs! a zoo had some cubs (i think it is baby wolves) and put them in a seperate cage each day, so that they grew up with humans talking to them each day, and the friendly ones got more food from the humans than the hostile ones, the hostile ones grew older, and eventually they had to be permanently set back into the old wolf cage with the other adult wolves. the friendly however, reproduced and got cubs, then again those cubs acted friendly as a result of their genome told them to. then you got some cubs  being hostile, some being friendly. then  again, those friendly reproduced, and the more friendly ones of the freidnly offspring (don`t knwo the word, i eman theyr cubs) got more food, and gained stronger, then they reproduced more cubs than the more hostile ones, resulting in that they became dogs, not wolves any longer, yes humans did interfere with this, but i think it is a fair example of evolution, and yes i know dogs can reproduce with wolves, but they are more likely to mate another dog, speciation happened, in the front of our eyes! a 40 years period of evolution, granted to us, not by the lord at all, not by aliens, but by humans, the wolves acted so that they would gain the advantage of the humans, just as in nature, the faster ones will be given more food, the slower ones will eventually be extinct, then the new generation will have speed on their side, then again, the faster ones will gain more food, make them more capable to reproduce, it is basically survival of the fittest, i hope you got what evolution is now and drop the creation-shit...


do you really belive in creation, or are you making your own theory based on your experiences? if so  :thumbup: your going the right way :O


do you say that my opinion does not matter? you appear to be in your previous post...

Quote
PS: Gabbe, you might want to stay out of this discussion, you're making the Evolutionists look terrible. Tongue
Quote
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Laughing Laughing Laughing
Quote
If you stand by that statement, then you've no clue what honor is.

you gain respect/honour by being a leader leading not-so-smart people...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 7 April 2010, 14:41:27
The Evolutionists don't have a chance with you debating, no offense, but your arguments are ridiculous.

I think Modman is a genius, he's just doesn't quite realize why Evolution makes no sense.

You on the other hand, are absolutely hilarious, I think I'm going to show my Dad your post tonight if you don't mind.

I'm not saying your opinion doesn't matter, I'm just saying it makes 0% sense. :|
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 7 April 2010, 14:43:32
i now, modman is a genious, nothing less, maybe more...

sure show my posts to your dad, but also show him that my english is bad...

and im 13... as you but your american right? english is your main language, or... call it american if you want :D

answer me please, are you creationist or making your own theory, since you are not a evolutionist what are you?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 7 April 2010, 14:46:57
Quote
sure show my posts to your dad, but also show him that my english is bad...
I'll tell him you're foreign. ;) [You mean, "foreigner"? :D - @kukac@]



Quote
and im 13... as you but your american right? english is your main language, or... call it american if you want Cheesy

I'm 12, and I'm american, yes.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 7 April 2010, 14:49:18
Tell him im a russian (norwegian) :P hahahaha ok, don`t do that but answer my questions plox
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 7 April 2010, 16:36:05
i forgot to say that ID and Creationism also have been defeated in court...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: John.d.h on 7 April 2010, 16:57:33
Actually, Gabbe's argument about the wolves and dogs is pretty much a perfect representation of what evolution and natural selection are.  The individuals of a group that can survive better and reproduce better pass on their genes while the ones that are less fit don't.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 7 April 2010, 17:00:49
Actually, Gabbe's argument about the wolves and dogs is pretty much a perfect representation of what evolution and natural selection are.  The individuals of a group that can survive better and reproduce better pass on their genes while the ones that are less fit don't.

SERIOUSLY? I didn`t think it was possible to understand it with my english...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: @kukac@ on 7 April 2010, 17:03:10
A lot of scientists are also making special creatures by choosing chosen creatures to pass their genes to each other (quite popular with fruits -> two trees that make big red apples will pass their genes to the next generation).

(click to show/hide)

It is made artificially, because some people realized that it works naturally too. Albino foxes die, because they can't hide in the forest normally, so they can't pass on their genes (or they can pass it harder, and it will keep their genes alive. For a while.).
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 7 April 2010, 17:07:36
I don't see how any of that supports apes turning into Humans................ ::)

Also, why did Humans appear suddenly, why didn't we come in gradually?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: John.d.h on 7 April 2010, 17:08:23
SERIOUSLY? I didn`t think it was possible to understand it with my english...
I'm a Communications student.  Maybe that's why. ;D

(click to show/hide)
Indeed.  In a way, our culture inhibits natural selection.  I kinda like the idea of eugenics, but I'm not sure I'd be comfortable saying I'm in favor of actually doing it.

Also, why did Humans appear suddenly, why didn't we come in gradually?
[citation needed]
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 7 April 2010, 17:15:06

Quote
Also, why did Humans appear suddenly, why didn't we come in gradually?
[citation needed]

Evolution says we come in gradually, we did not popup like creationists says...
cell-2cells-3cells i belive the genious have already explained that.

Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 7 April 2010, 17:22:21
I just looked up Evolution, and it basically says you have gene mutations, and the animals that survive pass on their mutations.

That's just completely ridiculous, you can't just have nearly random mutations and expect any improvements, if Evolution were true, then all life forms should pretty much be extinct, but no, no, no, no, and no, live forms are not dying off!

And nobody has given a good solid simple answer for why I have the power of choice.

I have many more very difficult questions, that you should be able to answer, at least if meat bodies are all that's here.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: John.d.h on 7 April 2010, 17:28:40
I don't see how any of that supports apes turning into Humans................ ::)
How doesn't it!?  To summarize the current idea on how humans evolved (my understanding of it anyway), is this: when a group of apes ended up on the grassland (for whatever reason, probably climate change) natural selection favored those that could walk better and stand more upright.  While it would seem like having a pair of feet that could act as hands would be an advantage, humanoid feet are much better for walking.  If I wanted to have a cross-country foot race against a troop of chimpanzees, I would most certainly win.  Also, standing upright is a huge advantage for wide open areas like a grassland, because you can see farther.  On top of that, we can carry things because we're not using our hands for travel like a knuckle-walking ape.  You can find prey and avoid predators because you can see them coming before a chimp ever could.  As we began to be able to carry things, the usefulness of tools increased, so smarter ape-folk were favored, leading to increased brain size.  You know what you get when you take an ape and give it a big brain, an upright posture, and human-like feet?  A human.

If you think there aren't intermediate steps between apes and people, I'm sorry but you're horribly uneducated about paleoanthropology.  Try looking up the following terms and see if you can discern a pattern:[There is some problem with the list -.- - @kukac@]

To say the appearance of humans was sudden is simply denial of the entire hominid fossil record.

That's just completely ridiculous, you can't just have nearly random mutations and expect any improvements, if Evolution were true, then all life forms should pretty much be extinct, but no, no, no, no, and no, live forms are not dying off!
Most mutations do die.  It's not like the entire species experiences a mutation all at the same time.  Remember my example with dwarfism a while ago?  It's not like the entire human population shrunk, but rather just one individual at a time.  However, if people with achondroplasia had an advantage that helped them survive better than others, pretty soon we'd have an entire species under five feet tall.

Quote
And nobody has given a good solid simple answer for why I have the power of choice.
lol Who says you do? :O
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: @kukac@ on 7 April 2010, 17:33:35
I just looked up Evolution, and it basically says you have gene mutations, and the animals that survive pass on their mutations.

Yep, you got it so far :)

Quote
That's just completely ridiculous, you can't just have nearly random mutations and expect any improvements, if Evolution were true, then all life forms should pretty much be extinct, but no, no, no, no, and no, live forms are not dying off!

Does saber tooth tiger, mammoth, dinosaurs, and their friends tell you something? Dodo's couldn't mutate a bulletproof skin, so they traveled far away :)

Quote
And nobody has given a good solid simple answer for why I have the power of choice.

Large brain :)

Quote
I have many more very difficult questions, that you should be able to answer, at least if meat bodies are all that's here.

Please, feel free, that's why this topic is for :P
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 7 April 2010, 18:24:37
Well then, I'm kinda curious where all the dead bodies and skeletons are that can prove this, there should be many more skeletons of mutated animals that did not survive, than the number of Humans that exist today.



Quote
Quote
That's just completely ridiculous, you can't just have nearly random mutations and expect any improvements, if Evolution were true, then all life forms should pretty much be extinct, but no, no, no, no, and no, live forms are not dying off!

Does saber tooth tiger, mammoth, dinosaurs, and their friends tell you something? Dodo's couldn't mutate a bulletproof skin, so they traveled far away Smile

So, your assuming that Evolution killed them off? When it might have been something else.....



Quote
Quote
And nobody has given a good solid simple answer for why I have the power of choice.

Large brain Smile

THe size of my brain has nothing to do with choice, why is it that I can control my brain, and use it, you think the source of life is the brain right? Well, why can I control it then, why is it more like a tool I use to do things in the physical world?

The real source of who someone is, doesn't seem to come from the brain, I can have extremely high levels of the chemicals that makes my body react to anger, but I can stay calm, why?
Because I am in control, not a bunch of chemicals. Oh BTW, I can use those chemicals to my advantage to make me more powerful in a fight, but why can I control that stuff? According to you guys, shouldn't it control me?



Quote
How doesn't it!?  To summarize the current idea on how humans evolved (my understanding of it anyway), is this: when a group of apes ended up on the grassland (for whatever reason, probably climate change) natural selection favored those that could walk better and stand more upright.  While it would seem like having a pair of feet that could act as hands would be an advantage, humanoid feet are much better for walking.  If I wanted to have a cross-country foot race against a troop of chimpanzees, I would most certainly win.  Also, standing upright is a huge advantage for wide open areas like a grassland, because you can see farther.  On top of that, we can carry things because we're not using our hands for travel like a knuckle-walking ape.  You can find prey and avoid predators because you can see them coming before a chimp ever could.  As we began to be able to carry things, the usefulness of tools increased, so smarter ape-folk were favored, leading to increased brain size.  You know what you get when you take an ape and give it a big brain, an upright posture, and human-like feet?  A human.

Correction, a Human body.
Read below.



Quote
Most mutations do die.  It's not like the entire species experiences a mutation all at the same time.  Remember my example with dwarfism a while ago?  It's not like the entire human population shrunk, but rather just one individual at a time.  However, if people with achondroplasia had an advantage that helped them survive better than others, pretty soon we'd have an entire species under five feet tall.

Do you actually believe that we would have time in the universe to get from 1 cell to a Human body?
I've heard that the math has been done, I don't remember the amount of years, but I can tell you, it's "unbe-***-lievably" longer than Evolutionist say the Earth has been around.
I've done some thinking and I've figured the chance of Evolution getting from one cell to a Human is a ton closer to impossible, than 0.0000000000000000000000010 is to 0.0000000000000000000000011, not quite impossible, but so un-likely you could easily consider it impossible.



Quote
Quote
And nobody has given a good solid simple answer for why I have the power of choice.
lol Who says you do? Laughing

(click to show/hide)



Quote
Quote
I have many more very difficult questions, that you should be able to answer, at least if meat bodies are all that's here.

Please, feel free, that's why this topic is for Tongue

Funny you said that, because you're going to have an impossible time defending yourself from my deadly questions. Muhuhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaheheheheheheheh...he.....heh...............
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: @kukac@ on 7 April 2010, 18:39:46
Quote
Well then, I'm kinda curious where all the dead bodies and skeletons are that can prove this, there should be many more skeletons of mutated animals that did not survive, than the number of Humans that exist today.

Where is god?
(click to show/hide)

Do you know, what is oil made from? Several thousand year old dead organisms (mostly weeds).

Quote
So, your assuming that Evolution killed them off? When it might have been something else.....

It wasn't evolution that killed them off. The reason they died, was because they did NOT evolve. Weather, climate, other "fitter" creatures killed them off (or a big meteorite, they didn't evolve to defend themselves against that xD )

Quote
why is it that I can control my brain, and use it

You are the brain. You are using your body as a tool.

Quote
Because I am in control

You said the quite reason of the evolution. You are the Controlling Unit (CU) :D

Quote
Do you actually believe that we would have time in the universe to get from 1 cell to a Human body?

You don't get it: firstly, the differences between each humans are more than just 10k cells. And mutations are not 1 cell/generation.

Quote
I've heard that the math has been done

Maths is science, not religion :)

Quote
I've done some thinking and I've figured the chance of Evolution getting from one cell to a Human is a ton closer to impossible, than 0.0000000000000000000000010 is to 0.0000000000000000000000011, not quite impossible, but so un-likely you could easily consider it impossible

Thinking is like "the world is flat", so watch out! Plus what has bigger chance, than 0%, that can happen.

Off: You have threw a coin up 10 times, and each time, it was head. Which side do you bet next time?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: John.d.h on 7 April 2010, 18:42:14
I think you need to brush up on your neurology.
Well then, I'm kinda curious where all the dead bodies and skeletons are that can prove this, there should be many more skeletons of mutated animals that did not survive, than the number of Humans that exist today.
Most mutations are too minor to notice, especially in a fossil record.  Those albino foxes, for example.  If you look at an albino fox and a regular fox after a thousand years, you can't tell the difference.  On top of that, skeletons don't really last all that long.  This is why there are so few fossils in the world when compared to the number of dead organisms.

Quote
So, your assuming that Evolution killed them off? When it might have been something else.....
Evolution doesn't kill anything.  These are all examples of animals who were unfit to survive in their situations, and thus they died off.  Dinosaurs were unfit to survive in their conditions (from an asteroid strike or whatever), and mammoths were too tasty to survive.  Dodo birds lived on an island where there were no natural predators, so they never had to adapt any defenses.  When we showed up, they were remarkably easy to hunt because they couldn't hide, fly, or run away very well, so they all died.  Are you sensing a pattern yet?  Things that aren't fit to survive, don't.

Quote
Correction, a Human body.
Read below.
Err... and your point is?


Quote
Do you actually believe that we would have time in the universe to get from 1 cell to a Human body?
I've heard that the math has been done, I don't remember the amount of years, but I can tell you, it's "unbe-***-lievably" longer than Evolutionist say the Earth has been around.
I've done some thinking and I've figured the chance of Evolution getting from one cell to a Human is a ton closer to impossible, than 0.0000000000000000000000010 is to 0.0000000000000000000000011, not quite impossible, but so un-likely you could easily consider it impossible.
I never said that, nor do I intend on addressing the topic of abiogenesis.  I merely explained how natural selection works.  You're trying to put words in my mouth.

Quote
Quote
And nobody has given a good solid simple answer for why I have the power of choice.
lol Who says you do? Laughing
Quote
(click to show/hide)
Of course you would say that.  That's exactly what the electrochemical reactions in your brain told you to say. :)

Quote
Quote
I have many more very difficult questions, that you should be able to answer, at least if meat bodies are all that's here.
lol Holding back your secret weapons, eh?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 7 April 2010, 18:46:33
you guys are too quick to answer...i don`t even get the chance to post -.- nvm, you answered for me... :O
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 7 April 2010, 19:10:43
John, I just deleted half a response, because I realized, I have other stuff to do, and I'm worried about that other stuff, I just need to do that, but this debate is keeping me on the boards, and I can't keep up with you because I'm worried about what will happen if I don't keep up with my life, sorry, I hope you understand, I have to get out of this debate, although I may pitch stuff in every once in a while. But I can't keep this up forever, it consumes way too much of my time, someone else (Omega, maybe you?) will have to take over.

Sorry guys.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 7 April 2010, 19:32:34
debating is fun... :|

Im going to make this topic change with ONE sentence, hopefully  ::)

Not all muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are muslim. (im not being racist, and i have brown skin, natural myself)
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: John.d.h on 7 April 2010, 20:20:59
Not all muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are muslim. (im not being racist, and i have brown skin, natural myself)
How about Timothy McVeigh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh)?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 7 April 2010, 21:11:09
Well, when the topic name says otherwise terrorism is off-topic. :cheesy:
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 7 April 2010, 21:13:05
i was trying to have a debate about musil terrorist, my intro wasn`t so good afterall :'(
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: John.d.h on 7 April 2010, 21:15:48
Well, when the topic name says otherwise terrorism is off-topic. :cheesy:
If the terrorism is motivated by religion, it's perfectly on topic.  I think it's a little silly to have a debate about that, though.  I'm sure pretty much all of us would say it's bad to blow up buildings full of civilians because your preacher told you to.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 7 April 2010, 21:20:40
muslims live in our country, and some maybe and some are terrorists, actually, we are keeping a dangerous iraq man here in norway coz if we send him out, he will get sent to iraq or killed instantly...personally i say we send him out or kill him as he has done far worse to other peoples.

Actually, i see terrorism as a personal threat to me, as just because i live in Europe, some unknown man from another country wants to kill me...

prob because he thinks im christian? whatcha think?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 7 April 2010, 22:43:56
Pretty much everybody likes sex, and according to the Muslims, if you do the will of Allah, you get "68 black eyed virgins" in the afterlife. Or was it 69....

Anyway, nothing could convince me to blow up a building full of civilians, I don't know why the Muslims have such low integrity......
I mean they think they are doing good, but all they're doing to cutting peoples heads off, and waging war against the Jews.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: John.d.h on 7 April 2010, 23:04:45
Y'know, you could try not to lump an entire religion of like a billion people together with the few psychotic nutjobs that give them a bad name.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 7 April 2010, 23:59:14
Quote
Y'know, you could try not to lump an entire religion of like a billion people together with the few psychotic nutjobs that give them a bad name.

Yah, maybe most of them are fine, but their belief is terrible.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: modman on 8 April 2010, 01:44:54
I don't see how any of that supports apes turning into Humans.
First, humans are apes.  Your statement is equivalent of saying you want to turn cars into Fords.  There are no traits apes have that humans do not have.

Also, why did Humans appear suddenly, why didn't we come in gradually?

This might be related to the chance that you're not really sure what exactly a human is.

Finally, you're a moderator.  Set an example by not making fun of people for having poor English or if their arguments don't make sense or if you can't quite connect the dots.  Just because you can't understand evolution doesn't mean no one can (especially after actual education in the subject).

Quote from: Gabbe
Not all muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are muslim.
Jihad Jane would be another counterexample to this.

It is a good point to make, though, that when Muslims blow themselves (and others) up or do other war-mongering, we call it "Islam".  If I, or a scientist, or an (American, to be clear) politician committed a suicide bombing (or blew up my apartment, whatever) we would be classified as "mentally unstable".  Really, I don't see a difference.

Christianity used to be the same, but then religious moderation became the norm along with the Renaissance and that kind of stuff became less common.  Within Islam, there seems to be either a very small or a very quiet group of religious moderates.

Quote from: -Archmage-
Pretty much everybody likes sex, and according to the Muslims, if you do the will of Allah, you get "68 black eyed virgins" in the afterlife. Or was it 69....
It's 72.  And a mistranslation also.  Then again, so is Hell...

With Islam, it's a seriously distorted risk-reward system.  If you thought the Old Testament was bad, you ain't seen nothin 'till you read some of the Qu'ran.

http://www.truthdig.com/images/diguploads/verses.html (http://www.truthdig.com/images/diguploads/verses.html)

Ripping on Islam doesn't make Christianity holy in any way at all.  In America, we have a serious infiltration of religion into politics.  About 50% of voters (probably most Republicans) would not vote for a well-qualified atheist.

And Bush demonstrated his serious tolerance issues by saying "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."  In that sentence, replace atheist with any other group and see if you like it (try "Muslims").  Hopefully no one agrees with Mr. Bush here.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 8 April 2010, 05:27:22
I'm done here, Modman, I would debate with you more if I could, but I've got other stuff I really should be doing... :(

And, I feel kind of guilty facing you...
I'm pretty weak when it comes to facing people I look up too... :(

I have to say Bush was kinda a strange guy, he did a bunch of stuff right and a bunch of stuff wrong.....

PS: I had absolutely no intention of making fun of Gabbe(sorry if you took offense), I simply thought what he was saying was ridiculous, and I understood what he meant.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: @kukac@ on 8 April 2010, 16:51:32
Religion does not make people terrorists, don't forget, that there were Christian terrorists too!
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 8 April 2010, 17:16:34
there are christian terrorists today  ::)

Religion does have that effects that it makes people do stupid things, like belive getting to paradise if you kill those and those, why should we have possible terrorists live in the rich and wealthy europe and us, i am not saying that all muslims are terrorists, but if you are a muslim, you automatically become a possible terrorist, and that is actually true. that book that they pray to, it really do have some things that really don`t fit in with the western culture and values...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: John.d.h on 8 April 2010, 18:14:01
People will use any excuse they can to justify their actions.  The crusades, for example, were more about politics and commerce than they were about religion, but it would have been difficult to unite people from different countries and backgrounds over stuff like that.  It was much easier to unite them based on religion because they were all Catholics.  In the absence of religion, people can be motivated to do evil for lots of reasons, like in Stalin's Russia where loyalty to the state was a justification for killing millions of people... or... you know, that other dictator during World War 2 who killed millions of people.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 8 April 2010, 18:25:43
But he terrorists from iraq can`t do those suicide missions purely based on political gain, as they suicide and won`t be able to claim the gain...if not for their god...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: @kukac@ on 8 April 2010, 19:02:24
Don't forget, that most of the Arabic states were under catholic rule! Since the history is written by catholics, they don't write shameful things, as ruling over the Arabian nations over years. Iraq was UK's puppet state, SU had wars with Afghanistan, Israel constantly attacks her neighborhood, and so on. Israel attacks everyone, and USA even supports them. No wonder they got several mislead planes. Such a things don't happen without reasons. The terrorists are not guys that were f***in' bored in the morning, and decided to kill a lot of people to kill some time.

It's not based on religion. If your homeland were oppressed constantly, and if you are a "national" (that people of USA will never understand, what it means, to be part of a nation. Like a big family, a team with millions, common ancestors with history, common culture...), you might sacrifice your life for your nation.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 8 April 2010, 19:22:53
nice point, and yeah, the states supports the wrong people all the time, but what i ment that this serious angry people who suicide themsleves, do it for their religion, you think saddam cares for iraq?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: modman on 10 April 2010, 00:33:46
The Buddhists don't blow themselves up to kill Chinese people, and they are being oppressed by the Chinese government.  No, they burn themselves as a demonstration to the world.

It seems like a 180 degree turn to me, from a religion which is far less violent period.  Is it just that there is infinitely more suffering in the Middle East than in Tibet?  They don't hijack planes or make roadside bombs...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: @kukac@ on 10 April 2010, 11:53:08
Or you just don't know about it. China is quite closed, so bad news don't spread out, not just to other countries, but inside China too!

USA just cries out the whole world, that someone attacked her "without" reason. I wonder if you heard that Israel sent airplanes above Hungary, or Matuska Szilveszter, Hungarian terrorist bombed a train  8) .
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Fluffy203 on 10 April 2010, 15:58:43
Yea i'm totally going to side with charles darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection. It explains just about everything . No offense to those who believe one being could create this much diversity and uniqueness , but i can't see that happening. Plus the way that our adaptions for survival have changed our species alone.If you dont' know what natural selection is well i'll explain in a simple way. Your a deer in a temperate forest and you have a brown coat its fall so you blend in perfectly. Whilst wolves are hunting in a pack for food. There is another deer that by weird chance is not so brown more of a grey or for this sake albino lol. The wolves don't see you as well cause you blend in with your surrounding. The albino deer not so much they kill him and eat him. Therefore he can not mate and pass on his DNA. While you the brown coat can mate and produce others that blend in with the region and are best suited to survive. Very simple hope you got all of that  :thumbup:  No offense intended in these remarks just observation.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: xxcatmysteryxx on 10 April 2010, 17:52:41
Ok i'll guess I'll join this debate thing im kinda late though i wished i saw and posted before and just to let you know I really think this it a good topic. I have a strong believe of what I think. I have no religion I believe what I WANT TO and choose to; I never been to church my whole life.  Very ignorant when it come it the bible and God or what ever religion is which; it doesn't matter to me. My mom calls me the devil's child (as a joke) because I don't go to church or anything. I guess people might call me Atheist cause I don't believe in god and to believe something i must see it proved first but Atheist is somewhat of a religion its self or would you call it a stereotype? Easy, everyone thinks people should act or behave or believe a certain thing its just what people do and how this society is just like how people call people nerds,goth,preppy,etc, because they act different but they should be free to do whatever they want without ridicule and people calling them stuff but now i feel as if im getting off topic.. I'm very logical when it comes to MY believes -somewhat (i think). Going back on the topic of Evolution: Most people here did not say logical or reasonable things here and I have a say in them; well here it goes. BTW I worked really hard on this post lol this should count more than once this took a long time; it has lots of words anyways I have horrible grammar and stuff so you might not understand what im talking about most of the time so read carefully.
Quote
Now, as the ULTIMATE religious discussion, all atheists bow down before Jesus for giving you a week off of school. At least ACT grateful!
just to say something for people giving you a week off (which should be more) has nothing to do with religion and you should be as grateful for something more important like having food to eat because people in poor countries don't and they wish they have; so even as small as eating a blueberry or something they are grateful most people who have lots more aren't.. getting off topic again Even though this was somewhat of a joke I still had something to say about it. But anyways having a week off from school is merely what society thinks we should have, not to over work kids and have a break. If people thought we don't need it then we wouldn't of have a week off. This is with anything else too.
Quote
There are signs of creation everywhere, why do animals have all the right instincts so that they survive on their own.Why does my body keep breathing, why do I wake up when I have to go pee in the middle of the night?Why the hell can I walk, why is it that my body is designed well enough so I can run
Animals must have abilities to survive and adapt to there environment that's why many animals die off in the wrong environment. all animals have advantages and disadvantages. Oh just so you know we ARE animals just the smartest ones with the biggest brains but we are NOT on top of the food chain we can get easily killed by many animals like bears. And to the question how does your body keep breathing that is causes by your brain; your brain control voluntary and involuntary actions such as breathing and that's to keep us alive being able to take in oxygen and like plants we exhale CO2 and that's good for plants and plants give off Oxygen. Those are just naturals things we HAVE to do its one of our basic needs. Like to survive we need food and water. To pee that's you body getting rid of waste in your body both solid and liquid. And to the running and walking you need something to get you one place to another; again other thing to survive. Its just that running is moving faster than walking like in an emergency you need to escape from an animal you need to getting away faster.To run we have strong enough muscles to run and it takes those muscles to run more than walking.

Still have lots more stuff to say.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Fluffy203 on 10 April 2010, 20:51:58
Quote
this should count more than once this took a long time
It can totally count more than once cause it is long and looks like you put alot of your own thoughts into it , btw i completely agree with everything you said even the stereotypes people should be able to be who they are without having someone tell them they are different or the wrong way
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: xxcatmysteryxx on 11 April 2010, 00:18:06
Quote
-Why can I do what I want, even if what I want doesn't make sense, or is illogical?
 You really think that complicated pieces of meat have a will?
 Why do you think that a complicated piece of meat would care about where it came from?
 Why should one complicated piece of meat care about another complicated piece of meat?

-Why can I express anger?
 Sure I have chemicals in my brain that cause me to look angry, but why should those chemicals elevate, why don't they just stay the same
Because a piece of meat is meat, not an animal although it comes from animals it is not alive it can't breath or do anything because its just meat.... and you can do what you want because you are alive you can eat, breath, sleep, walk. etc.  you have a brain that helps you to decide and think and to actually do And to anger the stimulus in the environment cause chemicals to your brain and your brain decides what it should do that's a reaction and that can cause you to be angry
Quote
It was an image of the three apes in "Planet of the Apes" doing the old "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil", something I think about when people post that they're not interested in any other opinions (the very definition of closed-mindedness).
OMG i love that part in the movie planets of the apes *(its my favorite part) also so true...
Quote
but our design is much to smart and logical to be a strange occurrence like Evolution.
When you think of evolution we evolved from other animals but where did those animals come from? There must have came from somewhere. What I think is that someone created one animals that was able to live and survive but then evolution happened. We couldn't have just have have been with a brain or systems like nervous system someone must have done that. But that someone didn't create a human it was some kind of animal that eventually turned into us by evolution. To get this straight humans actually weren't created; it was another animal that turned into us.No one ever thinks of that statement.So i think its both sides of this argument but little different  its my own side muhaha.
Quote
The individuals of a group that can survive better and reproduce better pass on their genes while the ones that are less fit don't.
Albino foxes die, because they can't hide in the forest normally, so they can't pass on their genes.
Yes I agree to this; that's basically evolution. Animals, to survive they pass their genes to their off spring. Sometimes their is a faulty gene that causes a "change". For example a red head that was a mutation and the person who had it passed its genes to its off-spring and since the mutation wasn't bad because not all faulty genes are bad the gene was able to survive and still have people have that gene. And when its bad like if someone has cancer or some other kind of disease the person dies and a less likely chance of passing down the gene but that gene was strong enough to still exist and be passed
Quote
I just looked up Evolution, and it basically says you have gene mutations, and the animals that survive pass on their mutations.
That's just completely ridiculous, you can't just have nearly random mutations and expect any improvements, if Evolution were true, then all life forms should pretty much be extinct, but no, no, no, no, and no, live forms are not dying off!
First off its not random its causes by a fault gene and not all mutations are bad.

Forgot to mention some stuff that will make my point better but im too lazy right now i will edit later
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 11 April 2010, 00:44:05
Evolution has some major mathematical problems to solve!

The math has been done, with the most possible luck, for Evolution to do what it's supposed to have done, it would've taken many thousands of times longer than the universe has been around!

Do you want another problem to solve? :|
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: John.d.h on 11 April 2010, 00:50:14
The math has been done, with the most possible luck, for Evolution to do what it's supposed to have done, it would've taken many thousands of times longer than the universe has been around!
[citation needed]
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Fluffy203 on 11 April 2010, 01:06:34
yea i would deff like that can you give a reference on where you got that arch  :confused:
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: xxcatmysteryxx on 11 April 2010, 01:07:21
is anyone read my posts and does it make since
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 11 April 2010, 01:08:35
Sorry, my Dad was talking about that months ago, I remember that he found a lot of content, but it's been a while, and neither of us remember the sources for that info. :| :look:
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Fluffy203 on 11 April 2010, 01:12:25
Yea cat your stuff all makes sense a little grammar misses , but hey thats what the edit buttons for and no one here is so anal about it to point it out , wait nvm you have arch  :P
Quote
Quote
It was an image of the three apes in "Planet of the Apes" doing the old "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil", something I think about when people post that they're not interested in any other opinions (the very definition of closed-mindedness).
OMG i love that part in the movie planets of the apes *(its my favorite part) also so true...
one of the best movies btw

@Arch ok let me know if you find that cause that is definitively false and i have a reference  :thumbup:
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 11 April 2010, 03:36:15
You Evolutionists are in for it! :o

I was way off on the math, the math in Evolution is many many trillions of times worse than what a heard months ago.

My source is a very good movie I just watched called "The Case for a Creator", I seriously recommend buying it, it has tons of extras including a Q&A!
Maybe you could watch it in parts on Youtube, but I haven't looked into that.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: @kukac@ on 11 April 2010, 08:46:18
Yeah, and in the ancient ages, many tribes wrote "The world is flat". If something is written, it doesn't mean that it's true.

(But why do I bother myself with evolution by the way? I will die anyway  ;D )
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 11 April 2010, 14:37:52
Yah, but you may meet our creator and maybe come back for another experience as a Human.
We'll see...

People wrote the world was flat, because they thought it was, they were ignorant to the evidence, just the way Evolutionists are.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: xxcatmysteryxx on 11 April 2010, 15:24:33
The universe and the Earth has been around a very long time WAY before even humans existed and once the population of humans die off the universe will always exist and be there FOREVER it will exist LONG after humans are gone (if we don't mess it up at least)

This makes me think of the show Life After People
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 11 April 2010, 15:36:51
Well, we may have a Cambrian Explosion 2, then.

There is no way we could screw up the universe, we don't have anywhere near that kind of power.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: @kukac@ on 11 April 2010, 16:12:24
Quote
Yah, but you may meet our creator and maybe come back for another experience as a Human.

I think if you die earlier than me, then you will be dead longer than me.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 11 April 2010, 17:43:56
Quote
Yah, but you may meet our creator and maybe come back for another experience as a Human.

I think if you die earlier than me, then you will be dead longer than me.
made ZERO sense to me...

Well, we may have a Cambrian Explosion 2, then.

There is no way we could screw up the universe, we don't have anywhere near that kind of power.
Not yet, but the universe has been around for 6 ...ok, now im uncertain of what to say, as i know the correct number in norwegian... lets say billion years, and the earth 3 billion years, then human kind is actually quite early specie as for other species to appear will take longer time as their planets has to appear and become more "life friendly" then EVOLUTION HAS TO HAPPEN TO MAKE THEM CAPEABLE OF USING THEIR BRAINS OR INSTINCT and then they may evolve further into something i would like to call "space stage".

Yeah, and in the ancient ages, many tribes wrote "The world is flat". If something is written, it doesn't mean that it's true.

(But why do I bother myself with evolution by the way? I will die anyway  ;D )
first, correct, second dunno what you ment but i think i did.

Yea, if i were intelligent i would just take a chance on beliving in god and if he did not exist, what can i loose? Or i might be very intelligent and say that "god doesn`t exist because there is no evidence" wich is true.

You Evolutionists are in for it! :o

I was way off on the math, the math in Evolution is many many trillions of times worse than what a heard months ago.

My source is a very good movie I just watched called "The Case for a Creator", I seriously recommend buying it, it has tons of extras including a Q&A!
Maybe you could watch it in parts on Youtube, but I haven't looked into that.
I have never seen a movie in my local movie store/games store sell anything called that...Id i can`t get it, you mind if i pirate or you upload youtube?

is anyone read my posts and does it make since
makes sence, is completely correct and should not be needed to be post as it is So obivious that everything of your statements are true

Quote
-Why can I do what I want, even if what I want doesn't make sense, or is illogical?
 You really think that complicated pieces of meat have a will?
 Why do you think that a complicated piece of meat would care about where it came from?
 Why should one complicated piece of meat care about another complicated piece of meat?

-Why can I express anger?
 Sure I have chemicals in my brain that cause me to look angry, but why should those chemicals elevate, why don't they just stay the same
Because a piece of meat is meat, not an animal although it comes from animals it is not alive it can't breath or do anything because its just meat.... and you can do what you want because you are alive you can eat, breath, sleep, walk. etc.  you have a brain that helps you to decide and think and to actually do And to anger the stimulus in the environment cause chemicals to your brain and your brain decides what it should do that's a reaction and that can cause you to be angry
Quote
It was an image of the three apes in "Planet of the Apes" doing the old "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil", something I think about when people post that they're not interested in any other opinions (the very definition of closed-mindedness).
OMG i love that part in the movie planets of the apes *(its my favorite part) also so true...
Quote
but our design is much to smart and logical to be a strange occurrence like Evolution.
When you think of evolution we evolved from other animals but where did those animals come from? There must have came from somewhere. What I think is that someone created one animals that was able to live and survive but then evolution happened. We couldn't have just have have been with a brain or systems like nervous system someone must have done that. But that someone didn't create a human it was some kind of animal that eventually turned into us by evolution. To get this straight humans actually weren't created; it was another animal that turned into us.No one ever thinks of that statement.So i think its both sides of this argument but little different  its my own side muhaha.
Quote
The individuals of a group that can survive better and reproduce better pass on their genes while the ones that are less fit don't.
Albino foxes die, because they can't hide in the forest normally, so they can't pass on their genes.
Yes I agree to this; that's basically evolution. Animals, to survive they pass their genes to their off spring. Sometimes their is a faulty gene that causes a "change". For example a red head that was a mutation and the person who had it passed its genes to its off-spring and since the mutation wasn't bad because not all faulty genes are bad the gene was able to survive and still have people have that gene. And when its bad like if someone has cancer or some other kind of disease the person dies and a less likely chance of passing down the gene but that gene was strong enough to still exist and be passed
Quote
I just looked up Evolution, and it basically says you have gene mutations, and the animals that survive pass on their mutations.
That's just completely ridiculous, you can't just have nearly random mutations and expect any improvements, if Evolution were true, then all life forms should pretty much be extinct, but no, no, no, no, and no, live forms are not dying off!
First off its not random its causes by a fault gene and not all mutations are bad.

Forgot to mention some stuff that will make my point better but im too lazy right now i will edit later
Ok i'll guess I'll join this debate thing im kinda late though i wished i saw and posted before and just to let you know I really think this it a good topic. I have a strong believe of what I think. I have no religion I believe what I WANT TO and choose to; I never been to church my whole life.  Very ignorant when it come it the bible and God or what ever religion is which; it doesn't matter to me. My mom calls me the devil's child (as a joke) because I don't go to church or anything. I guess people might call me Atheist cause I don't believe in god and to believe something i must see it proved first but Atheist is somewhat of a religion its self or would you call it a stereotype? Easy, everyone thinks people should act or behave or believe a certain thing its just what people do and how this society is just like how people call people nerds,goth,preppy,etc, because they act different but they should be free to do whatever they want without ridicule and people calling them stuff but now i feel as if im getting off topic.. I'm very logical when it comes to MY believes -somewhat (i think). Going back on the topic of Evolution: Most people here did not say logical or reasonable things here and I have a say in them; well here it goes. BTW I worked really hard on this post lol this should count more than once this took a long time; it has lots of words anyways I have horrible grammar and stuff so you might not understand what im talking about most of the time so read carefully.
Quote
Now, as the ULTIMATE religious discussion, all atheists bow down before Jesus for giving you a week off of school. At least ACT grateful!
just to say something for people giving you a week off (which should be more) has nothing to do with religion and you should be as grateful for something more important like having food to eat because people in poor countries don't and they wish they have; so even as small as eating a blueberry or something they are grateful most people who have lots more aren't.. getting off topic again Even though this was somewhat of a joke I still had something to say about it. But anyways having a week off from school is merely what society thinks we should have, not to over work kids and have a break. If people thought we don't need it then we wouldn't of have a week off. This is with anything else too.
Quote
There are signs of creation everywhere, why do animals have all the right instincts so that they survive on their own.Why does my body keep breathing, why do I wake up when I have to go pee in the middle of the night?Why the hell can I walk, why is it that my body is designed well enough so I can run
Animals must have abilities to survive and adapt to there environment that's why many animals die off in the wrong environment. all animals have advantages and disadvantages. Oh just so you know we ARE animals just the smartest ones with the biggest brains but we are NOT on top of the food chain we can get easily killed by many animals like bears. And to the question how does your body keep breathing that is causes by your brain; your brain control voluntary and involuntary actions such as breathing and that's to keep us alive being able to take in oxygen and like plants we exhale CO2 and that's good for plants and plants give off Oxygen. Those are just naturals things we HAVE to do its one of our basic needs. Like to survive we need food and water. To pee that's you body getting rid of waste in your body both solid and liquid. And to the running and walking you need something to get you one place to another; again other thing to survive. Its just that running is moving faster than walking like in an emergency you need to escape from an animal you need to getting away faster.To run we have strong enough muscles to run and it takes those muscles to run more than walking.

Still have lots more stuff to say.
Why did you bother, one of your arguments should have been enough, though, most of it has already been stated.

Arch, i would apreciate if you quoted atleast some of the counter-arguments and answered my previous question: Are you making your own theory, or are you creationist, you are definately not evolutionist.

Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Fluffy203 on 11 April 2010, 18:19:11
One thing i have to say that will shut this WHOLE THING DOWN . If we were created by God , then who created the Dinosaurs millions of years ago? Since the bible clearly makes you think we were the first to be on this planet which is FALSE it was all the dinosaurs until a meteor hit the earth. well one theory anyways the most plausible  :thumbup:
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 11 April 2010, 19:04:22
You Evolutionists are so narrow-minded!

There is way more proof for God than there is for Evolution!
And you can buy that video on the internet.

You think the Bible has to be spot on or not true at all. The Bible isn't spot on but it's got many things right!
Fluff, your statement is easily deflected.



Quote
Are you making your own theory, or are you creationist, you are definately not evolutionist.

I'm a creationist, merely meaning that I believe we were created!



Quote
EVOLUTION HAS TO HAPPEN TO MAKE THEM CAPEABLE OF USING THEIR BRAINS OR INSTINCT

Sorry, the truth is the diametric opposite of that statement. :O
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 11 April 2010, 19:25:30
Quote
There is way more proof for God than there is for Evolution!

I have presented you evidence for evolution in real-time wich you can observe within a normal human lifespan
We have presented you with evidence wich can be observed by fossils
You have yet to present evidence for your god (i will not accept "you have to belive" as a answer as it is pure ignorance)

(were can i buy the movie?,  download plz
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Fluffy203 on 11 April 2010, 19:45:35
Please tell me how you can deflect that proof ? i don't think god created dinosaurs just to kill them all.

Another thing is Mythology you remember that . Its where a group of people thought gods controlled the weather , the sun and much of what now we know is simple science. They were simply putting something that they couldn't understand into something they could. We have done the same thing with this monotheistic god we couldn't explain why we were here so we created GOD and the bible , but now we have the technology and other resources to disprove this and now the religion of this monotheistic god is crumbling quick .

Quote
You have yet to present evidence for your god (i will not accept "you have to belive" as a answer as it is pure ignorance)
True you can't just have blind faith in something that isn't real. I mean look at the Holocaust who/what could just seat by and let that happen.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 11 April 2010, 20:09:48
Quote
We have done the same thing with this monotheistic god we couldn't explain why we were here so we created GOD and the bible , but now we have the technology and other resources to disprove this and now the religion of this monotheistic god is crumbling quick .

Evolution isn`t a theory of how the universe or life were created, but it is just a matter of time till we can proove that we weren`t created by god. this is kind of "his/her/its" last stand bleedout... as the only thing god can proove is how life were created, and that isn`t even the intention of the old people from the old times..
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 11 April 2010, 20:19:47
It's a DVD, just look it up! :|

Or do you want me to do that for you?



Quote
I have presented you evidence for evolution in real-time wich you can observe within a normal human lifespan
We have presented you with evidence wich can be observed by fossils
You have yet to present evidence for your god (i will not accept "you have to belive" as a answer as it is pure ignorance)

Evidence for Evolution, I haven't seen any logical explanations that would actually work.
The fossil record is against Evolution. (Cambrian Explosion)
The basic building blocks of life couldn't have formed on early Earth.

Evidence for God:
The universe is perfect, live can exist because of that.
Just watch the video for more proof.



Quote
i don't think god created dinosaurs just to kill them all.

That's like saying that you don't think a designer made a boat to watch it sink. :|

What's the fun of creating a universe if your going to have complete control over it? Then there aren't any surprises, nothing interesting, because everything is just the way he wants it.
A meteor may just have struck the Earth and wiped the dinosaurs out! He's created this marvellous universe, now I don't see why he would want to control all of it, it would be most interesting to just make it and let it do what it does, adding things to it every once in a while.



Quote
Another thing is Mythology you remember that . Its where a group of people thought gods controlled the weather , the sun and much of what now we know is simple science. They were simply putting something that they couldn't understand into something they could. We have done the same thing with this monotheistic god we couldn't explain why we were here so we created GOD and the bible , but now we have the technology and other resources to disprove this and now the religion of this monotheistic god is crumbling quick .

Yes, we can understand, and it is that understanding which points us in the direction of a creator.



Quote
Quote
You have yet to present evidence for your god (i will not accept "you have to belive" as a answer as it is pure ignorance)
True you can't just have blind faith in something that isn't real. I mean look at the Holocaust who/what could just seat by and let that happen.

Blind faith?
No.
My belief in a creator is fully supported by logic and science, it is Evolution which is crumbling.

God is merely letting Humans do what they will, good or bad, Humans learn from the experiences.



Quote
Evolution isn`t a theory of how the universe or life were created, but it is just a matter of time till we can proove that we weren`t created by god. this is kind of "his/her/its" last stand bleedout... as the only thing god can proove is how life were created, and that isn`t even the intention of the old people from the old times..

You're right, Evolution isn't a theory! Evolution is a joke! :O
Last stand? Hah.
Creationists are charging strong, it is you who stand on your last legs, not us.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Fluffy203 on 11 April 2010, 20:27:32
you have got to be joking , i'm sorry , but what you just said made no complete sense whats so ever.

Quote
The universe is perfect, live can exist because of that.
Just watch the video for more proof.
This is horribly wrong in every way , we could get hit with anything at any time and destroy our little planet lol nothing is to stop our star (sun) from shooting out a solar flare and then our atmosphere goes poof lmfao.

Do you know anything about anything. how old are you first cause what you are saying is totally not logical?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 11 April 2010, 20:46:12
Quote
You're right, Evolution isn't a theory! Evolution is a joke! Laughing
This is pure ignorance at it`s worst, i wasn`t supporting evolution in this case, and you say it is a joke, that was just straight out ignorance, calling evolution a joke means i can call god a "inapropriate for children so i won`t tell you" and then put a smiley behind it and say it was a joke...
If you call evolution a joke, then your ignorant, remember what i posted about "sheeps" congrats, your not one of them, your a leader. (that means your intelligent, not as dumb as "sheeps", and yes, i am saying that creationists does lack intelligence within this subject)
I can now say, based on YOUR post that you did not read my post in its entire at all.
That is scientific answered shortly, you wan`t a long answer? here we go:

I am right, checked correct, Evolution is in fact a theory within creationist communities. Evolution is in science a fact wich cannot be denied as there is nothing to counter-argue wich can be seen on as science.
Quote

That's like saying that you don't think a designer made a boat to watch it sink. No Opinion

Yes it is, if i made a boat, i would repair it if it broke.
Quote
What's the fun of creating a universe if your going to have complete control over it

what follow is purely one of -Archmage-s imaginations

Quote
Yes, we can understand, and it is that understanding which points us in the direction of a creator.

At first, that did not make any sence, please argue in your posts, why is there a creator, you say probably since there exist things. theres about 1:infinity chance there is a god, agreed? not? then please, post a picture of your god...then i can say, that creationists say 1:trillion chance evolution is true, then there is more likely evolution is true, you know what? lets see you counter-argue with something that has science as, atleasta part of it  in it.

Quote
Blind faith?
No.
My belief in a creator is fully supported by logic and science, it is Evolution which is crumbling.

Your belief is supported by ignorance 100% why the hell do you speak of science, still belive in god? god is no scientific evidence!

Quote
God is merely letting Humans do what they will, good or bad, Humans learn from the experiences.
i wanna fix this sentence:GodThe human brain is merely letting Humans do what they will want, good or bad like that thing or that thing, getting that or that consequence, Humans learn from the experiences.

Yeah, im hostile when i post this.
 
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 11 April 2010, 20:52:20
Gabbe, please leave, you are impossible to debate with simply because you call what you don't understand ignorance.

I want to debate with someone like Modman, who knows how to debate!
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 11 April 2010, 20:55:59
Okay, i was wrong in my previous statement you were ignorant at completely, now you were, and you are the one who does not understand here, okay, i might be, if you put it this way: i don`t undertsand why god is here, so why does everyone else? and this everyone is a very small percentage.

EDIT: i am now being as ignorant as someone else...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 11 April 2010, 20:58:35
Actually, less than 50% of the population believes in Evolution! :P

I know what I'm talking about, you don't, that is certain now! :|
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 11 April 2010, 20:59:56
im done with debating with you, post your sources while debating, i might switch to your side...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: xxcatmysteryxx on 11 April 2010, 21:01:53
Gabbe, please leave, you are impossible to debate with simply because you call what you don't understand ignorance.

I want to debate with someone like Modman, who knows how to debate!
.... i consider myself a good debater
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 11 April 2010, 21:03:07
you are, but arch isn`t going to admit it plainly because your presenting solid evidence, wich someone can`t take...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Fluffy203 on 11 April 2010, 21:05:00
Yes arch i would love to see some of your references , you are just throwing out accusations without any documentation to support your argument
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 11 April 2010, 21:21:55
The movie I posted has plenty of info to wipe Evolution out! :P

Buy that for $10-$15, and watch it.
If you aren't willing to pay a small amount of money like that, then guess you don't care about the truth...



Quote
im done with debating with you, post your sources while debating, i might switch to your side...

Well, you probably will switch if you see that video. :)



Quote
Quote from: -Archmage- on Today at 17:57:08
Gabbe, please leave, you are impossible to debate with simply because you call what you don't understand ignorance.

I want to debate with someone like Modman, who knows how to debate!
.... i consider myself a good debater

Okay then. Bring it on.



Quote
you are, but arch isn`t going to admit it plainly because your presenting solid evidence, wich someone can`t take...

I haven't seen any solid evidence.... :|



OMEGA, WHY AREN'T YOU PARTICIPATING? :|
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 11 April 2010, 21:25:24
i would also like to see omega post....
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: xxcatmysteryxx on 11 April 2010, 21:31:13
i would also like to see omega post....
...that would be very interesting; me too
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Fluffy203 on 11 April 2010, 22:58:20
 The Short Proof of Evolution  (http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm) read it
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 11 April 2010, 23:55:40
Quote
The Short Proof of Evolution  read it

I don't see how that's proof, the guy just "claims" stuff.
Besides, you're supposed to have a workable theory before you try to prove it. :P
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: ultifd on 12 April 2010, 01:08:37
i would also like to see omega post....
Apparently, he is busy.  ::)  :O
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 12 April 2010, 05:57:44
i would also like to see omega post....
Apparently, he is busy.  ::)  :O

End "OT" on a ot board :| lol

well,
The Short Proof of Evolution  (http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm) read it
were? in prev posts?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 12 April 2010, 06:32:10
Arch, ivè watched some parts of the movie, going to go now, but i`ll be back, and the guy in there looks like he can bring facts
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: ultifd on 12 April 2010, 06:55:33
well,
The Short Proof of Evolution  (http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm) read it
were? in prev posts?
It is a link...  ::)

Can't you edit your post...  :|
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 12 April 2010, 11:02:49
Gabbe, how did you get the movie, I'm just curious. :look:

If you broke the law, God will probably forgive you. ;D
Title: Re: Evolution Debates :D
Post by: Gabbe on 12 April 2010, 13:06:22
i am just watching promotion videos from youtube, wich is legal, i wan`t to know what im spending my money on...  :|
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 12 April 2010, 15:23:54
Quote
i wan`t to know what im spending my money on...  No Opinion

Smart. :thumbup:

I give the movie a 10/10! :D
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: @kukac@ on 12 April 2010, 17:21:42
Quote
The Short Proof of Evolution  read it

I don't see how that's proof, the guy just "claims" stuff.
Besides, you're supposed to have a workable theory before you try to prove it. :P

You too are doing that :)

Quote from: Gabbe
then please, post a picture of your god...

Must I make a picture on myself?

AHH I GOT EXPOSED!!!  :-X
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 12 April 2010, 17:22:53
Hey, we have a workable theory, you don't. :P
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: @kukac@ on 12 April 2010, 17:26:05
Where does that work? Where our theory doesn't?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 12 April 2010, 17:40:27
Everything looks like it was designed.
Evolution wouldn't...no couldn't make a world so perfect.

Evolution is also mathematically improbable, infact, it's not even close. :O
The Human body is top-notch. Not great, but perfect, it's the soul, or the......whatever you want to call it, inhabiting the body that makes mistakes.

Sentience comes from you, not your body.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: @kukac@ on 12 April 2010, 17:44:17
Ahh, I just got enlightened by Arch! There is a god exist, who is called Ranagol! :D

(I've only found Hungarian documents about him, so I'm doing some translations :D )

Ranagol is the goat-headed god, who came from an another dimension, to test out his theory. Basically, this whole universe is his test lab. He has the theory: Survival of the fittest! Only those can survive, who are among the best creatures. The followers of Ranagol must accept it: it doesn't matter, how do you reach your goal. If you have to eliminate someone, you can fight him openly, backstab him, poison him, make him get arrested: you decide. Your only goal is to survive. Even if it means, you have to accept lies. If pretending to be a peace loving, lawful Christian person will make you get further, then use it as you want."Do not kill, do not steal, do not decieve". These are nothing, but lies. "I don't want to be killed, I don't want to be robbed, I don't want to be decieved, so I protect myself with these lies I call justice and morals."

According to the Law of changes (Változások Törvénye) Ranagol only love those, who are never satisfied with their current positions, and always aim to be higher. Altough, you might make a step back, you can jump further later. Basically, these are what are found about Ranagol, and I found a quite stupid (?) webpage about him (www.ranagol.hu), what is totally empty...

Well, should we worship for him? :D Don't forget, that it's not needed :D
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 12 April 2010, 18:17:20
The world isn`t perfect, nor is humans, our ecosystem could have been very different from what we have...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: John.d.h on 12 April 2010, 19:15:02
Here's a question (actually several) I'd like to raise to everyone.  A bit of food for thought, if you will.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 12 April 2010, 19:32:11
AND, why would a god-like "person" care for this tiny little planet orbiting this sun that is almost nothing in the universe...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 12 April 2010, 21:16:51
Quote
Ahh, I just got enlightened by Arch! There is a god exist, who is called Ranagol! Cheesy

(I've only found Hungarian documents about him, so I'm doing some translations Cheesy )

Ranagol is the goat-headed god, who came from an another dimension, to test out his theory. Basically, this whole universe is his test lab. He has the theory: Survival of the fittest! Only those can survive, who are among the best creatures. The followers of Ranagol must accept it: it doesn't matter, how do you reach your goal. If you have to eliminate someone, you can fight him openly, backstab him, poison him, make him get arrested: you decide. Your only goal is to survive. Even if it means, you have to accept lies. If pretending to be a peace loving, lawful Christian person will make you get further, then use it as you want."Do not kill, do not steal, do not decieve". These are nothing, but lies. "I don't want to be killed, I don't want to be robbed, I don't want to be decieved, so I protect myself with these lies I call justice and morals."

According to the Law of changes (Változások Törvénye) Ranagol only love those, who are never satisfied with their current positions, and always aim to be higher. Altough, you might make a step back, you can jump further later. Basically, these are what are found about Ranagol, and I found a quite stupid (?) webpage about him (www.ranagol.hu), what is totally empty...

Well, should we worship for him? Cheesy Don't forget, that it's not needed Cheesy

Be ridiculous if you want, but there is a creator, science can prove it!
It already has actually. :P



Quote
The world isn`t perfect, nor is humans, our ecosystem could have been very different from what we have...

Are you kidding, the Human body is perfect, it can walk, it has all these tiny little details that make it perfect, and when I say perfect, I don't mean perfection by the Borg's standard, but perfection by the standard of what it can do, and how reliable it is at what it does.

The Human body can and is designed to do what it must to survive and more!

Nature is a paradise, ignoring bugs of course. :cheesy:
For goodness' sake, the universe is a paradise, it is perfect for life, gravity is just right, all this stuff is perfect, it has obviously been created!



Quote
Here's a question (actually several) I'd like to raise to everyone.  A bit of food for thought, if you will.

    * If you were an all-powerful god given a big empty universe and you could create anything at all you wanted in it (or nothing, if you so choose), what would you make?  What would your universe look like?
    * Would you make everything work together in perfect harmony?  Would you make everything imperfect so you could sit back and watch what happens?
    * Would you create mankind?  If so, would you give them the power of choice, or would you dictate their actions and attitudes?

You don't really expect me to know? ::)



Quote
AND, why would a god-like "person" care for this tiny little planet orbiting this sun that is almost nothing in the universe...

Uh, he created it. ::)
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: John.d.h on 12 April 2010, 21:32:44
Be ridiculous if you want, but there is a creator, science can prove it!
It already has actually. :P
lol what?
Quote
Are you kidding, the Human body is perfect, it can walk, it has all these tiny little details that make it perfect, and when I say perfect, I don't mean perfection by the Borg's standard, but perfection by the standard of what it can do, and how reliable it is at what it does.
Granted, the human body is pretty nifty.  Perfect, though?  Nah.  If you want to accept the idea of "the universe is pretty awesome, so it seems to me that there is an intelligent creative force/entity behind it", then that's 100% A-okay for you to believe that.  However, some people are never going to accept "the universe is pretty awesome" as proof.
Quote
You don't really expect me to know? ::)
Like I said, food for thought.  I just figure since people are debating what God/gods did or didn't do, then maybe we should think about what any of us would do in that position of ultimate power.  It's a thought experiment directed at no particular person.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 12 April 2010, 21:39:31
Ok, John, it's kinda clear that you haven't been listening. :|

Why don't you just check out that video I posted about eariler.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Fluffy203 on 12 April 2010, 21:51:43
i wish their were definable proof there is a creator , but i can't see that happening. We as a race of humans put GOD's Or GOD in place of things we can't understand. Like the god Zeus we thought was a god he controlled lighting. When in fact lighting is a super heated plasma created by static discharge from clouds. Also the Eygpitain god Ra who was supposed to control the sun. Again in fact the sun is a star in our solar system. See we used to not understand how things worked so we put a god for it. Thus we created this Monotheistic god for explanation of why we are here and how we were created.We seek to be here for a purpose that is why we make this God.We don't want to actually realize that we will die and that is the end. Plus the Bible isn't facts at all its more of a set of morale's and guidelines to keep people the way others see that they should be and live. The bible says wait till marriage to have sex. That is cause people in that religion want you to do so its a guideline not a fact you don't have to wait lol i sure didn't , but just saying that is an example of the set of guidelines. (no offense intended or actually bringing sex into the debate just an example)  :thumbup:
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: John.d.h on 12 April 2010, 22:02:38
Ok, John, it's kinda clear that you haven't been listening. :|

Why don't you just check out that video I posted about eariler.
Seriously?  I've been here reading every post in this thread since the beginning, taking pot shots at both sides any time somebody makes a lousy argument.  I've most certainly been listening.  It just so happens that lately you've been grasping at straws, so you've been my biggest target for the last couple pages.  Instead of investing my time, effort, and especially money into seeing your propaganda, I'd like to see if you can formulate a decent argument on your own.  So far, you haven't really done that.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 12 April 2010, 22:14:29
Fluffy, I am fed up with you!

You keep insisting on Evolution, which doesn't make any sense.

Evolutionists, insist upon believing in Evolution because they don't want to believe in a creator!
You don't want to believe in a Creator because, with a creator, there are moral and rules, and honor means something, without a creator, it doesn't matter, and you don't like to be restricted!

I am mad, simply because you are so ignorant of science, and logic. All the science and logic points to a creator!
The fact that you cannot see that pretty much explains why you believe in Evolution!

I am sick and tired of your ignorance. >:(

I think Gabbe is a great Evolutionist, even though his arguments are ridiculous, he's looking into the other point of view, which is the smart thing to do!

I've already looked into the Evolutionists point of view. It's ridiculous!
If you are an Evolutionist, than you believe in something out of nothing.



Quote
Quote from: -Archmage- on Today at 18:44:19
Ok, John, it's kinda clear that you haven't been listening. No Opinion

Why don't you just check out that video I posted about eariler.
Seriously?  I've been here reading every post in this thread since the beginning, taking pot shots at both sides any time somebody makes a lousy argument.  I've most certainly been listening.  It just so happens that lately you've been grasping at straws, so you've been my biggest target for the last couple pages.  Instead of investing my time, effort, and especially money into seeing your propaganda, I'd like to see if you can formulate a decent argument on your own.  So far, you haven't really done that.

I haven't been grasping at straws, I've been waiting for you to see basic logic!
I can't believe I'm having this argument! You guys are just ridiculous!!!
I find it funny, John, how your replies ask for evidence, when I'm waiting for you to look at the massive block I've already posted!
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Fluffy203 on 13 April 2010, 00:09:19
Quote
Fluffy, I am fed up with you!

You keep insisting on Evolution, which doesn't make any sense.

Evolutionists, insist upon believing in Evolution because they don't want to believe in a creator!
You don't want to believe in a Creator because, with a creator, there are moral and rules, and honor means something, without a creator, it doesn't matter, and you don't like to be restricted!

I am mad, simply because you are so ignorant of science, and logic. All the science and logic points to a creator!
The fact that you cannot see that pretty much explains why you believe in Evolution!

I am sick and tired of your ignorance. Angry

I think Gabbe is a great Evolutionist, even though his arguments are ridiculous, he's looking into the other point of view, which is the smart thing to do!

I've already looked into the Evolutionists point of view. It's ridiculous!
If you are an Evolutionist, than you believe in something out of nothing.

No you are completely wrong the ignorant thing here is that you think you know me. You clearly don't. I've been to church baptist by the way. I've seen the other side and i'm here to tell you the other side doesn't make sense. Not logically , not at all for that fact. READ YOUR BIBLE. King James version btw.   

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. John 3:16
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 13 April 2010, 00:17:43
Hey, not all creationists believe the Bible is accurate. ::)

I do not go to church, I believe in a creator for scientific and logical reasons.

I do not believe in Evolution for scientific and logical reasons.

This topic was terribly named. :P
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Fluffy203 on 13 April 2010, 00:31:32
Oh so you don't believe in god just a higher being of existence? if so then yea i believe the same thing. But i do not think this higher being of existence created use.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 13 April 2010, 00:45:06
Well, I believe he did. :P

I do believe in a God-like being...so yah a higher being of existance.
I just call him God.....well.....because, what else?

I believe, and know, that I am a soul, and that my body is not who I am.

I have literally experienced being out of my body. For about 1/4 of a second. :D
It felt........cool.
Funny how my Mom said she saw my soul before I was born.
She was able to describe the exact height that I had experienced, now I don't think that that is a coincidence, no matter how strange my mother is... :look:
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Fluffy203 on 13 April 2010, 00:50:40
you know i think i'm good with that answer , at least you believe in something right , i mean you have something to go on , I see why you grip on to it so much , but hey i appreciate the debate  :thumbup:
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 13 April 2010, 11:59:08
Buddy.
I know one thing for sure.

Evolution is impossible.

Go do the math!
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: @kukac@ on 13 April 2010, 13:26:39
Quote
Evolutionists, insist upon believing in Evolution because they don't want to believe in a creator!
You don't want to believe in a Creator because, with a creator, there are moral and rules, and honor means something, without a creator, it doesn't matter, and you don't like to be restricted!

And you, the creationist insist upon believing in God, because you don't want to believe in the evolution!
But yeah, why should I restrict myself, if there aren't any god (at least I haven't seen any :) ), who would punish us, if we don't follow his/her/their rules.

Creationism is the religion of the old times, the modern religions are science and democracy :P :D

Do you guys want to keep it up, until a God registers and tells his/her opinion, or do you want to tease Arch a little bit more?

(By the way, I heard Ranagol and Allah made a bet. Ranagol said, the humanity has 1,2% chance to be the last survivor race, but Allah bet it :D wouldn't it be wonderful, to see which god will win the bet? :D )
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 13 April 2010, 14:01:35
Quote
I think Gabbe is a great Evolutionist, even though his arguments are ridiculous, he's looking into the other point of view, which is the smart thing to do!

Thanks! :D do you have any good translator programs so i can write in Norwegian? then my arguments wouldn`t be so ridicolous, and i looked at small clips from the movie, and it got me interested! Still i belive in evolution, i also belive that something of a higher existance might exist, like the Ancients in stargate...They moved to another dimension wich "controls" this one, and they created us! thats not a awesomely prooved theory, but hey, scientist is actually trying to proove dimensions-theory...they won`t be able to within my lifespan atleast...lol...

Quote
And you, the creationist insist upon believing in God, because you don't want to believe in the evolution!
But yeah, why should I restrict myself, if there aren't any god (at least I haven't seen any Smile ), who would punish us, if we don't follow his/her/their rules.

Creationism is the religion of the old times, the modern religions are science and democracy Tongue Cheesy

Do you guys want to keep it up, until a God registers and tells his/her opinion, or do you want to tease Arch a little bit more?

Now that was just like my brain is thinking....

Quote
Buddy.
I know one thing for sure.

Evolution is impossible.

Go do the math!

If we were the ultimate result, then yes, evolution could go suck it`s ass, but since we could have evolved way differently, and so could any other being, and any other planet etc. It is possible, at a small chance, but the universe is wast/large/epic/biggest-thing-ever and yet, no ETLF (extra-terrestial-life-forms) is found on other planets, but on IO a moon to another of our solar-systems planets (can`t remember wich) do have "alien" bacteria on it, i mean under the ice, were WATER is located, then aliens is possible, why not ETLF? They might even have a different brain-setup than what we have...They might have EVOLVED different than us.... And if 5 billion solar-sytems were without lifeforms, maybe it would be like 1:5billion? then evolution makes more sence or what?

Well, I believe he did. :P

I do believe in a God-like being...so yah a higher being of existance.
I just call him God.....well.....because, what else?

I believe, and know, that I am a soul, and that my body is not who I am.

I have literally experienced being out of my body. For about 1/4 of a second. :D
It felt........cool.
Funny how my Mom said she saw my soul before I was born.
She was able to describe the exact height that I had experienced, now I don't think that that is a coincidence, no matter how strange my mother is... :look:

I will ignore the last part, as that is just speculations wich i can`t have proof for.
Why would you call him god, you said a long time ago that aswell aliens might have been our CREATORS, then those aliens might be a specie, why don`t you call them/It/Her/he... uhm...need time to think....CREATOR!!
If you hold on to the god thing, i assume your christian, and then i won`t deffinately join your side, pure because christianity is ignorance, nothing less, alot more.

Quote
(By the way, I heard Ranagol and Allah made a bet. Ranagol said, the humanity has 1,2% chance to be the last survivor race, but Allah bet it Cheesy wouldn't it be wonderful, to see which god will win the bet? Cheesy )

Go see some videos about how long the crocodile is going to survive!

Quote
Hey, not all creationists believe the Bible is accurate. Roll Eyes

I bgelive the bible is nonscense, remember that the bible has been changed during the medieval times...
I bet all the paups/poups whatever made it fit so that christianity would "have the power to kill inocent non-belivers"

Quote

I do not go to church, I believe in a creator for scientific and logical reasons.

ah.... you no longer call him god, you call him creator thats nice! :D

Quote
I do not believe in Evolution for scientific and logical reasons.

Are you now saying that evolution breaks completely with all that you see, touch, hear anything!?!?
Is your opinion that Darwin was a complete dumbass with critical mind problems!?!?

Quote
This topic was terribly named. Tongue

Yeah, some of our posts could have been called oftopic since they have no reference to the topic...

Quote
Evolutionists, insist upon believing in Evolution because they don't want to believe in a creator!
You don't want to believe in a Creator because, with a creator, there are moral and rules, and honor means something, without a creator, it doesn't matter, and you don't like to be restricted!

Hate restrictions, but that isn`t why i don`t belive in a creator, that is why i hate christianity...
honour is valuable to your friends, and to beat the enemy in a debate :D

Quote
I find it funny, John, how your replies ask for evidence, when I'm waiting for you to look at the massive block I've already posted!

I don`t know what john has post but watch those clips from archs movie, then you can say you have watched the other side of the debate, and got a perspective...

Quote
Be ridiculous if you want, but there is a creator, science can prove it!
It already has actually. Tongue

Reference?

Quote
Ahh, I just got enlightened by Arch! There is a god exist, who is called Ranagol! Cheesy

(I've only found Hungarian documents about him, so I'm doing some translations Cheesy )

Ranagol is the goat-headed god, who came from an another dimension, to test out his theory. Basically, this whole universe is his test lab. He has the theory: Survival of the fittest! Only those can survive, who are among the best creatures. The followers of Ranagol must accept it: it doesn't matter, how do you reach your goal. If you have to eliminate someone, you can fight him openly, backstab him, poison him, make him get arrested: you decide. Your only goal is to survive. Even if it means, you have to accept lies. If pretending to be a peace loving, lawful Christian person will make you get further, then use it as you want."Do not kill, do not steal, do not decieve". These are nothing, but lies. "I don't want to be killed, I don't want to be robbed, I don't want to be decieved, so I protect myself with these lies I call justice and morals."

According to the Law of changes (Változások Törvénye) Ranagol only love those, who are never satisfied with their current positions, and always aim to be higher. Altough, you might make a step back, you can jump further later. Basically, these are what are found about Ranagol, and I found a quite stupid (?) webpage about him (www.ranagol.hu), what is totally empty...

Well, should we worship for him? Cheesy Don't forget, that it's not needed Cheesy

Replace Ranagol with Evolution, then Replace Ranagol with Creation...

Yay, what can i say? I just got enlightened by arch to! i belive in the god Darwin wich tells you about survival of the fittest!
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: xxcatmysteryxx on 13 April 2010, 15:36:13
Wow people here post so fast anyways everyone is different and can believe how they want, someone can even believe in nothing anyways i think gabbe is a good debater because HE looks on both sides i do that too... kinda
anyways with evolution we could have evoled differently but we didn't can you explain that... so now its like evoltion has a brain haha so that brings up alot of questions scinetists need to discover of why we tured up like we did or maybe we were created ... ah such mysterys still need to be discovered and PROVED

better?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 13 April 2010, 15:41:57
there must be a post were i say im she.....please, naviagte me, im HE! >:( >:(

we evolved how we did because the earths habitat was what it was...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: xxcatmysteryxx on 13 April 2010, 15:50:28
there must be a post were i say im she.....please, naviagte me, im HE! >:( >:(

we evolved how we did because the earths habitat was what it was...

i don't think i said she if so sorry i knew you were a HE

anyways yes its because of enviroment/habitat if we first evolted in the mountains we would have really strong legs and maybe more legs or more toes LOL or in grassland we propally run faster.. yet we have traits to do all that just not one better than the other
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 13 April 2010, 15:57:21
Quote
i don't think i said she if so sorry i knew you were a HE

anyways yes its because of enviroment/habitat if we first evolted in the mountains we would have really strong legs and maybe more legs or more toes LOL or in grassland we propally run faster.. yet we have traits to do all that just not one better than the other

Humans were on the plains of Africa in the begining, then we evolved to have naked skin, wanna know the reason? because we wanted better sex, lol thats funny actually...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: xxcatmysteryxx on 13 April 2010, 16:04:20
Quote
Humans were on the plains of Africa in the begining, then we evolved to have naked skin, wanna know the reason? because we wanted better sex, lol thats funny actually...

ha great it would have been better if you said easier to reproduce but yes we were really "made" to have no clothes it would be funny if we still don't then everyone would look EXACTLY the same ... well almost the same; similar
and we don't have naked skin it called being naked and that means showing skin......
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 13 April 2010, 17:01:07
My english is terrible  :-[

wouldn`t look the same, we would still be asians, white, black etc.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: xxcatmysteryxx on 13 April 2010, 18:09:28
My english is terrible  :-[

wouldn`t look the same, we would still be asians, white, black etc.
its not that bad.... I bet mines worse when im not even trying

anyways.... true except for different colors and sizes

Also the reason why I don't like christanity or any religion is because they always change i just don't think its right
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 13 April 2010, 18:47:51
Quote
I bgelive the bible is nonscense, remember that the bible has been changed during the medieval times...
I bet all the paups/poups whatever made it fit so that christianity would "have the power to kill inocent non-belivers"

 ::)

[I cut this post - @kukac@]
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 13 April 2010, 19:12:12
You guys are just ridiculous, I can understand why you believe in Evolution.

I almost did believe Evolution once, but once I saw how Evolution cowers before science, and that science has got it's finger pointed at a creator, I just said, Evolution is crap, then once I found out about the mathematics behind Evolution, I laughed so hard, at the thought that anyone would believe such ridiculous thing! :O

You see. I'm not scared of Evolution at all, I know that everything you throw at me just won't do anything, I am rock solid in my believe in a creator!
It's just too obvious to deny!

The fact that you people don't seem to get it is creepy.

Oh BTW guys, if you think Dawkins is good, he's crap.
I've read a bunch of quotes and then someone compared those quotes. He hides from the strong and confident creationists and attacks the ones that haven't quite got their guns lined up right.

I've also read about how the definition of Evolution is always changing, and they use that as a shield to protect themselves against science and logic.



PS: Gabbe: How much, exactly, have you seen?

I couldn't imagine how anyone could believe in Evolution after watching that video. :o
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 13 April 2010, 19:20:29
you know what? I will just say that you and Omega belive in your thing and we/me in ours/mine want to heqar your opinion about the science book of the medieval times, THE BIBLE!

no-ones going to change their opinion anyways, but i have changed mine slightly, or rather, i have dug up the possibility for aliens....

but yeah, if the bible is a picture on sumthing, how did it carry out through the dark ages? christianitys top-era?

EDIT: I have seen all the clips availiable as advert on youtube, im going to ask my dad to use his card now...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: John.d.h on 13 April 2010, 19:21:34
;D Allow me:
Quote from: Gabbe
I believe the Bible is nonsense, remember that the Bible was changed during the medieval times...
I bet all the popes made it fit so that Christianity would "have the power to kill innocent non-believers"

I personally think a lot of what's in the Bible is subject to corruption, simply because it's been passed down through so many translators, etc.  Even if the original story was completely true, I think what we have now is probably a lot different.  On top of that, half of what a lot of Christians believe isn't even close to what's actually written in the book they supposedly hold in such high regard.  This is especially true with the Catholics (don't even get me started on that!), but I think all denominations are subject to it.  Take the typical Christian view on Hell for example.  Most Christians think Hell is some kind of fiery torture chamber like in Dante's Inferno, but that's not what's in the Bible at all.  Why would a loving god subject people to eternal torture for all eternity for being immoral?  The Hell of the Bible is a place where people are destroyed, snuffed out of existence, not tormented.  Makes a lot more sense, doesn't it?  The only beings that it mentions being burned for "age after age" are Satan and his demons, presumably because you simply can't destroy an angelic being the same way you would destroy a human body, so it's going to take a long time.  Somewhere along the way, people got Christian Hell mixed up with Greek Hades, and now that's what people believe.  It's kinda sad when even Christians don't know what they're supposed to believe.  In fact, that's why the invention of the printing press took so much power away from the Catholic church.  People could finally read what the book says and figure out that it wasn't what the papacy wanted them to think.  That's when we start getting people like Martin Luther with his 99 Theses.

Here's a quote I've always found interesting.

Quote from: Mahatma Gandhi
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.


I almost did believe Evolution once, but once I saw how Evolution cowers before science, and that science has got it's finger pointed at a creator, I just said, Evolution is crap, then once I found out about the mathematics behind Evolution, I laughed so hard, at the thought that anyone would believe such ridiculous thing! :O
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule)

Quote
I know that everything you throw at me just won't do anything, I am rock solid in my believe in a creator!
There's a word for that... hmm... what was it?  Oh yeah, it's...
(click to show/hide)

Quote
I've also read about how the definition of Evolution is always changing
That's called scientific progress.  Maybe you should look into it.  It's the same way our definition of the solar system is always changing.  Some people have even gone so far as to not believe that Earth is the center of the universe! *gasp* :o NO WAY!  ::)
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 13 April 2010, 19:27:38
Quote
Quote from: -Archmage- on Today at 08:12:12 PM
I almost did believe Evolution once, but once I saw how Evolution cowers before science, and that science has got it's finger pointed at a creator, I just said, Evolution is crap, then once I found out about the mathematics behind Evolution, I laughed so hard, at the thought that anyone would believe such ridiculous thing! Laughing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule
Well that was just insanely good one  :O

Quote
Quote
I've also read about how the definition of Evolution is always changing
That's called scientific progress.  Maybe you should look into it.  It's the same way our definition of the solar system is always changing.  Some people have even gone so far as to not believe that Earth is the center of the universe! *gasp* Shocked NO WAY!  Roll Eyes

Sometimes i think that this is kinda what arch thinks about evolutionists, lemme add, evolution is science, evolution changes because we discover new things, creation however, is bullshit, and bullshit stays bullshit until the atoms transform..

Quote
Quote
I know that everything you throw at me just won't do anything, I am rock solid in my believe in a creator!
There's a word for that... hmm... what was it?  Oh yeah, it's...
(click to show/hide)

Directly translated from Norwegian that is "dumb" i think...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 13 April 2010, 19:47:13
You guys are ridiculous beyond bounds! :P
I am the only Creationist in the debate that is equipped with firepower, but you aren't listening to me, which in fact, is typical of Evolutionists!

I have stated that I do not stand by the Bibles every word, and as John said, corruption has very likely gotten it's hands all through the Bible.

You could say that I'm a christian, but I don't really have a 'defined religion', I'm just in the generic group of "Creationists".



Quote
Quote from: -Archmage- on Today at 16:17:00
I almost did believe Evolution once, but once I saw how Evolution cowers before science, and that science has got it's finger pointed at a creator, I just said, Evolution is crap, then once I found out about the mathematics behind Evolution, I laughed so hard, at the thought that anyone would believe such ridiculous thing! Laughing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

Jeez.........I thought I was underdramatic........ :O



Gabbe, thanks for being a man and bothering to check out the massive block of evidence I posted. :) :thumbup:



Quote
Quote
Quote
I've also read about how the definition of Evolution is always changing
That's called scientific progress.  Maybe you should look into it.  It's the same way our definition of the solar system is always changing.  Some people have even gone so far as to not believe that Earth is the center of the universe! *gasp* Shocked NO WAY!  Roll Eyes

Sometimes i think that this is kinda what arch thinks about evolutionists, lemme add, evolution is science, evolution changes because we discover new things, creation however, is bullshit, and bullshit stays bullshit until the atoms transform..

Evolution is not science, it is a faith.
Creation stands by science and it's sad that that isn't obvious to you.

BTW, John, that's not what I meant by "always changing", you terribly mis-understood.



Do you guys want to continue this debate?

Gabbe is the only one that is really looking at my proof, you others are just here to make fun of my point of view.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 13 April 2010, 19:56:05
Actually, i want to say that evoltuion and creation are 2 different things, creation is how life began, evolution is how it changed, and i must say, there is no theory to compete with creation at the battlefield of well...creation...

I feel like i belive in evolution, but battling archmage with his creation is not the right thing, and evoltuion, obiviously fails at prooving how life come to begin, but thats because it isn`t about that, life hasn`t always been around, and therefore Creation is correct, put only at how life to began, and that is in fact what it is about, evolution should be something that has sub-theories and same with creation... I disagree with arch about that evolution is a joke, but i agree with him that at todays science can`t "proove" uhm...creation of life, now you heard me! CREATION OF LIFE AND EVOLUTION OF LIFE!
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: John.d.h on 13 April 2010, 20:51:58
Okay, point me to your "massive block of evidence", because I've seriously yet to see a single iota of evidence for creation.

I am the only Creationist in the debate that is equipped with firepower, but you aren't listening to me, which in fact, is typical of Evolutionists!
Who's not listening?

Quote
Evolution is not science, it is a faith.
Creation stands by science and it's sad that that isn't obvious to you.
Then... oh, why don't you show some science?  The best you've done so far is posting that video from Ken Hovind (I think that was his name), whose best point was that maybe the universe isn't as old as we think it is.  Fair enough, maybe the universe is a hundred years old for all I care.  Even if you were to somehow conclusively prove that the universe is young, or that the math doesn't work out, or whatever holes you can punch in our current understanding of evolutionary theory, that still would do nothing to prove creation.  Whether it happened or not, it is simply not a testable/provable phenomenon.  Evolution is.  We can see it happening on small scales (bacteria), and we can even make it happen on our own (dogs, corn, etc.).

Quote
BTW, John, that's not what I meant by "always changing", you terribly mis-understood.
There's another definition for "always changing", other than "constantly becoming something different than what it just was a moment ago"?  I was unaware. :P

Quote
Do you guys want to continue this debate?
You seem to want to.  You're the only one with anything to prove.

Quote
you others are just here to make fun of my point of view.
Yeah, since "evolution is bullshit!" and "I don't know how you people believe this crap!" is totally not that. :look:
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 13 April 2010, 23:06:48
Well, I hate this debate!
It's too ridiculous!

I'm through here!

I can't stand this, you guys respond so fast, I don't have time to wait for my brain to process the information I put through it.

I can feel what I want to say, but when it comes to the speed of my brain and expressing myself into the physical world, I'm only 12.

I just hate this debate because it takes to much of my time, but I keep getting drawn back, and sometimes the debate is fun, but on top of it being hard to express myself clearly, and at a speed to keep up with you guys, and then considering that it seems like you guys try to misunderstand me, the debate is very frustrating, and don't come on these forums for this.

I don't care if you think I'm being a coward, I'm just tired of this stupid body and tired of this debate. I'm done. I hate it.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: xxcatmysteryxx on 14 April 2010, 00:37:31
Quote
Evolution is not science, it is a faith.
Creation stands by science and it's sad that that isn't obvious to you.

wait i thought evolution is science and creation is faith that sound more like its supose to be if you really think about it.... now im confused
Quote
I don't care if you think I'm being a coward, I'm just tired of this stupid body and tired of this debate. I'm done. I hate it.
awww i don't think your a coward i ammire your still expressing your point even though your the only one here that believes the creation thing and against evolution and your doing a good job!
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: modman on 14 April 2010, 00:58:06
Be ridiculous if you want, but there is a creator, science can prove it!
It already has actually. :P

The only type of person who would claim this, I'm sorry I have to say this, is someone who has no understanding whatsoever of what science does, what it is for, and how it works.  Science can only work with evidence.  In science, evidence trumps empty claims, like the following:

Buddy.
I know one thing for sure.

Evolution is impossible.

Go do the math!

You guys are ridiculous beyond bounds! :P
I am the only Creationist in the debate that is equipped with firepower, but you aren't listening to me, which in fact, is typical of Evolutionists!

Your claims are empty.  I could claim the sky is falling, but you wouldn't believe me for the same reasons no one takes creationists' claims seriously.  When you boil it down, creationism in America is just a sad political movement from within the Christian body.  Many creationists are just bystanders, not really involved, but creationist leaders count them as followers (sheep, really.  And sheep aren't known for independent thinking).

 
Quote from: Arch
I almost did believe Evolution once, but once I saw how Evolution cowers before science, and that science has got it's finger pointed at a creator, I just said, Evolution is crap, then once I found out about the mathematics behind Evolution, I laughed so hard, at the thought that anyone would believe such ridiculous thing! Laughing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

You have failed to present this mathematics.

Maybe you don't recognize this, but a large portion of Christianity accepts evolution, including the Catholics, the largest religious denomination in the world.

And no, I will not buy or watch the video.  Please present the argument here.  It would be more productive than stating your firm belief in creationism.

Gabbe, thanks for being a man and bothering to check out the massive block of evidence I posted. :) :thumbup:

Quote
Evolution is not science, it is a faith.
Creation stands by science and it's sad that that isn't obvious to you.

If creationism is really science, then what progress has been made in the last, say, 5000 years it's been around?  Or maybe it fits the definition of Pseudoscience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience) better…

Quote from: Arch
Gabbe is the only one that is really looking at my proof, you others are just here to make fun of my point of view.

Taking credit for intellectual work which isn't yours is called plagiarism.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 14 April 2010, 01:56:36
Modman's right, I'm not presenting the evidence.

I know it exists, but I'm not really sure how to present it........
I've always been terrible at presenting things.........

But I'll try later, maybe tomorrow.... :)



Quote
Quote from: Arch
Gabbe is the only one that is really looking at my proof, you others are just here to make fun of my point of view.

Taking credit for intellectual work which isn't yours is called plagiarism.

Oops, not trying to, just a bad choice of words.  :-X



Quote
Quote
I don't care if you think I'm being a coward, I'm just tired of this stupid body and tired of this debate. I'm done. I hate it.
awww i don't think your a coward i ammire your still expressing your point even though your the only one here that believes the creation thing and against evolution and your doing a good job!

Thanks for the courage.
I want to watch that movie again tomorrow and post some stuff from it. ;)
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: @kukac@ on 14 April 2010, 12:21:49
Arch, because you write down "I'm right, creator exists" more times, that does not make your opinion true.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 14 April 2010, 13:32:51
First I think I'll present "irreducible complexity".

The name says it all.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 14 April 2010, 13:34:33
Can anyone please xplain what that is?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 14 April 2010, 13:35:58
nvm i googled it...

found this...

Quote
It is rejected by the scientific community
Quote
is an argument  by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved  from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring chance mutations
Quote
It is one of two main arguments intended to support intelligent design, the other being specified complexity

Take a look at this one:
Quote
Evolutionary biologists have shown that such systems can in fact evolve,  and Behe's examples are considered to constitute an argument from ignorance.

And this one:
Quote
The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."

And this too :D :

Quote
Nonetheless, irreducible complexity continues to be cited as an important argument by creationists, particularly intelligent design proponents.

Quote
A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.

Behe found a cell, that he though wouldn`t live without all ot it`s parts, he were wrong..

Look here!  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella)

Look here for more of the dover trial

Code: [Select]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAnIoXPLMdo&feature=related[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajcKn-qO3g8&feature=related[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsrmlST5sP4&feature=related[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTAC3h6gbKw&feature=related[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqSgr-Jladk&feature=related[/youtube]

heres the wiki link for irreducibly complexity or whatever..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity)

heres the flagella:

(http://www.bio.miami.edu/~cmallery/150/proceuc/c27x7x3flagella.jpg),

Heres how it works, behe theory:

(http://www.sedin.org/pics/n.gif)

He thinks it wouldn`t survive with missing one of the parts, science prooved it could survive with 80% intact.

Heres how behe summarises the flagella:

Some bacteria boast a marvelous swimming device, the flagellum, which has no counterpart in more complex cells. In 1973 it was discovered that some bacteria swim by rotating their flagella. So the bacterial flagellum acts as a rotary propellor -- in contrast to the cilium, which acts more like an oar.

Like this?  (http://www.sedin.org/pics/fdsmall.gif)

Behe was the on that first brought up irreducibly complexity, and he failed, and then it is nothing to argue with...

Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 14 April 2010, 14:10:36
80% Hah.
You have to go from 0% to 100%, very gradually, and of course, you have to hope, that Evolution fixes/creates something, instead of destroying it, the chance of destruction is just about 100%, but not quite........ Want me to give an example of why you cannot just randomly change complicated things, and hope for an improvement?

I'd say that that argument is perfectly valid unless science can prove that you can go from 0% to 100%.

Remember you can't start from anything, you have to start from nothing.
If you were to start at 80%, that would point at a creator, because that would somehow have to get there.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 14 April 2010, 14:19:20
Quote
Actually, i want to say that evoltuion and creation are 2 different things, creation is how life began, evolution is how it changed, and i must say, there is no theory to compete with creation at the battlefield of well...creation...

Does this reposting help?
There is some problems with evolution and the math, but you must agree that it is possible, i changed faith, my faith is now what i just quoted, and it is true that noone can disagree with me, because i think everyone here agrees that at some point there must have been a creation, so actually, i belive in creation but not ID as there is no proof for ID, and there is proof for evolution, and ID and Evolution is copeting, not creation and evolution.

I can proove that you can go from.... something to something id rather think we say, as if you think of BigBang that theory and all other cannot be prooved nor disprooved, same with creation as creation is bigbang, renamed...

PS. watch the vids, you couldn`t have done it at the speed your comment was posted. :D if you do not, i must call you ignorant for the rest of your life! muahahahahha
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 14 April 2010, 14:23:16
The big problem for you though, is that Evolution is mathematically impossible.

One of the reasons I believe Humans were created is because, they show signs of design, no random process like Evolution, could create anything so grand as a Human body.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 14 April 2010, 14:39:00
The human body weren`t created in 5000 years or so...
Please point the signs, all i see on the human body that is evolution is...everything, we are going on our feet because the on walking and reproduce in front were more adapted than the ones wanting to anal eachother and swing in the trees, therefore, we are now at the top of the... uhm, food-ladder.

Means, a human using it`s brain can kill any animal.

Most adapted:

(http://www.naute.com/images/evolutionofman.jpg)  :O :O :O

Less adapted:

(http://giovanniworld.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/evolution_of_man.jpg) :O :O :O

Evolution of god   :angel: ;D ;D ;D

(http://goldendome.org/EvolutionOfMan/EvolutionOfMan.jpg)

Quote
The big problem for you though, is that Evolution is mathematically impossible.

No, it is possible, you don`t need faith, just a good mathematic brain  ;)
Saying it is impossible would be like saying that a aple can`t get rotten after some time!
Life had 5 billion years to come to the point were a cell could be created by the basix-molecules,atoms, dunt know how express...
The human body is not grand, if i understood the right meaning, like, good, perfect sumething like that, why is apes and human skeletons so similar, yet can`t mate?

arch, you agree with me that things could create in the begining, but i belive not my a ID, ETLF however...
So, the only despute we have is evolution?
But, just reminding you, watch the videos, and what signs of design is there?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 14 April 2010, 14:58:06
 :O
Funny pics.

No it is not possible Gabriel, not at all.

You can't have random changes and expect to get improvements. Want me to give an example?



Quote
The human body is not grand, if i understood the right meaning, like, good, perfect sumething like that, why is apes and human skeletons so similar, yet can`t mate?

Well, let's just say the Human body is amazing, because it is.
I'm just kinda curious why our digestive system is designed to process food, since Evolution relies on random mutations why isn't an apple deadly to us, why does our body know what to do with it.
I will not take, it just evolved into a digestive track, because random mutations and natural selection couldn't get anywhere close, and there is certainly no way Evolution could have a monkey turn into a man.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: xxcatmysteryxx on 14 April 2010, 15:02:02
I been watching the videos still not done.... you post too fast
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 14 April 2010, 15:11:24
Quote
You can't have random changes and expect to get improvements. Want me to give an example?

You can have random changes, and expect improvements in one of them, give me the example! examples are my food! my knowledge consumes examples to gain energy! give me some good examples that taste good, not the bad ones that i can produce in my ass!



An apple isn`t deadly to us, but it evolved to have that thick shelter around it to prevent some animals to eat it, but a aplle is not a plant, a tree however, that is one much better example, and a tree grew tall, just to prevent animals to get the food, and as i said, humans are on the top, and we can get almost anything we want, because of our knowledge! And our knowledge is not our souls, but our brains, and our brains isn`t anywere near amazing, it is only amazing compared to other species on earth, still, it have become better with the times. I posted something like this on another forum, as a response i had this: ass

Quote
I'm just kinda curious why our digestive system is designed to process food,

Because without food, we couldn`t get bigger, nor more complex.

Reccomend you lookup thunderf00t on youtube, enlighening videos. (PM him, not post on the videos as you will get downrated)
Quote

why does our body know what to do with it

uhm...there is one thing that is called instinct or sumthing...
Quote
because random mutations and natural selection couldn't get anywhere close, and there is certainly no way Evolution could have a monkey turn into a man.

Let us ignore the following pics:

Code: [Select]
[img]http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/vecase/behavior/Spring2009/Foley/skull%20comparison.png[/img]
thats large, but i googles, no smaller i found

I stop here because xx must get done watching videos...

nvm, i continue, and since, if i post a wiki link here, noones going to read, here is all that the wiki says, and if you answer as if you did not read it i assume you have not read it:
Quote
The human brain is the center of the human nervous system and is a highly complex organ. Enclosed in the cranium, it has the same general structure as the brains of other mammals, but is over three times as large as the brain of a typical mammal with an equivalent body size.[1]  Most of the expansion comes from the cerebral cortex, a convoluted layer of neural tissue that covers the surface of the forebrain. Especially expanded are the frontal lobes, which are involved in executive functions such as self-control, planning, reasoning, and abstract thought. The portion of the brain devoted to vision is also greatly enlarged in human beings.

Brain evolution, from the earliest shrewlike mammals through primates to hominids, is marked by a steady increase in encephalization, or the ratio of brain to body size. The human brain has been estimated to contain 50–100 billion (1011) neurons, of which about 10 billion (1010) are cortical pyramidal cells. These cells pass signals to each other via as many as 1000 trillion (1015) synaptic connections.[2]

The brain monitors and regulates the body's actions and reactions. It continuously receives sensory information, and rapidly analyzes this data and then responds, controlling bodily actions and functions. The brainstem controls breathing, heart rate, and other autonomic processes. The neocortex is the center of higher-order thinking, learning, and memory. The cerebellum is responsible for the body's balance, posture, and the coordination of movement.

In spite of the fact that it is protected by the thick bones of the skull, suspended in cerebrospinal fluid, and isolated from the bloodstream by the blood-brain barrier, the delicate nature of the human brain makes it susceptible to many types of damage and disease. The most common forms of physical damage are closed head injuries such as a blow to the head, a stroke, or poisoning by a wide variety of chemicals that can act as neurotoxins. Infection of the brain is rare because of the barriers that protect it, but is very serious when it occurs. The human brain is also susceptible to degenerative disorders, such as Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, and Alzheimer's disease. A number of psychiatric conditions, such as schizophrenia and depression, are widely thought to be caused at least partially by brain dysfunctions, although the nature of such brain anomalies is not well understood.
[/tt]

Here is how evolution of brain works, it is just like all the others:

In a long time ago there were several types of humans, homo sapiens, homo erectus etc.
lets say, the whiter the dots are, the less brain capacity do they have, and the less forthought they make about their descissions.
Then after that is said, look:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/Mutation_and_selection_diagram.svg/300px-Mutation_and_selection_diagram.svg.png)
Quote
Adaptation is the evolutionary process whereby a population becomes better suited to its habitat.[1][2]  This process takes place over many generations,[3]  and is one of the basic phenomena of biology.[4]

The term adaptation may also refer to a feature which is especially important for an organism's survival.[5] For example, the adaptation of horses' teeth to the grinding of grass, or their ability to run fast and escape predators. Such adaptations are produced in a variable population by the better suited forms reproducing more successfully, that is, by natural selection.

Heres from wikia how something evolves, (PS. why don`t you use wikia creation?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_creation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_creation)
Here is how matter is creation, from the creation section of wikipedia.

Quote
Strict creationists[12]  believe that evolution cannot adequately account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on Earth

I think you fit the description arch :)
(Enlight me of adequately means plz)
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: xxcatmysteryxx on 14 April 2010, 15:43:29
we couldn't have been created because who would have been the creater some believe its God but it can't be because he would also have to have been created or whatever because where would HE get the intellegence the answer is evolution. I can see the point of intellgent design because of the chance of how we did evolve is many to believe impossible and of how the DNA adds up and just one little fault can change alot. We are similar to many animals by there DNA we share similar traits with monkeys thats why many people thinks we evolved from monkeys but really it could have been anything. We share 50 percent of genes with a bananna I find that pretty funny because we eat them along with many other foods. I read this somewhere but I can't really remember where but I kinda wonder how a bananna has genes ... oh wait was it atoms no because genes are many atoms together into one thing called a gene. So that proves we couldn't have been designed because the way the genes are make up what the product is animals,food,..etc.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 14 April 2010, 15:52:18
a banan can be "defect" and it`s definately not perfect

And we share like 99% of our genes with the chimpanzee
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: jda on 14 April 2010, 15:57:18
1. The title for this topic is WAY too generic (though I expect it didn't actually start at the point we are now, it kind of was predictable it would come this way :P ).

2. This thread has been almost from the start about Creationism vs Evolutionism.

3. The Christian criticism against Evolutionism is not even pan-Christians, i.e. not all Christians oppose Evolutionism. Actually, not all Christian branches (being the three main ones: Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant) oppose Evolutionism. Currently, for the Catholic Church:
Quote
Today[update], the Church's unofficial position is a fairly non-specific example of theistic evolution[citation needed], stating that faith and scientific findings regarding human evolution are not in conflict, though humans are regarded as a special creation, and that the existence of God is required to explain both monogenism and the spiritual component of human origins. No infallible declarations by the Pope or an Ecumenical Council have been made[citation needed].
(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution

4. To the best of my (admitedly reduced knowledge on this), Judaism does not oppose Evolutionism any more it does not support literal interpretation of the Genesis. Hence, this is no issue for the Judaic religion.

5. I am completely unaware of the Islamic view on Creationism and Evolutionism. I am also completelly unaware of the importance of the book of Genesis, as well as similarity to that of the Judaic and Christian if they have it at all. But certainly, if we are talking "religion", I think only natural to have the input of someone of such faith on this to make it a real "religion" debate. Islam does consider itself as the natual successor of Christianity much like Christianity considers itself the natural successor of Judaism.

6. The three great Monotheist religions "dealt with", you still have the other two of the main five religions in the World: Hinduism and Budhism.
For the Hindus, everything is God.
For the Budhists (a religions stemming itself from Hinduism), God is nothing.
The very interesting thing about these concepts is how they relate to Creationism/Evolutionism, or rather with the infinite. I'll get back to this two points bellow. ;)

7. We are finite beings.
The BigBang being the origin of our Universe does not at all explains what there was before it - actually, the currently (I think) most commonly accepted view on this is that the Universe is expanding since the BigBang and will keep doing so up to a point where it can extend no longer (extend to(wards) where BTW?!) and will then implode back to that single particle there was before the BigBang. And then it will explode again, the cycle being repeated infinitelly.
Ok, where does that particle come from?! What was there before the particle?! Was it always there?
Exact same question for God: where did He came from?! Was He created by someone else?
And the really good question: why is He a "He" and not a "She"?! :P
We are finite beings who do not experience infinity. At least not in a commensurable way, for sure. Hence we cannot actually experience "inifitelly before" nor "infinitelly after" and thus no clue on "the very first begining" or the "very last end" outside of a finite time continuum. Hence Evolutionism does not invalid a Creator who had created evolution. On the other hand, the Creator might have evolved from something other. :P :P :P  :scientist:

8. The Hindu aproach on God "it is everything" is also an aproach on the infinite, something that none of the monotheist religions have, to the best of my knowledge, actually even atempted. Now God being everything solves all conflicts about origins and destinations. Wherever you come from or go to, God is there.
The Budhist aproach deals with a different kind of conflict that comes from the above. "If everything is God, am I everything?!" Budhism keeps most of Hinduist reasonings but solves this with a leap of this kind: Everything is God but for you, the particular piece of God who are reading this to be everything, you need to stop being yourself, a part of God; for you to be Everuthing, Everything would loose something (you) which is a logical dilemna. Simple sollution: forget about God! You are spiritual and that is all you need to know.

9. In case you haven't figured it out yet: I myself am agnosthic. I.e. I do not believe we can know whether or not God exists, definitely you cannot prove either way. Furthermore, to the number of different religions (I only mentioned five, there are hundreds more, some would say "about 6 billions of them"), to claim that one holds more truth in it than another does not only sound like arhogance to me, it actually sounds pretty silly. :P Specially if you do take the trouble to look at a couple different ones with a learning desire. ;)

I could talk a lot more about Science and abour Religion (sociological motivations, origins, reasonings, modus operandi and impacts) but I really have NO TIME!
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 14 April 2010, 16:03:12
the basis of christianity that there is a god is copeting with evolution, and catholics does just not want to decrease their numbers of "sheep" worshippers...

Sorry, i can`t ready your entire post, gutta play my new game bc2!
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 14 April 2010, 16:05:53
I am not at all a religious guy, I have made my stance clear.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 14 April 2010, 16:32:34
you did, i didn`t say you didn`t
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 14 April 2010, 16:41:28
Quote
the basis of christianity that there is a god is copeting with evolution, and catholics does just not want to decrease their numbers of "sheep" worshippers...

Dude,
Christianities been around way longer than Evolution, it's Evolution that is attacking a believe in a God.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: @kukac@ on 14 April 2010, 17:25:36
Note: Not every evolutionary steps are random :|
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 14 April 2010, 17:32:22
Evolutionists have found the truth, of coruse they attack christians who is demanding people to belive in them, or perish forever in hell!
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: xxcatmysteryxx on 14 April 2010, 18:32:48
Evolutionists have found the truth, of coruse they attack christians who is demanding people to belive in them, or perish forever in hell!
and really its like threatening them to beileve because they are afraid
Note: Not every evolutionary steps are random :|
Exactly!!!
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 14 April 2010, 18:41:19
Quote
Note: Not every evolutionary steps are random No Opinion
Exactly!!!

noone can say its random, yet i don`t know what causes the mutations...

Quote
and really its like threatening them to beileve because they are afraid

Christians have done far worse....
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 14 April 2010, 19:53:19
I found my belief! Try to disproove me!

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_KbBwIPGpz10/Srz3LHYoD7I/AAAAAAAABBQ/PgIeWzx0CH4/s400/GOD-FlyingSpaghettiMonster+copy.jpg)
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 14 April 2010, 20:07:09
I know what you should be questioning instead of evolution arch! Abigenesis!

Quote
In the natural sciences, abiogenesis or biopoesis is the theory of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of already living things change over time, or with cosmogony, which covers how the universe might have arisen.

Quote
In modern, still somewhat limited understanding, the first living things on Earth are thought to be single cell prokaryotes  (which lack a cell nucleus), perhaps evolved from protobionts  (organic molecules surrounded by a membrane-like structure).

Read this article:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis)
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: xxcatmysteryxx on 14 April 2010, 20:39:29
I know what you should be questioning instead of evolution arch! Abigenesis!

No we should be questioning archistesis :O  :D :D (I tried my best in spelling)
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 14 April 2010, 20:41:05
Archs Creation theory has yet to get question, i have a loadpack to come, once he can disproove my belief of course...

Dover Trial Transcript download, yes it is a lot...

Code: [Select]
[url=http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day1AMSession.pdf]http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day1AMSession.pdf[/url] DAY 1 AM
[url=http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day1PMSession.pdf]http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day1PMSession.pdf[/url] DAY 1 PM
[url=http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day2AM.pdf]http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day2AM.pdf[/url]           DAY 2 AM
[url=http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day2PMSession.pdf]http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day2PMSession.pdf[/url] DAY 2 PM
[url=http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day3AM.pdf]http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day3AM.pdf[/url]           DAY 3 AM
[url=http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day3PMSession.pdf]http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day3PMSession.pdf[/url] DAY 3 PM
[url=http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day4AM.pdf]http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day4AM.pdf[/url]           DAY 4 AM
[url=http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day4PM.pdf]http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day4PM.pdf[/url]           DAY 4 PM
[url=http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day5pmsession.pdf]http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day5pmsession.pdf[/url] DAY 5 PM NO MORNING SESSION
[url=http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day6AM.pdf]http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day6AM.pdf[/url]           DAY 6 AM
[url=http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day6PMSession.pdf]http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day6PMSession.pdf[/url] DAY 6 PM
[url=http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day7AMSession.pdf]http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day7AMSession.pdf[/url] DAY 7 AM
[url=http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day7PMSession.pdf]http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day7PMSession.pdf[/url] DAY 7 PM
[url=http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day8AM.pdf]http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day8AM.pdf[/url]           DAy 8 AM
[url=http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day8PMSession.pdf]http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day8PMSession.pdf[/url] DAY 8 PM
[url=http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day9AM.pdf]http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day9AM.pdf[/url]           DAY 9 AM
[url=http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day9PM.pdf]http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day9PM.pdf[/url]           DAY 9 PM
[url=http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day10AMSession.pdf]http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day10AMSession.pdf[/url]DAY 10 AM
[url=http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day10PM.pdf]http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day10PM.pdf[/url]          DAY 10 PM
[url=http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day11AM.pdf]http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day11AM.pdf[/url]          DAY 11 AM
[url=http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day11PMSession.pdf]http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day11PMSession.pdf[/url]DAY 11 PM
[url=http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day12AM.pdf]http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day12AM.pdf[/url]          DAY 12 AM
[url=http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day12PM.pdf]http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day12PM.pdf[/url]          DAY 12 PM
[url=http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day13PMSession.pdf]http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day13PMSession.pdf[/url]DAY 13 PM
[url=http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day14AMSession.pdf]http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day14AMSession.pdf[/url]DAY 14 AM
[url=http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day14PM.pdf]http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day14PM.pdf[/url]          DAY 14 PM
[url=http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day15AMSession.pdf]http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day15AMSession.pdf[/url]DAY 15 AM
[url=http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day15PMSession.pdf]http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day15PMSession.pdf[/url]DAY 15 PM
[url=http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day16AM.pdf]http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day16AM.pdf[/url]          DAY 16 AM
[url=http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day16PM.pdf]http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day16PM.pdf[/url]          DAY 16 PM
[url=http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day17Oct28.pdf]http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day17Oct28.pdf[/url]      DAY 17 AM & PM
[url=http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day18AM.pdf]http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day18AM.pdf[/url]          DAY 18 AM
[url=http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day18PMOct31.pdf]http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day18PMOct31.pdf[/url]  DAY 18 PM
[url=http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day19AM.pdf]http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day19AM.pdf[/url]          DAY 19 AM
[url=http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day19PMSession.pdf]http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day19PMSession.pdf[/url]DAY 19 PM
[url=http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day20AMSession.pdf]http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day20AMSession.pdf[/url]DAY 20 AM
[url=http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/trans/2005_1103_day20_pm.pdf]http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/trans/2005_1103_day20_pm.pdf[/url]DAY 20 PM
[url=http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day21AMSession.pdf]http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day21AMSession.pdf[/url]DAY 21 AM
[url=http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day21PMSession.pdf]http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day21PMSession.pdf[/url]DAY 21 PM
[url=http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/ClosingArgument.pdf]http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/ClosingArgument.pdf[/url]CREATIONISMS DOOM
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: xxcatmysteryxx on 14 April 2010, 20:43:18
Archs Creation theory has yet to get question, i have a loadpack to come, once he can disproove my belief of course...
and then state his own theory; which he's been trying
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 14 April 2010, 20:59:45
Arch has his own, but it is a creation-like theory, like he said before :)
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: jda on 14 April 2010, 21:11:32
Look, guys, we're talking God, the Universe, pretty much everything. That's a lot to cover.

-Archmage- already said he can't find a way to express his thoughts apropriatelly, at least that fast. So... unless you don't actually want him to reply... maybe cut him some slack and not keep posting the two of you "alone" (who seem to agree on the most)...?

Just my opinion.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 14 April 2010, 21:14:47
jda, do you share my belief? or do you not? why not, there is no evidence aginst it!
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: jda on 14 April 2010, 21:49:44
Evolutionism?
I'm immenselly far from being an expert on it. I understand its basic concepts and think them logical enough to be plausible.
I see outstanding evidence for it. E.g. that we humans have a kind of tail leftover at the end of our spinal cord or thatl mammals, including human beings, develop a sort of gills when still inside the uterus (which we obviously don't need as there is no real source of oxygen in the amniotic fluid and the fetus actually gets it from the placenta) and nor will we use it after birth (and by that time it will be mostly gone, it kind of morphs to something else in the meantime if I remember correctly).
But I have questions regarding the apparent unlikeliness that so much success have come out of random mutations into creating such a multitude of species with successful and "creative" sollutions to their problems. But you may take this more as awe before the "fact" than ciritic of the theory. I did NOT do the math!

I do believe the dates and ages science atributes to different events and remains of gone beings.
Before that fact/belief, I consider that the idea the world is about 6000 literal years (as they are counted nowadays) old is wrong.
Hence, I think Christianity if bound to believe that idea is wrong.

I do not think Evolutionism denies itself the existence of a God or "intelligent design".

What you said about the Catholic Church and Evolutionism is a simplification I can agree with (even if it is a simplification... ;) ).
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: modman on 14 April 2010, 22:02:26
It is indeed possible (in the context of evolution) that a Creator initiated, and is responsible for, abiogenesis, the initiation of life.  The diversification of life after that though is controlled by evolution.

Evolutionary concepts are now being used in engineering.  In airplanes, for example, the computer will create random mutations in a design, and then throw out the ones that don't work.  Now, any idiot (no criticism intended) knows that our designs today are not perfect and can thus be improved upon.  With this in mind, we know that beneficial changes, or mutation, whether caused randomly or by an engineer will occur, and it is just a matter of time.

//EDIT:

I would like for this topic to be split into different ones.  I'll make a new, more specific one dealing with the science of evolution.  It will be strictly limited to evolution.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: jda on 14 April 2010, 22:20:07
Evolutionary concepts are now being used in engineering.  In airplanes, for example, the computer will create random mutations in a design, and then throw out the ones that don't work.  Now, any idiot (no criticism intended) knows that our designs today are not perfect and can thus be improved upon.  With this in mind, we know that beneficial changes, or mutation, whether caused randomly or by an engineer will occur, and it is just a matter of time.
Yes, I recall a documentary where they actually fed the computer with the bones and the muscles of an animal and the machine would then try to animate it. The first atempts of the computer always ended up with the animal flat on its face. But after hundreds of thousands (if I recall the order correctly) of attempts, the computer would actually get it right and even provide the value for the animal's top speed. 8)
I guess many milions of years can make animal mutations good enough, even without a "goal (lack of goal made up for by survival).

Quote
I would like for this topic to be split into different ones.  I'll make a new, more specific one dealing with the science of evolution.  It will be strictly limited to evolution.
Sounds good. :)
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 14 April 2010, 23:05:38
I think I should just leave this argument, you guys are piling big masses of posts up for me to reply to, and I don't see any logic behind Evolution, it's a hollow theory.
If you guys want to have your ridiculous belief you have it. Talk about it over PM with me if you want, but I'll only talk to one person at a time.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Omega on 16 April 2010, 16:53:01
And the really good question: why is He a "He" and not a "She"?! :P
God created man in his own image. Eve was made from his rib. Oh well, sorry feminists... ;)
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: modman on 16 April 2010, 22:28:19
Ancient human society was male-dominated, and so it would not have served the writers of Genesis well to make women more powerful, because this would make them lose power.  If y'all haven't figured it out already, religion is all about power.

God created man in his own image. Eve was made from his rib. Oh well, sorry feminists.
If you guys want to have your ridiculous belief you have it.

Ditto, Arch.  Almost ditto, Omega.  Man created God in his image: intolerant, sexist, homophobic and violent.  I'm also a big fan of Richard Dawkins' famous one from The God Delusion: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

Hopefully that quote is less than 300 characters (or whatever the limit is) because I'm going to put it in my signature. :)
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: John.d.h on 16 April 2010, 23:14:32
Hopefully that quote is less than 300 characters (or whatever the limit is) because I'm going to put it in my signature. :)
So you enjoy being intentionally offensive?  Figures.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: modman on 17 April 2010, 01:56:22
Never mind, it's too long anyways.  But I don't really see it as offensive...

Maybe it is offensive because it breaks one of my rules (the blanket statements).  Maybe it's not such a good ice-breaker; it may be true, but it isn't self supporting.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: John.d.h on 17 April 2010, 02:13:50
My point is that the only reason to put it as your signature is to piss people off.  It's like pointing out that Muhammed was a pedophile; it may be true but it's not a constructive argument.  I'd counter some of the points in the quote, but my motivation tank is running on 'E' right now.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 17 April 2010, 07:08:23
My point is that the only reason to put it as your signature is to piss people off.

Or to enlighten people and make them read the bible entirely before going christian.

It's like pointing out that Muhammed was a pedophile; it may be true but it's not a constructive argument.

I know that Jesus called all the childrens to sit on his ****.... i read it somewere but it is a norwegian magazine and i can`t find it, so sorry, i can`t backup here. Not constructive, but...enligtnening if modman can back it up.

I'd counter some of the points in the quote, but my motivation tank is running on 'E' right now.
Does that mean your motivation is high or low?  :confused:

Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: xxcatmysteryxx on 17 April 2010, 13:05:09
Quote
I'd counter some of the points in the quote, but my motivation tank is running on 'E' right now.
Does that mean your motivation is high or low?  :confused:
E for empty meaning it's low
Ancient human society was male-dominated, and so it would not have served the writers of Genesis well to make women more powerful, because this would make them lose power.  If y'all haven't figured it out already, religion is all about power.
I figured it out thats why I don't like Religion (ha i don't even know how to spell it I had to look at the word)
And the really good question: why is He a "He" and not a "She"?! :P
God created man in his own image. Eve was made from his rib. Oh well, sorry feminists... ;)
Yeah "WE" created man from our image thats why we don't know if he exist or not or he doesn't have to be a human it could as well be something else like umm a animal like a ...  very smart monkey like the ones in Planet of the Apes :)
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: @kukac@ on 17 April 2010, 14:05:45
If he is omnipotent, then he can hide in any way. A flying spaghetti monster. A hyper-intelligent shade of the blue colour. It's not that he created man for his own shape, but man created (found out) god for their own shape. The Hellenistic Greeks invention was "humans made gods, that's why every nation has it's own". Hmm, these damned Greeks :|
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: John.d.h on 17 April 2010, 17:33:03
A lot of people interpret the Bible as being sexist, but I disagree.  Just because women and men are put in different roles in the Bible doesn't mean that one is superior or more important than the other.  If the man is the head of the household, then the woman is the heart.  The man does what he does (hunting, earning a wage, whatever) to provide for his wife so she can do what she does (cooking, raising children, etc.), but the man depends just as much on his wife for care and support as she depends on him.  I think we've taken what is supposed to be a partnership, and turned it into a competition.  Personally, I think we need more women who are willing to stay home instead of working, and that's not because they're less capable or anything (my mom has worked her ass off since I was a little kid), but rather because we need to take motherhood seriously.  Mothers are there to teach children to be valuable members of society, to teach them morals, ethics, and important life lessons.  Ask any psychologist about the importance of having a good relationship with your mother, and look at the statistics about how many people in prison come from broken homes where their fathers left and their mothers had to work all the time.  The fact that we say the woman's role is lower than the man's just shows how little we value motherhood.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 17 April 2010, 17:41:25
A lot of people interpret the Bible as being sexist, but I disagree.  Just because women and men are put in different roles in the Bible doesn't mean that one is superior or more important than the other.  If the man is the head of the household, then the woman is the heart.  The man does what he does (hunting, earning a wage, whatever) to provide for his wife so she can do what she does (cooking, raising children, etc.), but the man depends just as much on his wife for care and support as she depends on him.  I think we've taken what is supposed to be a partnership, and turned it into a competition.  Personally, I think we need more women who are willing to stay home instead of working, and that's not because they're less capable or anything (my mom has worked her ass off since I was a little kid), but rather because we need to take motherhood seriously.  Mothers are there to teach children to be valuable members of society, to teach them morals, ethics, and important life lessons.  Ask any psychologist about the importance of having a good relationship with your mother, and look at the statistics about how many people in prison come from broken homes where their fathers left and their mothers had to work all the time.  The fact that we say the woman's role is lower than the man's just shows how little we value motherhood.

Men and woman are different, and the bible is...sexist, whatever that means if im correct, dividing men and women... that is because males were/is more fit for hard work plain because are genes makes them/us stronger that is how it is and your correct that women are more fit for working at home, but they should still have the freediom to choose, and the bible do not give them that.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: xxcatmysteryxx on 17 April 2010, 18:03:15
Im not sure what to say since I am a female. I just think women should have the same oportunities as men......
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 17 April 2010, 18:16:25
Im not sure what to say since I am a female. I just think women should have the same oportunities as men......

Exactely what i said, but the bible gives you no choice to choose what you want.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: John.d.h on 17 April 2010, 18:50:58
It would be sexist if it said one sex was better than the other, but all it does is say that they're different.  It's pretty obvious that men and women are different, and they're naturally good at different things.  Women are equipped with things like mammary glands, all of the organs needed during pregnancy, and brain chemistry that's more prone for social interaction and makes them better at sending and receiving nonverbal communication, which are all the things needed to be excellent nurturers and caregivers, whereas men are on average bigger, stronger, faster, and have brains that are good at spacial differentiation (i.e. spotting prey and aiming better) and a better direction sense, which are all the things you need to be a good hunter, warrior, or manual laborer.

From a Biblical perspective, a man doesn't get to stay home and take care of the kids any more than a woman gets to go out and fight wars.  Each has their own role, and they're meant to stick to it because it's what they're best at.  I'm not saying that people shouldn't have choices.  I think everybody should have their own choice as to their own occupation.  I just think that motherhood is in no way a lesser role than a paying career, but people see it that way and that's why they think the Bible is sexist.  On top of that, women have a ton of important roles in the Bible, including typically masculine roles.  Let's use Deborah as an example.  She straight-up kicked some Canaanite ass (http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/religion/2008/01/25/as-a-military-leader-deborah-is-a-rare-biblical-character.html).
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 17 April 2010, 18:56:33
It would be sexist if it said one sex was better than the other, but all it does is say that they're different.  It's pretty obvious that men and women are different, and they're naturally good at different things.  Women are equipped with things like mammary glands, all of the organs needed during pregnancy, and brain chemistry that's more prone for social interaction and makes them better at sending and receiving nonverbal communication, which are all the things needed to be excellent nurturers and caregivers, whereas men are on average bigger, stronger, faster, and have brains that are good at spacial differentiation (i.e. spotting prey and aiming better) and a better direction sense, which are all the things you need to be a good hunter, warrior, or manual laborer.

From a Biblical perspective, a man doesn't get to stay home and take care of the kids any more than a woman gets to go out and fight wars.  Each has their own role, and they're meant to stick to it because it's what they're best at.  I'm not saying that people shouldn't have choices.  I think everybody should have their own choice as to their own occupation.  I just think that motherhood is in no way a lesser role than a paying career, but people see it that way and that's why they think the Bible is sexist.  On top of that, women have a ton of important roles in the Bible, including typically masculine roles.  Let's use Deborah as an example.  She straight-up kicked some Canaanite ass (http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/religion/2008/01/25/as-a-military-leader-deborah-is-a-rare-biblical-character.html).

You convinced me, until i get to read the bible one more tiem to find a counter argument.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: John.d.h on 17 April 2010, 19:05:58
You convinced me, until i get to read the bible one more tiem to find a counter argument.
I like that about you, Gabriel.  You're actually willing to consider other points of view, instead of the typical, "I don't have an answer for that just yet, BUT I'M SURE YOU'RE STILL WRONG!" kind of response we see around here. :O
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: xxcatmysteryxx on 17 April 2010, 19:42:41
You convinced me, until i get to read the bible one more tiem to find a counter argument.
I like that about you, Gabriel.  You're actually willing to consider other points of view, instead of the typical, "I don't have an answer for that just yet, BUT I'M SURE YOU'RE STILL WRONG!" kind of response we see around here. :O
Sound Good I agree to that and I never/will read the bible so I wouldn't know whats right or wrong but sounds good to me!
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 17 April 2010, 19:46:36
You convinced me, until i get to read the bible one more tiem to find a counter argument.
I like that about you, Gabriel.  You're actually willing to consider other points of view, instead of the typical, "I don't have an answer for that just yet, BUT I'M SURE YOU'RE STILL WRONG!" kind of response we see around here. :O
Fun and i appreciate that :)

You convinced me, until i get to read the bible one more tiem to find a counter argument.
I like that about you, Gabriel.  You're actually willing to consider other points of view, instead of the typical, "I don't have an answer for that just yet, BUT I'M SURE YOU'RE STILL WRONG!" kind of response we see around here. :O
Sound Good I agree to that and I never/will read the bible so I wouldn't know whats right or wrong but sounds good to me!
Are you lazy?  :D then i`ll read it for you lolz  8)
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: xxcatmysteryxx on 17 April 2010, 19:51:16
Quote
Are you lazy?  :D then i`ll read it for you lolz  8)
 
Lol Im not lazy I just don't see any point in reading it anyways theres just so many bibles out there and if i don't have a religion then i see no point (wow im repeating myself alot) 8)
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 17 April 2010, 19:56:32
Quote
Are you lazy?  :D then i`ll read it for you lolz  8)
 
Lol Im not lazy I just don't see any point in reading it anyways theres just so many bibles out there and if i don't have a religion then i see no point (wow im repeating myself alot) 8)

There is many "holy books" out there, but the most sold/used is the bible, and you really should read it, then make up your mind if it is worth belive in, i consider the truth way more important than "maybe" eternal life as there is no real proof for eternal life, and the bible tells you how you should live and if you live that way you will get eternal life if not, then you will perish in hell or just die, it depends on how you understand the bible, and there is one more version were you will no matter reach heaven. Are there any christians out there willing to debate with me?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: John.d.h on 17 April 2010, 21:31:02
you really should read it, then make up your mind if it is worth belive in, i consider the truth way more important than "maybe"
I'm inclined to agree that it's better to actually check it out and see if it's something worth believing, rather than just dismissing it without knowing what was in it, but it is a lot of reading, and some of it is very drawn-out.  The entire book of Numbers is basically... well... counting things.  In fact, it seems to me like most of the Old Testament (i.e. the stuff that happens before Jesus) is more of a history lesson than a spiritual one.  I think your best bet, if you wanted to get a good idea of what Christianity is all about, would be to read the gospel of John and the book of Exodus.  There are some more modern translations that are much easier to read, like NIV or "The Message", rather than wading through the "thee"s and "hitherto"s.

Quote from: Gabriel, Gabbe
Are there any christians out there willing to debate with me?
Hmm... I'm not quite sure how to answer that, honestly.  I used to consider myself a Christian without any hesitation, but now I'm not sure what to call myself.  I mean, I think the Bible has a lot of really good and worthwhile stuff in it, but I just don't know how much of it I actually believe.  I guess you could say I'm half-Christian and half-agnostic because I just don't know anymore. :-\
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 18 April 2010, 07:17:22
Quote
I mean, I think the Bible has a lot of really good and worthwhile stuff in it, but I just don't know how much of it I actually believe.

I can belive much stuff in the bible too, but some of it is very foggy, and with using some logic you can see what really happened.

Like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtI-lSvS028

Video Description:

Thunderf00t  —  March 26, 2010  — If you actually read how Moses (the important guy who god spoke face to face with, and the guy who got the 10 commandments off of God) describes 'God' in the bible, it's basically the exact description of a volcano.

Seeing as Moses is held to be a prophet in all three of the big monotheistic religions (Christianity, Islam and Judaism), is it possible that the 'God' of all three of these religions was actually nothing more than a volcano?

Is it not more likely that a bunch of desert nomads come witness a volcano, and seeing as they have never seen one before they think its 'God'. One of their number is crazy enough to go up onto the volcano, where he sees all sorts of volcanic stuff that he mis-interprets as god, and seeing as he's obviously a bit crazy anyways (y'know, how many sane people would go up onto an erupting volcano?) he has a bunch of 'revelations from God' on the mountain. When he gets down, not only does this impress the hell out of the nomads, but he tells them that he spoke to 'God' in the fire and smoke.

Moses (and co.) describing 'God' as a volcano:
Exodus 13:21
And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night:

Exodus 14:24
And it came to pass, that in the morning watch the LORD looked unto the host of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and of the cloud, and troubled the host of the Egyptians,

Exodus 19:16
And it came to pass on the third day in the morning, that there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the people that was in the camp trembled.

Exodus 19:18
And mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the LORD descended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly.

Exodus 20:18
And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off.

Exodus 24:18
And Moses went into the midst of the cloud, and gat him up into the mount: and Moses was in the mount forty days and forty nights

Deut. 4:11
And you came near and stood under the mountain; and the mountain burned with fire to the middle of heaven, with darkness, clouds, and thick darkness.

Deut. 5:4
The LORD talked with you face to face in the mount out of the middle of the fire,


And these might be useful for deciding too (okay, i admit, just something my imagination wants to be true, but it is more true than god since alien organisms are on IO, ETLF might exist aswell):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRekOqiygWM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAoi1Kj0pZU
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: @kukac@ on 18 April 2010, 09:22:29
I just received this image:
(http://m.blog.hu/az/azbeszt/image/atheist-cartoon.gif)
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 18 April 2010, 10:52:16
So true, and i just got back after going to church for 1,5 hours and you know what? i said i was Atheist, i got kicked..
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: xxcatmysteryxx on 18 April 2010, 13:12:42
So true, and i just got back after going to church for 1,5 hours and you know what? i said i was Atheist, i got kicked..
Because religion is power and they will hate all people who don't believe what they believe......
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 18 April 2010, 13:14:48
Quote
Quote from: Gabriel, Gabbe on Today at 07:57:04
So true, and i just got back after going to church for 1,5 hours and you know what? i said i was Atheist, i got kicked..
Because religion is power and they will hate all people who don't believe what they believe......

Sometimes......

I don't go to church, I simply believe in God because of the immense amount of science that proves that a God-like being exists.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 18 April 2010, 13:39:48
Funny is, that all priests talk about their followers as sheeps...And they are the leaders...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Omega on 18 April 2010, 19:58:57
I won't deny that the bible can be a tad sexist at time. One must remember that the bible is written by MAN. It did not magically fall out of heaven. Some parts may not even by completely accurate. In those times, Genesis is not necessarily correct (we should note now that 'Genesis' is multiple authors who are unknown, though obviously wasn't around at that time), but because he portrayed woman under men (ie: eve made from adam's rib), he caused a lot of gender equality that still persists today in some countries (notably the middle east and through stereotypes).

An interesting note in this is that you DON'T have to believe in much of the bible to believe in god. Remember, Christianity is based on the new testament. You do not have to believe Genesis's version. For all people care, you can believe god created your-watchamacallit-big bang-thingy thus creating life through that. Really, religion is very different, and a number of christian saints believed that you did not need priests at all, and studied god on their own. Church is more like a path to learning about god than the actual path to god. You can learn about god's teaching through many other ways, though the bible is the #1 by far.

Funny is, that all priests talk about their followers as sheeps...And they are the leaders...
The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.

The priests are technically a spreader of gods word on earth, thus why they are called 'Father'. A shepherd with sheep is simply an example of God's relationship to man.

Lol Im not lazy I just don't see any point in reading it anyways theres just so many bibles out there and if i don't have a religion then i see no point (wow im repeating myself alot) 8)
Actually, there is only ONE bible, however, the bible is a collection of NUMEROUS books, and none are actually written in english. Most are ancient greek, hebrew, or latin. Therefore, there is a number of translations, etc that have different wording and sentence structure, however, they all tell the same story. Some versions of the bible were compiled for certain reasons and include/skip certain books.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 18 April 2010, 20:49:22
So whats going on.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 18 April 2010, 20:53:06
talkin about the sexist bible  :o
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 18 April 2010, 20:54:02
I wouldn't say thats necessarily true
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 18 April 2010, 20:56:48
Me neither, but now i found my counter-argument to d.h, the bible says that MAN could TAKE the women as their "own" but it says nothing about the womens thoughts, this is just before Noah and his Ark.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: xxcatmysteryxx on 19 April 2010, 00:04:37
I wouldn't have known; but now I know, there is only one book in different languages.... thanks :)
Quote
Bearing in mind that the bible is not a single book, but a collection of books, letters, and gospels.

In school in english we are learning about Afghanistan and I have to learn about there religion. fun  :P
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Omega on 21 April 2010, 15:32:02
Hmph... Afghanistan is a MESS. To my understanding, the majority would be muslims. So that's not the bible (bible is for christians). Muslim use some other book. Koran I believe..?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 21 April 2010, 15:44:55
yes, The Israel made the mess... and the US fueled it...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 21 April 2010, 15:55:33
The war in afghanistan is pointless there isn't much to fight for but I guess you're right Gabbe freedom's sort of worth it though I find it sad to see young people dying without apparent results.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 21 April 2010, 15:58:01
The freedom, and make sure those countires do not aquire nukes...Ensure the safety of the western world etc.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 21 April 2010, 16:00:58
Well I guess your right but I have think that blocking them off from the outside world will work just as well only that it will cost less live, build a big barb wire fence around afghanistan and make sure they don't get the materials for such weapons. Afghanistan is a really unstable country.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 21 April 2010, 16:13:53
Terrorists attack the Western forces in the middle-east region all the time, setting up a fence won`t work, even with defenses, as they already posses bombs to break through, and i belive Iran already started nuclear production and they said that Europe should suffer from their vengeance, oh well, drop one fo your nukes and kill the world...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: @kukac@ on 21 April 2010, 16:47:04
Wyvern, I would like to see, what would you do, if you were enclosed into a "big barb wire fence". USA is fighting for freedom. ... of Afghanistan...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 21 April 2010, 17:43:36
I agree with sending aid but in a more limited way, also I'm fine with letting people travel in and out do as they please, but we would be able to check people for weapons, weapon plans etc. I don't mean to be cruel but I think afghanistan is a tough country to deal with, especially if you look at history. Sorry if I'm really pessimistic, I just got really angry :( :'( :'(
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 21 April 2010, 18:09:09
I think I'm scared afghanistan is another Vietnam war in the making, unless we find a quick solution it will deteriorate into a slow bloody defeat, just like the one Russia and Britain suffered in the past, the afghanis are extremely fierce about their independence(the vietnamese are similar in this as they bushwacked the chinese when they invaded) and they should be left to deal with the problem themselves, even if we have to send them weapons and supplies to do it they should eventually manage.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 21 April 2010, 18:18:52
Afghan, Iraq and Iran are all trouble countries, all they cause is trouble and war. Wyvern, i agree with you that if i could be secure for any nukes i would gladly close those countries, and the majority of people live in the Europe, this includes me and im not thinking of the strvation of the other U-Countries, i think of the middle east specific, so it becomes Middle-east vs Western countries, Midlle-east 1 guy, Western countries 100 guys, who wins? We and the terrorists don`t care, but closing the middle-east won`t help, the terrorists still have bombs and they are willing to go suicide missions, it would turn out, and still is a hell.

I am also angry, but im angry at the terrorists, and they are muslims, and they are the majority of muslims and they follow the Koran as it tells them to do, this makes them REAL muslims, and real muslims are a threat to earth, if those ignorant basterds drop one nuke, half the world die. This is why US continues the war, and NATO. There are no arguments other than religious to not war with the muslims, trust me, without religion, the human race could have been much more advanced...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 21 April 2010, 18:22:35
I cooled down a bit and thought and you know what Gabbe I agree with you completely. :bomb:
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 21 April 2010, 18:31:53
I think im going to backup my statement:

Without religion we would not have any middle-ages, and during the medieval times technology was forbidden, how does that sound? "your ill but you can`t have a well educated doctor to cure you because hes a evil mage and god doesn`t want it". Then valuable science-people were executed, why? because the earth was apparantly flat, you know when the catholic church apologized for the execution? during the 20th century!
Still we belive in creationism (not reply to that here), christianity, god etc. Imagine if you could choose between a poisoned world or a world almost perfect? The poisoned world is our current world and the almost perfect one would be the one without stupid religious beliefs. Wichy one would you rather live in? The one full of problems wich could have been solved a long time ago? just asking questions to enlighten your minds :)

PS. You want references? search google...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 21 April 2010, 18:37:03
I agree in that point as well, and the christians also burned the library of alexandria because it contained un christian content but the muslims are no better they use innocent civilians as shields and then they blame the NATO, US, or Western Countries for a firefight near a school etc... As I said I agree with everything you have said so far Gabbe but that which we have currently said is generally when a religion goes into the extreme, look there are plenty of good muslims and christians out there. :angel:
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 21 April 2010, 18:39:23
Quote
look there are plenty of good muslims and christians out there.

Yes, they call themselves what they cannot be. No christian will ever go to heaven because there are no other than Jesus who lived as all humans should according to the bible.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: John.d.h on 21 April 2010, 20:49:20
Quote
look there are plenty of good muslims and christians out there.

Yes, they call themselves what they cannot be. No christian will ever go to heaven because there are no other than Jesus who lived as all humans should according to the bible.
The problem is that they don't follow what they supposedly believe.  If every Christian followed the Bible and every Muslim followed the Koran, the world would be a better place.  Instead, a lot of people use religion as an excuse for their behavior, and that's never a good thing.  Nearly all major religions have the same basic tenants (be kind to each other, help people who need it, be honest, be generous, etc.), but instead of focusing on the greater good, they bicker about pointless crap that doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things.  Same-sex marriage is a great example.  People on both sides (for it and against it) spend millions and millions of dollars and countless hours of time advocating for/against same-sex marriage, but it's not accomplishing anything for either side.  Wouldn't all that money and effort be better spend on something that really improves the world, like education or health care?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Omega on 22 April 2010, 03:39:39
I actually support the war in Afghanistan because I believe that everywhere deserves complete (not totally lawless complete, but similar to Canada [Not USA though, with its president and his 'Health Plan']) freedom. This includes freedom from terrorist organizations like the Taliban. You notice that NATO forces do NOT kill civilians, contrasted to terrorists, who will happily kill a stranger off the street for no reason. The ability to live life without constant fear that someone will murder you in the street (or that a plan will fall from the sky and hit you) is a basic human need. I believe everyone has the right to live according to the universal declaration of human rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/).

Like John said in his last post, people use religion to 'justify' their attacks. NOWHERE in ANY holy book, may it be the bible or any other book, or even in unwritten teachings does it state that violence is a good thing. Virtually all modern religions have a variation of the golden rule (Thou shall do unto others what they would have others do unto you). ALL religions teach peace and prosperity.

I will NOT deny that the [Catholic] Church had committed atrocities in the past, notably the refusal to admit the world is round and the burning of 'Witches' at the stake. However, I believe people learn from their mistakes (eventually) and that shows the errors of MAN, not god. The church is simply a method of worshipping god. It is not god, it is not needed to learn more of god, nor to find the path to goodness. Man is in decision of his own fate, he can choose whether or not to follow god and his laws (the world will certainly be more peaceful if you do, though don't make the church's mistake with taking things too literally.

I think I'm scared afghanistan is another Vietnam war in the making, unless we find a quick solution it will deteriorate into a slow bloody defeat,
They will not defeat it. Almost every major general agrees to that point. While there is an ongoing NATO offensive at the moment, the main plan is to train their police forces. Of course, the states DID try that for vietnam (and we all know what happened there), but I expect better here. This isn't USA's solo battle, but the whole of NATO, including Canada (*roaring applause*), UK, USA, etc, etc;

Same-sex marriage is a great example.  People on both sides (for it and against it) spend millions and millions of dollars and countless hours of time advocating for/against same-sex marriage, but it's not accomplishing anything for either side.  Wouldn't all that money and effort be better spend on something that really improves the world, like education or health care?
BOO! There's nothing better to spend money on than to keep THOSE people from doing... that. Yes, health care is a better thing to spend it on, but in USA, seeing your president's current approach (I'm estimating by the end of his term, USA will hit 15 Trillion in debt), that's not a very smart idea. Education is a must. If I recall correctly, you americans don't pay your teachers well enough (I want to be a teacher). Here in Canada, an expected 55-60k/year is average for elementary/secondary teachers. That's enough for me!  ;)
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 22 April 2010, 05:26:00
Quote
Like John said in his last post, people use religion to 'justify' their attacks. NOWHERE in ANY holy book, may it be the bible or any other book, or even in unwritten teachings does it state that violence is a good thing. Virtually all modern religions have a variation of the golden rule (Thou shall do unto others what they would have others do unto you). ALL religions teach peace and prosperity.

I belive the Koran says something about that if you die for this religion you are going to heaven. Christianity is a threat to Islam, thats why the terrorists get motivated to bomb western civilisations, in exchange for their life here on earth, they get full-pleasure heaven satistified.

Quote
I actually support the war in Afghanistan because I believe that everywhere deserves complete (not totally lawless complete, but similar to Canada [Not USA though, with its president and his 'Health Plan']) freedom. This includes freedom from terrorist organizations like the Taliban. You notice that NATO forces do NOT kill civilians, contrasted to terrorists, who will happily kill a stranger off the street for no reason. The ability to live life without constant fear that someone will murder you in the street (or that a plan will fall from the sky and hit you) is a basic human need. I believe everyone has the right to live according to the universal declaration of human rights.

I think it is good with A LOT of freedom, Imagine a world were some were rich, some were poor, everyone had complete freedom to do what they want, Imagine the chaos, the hate, the wars, it would probably be good if there were something i didn`t know about how the US special operators work...See how many hate the progress the war in the middle-east is going.

Quote
I will NOT deny that the [Catholic] Church had committed atrocities in the past, notably the refusal to admit the world is round and the burning of 'Witches' at the stake. However, I believe people learn from their mistakes (eventually) and that shows the errors of MAN, not god. The church is simply a method of worshipping god. It is not god, it is not needed to learn more of god, nor to find the path to goodness. Man is in decision of his own fate, he can choose whether or not to follow god and his laws (the world will certainly be more peaceful if you do, though don't make the church's mistake with taking things too literally.

Why do you belive in God?

Quote
Quote from: wyvern on April 21, 2010, 07:09:09 PM
I think I'm scared afghanistan is another Vietnam war in the making, unless we find a quick solution it will deteriorate into a slow bloody defeat,
They will not defeat it. Almost every major general agrees to that point. While there is an ongoing NATO offensive at the moment, the main plan is to train their police forces. Of course, the states DID try that for vietnam (and we all know what happened there), but I expect better here. This isn't USA's solo battle, but the whole of NATO, including Canada (*roaring applause*), UK, USA, etc, etc;

But the US is the main component of the war, and a symbol of western culture.


Quote
Quote from: John.d.h on April 21, 2010, 09:49:20 PM
Same-sex marriage is a great example.  People on both sides (for it and against it) spend millions and millions of dollars and countless hours of time advocating for/against same-sex marriage, but it's not accomplishing anything for either side.  Wouldn't all that money and effort be better spend on something that really improves the world, like education or health care?
BOO! There's nothing better to spend money on than to keep THOSE people from doing... that. Yes, health care is a better thing to spend it on, but in USA, seeing your president's current approach (I'm estimating by the end of his term, USA will hit 15 Trillion in debt), that's not a very smart idea. Education is a must. If I recall correctly, you americans don't pay your teachers well enough (I want to be a teacher). Here in Canada, an expected 55-60k/year is average for elementary/secondary teachers. That's enough for me!  Wink

Thats around 60000 NOK, 60,000?!? how in the hell!?! thats very small amount! My mom is a teacher and she earn like 60 000 0 NOK EACH YEAR, thats 10 times yours!

Quote
look there are plenty of good muslims and christians out there.

Yes, they call themselves what they cannot be. No christian will ever go to heaven because there are no other than Jesus who lived as all humans should according to the bible.
The problem is that they don't follow what they supposedly believe.  If every Christian followed the Bible and every Muslim followed the Koran, the world would be a better place.  Instead, a lot of people use religion as an excuse for their behavior, and that's never a good thing.  Nearly all major religions have the same basic tenants (be kind to each other, help people who need it, be honest, be generous, etc.), but instead of focusing on the greater good, they bicker about pointless crap that doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things.  Same-sex marriage is a great example.  People on both sides (for it and against it) spend millions and millions of dollars and countless hours of time advocating for/against same-sex marriage, but it's not accomplishing anything for either side.  Wouldn't all that money and effort be better spend on something that really improves the world, like education or health care?
'

If everyone follow those books, the world would still be in the ancient times. The old Testament is a great example, all what is in it (almost) is rules on how you should life, and this does not apply to our current society. That the bible and any holy book is being miss-used is just a execuse for it (sometimes) being evil, ignorant and completely untrustable. Stand by for examples, i am sure i read on just a sec ago, The hippies could`ve been thos e who followed the bible, oh wait, does the bible allow for sex at all (joke)?



Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: John.d.h on 22 April 2010, 07:35:46
Stuck in ancient times?  Why, because people would still value traits like peace, patience, kindness, etc.?  In a heartbeat I'd trade the internet and indoor plumbing for living in a world where people treat each other the right way.

BOO! There's nothing better to spend money on than to keep THOSE people from doing... that.
You can't stop them from doing anything.  If two men or two women (or two men, three women [two of whom are sisters], and a bulldog) desire to do so, you can't keep them from meeting, dating, having a wedding with a big cake and all their family and friends, having sex, adopting children (or using surrogates, whatever), and so on.  They can live their lives and do every single other thing that a traditional heterosexual couple does, and there's not a darn thing you can do to stop that.  I think a lot of people don't realize it, but the thing they're actually fighting over is whether or not the government recognizes their marriage as "official" in a document in some government archive.  If I get married some day, regardless of whether it is to a man or woman, no amount of government recognition is going make my marriage any more or less real.  I'm not saying that I'm for same-sex marriage and I'm not saying that I'm against it.  I'm saying that it doesn't actually matter because what's being fought over isn't what people on either side of the debate think it is.  If I had to sit down and hammer out a list of the top 100 issues people should be pouring their money and effort into, whether or not somebody's name gets put on a marriage license wouldn't even come close to appearing on that list.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: @kukac@ on 22 April 2010, 12:37:40
Omega, you are looking the thing upside down: you said "Arabian countries are not free, because they have terrorists", but the truth is that "Arabian countries have terrorists, because they are not free".

Evil is, what you call evil. Righteous is, what you call righteous. Do you think they attacked USA and West-EU countries, because they were just bored???
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 22 April 2010, 13:05:58
The US brought freedom to the middle-east, before they and NATO invaded people down there had NO RIGHTS it was not a democracy.

EDIT: Things have gotten better in other words.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Omega on 22 April 2010, 16:30:03
Thats around 60000 NOK, 60,000?!? how in the hell!?! thats very small amount! My mom is a teacher and she earn like 60 000 0 NOK EACH YEAR, thats 10 times yours!
I think we have a currency problem here... :O I'm talking about Canadian dollars (which google says is 1USD=0.998302885CND, or virtually equal). Compared to american averages of 33-50k, thats much better. I dunno what NOK is...

Ah, wait, is it this:
1 Norwegian krone = 0.168985724 Canadian dollars

@Kukac: Once must bear in mind of course, that almost nobody considers themselves 'evil'. They think they're fighting for a lost cause, or something. Good and evil are all perspectives. Of course, MW2 had a good quote in it: "History is written by the victor".
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 22 April 2010, 21:22:01
"If we die, his truth become written" -Price
[Bingo! - Omega]
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: modman on 23 April 2010, 02:34:53
Qur'an (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution  [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."

Consider a hypothetical situation in which I am a Muslim living in basically a refugee camp in Israel.  In what way should I interpret this verse, which I consider to be the absolute truth from the word of Allah, to guide my actions?

Additionally, I don't think that most people know what the penalty God declared for violation of any of the Ten Commandments.  The penalty is death.  And we haven't even considered the Great Flood, which is, shall we say, less than credible.  But drowning everyone, even all children?

The Qu'ran is pretty violent.  I would estimate it is about...twice as violent as the OT.  It also reads like the Old Testament.

Omega, you are looking the thing upside down: you said "Arabian countries are not free, because they have terrorists", but the truth is that "Arabian countries have terrorists, because they are not free".

Right.  I hold the opinion that, even though not all Arabs would promote it, violence and terrorism have become accepted.  This is because there is a very radical "fringe" of Muslims, and the religious moderates, who are not necessarily willing to kill or die for Islam, are very quiet.  Deathly quiet.

"Southpark" is a cartoon show here in the US, and they recently poked fun at Muhammad (they poke fun at everyone).  But the writers have actually received death threats from revolutionmuslim.com (I checked and it's been taken down).  Now would be a very good time for religious moderates in the US, at least, to speak up for Islam ("They do not represent Muslims", "Islam does not promote violence", etc).  But all I hear are crickets, right now.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2010/apr/22/south-park-censored-fatwa-muhammad (http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2010/apr/22/south-park-censored-fatwa-muhammad)

I believe everyone has the right to live according to the universal declaration of human rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/).

Agreed.

Like John said in his last post, people use religion to 'justify' their attacks. NOWHERE in ANY holy book, may it be the bible or any other book, or even in unwritten teachings does it state that violence is a good thing.

If you don't consider that verse I just posted to be enough for you to retract your claim, it must not be violent enough.

I will NOT deny that the [Catholic] Church had committed atrocities in the past, notably the refusal to admit the world is round and the burning of 'Witches' at the stake.

I think there would be no discussion here if no one thought the Bible could be tied to these atrocities.  The clergy abuse of children (their minds as well) is currently being uncovered.  Actually, 200 deaf children were apparently molested by a priest less than a half-hour from my city.  I'm not particularly charmed right now by the Church's acts of "piety".

Same-sex marriage is a great example.  People on both sides (for it and against it) spend millions and millions of dollars and countless hours of time advocating for/against same-sex marriage, but it's not accomplishing anything for either side.  Wouldn't all that money and effort be better spend on something that really improves the world, like education or health care?
BOO! There's nothing better to spend money on than to keep THOSE people from doing... that.

What if the homosexuals declared it to be part of their religion and considered doing "that" with their partner to be part of their faith?  In America, the religious Right considers religious freedom to be even higher up there than the Second Amendment (and that's saying something).  Anyways, I never really understood why two consenting adults can't do what they want in the privacy of their home (it's not directly harming anyone); I feel that it's their own business.  I mean, at least with abortion they at least have a case that they are advocating for another human being.

Also John, things are being accomplished, but the Right is very powerful as soon as they declare their policies to be God's will.  Probably the quickest way you can get them to stop thinking IMHO. 8)

Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Omega on 23 April 2010, 03:21:01
COncerning violence in the Bible, (or at least the OT) there is plenty, but one must remember this takes place thousands of years ago, where opinions of war and piece were different. You notice zion is destroyed and rebuilt numerous times as a result  :P.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: modman on 23 April 2010, 04:44:50
COncerning violence in the Bible, (or at least the OT) there is plenty, but one must remember this takes place thousands of years ago, where opinions of war and piece were different. You notice zion is destroyed and rebuilt numerous times as a result  :P.

What exactly are you trying to say, that we should look at the social context to determine whether the acts are moral?  This is akin to populism, or maybe saying slavery was "OK" 200 years ago, because "everyone was doing it".

And not all of these bad acts were complete works of man, either.  Sometimes, God commanded the Israelites to slaughter various nations.  Jericho is a good example: is it that much different than Hitler's Lebensraum?  Just 'cause you want it doesn't automatically make it yours.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: John.d.h on 23 April 2010, 08:53:20
Qur'an (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution  [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."

Consider a hypothetical situation in which I am a Muslim living in basically a refugee camp in Israel.  In what way should I interpret this verse, which I consider to be the absolute truth from the word of Allah, to guide my actions?
A passage promoting violence in one situation doesn't necessarily condone violence in others.  Of course, some people might take it that way, but that's a flaw with the reader.  A lot of religions had to fight against persecution, and Islam is no exception.  Militant Muslims just seem to have the idea that murdering non-combatants is somehow fighting for their freedom.
Quote
Additionally, I don't think that most people know what the penalty God declared for violation of any of the Ten Commandments.  The penalty is death.
Uh... duh. :P Pretty sure that is common knowledge, at least among Christians.  It's actually pretty central, as it's the only way the crucifixion makes sense because "the wage of sin is death".  The whole point is that the entire human race is corrupt and wicked (You didn't need a book to tell you that, did you?) and no matter how good you think you are, your righteousness is like filthy rags.  The understanding in the text is that they're referring to used menstrual rags, which are the single filthiest thing imaginable to a Jewish man in the first century AD.  So basically, you deserve to die and so do I, and so did Moses, Abraham Lincoln, Mahatma Gandhi, and Mother Teresa.  From a Biblical perspective, the only person who ever lived who didn't deserve to die was Jesus Christ because he never had sin in his life, which ironically got him killed.
Quote
And we haven't even considered the Great Flood, which is, shall we say, less than credible.  But drowning everyone, even all children?
There's archaeological evidence supporting the great flood, and what's wrong with God drowning some people? (see below)
Quote
Right.  I hold the opinion that, even though not all Arabs would promote it, violence and terrorism have become accepted.  This is because there is a very radical "fringe" of Muslims, and the religious moderates, who are not necessarily willing to kill or die for Islam, are very quiet.  Deathly quiet.
If you were a Muslim and you knew people (possibly your relatives) who were cutting the heads off of people who spoke out against militant radical Islam, would you be so eager to speak out against it yourself?
(click to show/hide)
(side note: Most Arabs are Muslims, but not all Muslims are Arabs.  The terms are not interchangeable.)
Quote
The clergy abuse of children (their minds as well) is currently being uncovered.  Actually, 200 deaf children were apparently molested by a priest less than a half-hour from my city.  I'm not particularly charmed right now by the Church's acts of "piety".
What does that have to do with the Bible, though?  In fact, I'm pretty sure that'd condemned in many ways.  Then again, Catholicism has never particularly cared what the Bible says. :look:
Quote
What if the homosexuals declared it to be part of their religion and considered doing "that" with their partner to be part of their faith?  In America, the religious Right considers religious freedom to be even higher up there than the Second Amendment (and that's saying something).
Well, considering a great many of the people who came over here in the first place were fleeing religious persecution in Europe, religious freedom is basically our purpose as a nation.
Quote
Anyways, I never really understood why two consenting adults can't do what they want in the privacy of their home (it's not directly harming anyone); I feel that it's their own business.  I mean, at least with abortion they at least have a case that they are advocating for another human being.
That's basically how I feel.  Laws exist to protect people, so if the action isn't harming anyone, then who are they protecting by prohibiting it?  My opinion is that the government should do what it has to do ensure the well-being of its citizens, and GTFO of our business in all other cases.  We have laws against murder, rape, theft, fraud, etc., because those are acts that hurt people.  Some sexual laws are meant to protect people, like age of consent, but the prohibition of same-sex marriage is not one of them.
Quote
Also John, things are being accomplished, but the Right is very powerful as soon as they declare their policies to be God's will.
Well of course it's going to happen eventually.  Politics in this country lean more and more to the left over time, and AFAIK everywhere in Europe and most of the industrialized world has legalized it, so it's only a matter of time before the US caves in.
Quote
Probably the quickest way you can get them to stop thinking IMHO. 8)
You might be interested to read up on the Elaboration Likelihood Model. 
What exactly are you trying to say, that we should look at the social context to determine whether the acts are moral?  This is akin to populism, or maybe saying slavery was "OK" 200 years ago, because "everyone was doing it".
Context does affect morality.  That's why killing people in self-defense is not considered murder by the vast majority of people.  I think if you're in a world where nations and tribes live under the constant threat of invasion, rape, murder, and pillaging and your only method of survival is to kill them before they kill you, it's a very different moral landscape.
Quote
And not all of these bad acts were complete works of man, either.  Sometimes, God commanded the Israelites to slaughter various nations.  Jericho is a good example: is it that much different than Hitler's Lebensraum?  Just 'cause you want it doesn't automatically make it yours.
There's a difference between God slaughtering a nation, and a mortal dictator rounding up a group of people and killing them.  In God's case, it's because the nation is a blight upon the world and deserves to be destroyed, and in the mortal case, it's because the dictator thinks they're a blight upon the world and deserve to be destroyed.  The difference here is that God is qualified to make that judgment because, in the Biblical context, God knows everything and always makes the right call.  In the case of incidents like Jericho, the Israelites were just a method of extermination, just like the fire and brimstone that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah were a method.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: modman on 23 April 2010, 13:47:12
Qur'an (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution  [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."

Consider a hypothetical situation in which I am a Muslim living in basically a refugee camp in Israel.  In what way should I interpret this verse, which I consider to be the absolute truth from the word of Allah, to guide my actions?
A passage promoting violence in one situation doesn't necessarily condone violence in others.  Of course, some people might take it that way, but that's a flaw with the reader.  A lot of religions had to fight against persecution, and Islam is no exception.  Militant Muslims just seem to have the idea that murdering non-combatants is somehow fighting for their freedom.

Possibly so, but right now I'm only concerned with the fact that you agreed with me that it is a violent passage, and that Omega is mistaken in his blanket proclamation that there is no religious texts anywhere that promote violence.  My position is that 2:191-193 are violent verses.

Quote
Additionally, I don't think that most people know what the penalty God declared for violation of any of the Ten Commandments.  The penalty is death.
Uh... duh. :P Pretty sure that is common knowledge, at least among Christians.

Quote
And we haven't even considered the Great Flood, which is, shall we say, less than credible.  But drowning everyone, even all children?
There's archaeological evidence supporting the great flood, and what's wrong with God drowning some people?

How about the fact that it is impossible to cover the Earth in water?

And what about the plants?  They would have drowned underwater.  Putting them on the Ark would have risked them getting eaten (not to mention that there is no mention of plants being uprooted to take on the ark).

And how did Noah get indigenous animals onto the Ark, like polar bears?  Of course, Noah would have had to drop them off afterwords too...

There are tons of other problems too:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html)

Quote
Right.  I hold the opinion that, even though not all Arabs would promote it, violence and terrorism have become accepted.  This is because there is a very radical "fringe" of Muslims, and the religious moderates, who are not necessarily willing to kill or die for Islam, are very quiet.  Deathly qhttp://expertgoat.com/nppxjoj.php?Oa2cjj9qhvNqI2JJnquSLg=f4A8qxkZWV%2FRXLGXTfPNWyPRIJmluGnVPRldhoGxqCn8bVq8EomOdXSZyaGU73Yfuiet.
If you were a Muslim and you knew people (possibly your relatives) who were cutting the heads off of people who spoke out against militant radical Islam, would you be so eager to speak out against it yourself?

In America, this is not happening.  In Saudi Arabia maybe, but American Muslim moderates should be speaking out.

Quote
And not all of these bad acts were complete works of man, either.  Sometimes, God commanded the Israelites to slaughter various nations.  Jericho is a good example: is it that much different than Hitler's Lebensraum?  Just 'cause you want it doesn't automatically make it yours.
There's a difference between God slaughtering a nation, and a mortal dictator rounding up a group of people and killing them.  In God's case, it's because the nation is a blight upon the world and deserves to be destroyed, and in the mortal case, it's because the dictator thinks they're a blight upon the world and deserve to be destroyed.  The difference here is that God is qualified to make that judgment because, in the Biblical context, God knows everything and always makes the right call.  In the case of incidents like Jericho, the Israelites were just a method of extermination, just like the fire and brimstone that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah were a method.

If it's wrong for a dictator to try to annihilate a people, what makes God's immorality better?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 23 April 2010, 15:46:22
Slaughtering people is wrong but theres always gonna be someone tryin to conquer someone else
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Omega on 23 April 2010, 16:38:35
That's true wyvern, man eternally wants more power. I tend to disagree though. Imagine how peaceful the world could be if everyone could just realized they could live in peace with different religions. For example, many modern countries like Canada, USA, Western Europe, and Australia allow perfect freedom of religion. Of course, an individual can still be discriminated, but for the most part, the countries are free, in contrast to the middle east.

One thing I found very interesting is this (http://www.acommonword.com/). It is a letter to the pope from Muslim leaders.

I can't help but feel that people should put aside their differences and let others do as they will. Peace FTW! :P
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 23 April 2010, 16:40:55
I agree and that was interesting, the problem with religion though is when it's taken into the extreme.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: @kukac@ on 23 April 2010, 18:39:38
@Omega: That's great, so I can take the Ranagolic religion! (I'm thinking on voodoo too, it would be fun to eat the brains of my enemies :) )
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 24 April 2010, 11:33:16
belive what you want, but realize your belief is wrong...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 24 April 2010, 14:30:16
Believe what you want, but realize that Evolution is mathematically improbable.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: @kukac@ on 24 April 2010, 14:43:49
Why?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 25 April 2010, 21:24:32
Yeah why?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 26 April 2010, 11:36:01
*facepalm*

If you seriously can tell me that there isn't a mathematical misfit with random mutations creating almost unimaginably complex beings such as Humans, then it's no wonder that you believe in Evolution.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 26 April 2010, 12:08:27
Yeah, unimagineable complex, that proves that it is YOU who does not understand. You seem to constantly ignore that the environment is a part of the evolution, environment affects animals behavior, thats how it goes...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 26 April 2010, 12:12:59
So you think that the way an animal acts writes it's genome?

Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 26 April 2010, 12:14:46
I don`t know, but thats how i think it works yes, perhaps ask a more educated person on the subject.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 26 April 2010, 12:18:03
You're funny, but I seriously hope you don't believe that.

You also have yet to prove that there isn't a soul, or a spirit or whatever you want to call it.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 26 April 2010, 12:20:04
I really don`t want to diguiss that now, wait for someone others to come.

Prooving the spirit thing, if i cut your brain, would your spirit still keep you going?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: @kukac@ on 26 April 2010, 17:07:45
Arch, what do you think about those, who were driven to insanity? What happened to their so called "souls"? Have they received a constant block, or what? Because I can't really imagine that "a god" has made something to a soul. Strange, doesn't it?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: John.d.h on 27 April 2010, 01:45:02
Prove there's no soul?  Uh... that's not how science works.  If you want to say that something exists, you have to prove it does... not the other way around.  What makes you think a soul exists?  Science has nothing to suggest that it does, and some religions agree (including Christianity according to some interpretations).
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: modman on 27 April 2010, 03:27:56
So you think that the way an animal acts writes it's genome?

No, but it [the environment] is crucial in the trial and error process that is natural selection.

You're funny, but I seriously hope you don't believe that.

You also have yet to prove that there isn't a soul, or a spirit or whatever you want to call it.

Seriously, cut the condescending crap.  Basically saying you're laughing at someone's best attempt at anything is mean.

Honestly, the term soul is IMO something from a long time ago when people had no idea where thoughts came from.

Prove there's no soul?  Uh... that's not how science works.  If you want to say that something exists, you have to prove it does... not the other way around.  What makes you think a soul exists?  Science has nothing to suggest that it does, and some religions agree (including Christianity according to some interpretations).

Exactly.  If you're going to ask science to prove or disprove something, provide evidence.  Also, come up with a hypothesis.

Where is this information stored (the information about your personality and your memory), and how exactly does it make decisions?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 27 April 2010, 11:15:56
Quote
Arch, what do you think about those, who were driven to insanity? What happened to their so called "souls"?

Your brain gets screwed up, and you can't use it properly. :|



Quote
Prove there's no soul?  Uh... that's not how science works.  If you want to say that something exists, you have to prove it does... not the other way around.  What makes you think a soul exists?  Science has nothing to suggest that it does, and some religions agree (including Christianity according to some interpretations).

I mainly said that because I believe it, and secondly because I wanted to raise the argument again.



Quote
Quote from: -Archmage- on April 26, 2010, 09:17:47
So you think that the way an animal acts writes it's genome?

No, but it [the environment] is crucial in the trial and error process that is natural selection.

Cool, but you still haven't gotten past the random change problem....



Quote
Basically saying you're laughing at someone's best attempt at anything is mean.

I'm not laughing at him, I'm laughing at the theory he's presenting, because I simply think it's ridiculous, it's just kinda funny.
And I'm kinda being a little tough and mean, just so you guys get a glimpse of Evolutionary morals.



Quote
Honestly, the term soul is IMO something from a long time ago when people had no idea where thoughts came from.

Well, maybe it came from a long ago, but it's the word we use, or would you rather I say spirit.



Quote
Exactly.  If you're going to ask science to prove or disprove something, provide evidence.

The fact that we have a will points to a 'spirit thingy'.
Has anyone programmed a robot to do things and then do something that it's not exactly "supposed" to do?
No.

I am willing my body to eat this spaghetti for breakfast, and so I'm eating it, of course if I wanted I could spill it all over the floor.....



Quote
Also, come up with a hypothesis.

I already have a very generic and open belief(not a hypothesis), which I am refining as I learn more and more.



Quote
Where is this information stored (the information about your personality and your memory), and how exactly does it make decisions?

How the hell am I supposed to figure that out?! :look:
We're talking about stuff that may be well beyond Human comprehension..... :|
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 27 April 2010, 13:10:54
Quote
Quote
Where is this information stored (the information about your personality and your memory), and how exactly does it make decisions?

How the hell am I supposed to figure that out?! Look
We're talking about stuff that may be well beyond Human comprehension..... No Opinion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Working memory is the executive and attentional aspect of short-term memory involved in the interim integration, processing, disposal, and retrieval of information. Working memory tasks include the active monitoring or manipulation of information or behaviors. It is a theoretical construct within cognitive psychology and neuroscience. Theories exist both regarding the theoretical structure of working memory and the role of specific parts of the brain involved in working memory. Furthermore, research identifies that the frontal cortex, parietal cortex, anterior cingulate, and parts of the basal ganglia are crucial for working memory function. Generally, the neural basis of working memory has been derived from lesion experiments in animals and functional imaging upon humans.

Im not sure what all of it means but i think it may clarify something.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 27 April 2010, 14:05:13
I don't think that's what he was talking about...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 27 April 2010, 14:21:18
Why was the soul first invented?

Was it to make people rely more on a god?

Was it because noone could proove that there was such a thing as a brain?

Was it because people did not know what the brain does?

If we have a soul, why do we have a brain, the soul is described as it does the work the brain does?

Is soul just a primitive word of brain?

Is soul there just to explain why we can think, as there were noone educated during the medieval times, that could say what the brain does?

Is the soul just a replacement of the brain?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 27 April 2010, 14:42:54
To me the soul is pretty much a synonym for what the brain does but it also can be used to refer to the electrical current inside a human
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Omega on 27 April 2010, 16:35:07
You can't see a soul. It is a fasinating part of the body (or not) that exists only through faith. When you die, the soul lives on (can't say the same for the ol' bod though). ;)
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 27 April 2010, 16:38:00
common, don`t be a priest...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: xxcatmysteryxx on 27 April 2010, 21:43:31
wow so many posts to read.... I can't and won't; you changed topics so much what exactly are we talking about?  :scared:
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: John.d.h on 27 April 2010, 22:24:29
wow so many posts to read.... I can't and won't; you changed topics so much what exactly are we talking about?  :scared:
lol Who knows anymore?  I think right now we're discussing whether or not there exists such a thing as a soul.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 28 April 2010, 01:30:37
Considering that the topic is titled "Religous Debates", it covers tons of stuff, so getting lost is pretty easy. :look:

Omega, belief in a soul requires no faith, logically the way we are able to choose and do things points to something behind the brain(something much more powerful), I believe the brain is just a tool for the soul to use the body(or something like that :P). :thumbup:
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: modman on 28 April 2010, 05:40:37
You can't see a soul. It is a fasinating part of the body (or not) that exists only through faith. When you die, the soul lives on (can't say the same for the ol' bod though). ;)

I thought we were doing a debate, not pontificating / speculating / stating our opinions.  At least have one fact which can support your argument in your post.

Allow me to pull a couple of snippets:
Omega, belief in a soul requires no faith, logically the way we are able to choose and do things points to something behind the brain(something much more powerful), I believe the brain is just a tool for the soul to use the body(or something like that :P). :thumbup:
Quote
Arch, what do you think about those, who were driven to insanity? What happened to their so called "souls"?
Your brain gets screwed up, and you can't use it properly. :|

1. Assumptions There are souls, and they drive decision making.  Alcohol also can drive decision making.
2. If souls make decisions, the brain does not.
3. People driven to insanity will make bad decisions.
4. Their soul is causing them to do make bad decisions.
5. Alcohol can also cause people to make bad decisions.
6. Alcohol can effect the soul, but not the brain.
7. But alcohol can damage the brain temporarily.  It "dilates the channels in the cellular structure that regulates the flow of calcium.  More calcium than normal flows into the cells and stimulates increased activity. Somehow this abnormal "turning on" of activity causes a loss of the end segments but does not kill the whole cell. Losing the end segments, however, means losing incoming messages, which disrupts brain function".

http://www.wonderquest.com/BrainCells.htm (http://www.wonderquest.com/BrainCells.htm)

And I'm kinda being a little tough and mean, just so you guys get a glimpse of Evolutionary morals.

I thought you didn't believe in it?  Or are you just justifying your insult with an intellectual one (you understand so little that you don't even know why you're wrong).  Also, I thought you weren't going to mention evolution until you read up on it (which you quite obviously have not).

Sounds to me like you've been spoon-fed something from the far-Right.  I would suggest picking up some literature whose writers are intellectually accountable for their words and who do not have a built-in audience.  I mean, if someone is supporting evolution but their work is demonstrably false, they will get critical reception from the scientific community in the same way ID does.

//Edit

For example, the quote in your signature is actually mined (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Quote_mining) from a letter to Asa Gray.  You can read the full letter in my signature.  I generally feel those in the wrong have something to hide, and so I try not to.  This is why you can read the full letter from the link in my signature.

Quote mining is an example of the type of intellectual dishonesty not tolerated within the intellectual community (from which Creationists are often booted).  It might be a type of plagiarism, is it?

//End edit

Quote
Exactly.  If you're going to ask science to prove or disprove something, provide evidence.

The fact that we have a will points to a 'spirit thingy'.
Has anyone programmed a robot to do things and then do something that it's not exactly "supposed" to do?

So our inability to program robots which are as complex as humans' after only 50 years of microcircuitry is supposed to prove the existence of something thought up long before?  So...I suppose philosophers were waiting for the transistor so that they could finally prove the existence of free will (which does not point to a soul anyways)?  Sorry Epicurus!  Wrong era to be born in!

How the hell am I supposed to figure that out?! :look:
We're talking about stuff that may be well beyond Human comprehension.

Once again, the joke's not on me, it's on you.  Your inability to even understand the basic principles of a system which you cannot demonstrate objectively or produce sensually but are utterly convinced to be true is a bit...telling.

My opinion about free will is that it is impossible to tell if there is free will or not.  We live in reality, and determinism and free will are both descriptors of reality.  To test either would require that one leave reality, which is impossible.

Since I never got a reply before, I would like one now.

Should I start a new topic for Free Will vs. Determinism?  It is not related to souls (in the sense that neither philosophy inhibits the existence of a soul).
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 28 April 2010, 10:59:51
Quote
Quote from: -Archmage- on April 27, 2010, 08:20:44
Quote
Arch, what do you think about those, who were driven to insanity? What happened to their so called "souls"?
Your brain gets screwed up, and you can't use it properly. No Opinion

1. Assumptions There are souls, and they drive decision making.  Alcohol also can drive decision making.
2. If souls make decisions, the brain does not.
3. People driven to insanity will make bad decisions.
4. Their soul is causing them to do make bad decisions.
5. Alcohol can also cause people to make bad decisions.
6. Alcohol can effect the soul, but not the brain.
7. But alcohol can damage the brain temporarily.  It "dilates the channels in the cellular structure that regulates the flow of calcium.  More calcium than normal flows into the cells and stimulates increased activity. Somehow this abnormal "turning on" of activity causes a loss of the end segments but does not kill the whole cell. Losing the end segments, however, means losing incoming messages, which disrupts brain function".

http://www.wonderquest.com/BrainCells.htm

As I stated, brain goes bonkers, and it's hard to use.
Could you read what you quote?



Quote
Quote from: -Archmage- on April 27, 2010, 08:20:44
And I'm kinda being a little tough and mean, just so you guys get a glimpse of Evolutionary morals.

I thought you didn't believe in it?  Or are you just justifying your insult with an intellectual one (you understand so little that you don't even know why you're wrong).  Also, I thought you weren't going to mention evolution until you read up on it (which you quite obviously have not).

No, I don't believe in Evolution, I just know enough about it, and all the atrocities it has caused, what charles darwin did to black people and a lot more.

I have read about the core of the whole theory, it's just unsupportable. With a theory like Evolution proof just doesn't matter. :|



Quote
Sounds to me like you've been spoon-fed something from the far-Right.  I would suggest picking up some literature whose writers are intellectually accountable for their words and who do not have a built-in audience.  I mean, if someone is supporting evolution but their work is demonstrably false, they will get critical reception from the scientific community in the same way ID does.

The so-called "scientific community" are a bunch of dodos, all the people that talk about shots, well they're in the scientific community, shots are terrible, Global Warming is so obviously false, but let's not get into that. Generic scientists don't mean much to me any more, most of them are a bunch of geniuses being paid to lie.

I've read the first 25 pages of a book by John Sarfatti, Dawkins is an idiot, he's got quotes and everything, Dawkins is worse than Darwin!



Quote
For example, the quote in your signature is actually mined  from a letter to Asa Gray.  You can read the full letter in my signature.  I generally feel those in the wrong have something to hide, and so I try not to.  This is why you can read the full letter from the link in my signature.

Quote mining is an example of the type of intellectual dishonesty not tolerated within the intellectual community (from which Creationists are often booted).  It might be a type of plagiarism, is it?

I didn't know the source of that quote.



Quote
Quote from: -Archmage- on April 27, 2010, 08:20:44
Quote
Exactly.  If you're going to ask science to prove or disprove something, provide evidence.

The fact that we have a will points to a 'spirit thingy'.
Has anyone programmed a robot to do things and then do something that it's not exactly "supposed" to do?

So our inability to program robots which are as complex as humans' after only 50 years of microcircuitry is supposed to prove the existence of something thought up long before?  So...I suppose philosophers were waiting for the transistor so that they could finally prove the existence of free will (which does not point to a soul anyways)?  Sorry Epicurus!  Wrong era to be born in!

Sorry complexity doesn't go beyond the logic of the universe, no matter how complex the robot, it's only going to follow it's commands.

Is there anything in my genome that told me to eat some chocolate banana bread?

Sorry it was my choice to eat that?

Modman, it points to something more, not exactly a soul, but definitely something more, and considering all the things my Mom has done in Spirituality(walking on fire, watching tables float, talking to spirits, and somehow each of us knew my souls height, and I myself have experienced being out of my body, I mean, ask her and she could list tons more stuff!).



Quote
Quote from: -Archmage- on April 27, 2010, 08:20:44
How the hell am I supposed to figure that out?! Look
We're talking about stuff that may be well beyond Human comprehension.

Once again, the joke's not on me, it's on you.  Your inability to even understand the basic principles of a system which you cannot demonstrate objectively or produce sensually but are utterly convinced to be true is a bit...telling.

I have it pretty clear in my mind, but I have trouble expressing it in words, especially to you, because it has to sound good, otherwise you act like a 1200's flat earth believer.



Quote
Quote from: Sir modman on January 05, 2010, 01:04:39
My opinion about free will is that it is impossible to tell if there is free will or not.  We live in reality, and determinism and free will are both descriptors of reality.  To test either would require that one leave reality, which is impossible.

Since I never got a reply before, I would like one now.

Should I start a new topic for Free Will vs. Determinism?  It is not related to souls (in the sense that neither philosophy inhibits the existence of a soul).

I can tell Free Will from Determinism easily, what the hell is wrong with you?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 28 April 2010, 13:24:30
Quote
I just know enough about it

Or you don`t

Quote
what charles darwin did to black people

Was he racist? :0

just because of that doesn`t mean his science was wrong. (his science about evolution, but did you know, black people in the us have 80 points white have 100 points and asian have 120? it was from some tests, but it may be ethnical, though, i have met many black people, and some are smart as hell, but more is so dumb i sometiems want to laugh at them.)

Quote
I have read about the core of the whole theory

Ah, youve read about the core, mind checking on the sub-theories?
The core of your belief, A god-like being created us.

How supportable?

Quote

The so-called "scientific community" are a bunch of dodos, all the people that talk about shots, well they're in the scientific community, shots are terrible, Global Warming is so obviously false, but let's not get into that. Generic scientists don't mean much to me any more, most of them are a bunch of geniuses being paid to lie.

So, basically what youre saying is that the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY is not scince, but regular people like you, with no knowledge, no tests, no results, no observations, no achievements, basically nothing, is not science?

Quote
I have it pretty clear in my mind, but I have trouble expressing it in words, especially to you, because it has to sound good, otherwise you act like a 1200's flat earth believer.

Try, my english is suckish, but i try.

Quote
Is there anything in my genome that told me to eat some chocolate banana bread?

Hormones perhaps, aha, your brain may have told you.
Quote
Modman, it points to something more, not exactly a soul, but definitely something more, and considering all the things my Mom has done in Spirituality(walking on fire, watching tables float, talking to spirits, and somehow each of us knew my souls height, and I myself have experienced being out of my body, I mean, ask her and she could list tons more stuff!).

I can make up a worser lie than that, just as you know, askign someone and getting an answer is not enough, especially not someone that has no backup, the soul cannot be seen, therefore not prooved, nor disprooved, it is kinda troublesome, cause how did we come up with a soul in the first place, and YOU HAVET YET TO DISPROOVE THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER, or rather, can you? my proof is like this: I am right, your wrong, thats it.

There is usually something wrong with people using these as facts:

Quote
walking on fire, watching tables float, talking to spirits, and somehow each of us knew my souls height, and I myself have experienced being out of my body, I mean, ask her and she could list tons more stuff!

[Just edited some grammatical errors - @kukac@]
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: @kukac@ on 28 April 2010, 13:40:43
Jesus has stepped on the water, and walked on it. His followers tried to follow him, but they sank into the water. One of Jesus' student shouts after him:
- Hey, you should have showed them the stakes before!
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 28 April 2010, 13:58:58
Jesus has stepped on the water, and walked on it. His followers tried to follow him, but they sank into the water. One of Jesus' student shouts after him:
- Hey, you should have showed them the stakes before!

I belive evryone agrees here that jesus was a idiot?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 28 April 2010, 14:25:39
Heres a joke some of you may have heard.

A priest, a rabi, and a monk are in a boat 50 feet from the shore the monk gets out and walks on the water all the way to the shore.
The rabi does the same leaving only the priest in the boat. The priest thinks "I'm just as holy as they are, I should be able to do the same" He gets into the water and sinks, he gets back in the boat and tries again only to fail, he tries some more times but always fails
Meanwhile the rabi asks the monk,




Shall we tell him where the rocks are
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 28 April 2010, 15:02:37
Quote
Quote
what charles darwin did to black people

Was he racist? :0

Yes he was racist, and his motives were anti-god.



Quote
just because of that doesn`t mean his science was wrong. (his science about evolution, but did you know, black people in the us have 80 points white have 100 points and asian have 120? it was from some tests, but it may be ethnical, though, i have met many black people, and some are smart as hell, but more is so dumb i sometiems want to laugh at them.)

True.



Quote
Quote
I have read about the core of the whole theory

Ah, youve read about the core, mind checking on the sub-theories?
The core of your belief, A god-like being created us.

How supportable?

My theory is fully supportable!

You believe in a random process, I believe in a creator.

In that one sentence creation clearly sounds like the logical way we got here, look at a tree, random mutations I think not.

I don't need to look at the sub-theories, they are all branches of the core.



Quote
Quote

The so-called "scientific community" are a bunch of dodos, all the people that talk about shots, well they're in the scientific community, shots are terrible, Global Warming is so obviously false, but let's not get into that. Generic scientists don't mean much to me any more, most of them are a bunch of geniuses being paid to lie.

So, basically what youre saying is that the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY is not scince, but regular people like you, with no knowledge, no tests, no results, no observations, no achievements, basically nothing, is not science?

No, they are smart people, but they are being payed to lie, is what I said, if you would please read. :|



Quote
Quote
Is there anything in my genome that told me to eat some chocolate banana bread?

Hormones perhaps, aha, your brain may have told you.

A robot would need a direct command to eat the banana bread located on the table, but no, I just went to the kitchen and decided that I wanted some.

My brain told me? Uh, that's kinda a brain disorder if you get what I mean, it's more like I told my brain to send signals out to my arms to pick up the bread. :P



Quote
Quote
Modman, it points to something more, not exactly a soul, but definitely something more, and considering all the things my Mom has done in Spirituality(walking on fire, watching tables float, talking to spirits, and somehow each of us knew my souls height, and I myself have experienced being out of my body, I mean, ask her and she could list tons more stuff!).

I can make up a worser lie than that, just as you know, askign someone and getting an answer is not enough, especially not someone that has no backup, the soul cannot be seen, therefore not prooved, nor disprooved, it is kinda troublesome, cause how did we come up with a soul in the first place, and YOU HAVET YET TO DISPROOVE THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER, or rather, can you? my proof is like this: I am right, your wrong, thats it

Well, I think it's kinda funny that she walked on fire then.......

And saying that you can't see it so you can't prove it, is like saying you can't see air so you can't proove it, following a simple path of logic will tell you that there is some substance floating around which you breathe.



Quote
There is usually something wrong with people using these as facts:

Quote
walking on fire, watching tables float, talking to spirits, and somehow each of us knew my souls height, and I myself have experienced being out of my body, I mean, ask her and she could list tons more stuff!

You don't want to believe it, because you don't think science can prove it.
Why don't you just go see someone walk on fire, it's done all over the place as far as I know, just because a bunch of scientists say something isn't possible doesn't mean they're right, scientists get payed to say things all the time. :P



Quote
Jesus has stepped on the water, and walked on it. His followers tried to follow him, but they sank into the water. One of Jesus' student shouts after him:
- Hey, you should have showed them the stakes before!

Typical of you evolutionists, making fun of anything relating to god and jesus. :thumbdown:
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 28 April 2010, 15:22:07
Quote
Typical of you evolutionists, making fun of anything relating to god and jesus. Thumb Down

 :thumbdown: god and jesus is a random story, rewritten, then gone famous. :thumbup:

Quote
You believe in a random process
I can belive in a creator, but we did evolve.

I belive in how things affect eachother, not in randoms.

Quote
I don't need to look at the sub-theories, they are all branches of the core.

"i don`t need to" "i don`t want to" " i don`t undertstand why i should" the common acts of a creationist.

Please see through the scripts of the dover trial i posted earlier.
Quote
You don't want to believe it, because you don't think science can prove it.
Why don't you just go see someone walk on fire, it's done all over the place as far as I know, just because a bunch of scientists say something isn't possible doesn't mean they're right, scientists get payed to say things all the time. Tongue

Conspiracy theory?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 28 April 2010, 16:52:05
I believe religion exaggerates some, alot of things, but I find that neither of the theories that you argue over satisfy me. I find it hard to believe that a single being created us, on the other hand it is kind of improbable that humans evolved from fish or monkeys. I think humans have been on this earth longer than we know but on the other hand who knows, we probably won't find out in our lifetimes.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: modman on 29 April 2010, 02:44:50
As I stated, brain goes bonkers, and it's hard to use.
Could you read what you quote?
Of course I can read what I quote.  But your answer was inadequate because you didn't point out what was wrong with my logic.  Below we will see it is you who is impressed with his ability to read 25 pages in a book.

No, I don't believe in Evolution, I just know enough about it, and all the atrocities it has caused, what charles darwin did to black people and a lot more.
First, Charles Darwin did nothing to black people.  Interestingly, he published his theory just about the time that slavery was being fought over in the US.  Southern slave owners were some of the strongest Christians in all of America at the time, and they were able to support their cause with the Bible.

You seem to think that Christianity is the fastest path to modern interpretations on morality.  But read this:

Quote from: ”Mahavira, Jain religious text”
Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being.
High standards (like the Ten Commandments, impossibly so), but maybe St. Paul should have taken some notes.

With a theory like Evolution proof just doesn't matter.
A scientific theory stands only on it's ability to explain and predict reality.  So to the theory it doesn't really matter how Einstein, Newton, or Darwin behaved.

For example, I hear Hitler was a fervent believer in Newtonian physics.  Did science throw out that theory because of the bad PR it was getting?

The so-called "scientific community" are a bunch of dodos, all the people that talk about shots, well they're in the scientific community, shots are terrible, Global Warming is so obviously false, but let's not get into that. Generic scientists don't mean much to me any more, most of them are a bunch of geniuses being paid to lie.
Shots?  Oh, you mean like smallpox vaccines that save millions of lives each year?  Yup, it's all a damn conspiracy.

Quote from: Wikipedia (not a conspiracy)
The disease killed an estimated 400,000 Europeans per year during the closing years of the 18th century (including five monarchs), and was responsible for a third of all blindness.  Of all those infected, 20–60%—and over 80% of infected children—died from the disease.

I've read the first 25 pages of a book by John Sarfatti, Dawkins is an idiot, he's got quotes and everything, Dawkins is worse than Darwin!
You do realize you've just committed a major ad hominem right?  This is what I should expect from someone who cannot be bothered by evidence yet is convinced his position is true after reading 25 pages from a book.  Not to mention habitually bad grammar (the period key is next to the comma).

I didn't know the source of that quote.
Which means you’re letting other people do your thinking for you, and then trying to take credit for it.  The problem for creationists is that there is so little information that they can use.  They have few arguments, whose rebuttals are easily mastered, and they all tend to quote mine the same stuff.

Sorry complexity doesn't go beyond the logic of the universe, no matter how complex the robot, it's only going to follow it's commands.
The opinion that it is impossible to create free will from complexity is not a law of the universe.  Additionally, by what authority can you say that humans can never create robots with free will?

Is there anything in my genome that told me to eat some chocolate banana bread?
Well, once you’ve ate it, who is to say that you weren’t destined to eat it from day one?  Unpredictability cannot necessarily be shown to be free will.

Random number generators have very complex ways of generating one specific output.  If we didn’t know how the generator worked (e.g. “It has a soul, man!”) how would you show that it is not free will?

I have it pretty clear in my mind, but I have trouble expressing it in words, especially to you, because it has to sound good, otherwise you act like a 1200's flat earth believer.
Translation: “I’m convinced I’m right but there is no evidence to back my position”.

I can tell Free Will from Determinism easily, what the hell is wrong with you?
Nothing is wrong with me, or anyone else who disagrees with you.

But you seem to have difficulties in reading comprehension.  What the statement says is that in hindsight, it is impossible to discern free will from determinism.

Yes he was racist, and his motives were anti-god.
Not all Christians disagree with Darwin.  For example, the Catholic Church, the largest religious denomination the world has ever known.  Obviously the Pope’s motives were also anti-God too.

Quote from: -Archmage-
My theory is fully supportable!  You believe in a random process, I believe in a creator.  In that one sentence creation clearly sounds like the logical way we got here, look at a tree, random mutations I think not.
Blanket claim, strawman, appeal to common sense.  You can’t honestly consider that an argument.

An appeal to common sense is not logical because common sense is not authoritative.  The appeal to common sense got us geocentricism and flat earth-ism.

Quote from: -Archmage-
Well, I think it's kinda funny that she walked on fire then.
Me too.  And so would every other rational person, because in a debate you cannot just claim a supernatural experience and expect people to agree with you.  Remind me, how does fire-walking prove souls?

BTW there is some science behind this ability, but that’s not really important because you’re trying to prove the existence of souls with it.

Quote from: -Archmage-
And saying that you can't see it so you can't prove it, is like saying you can't see air so you can't proove it, following a simple path of logic will tell you that there is some substance floating around which you breathe.
Strawman.  No one is so silly as to say that there is no air.  Light a match.  You can’t do that in a vacuum.

We cannot see gravity, yet we can substantiate our claims with evidence, which is far more reliable than mystical claims about human anatomy.

Plus, we can measure wind speed (relative motion of air), and we can see the effects of tornadoes, and hurricanes.

Quote from: -Archmage-
Typical of you evolutionists, making fun of anything relating to god and jesus.
If it weren’t so ridiculous it wouldn’t be laughable.  Every religion makes supernatural claims.  Followers of every major religion claim to have supernatural experiences, yet you seem to think you are in a position to pronounce that yours is the only “correct” religion.

//EDIT
OK, you can read 25 pages in a book.  I wouldn't be surprised if you chose not to read my post though (equivalent of a couple paragraphs of text).  Don't say it hasn't happened before.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: John.d.h on 29 April 2010, 06:18:22
As compelling as your supernatural experiences may be for you, 1.) asking someone else to believe that they happened, and 2.) asserting that they prove the existence of a soul or divine being, are both pretty invalid arguments unless you can back them up.  I believe I've had a spiritual/supernatural experience, but I'm not going to bother saying what it is for both of those reasons.  The believers will say "yep, that's God", and the non-believers will say "nope, that's your brain", and then we're back at square one.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 29 April 2010, 06:46:12
As compelling as your supernatural experiences may be for you, 1.) asking someone else to believe that they happened, and 2.) asserting that they prove the existence of a soul or divine being, are both pretty invalid arguments unless you can back them up.  I believe I've had a spiritual/supernatural experience, but I'm not going to bother saying what it is for both of those reasons.  The believers will say "yep, that's God", and the non-believers will say "nope, that's your brain", and then we're back at square one.

And then he can continue re-use his arguments, like modman stated before, but i would like to see arch answer those questions, backed up with referencec or citation (just learned a new word! :o) and the citation should be backed up with references, and the references should be logical, and the logic must be in-terms of science since he claims his belief to be scientific.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: modman on 29 April 2010, 06:59:10
The believers will say "yep, that's God", and the non-believers will say "nope, that's your brain", and then we're back at square one.
But what was there to gain anyways?  One group has so much substantiation to do (and realistically will probably not accept defeat anyways), while the other will continue to produce scientists who run tests to actually find out what the reality is.

I'd personally like to know what progress there has been in theology in the last 500-1000 years.  In all other fields, someone from that period would lost.  But in theology, there is no progress, only the same tired (& bogus) rebuttals.  Even in philosophy, there has been progress in ethics, for example.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 29 April 2010, 13:55:15
Modman, I am not going to argue about religion.

You believe in random mutations and then the bad ones die out, I believe in a creator.

I believe in a creator because the human body is so complex.
I think everything was created, because according to the math there is no way that Evolution could even modify a cell without destroying it.
Also according to the math, Evolution would take almost an infinite amount of time to get a Human, much less, anything that could live.

Well, sorry, you only have, what, 3 billion years.

The theory of creation is perfectly logical and fits what we see in the universe, and the fact that you believe in a random process with the bad ones dying out is not only unreasonable, and illogical, it's evil. Because to me it sounds like you don't want to believe you were created.

In fact, Darwin was driven to create his theory because he didn't want to believe in a god.

And yes, Modman, he did do many terrible, and racist things!
Check this out: http://blog.drwile.com/?p=271
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 29 April 2010, 14:04:02
Modman, I am not going to argue about religion.

You believe in random mutations and then the bad ones die out, I believe in a creator.

I believe in a creator because the human body is so complex.
I think everything was created, because according to the math there is no way that Evolution could even modify a cell without destroying it.
Also according to the math, Evolution would take almost an infinite amount of time to get a Human, much less, anything that could live.

Well, sorry, you only have, what, 3 billion years.

The theory of creation is perfectly logical and fits what we see in the universe, and the fact that you believe in a random process with the bad ones dying out is not only unreasonable, and illogical, it's evil. Because to me it sounds like you don't want to believe you were created.

In fact, Darwin was driven to create his theory because he didn't want to believe in a god.

And yes, Modman, he did do many terrible, and racist things!
Check this out: http://blog.drwile.com/?p=271
a cell reproduces itself after half an hour...

The human body is simple
The flagella...

How many times do i have to say, and i belive modman already has, that there could`ve been a creator? and how many cells does the human body posses? they reproduce after half an hour, and then you have two cells increasing.
Darwin was driven to his theory, well, i belive someone said "i belive the future is just as predictable as the past"
Why didn`t Darwin belive in god? all my books i have says he did.
Whatever he was racist or not, that is irrelevant tothe diguission.
It may aswell just been the chruch made him racist, don`t say my theory about that is completely wrong, the church have done faaaaar worse...

Quote
backed up with referencec or citation (just learned a new word! Shocked) and the citation should be backed up with references, and the references should be logical, and the logic must be in-terms of science since he claims his belief to be scientific.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 29 April 2010, 14:06:57
Quote
At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes…will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.1

People at that time who were black had about no education, and they were savages, and they lived primitive. Why wouldn`t he be racist?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 29 April 2010, 14:48:21
Quote
Quote from: -Archmage- on Today at 11:00:03
Modman, I am not going to argue about religion.

You believe in random mutations and then the bad ones die out, I believe in a creator.

I believe in a creator because the human body is so complex.
I think everything was created, because according to the math there is no way that Evolution could even modify a cell without destroying it.
Also according to the math, Evolution would take almost an infinite amount of time to get a Human, much less, anything that could live.

Well, sorry, you only have, what, 3 billion years.

The theory of creation is perfectly logical and fits what we see in the universe, and the fact that you believe in a random process with the bad ones dying out is not only unreasonable, and illogical, it's evil. Because to me it sounds like you don't want to believe you were created.

In fact, Darwin was driven to create his theory because he didn't want to believe in a god.

And yes, Modman, he did do many terrible, and racist things!
Check this out: http://blog.drwile.com/?p=271
a cell reproduces itself after half an hour...

The human body is simple
The flagella...

How many times do i have to say, and i belive modman already has, that there could`ve been a creator? and how many cells does the human body posses? they reproduce after half an hour, and then you have two cells increasing.

Congratulations you now have a blob of cells!
Have as many as you want, you still have to somehow rely on random chance to get you a human.
Good luck!



Yah, Darwin did believe in God, but his daughter died(at 10 years old, I think), and he thought God was cruel and came up with his ridiculous theory.
Would you like me to go into detail?



Quote
Quote
At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes…will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.1

People at that time who were black had about no education, and they were savages, and they lived primitive. Why wouldn`t he be racist?

So a savage is someone who doesn't live like you and me huh, that's racist within itself. :P
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Omega on 29 April 2010, 16:24:17
Please keep the arguments to respectable terms please (don't flame the person, flame their ideas). :-X

I agree with the biggest main point, the body is too complex and amazing to be a product of some 1 in a [insert number larger than infinity in here]. That alone prooves the existance of god. HOWEVER, the people who don't believe in god suffer from shortsight. They only believe what they can see and feel.

I can't see that virus that gave me a cold, but I know it was there, 'cause otherwise I wouldn't be feeling like that. :P
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 29 April 2010, 16:26:41
Quote
HOWEVER, the people who don't believe in god suffer from shortsight.

You belive in someone that people made up 2000 years ago, i belive in realism, i haven`t seen oxygen, yet i belive in it because it is reasonable, and i am sure i can get up with some tests if you want to, that prooves it.

Look at my signature...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 29 April 2010, 20:08:03
Gabbe, I'm sorry if you don't realize how true the bible is, and how much evidence that there is for it.

Check out godandscience.org (http://godandscience.org)
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: modman on 29 April 2010, 22:45:59
Gabbe, I'm sorry if you don't realize how true the bible is, and how much evidence that there is for it.

Ecclesiastes 1:5
"The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises."

No, the sun doesn't actually hasten anywhere.  The Earth spins.  But this is the sort of thing we would expect from bronze-age writers utilizing only bronze-age science.

And no, I will not go to your website.  You need to stop pointing people to websites and start presenting the ideas here yourself.  Seriously, if I was interested in half-baked attacks on Darwin (Your website actually admits evolution to be true, by the way.  You might want to check the website out instead of googling and copying the first link you see.) I would go to church.  Or, I could go to the website myself, finding it using Google.  I could then write a comment to the author of the website.

Did you ever realize why books consist of more than a works cited page?  It's because the writer takes the time to spell it out for the reader.

I can't see that virus that gave me a cold, but I know it was there, 'cause otherwise I wouldn't be feeling like that.

How do you know it isn't just an evil spirit?  Those "dodo scientists" who came up with vaccinations (dreaded shots) also believe in global warming!  Maybe you should go back to the tried and true method of blood letting.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 30 April 2010, 11:39:27
It's obvious that the universe has a creator, and it's even more obvious that all lifeforms have a creator, most of you now realize that the universe was most definitely created, now I'm going to enjoy watching Evolution go down in flames.



The body and soul of Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution was his idea that evolution was made possible through natural selection. This concept is based on the suggestion that those members of a species that are a little stronger, a little larger, or run a little faster will live longer to procreate offspring with these superior adaptations. Darwin's theory suggests that millions of generations later the changes will result in new species. These adaptations are called links or intermediates.



Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong

Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.

The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless? The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection. According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.

Scientific Fact No. 2 - Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong

The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. These pictures are placed in all evolutionists' text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.

Scientific Fact No. 3 - Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong

Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water causing several molecules to combine in a random way which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms. This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals.

Scientific Fact No. 4 - Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong

The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother's womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.

Scientific Fact No. 5 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong

The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.

Scientific Fact No. 6 - Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong

The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics that has never been proven wrong. Scientists cannot have it both ways. The second law of thermodynamics is proven to be correct. Evolution lacks any scientific proof. Evolution is simply an empty theory.

Scientific Fact No. 7 - Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong

There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom.

Scientific Fact No. 8 - Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong

Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The "Big Bang" theory doesn't solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.

Scientific Fact No. 9 - Lack of Life on Mars Proves Evolution is Wrong

Two NASA two land rovers named Spirit and Opportunity explored Mars during 2004. The topography shows obvious signs of past liquid rivers flowing in numerous places. The rovers have proven that water was once abundant on the surface of Mars, but they have not been able to find any signs of life or any signs of past life on the planet. Mars has a proven history of flowing water on the surface and an atmosphere suitable to support life forms. The planet has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the "spark" of life according to the evolutionary theory, yet there is no life on Mars. The river beds and river banks show no signs of vegetation or trees. The ground has no fossils and no organisms. The place is absolutely sterile.

Scientific Fact No. 10 - Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong

Mars is not the only place that shows no signs of life. The entire universe lacks any sign of life. There are no radio signals that can be related to intelligent life forms. None of the billions of galaxies has been found to emit any intelligent radio signals. Scientists have been pointing every type of radio telescope possible into space for several decades in hopes of finding an intelligent signal. No signs of life beyond Earth have been found. We are alone.

From: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 30 April 2010, 12:59:27
Nice post, and i see you took my advice about posting links, instead of modmans about not, i`ll read later when i have time.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 30 April 2010, 14:11:05
I think the Bible is historically correct in many aspects but exaggerates lots of things, for example it may be doubtful that the world was created in seven days but it could have been created in seven stages which would in fact, mostly correspond with what evolutionists say the world developed like, for example most evolutionists say that animals lived in the water, then plants started to grow on land, and finally some animals evolved into land creatures, and stop me if I'm wrong the Bible says something very similar to this only that it attributes the whole thing to God in seven days.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 30 April 2010, 14:21:59
the earth developed in six phases if thats what tyour pointing to, and historians tells that "the week" were something at the time the bible was wrote, so the seven days, and the week may have something to do with eachother, however, debating over the bible is useless, every christian will think theyr belief is right, no matter, since they were thaught it is right by people they see as higher intelligent, mostly refered to as parents, or priests, but it is the opposite, theyr dumb and belive in god becuase they were also thaught to do so..
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 30 April 2010, 16:01:38
Gabbe, I'm sorry but your opinion on why people believe in God is far off. :P
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 30 April 2010, 16:08:25
why you belive in god, all the christians i have met cannot argue why they belive...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Omega on 30 April 2010, 16:29:02
why you belive in god, all the christians i have met cannot argue why they belive...
You met me, haven't you? :|

Very interesting post archmage.


Copied from http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

Just once wouldn't you love for someone to simply show you the evidence for God's existence? No arm-twisting. No statements of, "You just have to believe." Well, here is an attempt to candidly offer some of the reasons which suggest that God exists.

But first consider this. If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away. It is like if someone refuses to believe that people have walked on the moon, then no amount of information is going to change their thinking. Photographs of astronauts walking on the moon, interviews with the astronauts, moon rocks...all the evidence would be worthless, because the person has already concluded that people cannot go to the moon.

When it comes to the possibility of God's existence, the Bible says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence, but they have suppressed the truth about God.1 On the other hand, for those who want to know God if he is there, he says, "You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you."2 Before you look at the facts surrounding God's existence, ask yourself, If God does exist, would I want to know him? Here then, are some reasons to consider...

1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.
Many examples showing God's design could be given, possibly with no end. But here are a few:

The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.

The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.

And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents.4

Water...colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). You'll see why the characteristics of water are uniquely suited to life:

It has an unusually high boiling point and freezing point. Water allows us to live in an environment of fluctuating temperature changes, while keeping our bodies a steady 98.6 degrees.

Water is a universal solvent. This property of water means that thousands of chemicals, minerals and nutrients can be carried throughout our bodies and into the smallest blood vessels.5

Water is also chemically neutral. Without affecting the makeup of the substances it carries, water enables food, medicines and minerals to be absorbed and used by the body.

Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to the top of even the tallest trees.

Water freezes from the top down and floats, so fish can live in the winter.

Ninety-seven percent of the Earth's water is in the oceans. But on our Earth, there is a system designed which removes salt from the water and then distributes that water throughout the globe. Evaporation takes the ocean waters, leaving the salt, and forms clouds which are easily moved by the wind to disperse water over the land, for vegetation, animals and people. It is a system of purification and supply that sustains life on this planet, a system of recycled and reused water.6

The human brain...simultaneously processes an amazing amount of information. Your brain takes in all the colors and objects you see, the temperature around you, the pressure of your feet against the floor, the sounds around you, the dryness of your mouth, even the texture of your keyboard. Your brain holds and processes all your emotions, thoughts and memories. At the same time your brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of your body like your breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands.

The human brain processes more than a million messages a second.7 Your brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows you to focus and operate effectively in your world. The brain functions differently than other organs. There is an intelligence to it, the ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take action, and relate to other people.

The eye...can distinguish among seven million colors. It has automatic focusing and handles an astounding 1.5 million messages -- simultaneously.8 Evolution focuses on mutations and changes from and within existing organisms. Yet evolution alone does not fully explain the initial source of the eye or the brain -- the start of living organisms from nonliving matter.

2. Does God exist? The universe had a start - what caused it?
Scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous explosion of energy and light, which we now call the Big Bang. This was the singular start to everything that exists: the beginning of the universe, the start of space, and even the initial start of time itself.

Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, a self-described agnostic, stated, "The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion...The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen."9

Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, said at the moment of this explosion, "the universe was about a hundred thousands million degrees Centigrade...and the universe was filled with light."10

The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter.

3. Does God exist? The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why does it?
Much of life may seem uncertain, but look at what we can count on day after day: gravity remains consistent, a hot cup of coffee left on a counter will get cold, the earth rotates in the same 24 hours, and the speed of light doesn't change -- on earth or in galaxies far from us.

How is it that we can identify laws of nature that never change? Why is the universe so orderly, so reliable?

"The greatest scientists have been struck by how strange this is. There is no logical necessity for a universe that obeys rules, let alone one that abides by the rules of mathematics. This astonishment springs from the recognition that the universe doesn't have to behave this way. It is easy to imagine a universe in which conditions change unpredictably from instant to instant, or even a universe in which things pop in and out of existence."11

Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner for quantum electrodynamics, said, "Why nature is mathematical is a mystery...The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle."12

4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.
All instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent. Someone who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you know that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed instruction code, much like a miniature computer program? As you may know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this: 110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It's made up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and C. These are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT and so on. There are three billion of these letters in every human cell!!

Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full instruction manual.13

Why is this so amazing? One has to ask....how did this information program wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals. These are chemicals that instruct, that code in a very detailed way exactly how the person's body should develop.

Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation when programmed information is involved. You cannot find instruction, precise information like this, without someone intentionally constructing it.

5. Does God exist? We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.
I was an atheist at one time. And like many atheists, the issue of people believing in God bothered me greatly. What is it about atheists that we would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that we don't believe even exists?! What causes us to do that? When I was an atheist, I attributed my intentions as caring for those poor, delusional people...to help them realize their hope was completely ill-founded. To be honest, I also had another motive. As I challenged those who believed in God, I was deeply curious to see if they could convince me otherwise. Part of my quest was to become free from the question of God. If I could conclusively prove to believers that they were wrong, then the issue is off the table, and I would be free to go about my life.

I didn't realize that the reason the topic of God weighed so heavily on my mind, was because God was pressing the issue. I have come to find out that God wants to be known. He created us with the intention that we would know him. He has surrounded us with evidence of himself and he keeps the question of his existence squarely before us. It was as if I couldn't escape thinking about the possibility of God. In fact, the day I chose to acknowledge God's existence, my prayer began with, "Ok, you win..." It might be that the underlying reason atheists are bothered by people believing in God is because God is actively pursuing them.

I am not the only one who has experienced this. Malcolm Muggeridge, socialist and philosophical author, wrote, "I had a notion that somehow, besides questing, I was being pursued." C.S. Lewis said he remembered, "...night after night, feeling whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all of England."

Lewis went on to write a book titled, "Surprised by Joy" as a result of knowing God. I too had no expectations other than rightfully admitting God's existence. Yet over the following several months, I became amazed by his love for me.

6. Does God exist? Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God revealing himself to us.Why Jesus? Look throughout the major world religions and you'll find that Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius and Moses all identified themselves as teachers or prophets. None of them ever claimed to be equal to God. Surprisingly, Jesus did. That is what sets Jesus apart from all the others. He said God exists and you're looking at him. Though he talked about his Father in heaven, it was not from the position of separation, but of very close union, unique to all humankind. Jesus said that anyone who had seen Him had seen the Father, anyone who believed in him, believed in the Father.

He said, "I am the light of the world, he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."14 He claimed attributes belonging only to God: to be able to forgive people of their sin, free them from habits of sin, give people a more abundant life and give them eternal life in heaven. Unlike other teachers who focused people on their words, Jesus pointed people to himself. He did not say, "follow my words and you will find truth." He said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me."15

What proof did Jesus give for claiming to be divine? He did what people can't do. Jesus performed miracles. He healed people...blind, crippled, deaf, even raised a couple of people from the dead. He had power over objects...created food out of thin air, enough to feed crowds of several thousand people. He performed miracles over nature...walked on top of a lake, commanding a raging storm to stop for some friends. People everywhere followed Jesus, because he constantly met their needs, doing the miraculous. He said if you do not want to believe what I'm telling you, you should at least believe in me based on the miracles you're seeing.16

Jesus Christ showed God to be gentle, loving, aware of our self-centeredness and shortcomings, yet deeply wanting a relationship with us. Jesus revealed that although God views us as sinners, worthy of his punishment, his love for us ruled and God came up with a different plan. God himself took on the form of man and accepted the punishment for our sin on our behalf. Sounds ludicrous? Perhaps, but many loving fathers would gladly trade places with their child in a cancer ward if they could. The Bible says that the reason we would love God is because he first loved us.

Jesus died in our place so we could be forgiven. Of all the religions known to humanity, only through Jesus will you see God reaching toward humanity, providing a way for us to have a relationship with him. Jesus proves a divine heart of love, meeting our needs, drawing us to himself. Because of Jesus' death and resurrection, he offers us a new life today. We can be forgiven, fully accepted by God and genuinely loved by God. He says, "I have loved you with an everlasting love, therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you."17 This is God, in action.

Does God exist? If you want to know, investigate Jesus Christ. We're told that "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."18

God does not force us to believe in him, though he could. Instead, he has provided sufficient proof of his existence for us to willingly respond to him. The earth's perfect distance from the sun, the unique chemical properties of water, the human brain, DNA, the number of people who attest to knowing God, the gnawing in our hearts and minds to determine if God is there, the willingness for God to be known through Jesus Christ. If you need to know more about Jesus and reasons to believe in him, please see: Beyond Blind Faith.

If you want to begin a relationship with God now, you can.
This is your decision, no coercion here. But if you want to be forgiven by God and come into a relationship with him, you can do so right now by asking him to forgive you and come into your life. Jesus said, "Behold, I stand at the door [of your heart] and knock. He who hears my voice and opens the door, I will come into him [or her]."19 If you want to do this, but aren't sure how to put it into words, this may help: "Jesus, thank you for dying for my sins. You know my life and that I need to be forgiven. I ask you to forgive me right now and come into my life. I want to know you in a real way. Come into my life now. Thank you that you wanted a relationship with me. Amen."

God views your relationship with him as permanent. Referring to all those who believe in him, Jesus Christ said of us, "I know them, and they follow me; and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand."


Yeah I know, extremely long, but it about sums it up well.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 30 April 2010, 16:43:15
There is a thing called luck, and I'd say our placement in the Universe could be because of luck.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 30 April 2010, 16:43:30
Quote
The Earth...its size is perfect.

No bacteria can survive with a lot more huuge pressure, then they could`ve evolved into beings able to sustain the gravity.

Quote
The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury

The universe is so wast that you cannot talk about the mercury, the majority of planets spotted is unhabitable (yes there have been spotted planets within the habitable zone)

For the planet talk i suggest watchin the first of this series:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=istxUVBZD2s

And it felt boring reading all of that...i suppose im lazy...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: @kukac@ on 30 April 2010, 16:45:34
Quote from: Arch
Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong
[...]

http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/system/files/u3/birdcompl.gif

For example, this was a good picture. You think about evolution, that it has happened with 1 cell/generation. That's not right, we call mutation what happened in a larger scale. If you want a short example, put a man and his son near each other. They are not totally alike.

Quote
Scientific Fact No. 2 - Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong
[...]

Ahh, not every species have links, although, horses, cats, insects have a quite large scale to choose from :)
Mammoth, saber tooth tiger, those crocodile like dinosaurs (http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/typesofdinosaurs/a/crocodilians.htm), and so on.

Quote
Scientific Fact No. 3 - Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong
[...]

No one said, that we know the reason of life, so it's useless to mumble about it.  :P

Quote
Scientific Fact No. 4 - Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong
[...]The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female.[...]However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring.[...]

You are wrong in some ways :) X-chromosome is the female, and Y is the male one. That's why the females most likely able to reproduce (if the X-chromosome is damaged / mutated, they still have an another one :D )

Your second quoted thought is interesting on it's own to begin with, since you could either say, no matter who the mother is, the child is always different, or the children always look exactly like it's mother  :confused:

Quote
Scientific Fact No. 5 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong
[...]

If that wouldn't work, you couldn't use your DNA to find your relatives :D

Quote
Scientific Fact No. 6 - Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong
[...]Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists.[...]

Ahh, so if you are damaged, you won't heal, since your cells cannot rearrange themselves. Smart.

Quote
Evolution lacks any scientific proof. Evolution is simply an empty theory.

Once again, if you say the same thing more, it won't make it true.

Quote
Scientific Fact No. 7 - Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong
[...]

If I remember well, the horse and the donkey can mate too, and also some frogs.

Quote
Scientific Fact No. 8 - Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong
[...]

Again, the "We don't know about one thing." doesn't make everything they have said false.

Quote
Scientific Fact No. 9 - Lack of Life on Mars Proves Evolution is Wrong
[...]

Since when does "habitable" means "life must exist there"?

Quote
Scientific Fact No. 10 - Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong
[...]

The closest star is still 4 ly away from us. Plus, just because we send out radio waves, doesn't make
1. There are other lifeforms doing the same.
2. They are not sending messages in some other way.
3. They are able to decipher our messages.
4. It has reached them.
5. It has reached us.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 30 April 2010, 16:47:56
I think this argument is pretty pointless, as neither side is gonna give way, at any rate as Gabbe said there have been spots in the solar system that could possibly be habitable.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 30 April 2010, 16:55:36
I think this argument is pretty pointless, as neither side is gonna give way, at any rate as Gabbe said there have been spots in the solar system that could possibly be habitable.

Noones going to give up, thats not the point, the point is to make other people joining the debate to join your side, and the most reasonable side is apparently winning...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: @kukac@ on 30 April 2010, 17:02:09
"God is dead" Nietsche
"Nietsche is dead" God
"Nietsche is God" Dead
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 30 April 2010, 17:03:24
I figured I'll also mention, the Earth is not perfect, and eventually the sun will expand enough to dry up or engulf the earth, and I do not think God would want that
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: ElimiNator on 30 April 2010, 17:24:56
Maybe that is when the end of the world will come?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 30 April 2010, 18:47:12
and we have a 2012 fantasy here?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 30 April 2010, 19:02:45
Gabbe, have you seen The Case for a Creator yet?

Kukac I'm going to ignore you, I now understand why you believe in Evolution, because you don't understand logic.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 30 April 2010, 19:11:53
Quote
Gabbe, have you seen The Case for a Creator yet?

As i sent back my destroyed copy, ill have to wait for another one, it`ll come, but you have the movie, quote something for me :)??
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Omega on 30 April 2010, 19:18:36
and we have a 2012 fantasy here?
Stupid myans know nothing. 2012 is a bunch of bull.

Gabbe, have you seen The Case for a Creator yet?
Dunno what that even is. Could you summarize?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 30 April 2010, 19:22:09
A movie providing scientific evidence for a creator, Omega, you'd love it! :)

@Gabbe: Just wait and watch the movie. :P  ;)
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: John.d.h on 1 May 2010, 01:03:08
I'm pretty sure the world ended for the Mayans a long time ago. :P

With the bird thing, finally Arch has posted something worthwhile.  However, I saw a rather long documentary about how they demonstrated the latest "missing link" between reptile and bird, and it kinda tore than argument to shreds.

Omega's post has definitely been the best argument for the existence of a god so far on this thread.  Props. :thumbup:
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: modman on 1 May 2010, 01:15:49
Kukac I'm going to ignore you, I now understand why you believe in Evolution, because you don't understand logic.

Damn you're arrogant.  It's astounding for someone who is, hmmm, only 13 and has been a member of the forums for a little over a year.  How many times does Omega have to tell you to pipe down?

Omega, you're far more rational.  However, I would really appreciate it if we stop adding evidence to the pot and discuss whether what we have is valid.  We all must admit it is the only possible way a conclusion can be made.  Suppose for sake of argument, that Arch had posted something irrefutable on page 8.  All I would have to do is bury it with inconclusive evidence so no one notices.

So can we please rewind back to Re: Religious Debates (https://forum.megaglest.org/index.php?topic=5156.msg47120#msg47120)?  If you ignore it I have no other choice but to assume you agree on every point I made in the post.

Additionally, we should not discuss evolution here.  The appropriate place is the evolution debate topic I started (https://forum.megaglest.org/index.php?topic=5305.0).  Archmage, you are the moderator, so please make sure everything goes in its appropriate topic.  Otherwise, everything is a mess.

Finally, maybe instead of presenting an entire website verbatim and C&P it here, why not create a seperate topic so we can go more in depth with it there?

Right now I see several topics:

Finally, I would like to address a disturbing argument that both Archmage and Omega swallowed whole (actually I was going to do the one about females and their eggs, but then I found a greater error!)

Scientific Fact No. 5 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong

The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.

Whoever wrote this obviously did not check his facts, and may even have made this up, seeing how demonstrably wrong it is.  If I regularly browned my skin in a tanning bed, there is a certain disease which I am at risk for.  Here's a clue: it's not transmitted through the air.  That's right, cancer.  Now I'm not sure how exactly our undereducated friend thinks cancer works, and why it is so dangerous, but I'll tell you now.  The gene in DNA that controls the division of cells is mutated (multiple factors increase risks.  These are called carcinogens for a reason), and the cell multiplies uncontrollably.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer#Causes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer#Causes)
http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/about-cancer/causes-symptoms/causes/what-causes-cancer (http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/about-cancer/causes-symptoms/causes/what-causes-cancer)
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Sites-Types/general (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Sites-Types/general)
http://www.whatcausescancer.org/ (http://www.whatcausescancer.org/)

So if "any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed," I guess we wouldn't have to worry about cancer.  The truth is, there is some error checking, but it isn't foolproof.  I don't really want to take AP Bio (I hate wrote memorization; this is why I hate Spanish too), so I'm only going off my one semester biology overview course.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Omega on 1 May 2010, 01:49:30
Interesting point, but I don't argue DNA. It's not my strong point and genetics bore me (yeah sure I might get those green eyes from my mother, but does it make a difference?).

Damn you're arrogant.  It's astounding for someone who is, hmmm, only 13 and has been a member of the forums for a little over a year.  How many times does Omega have to tell you to pipe down?
Pipe down modman.

Quote from: Omega
Flame the person's ideas, not the person.

So if "any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed," I guess we wouldn't have to worry about cancer.  The truth is, there is some error checking, but it isn't foolproof.  I don't really want to take AP Bio (I hate wrote memorization; this is why I hate Spanish too), so I'm only going off my one semester biology overview course.
Even god isn't perfect (otherwise there wouldn't be people doubting him here...) It's like a web designer making a page with a lot of checks to stop bad information from being entered only for someone to exploit it with cross-browser scripting language.
Title: Debate: Debunking Creationist Arguments Video
Post by: modman on 1 May 2010, 01:53:21
Standard Rules
Since I started this topic, I believe I should make some ground rules.  Feel free to quote these if someone violates them, and hopefully I can keep my dignity by not breaking them myself.  I'll add more as I see fit.

1. Do not make blanket statements or claims that cannot be supported with evidence or logic.  If you cannot explain why something is evidence, you obviously do not understand it well enough to claim it to be evidence.  I suggest dealing with violations of this rule like this:
Quote from: Unsupportable Claim
blanket statements or claims
Boooo...  Violation of rule one. ::)

2. Non-constructive one-liners, for example simply stating "I agree" or "you're wrong" are not helpful for debate and should probably be deleted by moderators, since they add nothing by post count and your avatar.  And, I have to scroll though a bunch of garbage, wasting everyone's time.

3. Religious documents should not be represented as anything but anecdotal evidence.  See rule one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSxgnu3Hww8

Debate Question: Are the main arguments in this video valid?
If your opinion is no, specify and defend your reasoning or no credence can be given to your comment.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: modman on 1 May 2010, 02:22:23
Interesting point, but I don't argue DNA. It's not my strong point and genetics bore me (yeah sure I might get those green eyes from my mother, but does it make a difference?).

It makes a difference because you're the only one representing your position.  Only you can accurately represent yourself.  Genetic inheritance is pretty elementary I think.  Sure I don't want to practice adding all day, but it was necessary so I could get into higher mathematics.

Even god isn't perfect (otherwise there wouldn't be people doubting him here...) It's like a web designer making a page with a lot of checks to stop bad information from being entered only for someone to exploit it with cross-browser scripting language.

I've never heard that before.  But please note that this opinion, being an opinion, is equally supportable as any others concerning the nature of God, as long as one excuses Him with "human fallibility".
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 1 May 2010, 03:00:44
Arrogant huh?

Well, would you like me to point out something very illogical Kukac said? ::)
Title: Re: Debate: Debunking Creationist Arguments Video
Post by: Omega on 1 May 2010, 03:31:40
Well, it was an interesting video. It exibited mostly a list of the arguments though with minimal/no 'evidence'. Also, I don't consider Hitler to POSSIBLY be evidence! :thumbdown:

I also don't see how Thermodynamics make a difference. In fact, some of his statements I've not only NEVER seen used to support creationism, but don't support his point (evolutionism) either... ::)

Yes, some of his main arguments are reasonable, simply because god cannot be seen by just anyone, and therefore I can't take you up to a mountain and get him to talk to you face to face (you sure don't LOOK like Moses).

I really couldn't care what scientists think. They ARE scientists, therefore support what science can do, and have trouble with what they cannot understand (ask a scientist: "What caused the big bang?").

I could go on longer, but I'd rather not carry on that. I'm a creationist, you're not, suit yourself.

PS: Although I can't deny the video was remarkably professional and looked quite cool, abet, that doesn't add to the discussion. :)
Title: Re: Debate: Debunking Creationist Arguments Video
Post by: John.d.h on 1 May 2010, 04:18:21
Is it really necessary to have three threads going about this simultaneously?

// Merged \\ - Just because I can, oh, and because you make a good point. :D
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 1 May 2010, 20:53:51
Quote
that doesn't add to the discussion.


It doesn`t add to the siguission because the arguments were to overwhelming that you cannot deny anything, andf because it doesn`t support your cause it is automatically invalid and wrong? Dont point me to that it was wrong because you clearly said almost exactly what i said, this is the problem with creationists, theyr ignorant.

Quote
I really couldn't care what scientists think. They ARE scientists, therefore support what science can do, and have trouble with what they cannot understand (ask a scientist: "What caused the big bang?").

Then start care for evidence, they have trouble with what some brain-damaged people back 3000 years from now said, you have problem with denying what your told to belive. We don`t know what caused the big bang, but god doesn`t "proove" it.

Quote

Interesting point, but I don't argue DNA. It's not my strong point and genetics bore me (yeah sure I might get those green eyes from my mother, but does it make a difference?).

Apparently it doesn`t, but thats just because you don`t care for evolution, mainly because it strides with your god, that is not true. Science doesn`t proove how the universe began, the big bangt theory is actually a theory symphathizing (now i fail lol) god belief, because the big bang might have been god or what? i myself doesn`t belive in god because people bakc whne he was imagined did not have the knowledge we posses today.

Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 2 May 2010, 06:08:44
We are not ignorant, we just can't believe the amount of faith Evolutionists must have, because there simply is nothing logical about the theory of Evolution, whereas a belief in a creator is heavily scientific!



Quote
Then start care for evidence, they have trouble with what some brain-damaged people back 3000 years from now said, you have problem with denying what your told to belive

Brain-damaged!?
Do you have any proof, also considering that Humans are getting slightly less and less complex over time.............which means.......... ::)
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 2 May 2010, 08:20:26

Back up that people are getting less abnd less complex, our science today is much more advanced than 3000 years ago...and that my friend is a fact
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 2 May 2010, 13:12:22
WE didn't go boom , now we have guns and computers, we developed stuff over time.

But us as Humans are getting less complex over time.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 2 May 2010, 13:35:34
BACKUP?  to me it seems like were looking just the same, except for the junk food were eating wich makes us fatter? and there are of-course things to modify your body...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: @kukac@ on 2 May 2010, 15:26:46
Quote from: Arch
But us as Humans are getting less complex over time.

Devolution.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 2 May 2010, 15:58:07
you mean backwards evoltuion? like species becoming less complex because there is no longer the need for the mutations?

Just something that apparently happened to the dinosaur Tyranosaurus Rex, it arms were shrinking because it had no longer the need for them.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 2 May 2010, 17:09:59
No Gabbe, it is not a smart process.

Also, since it is going on now........ :P
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 2 May 2010, 17:28:32
No Gabbe, it is not a smart process.

Also, since it is going on now........ :P

Sorry, no clue what that was.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 2 May 2010, 17:35:34
Whether species have a need or not doesn't matter at all, Evolution randomly spits out mutations and the bad ones die out.

Since devolution's going on now, why can't it always have been going on?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Zoythrus on 2 May 2010, 17:47:34
i wouldnt call it "Devolution" as much as a heavy reliance on what we have created. because things think for us, we have no need to use our God-given gifts of reasoning and intelligence.

and you guys mention mutations, when has a random mutation ever been helpful? last time i checked, sickle cell anemia was a bad thing

hey, i came across this idea - i heard that creatures had to evolve the ability to reproduce. how did that happen? you cant say that it took millions of generations to "invent" sex, as then they could have no children to discover the ability to have children! There! evolution debunked...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 2 May 2010, 18:26:45
YAy, some more scientific firepower. :D



Quote
hey, i came across this idea - i heard that creatures had to evolve the ability to reproduce. how did that happen? you cant say that it took millions of generations to "invent" sex, as then they could have no children to discover the ability to have children! There! evolution debunked...

Yah, you have to have random chance create reproduction with a female and a male at around the same time, and the male has to be attracted to the female and every little detail has to be perfect or else reproduction couldn't happen.

The guy is going to have to evolve his genitals and the female must evolve hers, and they have to be compatible. Besides how's the guy going to evolve his genitals, a little sensitive lump evolving to genitals?

Well, you have to start with reproduction so that there is a carrier of the new "lump" mutation.

Anyway, you still have to get the female and the male before any of that........... :|
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 2 May 2010, 18:37:51
Quote
i heard that creatures had to evolve the ability to reproduce

You probably hear that on a creationist forum/new/site/video?
Sorry, but that is not a reliable source. ever heard that cells duplicate? like, they divide and become two cells.

Quote
when has a random mutation ever been helpful

Some bacteria evolved defences against antibiotics/antibiotica, you don`t have to view it as helpfull for the human race, it was helpfull for the bacteria.

Quote
There! evolution debunked...

Sorry, but that was not the case.
Quote
last time i checked, sickle cell anemia was a bad thing

last time you checked...Do you ever check out things that doesn`t support your belief? NO.
Quote
you cant say that it took millions of generations to "invent" sex

We don`t.

Quote
Evolution randomly spits out mutations and the bad ones die out

You cross-over!  :confused: "nothing is random, but evolution is  as close as it gets"?
I say, "Nothing is random, so is evolution" There are several causes for mutation, the environment, the other beings, maybe even  damage taken from another specie? When mothers give birth after they had a drink, the baby has some chance of getting mutated. There are so many factors that i cannot list them all here.
70 percent of all mutations are bad, but still there are 30% who doesn`t and then im not including the mutations we don`t notice wich doesn`t cause any damage at all!
Now you might argue that then since 70% are bad species will have gotten extinct a long time ago, but, the mutations only occur at one of the individuals, then if it is bad, that creature will die and not reproduce, if it is good, it will have a advantage over the other members of the specie, and evolve. There are of course individuals without mutations, and they are the majority, so if a good mutation shows up, it will reproduce more quickly, with taking less damage than the other members.
A harmful mutation decreases the individuals rate of survival in the environment.
If the mutation is beneficial however, it will increase the fitness of the individual and/or promote traits that are desireable.

Here is from wikipedia:

Mutations are changes in the DNA sequence of a cell's genome  and are caused by radiation, viruses, transposons  and mutagenic chemicals, as well as errors that occur during meiosis or DNA replication

Beneficial mutations

Although most mutations that change protein sequences are neutral or harmful, some mutations have a positive effect on an organism. In this case, the mutation may enable the mutant organism to withstand particular environmental stresses better than wild-type organisms, or reproduce more quickly. In these cases a mutation will tend to become more common in a population through natural selection.

For example, a specific 32 base pair deletion in human CCR5 (CCR5-Δ32) confers HIV resistance to homozygotes and delays AIDS onset in heterozygotes. The CCR5 mutation is more common in those of European descent. One possible explanation of the etiology of the relatively high frequency of CCR5-Δ32 in the European population is that it conferred resistance to the bubonic plague in mid-14th century Europe. People with this mutation were more likely to survive infection; thus its frequency in the population increased. This theory could explain why this mutation is not found in southern Africa, where the bubonic plague never reached. A newer theory suggests that the selective pressure on the CCR5 Delta 32 mutation was caused by smallpox instead of the bubonic plague.

Another example, is Sickle cell disease which is a blood disorder in which the body produces an abnormal type of the oxygen-carrying substance hemoglobin in the red blood cells. One-third of all indigenous inhabitants of Sub-Saharan Africa carry the gene, because in areas where malaria is common, there is a survival value in carrying only a single sickle-cell gene (sickle cell trait). Those with only one of the two alleles of the sickle-cell disease are more resistant to malaria, since the infestation of the malaria plasmodium is halted by the sickling of the cells which it infests.

Quote
Since devolution's going on now, why can't it always have been going on

Why can`t Evolution and "Devolution" have been going on at the same time? It can have been always going on, but evolution has too.
Don`t tell me you seriously belive that "man used to be higher than a house and now theyr growing smaller and weaker and dumber"?

Quote
Yah, you have to have random chance create reproduction with a female and a male at around the same time, and the male has to be attracted to the female and every little detail has to be perfect or else reproduction couldn't happen.

A simple answer would be: NO
A scientific answer would be long and boring:

The details of the female doesn`t have to be perfect, but occasionally you will meet someone with almost the exact deatails you need, then you will fell in the phenomenon "Love", your statement is not objective, without any evidence to support it. This is what evolution call: Species.
Quote
The guy is going to have to evolve his genitals and the female must evolve hers, and they have to be compatible. Besides how's the guy going to evolve his genitals, a little sensitive lump evolving to genitals?

I understood very little of that, but i`ll try.
The genitials doesn`t have to be compatible,there is no such thing as exact compatible if thats what your pointing to. that is something called what? a specie?

Quote
Anyway, you still have to get the female and the male before any of that........... No Opinion

Simply, no, you must have the chromozomes to reproduce sexually, asexually however you will only need one individual, a cell for example.

Nice that there is more creationists, hmm... there should be a poll: Creationism or Evoltuion...



Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Zoythrus on 2 May 2010, 18:48:20
Quote
i heard that creatures had to evolve the ability to reproduce

You probably hear that on a creationist forum/new/site/video?
Sorry, but that is not a reliable source. ever heard that cells duplicate? like, they divide and become two cells.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction

i got it from here. if you think about it, evolution just doesnt add up! it takes more faith to believe in random chance than it does to believe in a Creator. it just seems so simple, maybe you are just thinking too hard.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 2 May 2010, 19:07:17
Quote
i heard that creatures had to evolve the ability to reproduce

You probably hear that on a creationist forum/new/site/video?
Sorry, but that is not a reliable source. ever heard that cells duplicate? like, they divide and become two cells.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction

i got it from here. if you think about it, evolution just doesnt add up! it takes more faith to believe in random chance than it does to believe in a Creator. it just seems so simple, maybe you are just thinking too hard.

Try to respond to my other points too.

Quote
i got it from here. if you think about it, evolution just doesnt add up! it takes more faith to believe in random chance than it does to believe in a Creator. it just seems so simple, maybe you are just thinking too hard.

Cell division is the process by which a parent cell divides into two or more daughter cells. And then again the daughter cells are fully capable of reproducing theyr next generation, such goes on until we get larger organisms. Maybe you should think a little more about something before making up your mind?

Quote
it takes more faith to believe in random chance than it does to believe in a Creator

If you ever read my post you would`ve find the Answer! But as i have said, creationists are ignorant...Maybe you origin from the planet of the apes?

Quote
it just seems so simple

Yes, it seems simple, but it isn`t.

Quote
maybe you are just thinking too hard.

Yes, im thinking, and i might think more advanced than you.

Quote
i got it from here

Finally a creationist are able to use his brain a lile and find a source.

Quote
if you think about it

Let me continue that: ,Noone of the creationism arguments seems pretty reliable, nor do they have references, nor do they have tests, nor do they use science, nor do they observe, nor do they check every little detail about htier own theory, nor are they going to give up their faith because someonje shows them facts.

Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Zoythrus on 2 May 2010, 19:13:47
well, you dont have to believe in God, Heaven, or Creationism, and i wont hate you if you stay an atheist. i just know that we'll all find out who's wrong and who's right when the world ends (and it will eventually).

Neither evolution nor Creationism can be fully proved, for none of us were actually there when it happened.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 2 May 2010, 19:18:22
Exactly, it is very unlikely that we shall find the answer to this mystery in our life times, I'll drop out of the discussion until the topic changes. :P :P :P
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 2 May 2010, 19:22:50
Quote
i just know

How do you know?

Quote
and it will eventually

Yeah, waiting for someone to pull the red button.

Quote
Neither evolution nor Creationism can be fully proved, for none of us were actually there when it happened.

Actually, that statement is only correct for creationism, if you`ve read the thread before you would`ve seen my other post, stating just that.
Quote
Exactly, it is very unlikely that we shall find the answer to this mystery in our life times

If "THE MYSTERY" is creationism or evolution, it isn`t a mysthery, evolution is prooves, every argument the creationisms have found we have reppeled quite easyilly. every question theyve got has not been answered.

If "The mystery" is the end of the world, don`t even think about it, its going to happen, but being a 2012 fantast doesn`t help really...

Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 2 May 2010, 19:25:50
I don't believe in a 2012 catastrophe but the world will eventually end no matter what
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 2 May 2010, 19:27:07
Quote
I don't believe in a 2012 catastrophe but the world will eventually end no matter what

How do you know?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Zoythrus on 2 May 2010, 19:27:17
Gabbe, you are wrong, we have disproved your statements just as well as you have disproved ours. we are on equal terms, and nothing will end this stalemate (yes, this is a stalemate). no matter how much "evidence" that you bring up, we will find someway to make you think about your decision.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 2 May 2010, 19:29:32
Quote
Gabbe, you are wrong, we have disproved your statements just as well as you have disproved ours. we are on equal terms, and nothing will end this stalemate (yes, this is a stalemate). no matter how much "evidence" that you bring up, we will find someway to make you think about your decision.

THEN READ MY WHOLE POST AND THEN SPEAK INSTEAD OF JUST BE IGNORANT

Quote
i heard that creatures had to evolve the ability to reproduce

You probably hear that on a creationist forum/new/site/video?
Sorry, but that is not a reliable source. ever heard that cells duplicate? like, they divide and become two cells.

Quote
when has a random mutation ever been helpful

Some bacteria evolved defences against antibiotics/antibiotica, you don`t have to view it as helpfull for the human race, it was helpfull for the bacteria.

Quote
There! evolution debunked...

Sorry, but that was not the case.
Quote
last time i checked, sickle cell anemia was a bad thing

last time you checked...Do you ever check out things that doesn`t support your belief? NO.
Quote
you cant say that it took millions of generations to "invent" sex

We don`t.

Quote
Evolution randomly spits out mutations and the bad ones die out

You cross-over!  :confused: "nothing is random, but evolution is  as close as it gets"?
I say, "Nothing is random, so is evolution" There are several causes for mutation, the environment, the other beings, maybe even  damage taken from another specie? When mothers give birth after they had a drink, the baby has some chance of getting mutated. There are so many factors that i cannot list them all here.
70 percent of all mutations are bad, but still there are 30% who doesn`t and then im not including the mutations we don`t notice wich doesn`t cause any damage at all!
Now you might argue that then since 70% are bad species will have gotten extinct a long time ago, but, the mutations only occur at one of the individuals, then if it is bad, that creature will die and not reproduce, if it is good, it will have a advantage over the other members of the specie, and evolve. There are of course individuals without mutations, and they are the majority, so if a good mutation shows up, it will reproduce more quickly, with taking less damage than the other members.
A harmful mutation decreases the individuals rate of survival in the environment.
If the mutation is beneficial however, it will increase the fitness of the individual and/or promote traits that are desireable.

Here is from wikipedia:

Mutations are changes in the DNA sequence of a cell's genome  and are caused by radiation, viruses, transposons  and mutagenic chemicals, as well as errors that occur during meiosis or DNA replication

Beneficial mutations

Although most mutations that change protein sequences are neutral or harmful, some mutations have a positive effect on an organism. In this case, the mutation may enable the mutant organism to withstand particular environmental stresses better than wild-type organisms, or reproduce more quickly. In these cases a mutation will tend to become more common in a population through natural selection.

For example, a specific 32 base pair deletion in human CCR5 (CCR5-Δ32) confers HIV resistance to homozygotes and delays AIDS onset in heterozygotes. The CCR5 mutation is more common in those of European descent. One possible explanation of the etiology of the relatively high frequency of CCR5-Δ32 in the European population is that it conferred resistance to the bubonic plague in mid-14th century Europe. People with this mutation were more likely to survive infection; thus its frequency in the population increased. This theory could explain why this mutation is not found in southern Africa, where the bubonic plague never reached. A newer theory suggests that the selective pressure on the CCR5 Delta 32 mutation was caused by smallpox instead of the bubonic plague.

Another example, is Sickle cell disease which is a blood disorder in which the body produces an abnormal type of the oxygen-carrying substance hemoglobin in the red blood cells. One-third of all indigenous inhabitants of Sub-Saharan Africa carry the gene, because in areas where malaria is common, there is a survival value in carrying only a single sickle-cell gene (sickle cell trait). Those with only one of the two alleles of the sickle-cell disease are more resistant to malaria, since the infestation of the malaria plasmodium is halted by the sickling of the cells which it infests.

Quote
Since devolution's going on now, why can't it always have been going on

Why can`t Evolution and "Devolution" have been going on at the same time? It can have been always going on, but evolution has too.
Don`t tell me you seriously belive that "man used to be higher than a house and now theyr growing smaller and weaker and dumber"?

Quote
Yah, you have to have random chance create reproduction with a female and a male at around the same time, and the male has to be attracted to the female and every little detail has to be perfect or else reproduction couldn't happen.

A simple answer would be: NO
A scientific answer would be long and boring:

The details of the female doesn`t have to be perfect, but occasionally you will meet someone with almost the exact deatails you need, then you will fell in the phenomenon "Love", your statement is not objective, without any evidence to support it. This is what evolution call: Species.
Quote
The guy is going to have to evolve his genitals and the female must evolve hers, and they have to be compatible. Besides how's the guy going to evolve his genitals, a little sensitive lump evolving to genitals?

I understood very little of that, but i`ll try.
The genitials doesn`t have to be compatible,there is no such thing as exact compatible if thats what your pointing to. that is something called what? a specie?

Quote
Anyway, you still have to get the female and the male before any of that........... No Opinion

Simply, no, you must have the chromozomes to reproduce sexually, asexually however you will only need one individual, a cell for example.

Nice that there is more creationists, hmm... there should be a poll: Creationism or Evoltuion...




Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Zoythrus on 2 May 2010, 19:34:58
i have read your post, and i am sorry that it has come to yelling (caps lock doesnt make you smarter [Nor larger size! - @kukac@]). the whole reason that i dislike evolution is because i find fault in the concept of life being entirely by chance. if life is by chance, what is there to live for? maybe life is all about money, women, and power; but where will that get us? we arent taking any of that stuff with us, so why strive to live for it?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 2 May 2010, 19:36:36
i have read your post, and i am sorry that it has come to yelling (caps lock doesnt make you smarter). the whole reason that i dislike evolution is because i find fault in the concept of life being entirely by chance. if life is by chance, what is there to live for? maybe life is all about money, women, and power; but where will that get us? we arent taking any of that stuff with us, so why strive to live for it?

Seriously...

READ

It is answered in the post already
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 2 May 2010, 19:38:03
Quote
How do you know?
The sun will die because everything dies eventually, and stars dying have been observed by scientists and our sun is a star meaning it will eventually die as well

Quote
i have read your post, and i am sorry that it has come to yelling (caps lock doesnt make you smarter). the whole reason that i dislike evolution is because i find fault in the concept of life being entirely by chance. if life is by chance, what is there to live for? maybe life is all about money, women, and power; but where will that get us? we arent taking any of that stuff with us, so why strive to live for it?

Life is about living it to its fullest, and people try to achieve things to prove that they are great and so that they can be remembered in the future
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Zoythrus on 2 May 2010, 19:38:32
i did, and you say nothing about morals or life. maybe you should read your post
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 2 May 2010, 20:18:11
Quote
he whole reason that i dislike evolution is because i find fault in the concept of life being entirely by chance

You must read yours.

Quote
The sun will die because everything dies eventually, and stars dying have been observed by scientists and our sun is a star meaning it will eventually die as well

What if we escaped before the three billion years (yes that is estimated how long the suns going to last before half-way explode and suck the planets up) have passed and found a new system?

Quote
Life is about living it to its fullest, and people try to achieve things to prove that they are great and so that they can be remembered in the future

Or do so much badass things that you will be remembered :) nah just joking. Thats what i think too

Quote
if life is by chance

What in  the blood hell makes you think that?  :o :O

Quote
maybe life is all about money, women, and power; but where will that get us

I like all of these things, ima die anyway so why not enjoy it?
Quote
we arent taking any of that stuff with us, so why strive to live for it

I don`t belive in any afterlife, why not just enjoy your time still alive?
Actually, according to science, you will "reappear" if your atmos transfer to be in the exact same position as your atoms have now, and it must be EXACT!

So the real reason you belive in creationism is because of your lusts? and that you really thinks evolution is true, but you don`t want to? Trust me, it doesn`t make you suicidal or anything, im not suicidal so?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Zoythrus on 2 May 2010, 20:33:09
wouldnt it be better to have something or someone to live for than to walk the earth aimlessly?

If you want to disprove Creationism once and for all, i want you to read the whole Bible (the main source of my beliefs) and then make an educated decision.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 2 May 2010, 20:36:38
i have... it is said earlier in the topic
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Zoythrus on 2 May 2010, 20:38:45
all of it? from cover to cover?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 2 May 2010, 20:40:27
yup, i used to be a christian, then i read the bible and made my decision. Next question please?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Zoythrus on 2 May 2010, 20:41:02
what caused you to turn from faith?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 2 May 2010, 20:42:59
Logic. DNA. Science. Reason.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Zoythrus on 2 May 2010, 20:47:14
im sorry it was that way, but then once again - we'll all find out who's right when we are finally laid to rest...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 2 May 2010, 20:49:24
Quote
Quote
i heard that creatures had to evolve the ability to reproduce

You probably hear that on a creationist forum/new/site/video?
Sorry, but that is not a reliable source. ever heard that cells duplicate? like, they divide and become two cells.

We're talking about two creatures coming together to produce one creature, much more complicated.



Quote
Quote
Evolution randomly spits out mutations and the bad ones die out

You cross-over!  Huh? "nothing is random, but evolution is  as close as it gets"?
I say, "Nothing is random, so is evolution" There are several causes for mutation, the environment, the other beings, maybe even  damage taken from another specie? When mothers give birth after they had a drink, the baby has some chance of getting mutated. There are so many factors that i cannot list them all here.

Evolution is unpredictable, basically random, but nothing in the universe is truely random, "random" things just appear to be random. [You are the only one, who said it's random. If you wouldn't have noticed, evolution is "getting used to the environment" - @kukac@]
The thing is, that the chances for Evolution having success are so minimal that you might as well call it random.



Quote
Quote
Since devolution's going on now, why can't it always have been going on

Why can`t Evolution and "Devolution" have been going on at the same time? It can have been always going on, but evolution has too.
Don`t tell me you seriously belive that "man used to be higher than a house and now theyr growing smaller and weaker and dumber"?

*facepalm*
You obviously don't know the meaning of complexity, and you also don't seem to understand how complex the Human body is. [And would it work, if it would be less complex? - @kukac@]



Quote
Quote
Yah, you have to have random chance create reproduction with a female and a male at around the same time, and the male has to be attracted to the female and every little detail has to be perfect or else reproduction couldn't happen.

A simple answer would be: NO
A scientific answer would be long and boring:

The details of the female doesn`t have to be perfect, but occasionally you will meet someone with almost the exact deatails you need, then you will fell in the phenomenon "Love", your statement is not objective, without any evidence to support it. This is what evolution call: Species.

Not perfect, but each individuals genitals have to be the right size so they fit.
Why don't you read up on sex, it's not just this goes in this and boom stuff comes out and then a baby appears if a little creature found an egg thingy.



Quote
Quote
The guy is going to have to evolve his genitals and the female must evolve hers, and they have to be compatible. Besides how's the guy going to evolve his genitals, a little sensitive lump evolving to genitals?

I understood very little of that, but i`ll try.
The genitials doesn`t have to be compatible,there is no such thing as exact compatible if thats what your pointing to. that is something called what? a specie?

Of course they have to be compatible, you can't have two "openings", you have to have something to go into that opening.



Quote
Quote
Anyway, you still have to get the female and the male before any of that........... No Opinion

Simply, no, you must have the chromozomes to reproduce sexually, asexually however you will only need one individual, a cell for example.

Gabbe, a male and a female are required to have sex, that's undisputable.



Quote
Quote
i got it from here. if you think about it, evolution just doesnt add up! it takes more faith to believe in random chance than it does to believe in a Creator. it just seems so simple, maybe you are just thinking too hard.

Cell division is the process by which a parent cell divides into two or more daughter cells. And then again the daughter cells are fully capable of reproducing theyr next generation, such goes on until we get larger organisms. Maybe you should think a little more about something before making up your mind?

Dude, you have to have mutations to change the genes, and those mutations are pretty much random, hoping that random chance is going to get you from a cell to a Human is completely foolish.



Quote
Quote
if you think about it

Let me continue that: ,Noone of the creationism arguments seems pretty reliable, nor do they have references, nor do they have tests, nor do they use science, nor do they observe, nor do they check every little detail about htier own theory, nor are they going to give up their faith because someonje shows them facts.

You are the ones that do not observe, you are the ones that do not refer to science and logic. :|



Quote
Neither evolution nor Creationism can be fully proved, for none of us were actually there when it happened.

Creationism is fully provable, the fossil record, science, logic, everything is under Creationisms house, whereas evolutionism's sitting on thin rotten pegs, which supprising haven't fallen.



Quote
Gabbe, you are wrong, we have disproved your statements just as well as you have disproved ours. we are on equal terms, and nothing will end this stalemate (yes, this is a stalemate). no matter how much "evidence" that you bring up, we will find someway to make you think about your decision.

No Creationism is winning incredibly here, Gabbe, apparently doesn't realize that.



Quote
i have read your post, and i am sorry that it has come to yelling (caps lock doesnt make you smarter). the whole reason that i dislike evolution is because i find fault in the concept of life being entirely by chance. if life is by chance, what is there to live for? maybe life is all about money, women, and power; but where will that get us? we arent taking any of that stuff with us, so why strive to live for it?

I agree, although morality issues is not the only reason I'm against Evolution, in fact the morality issues simply provide a drive for me to debate this.



Quote
Quote
i have read your post, and i am sorry that it has come to yelling (caps lock doesnt make you smarter). the whole reason that i dislike evolution is because i find fault in the concept of life being entirely by chance. if life is by chance, what is there to live for? maybe life is all about money, women, and power; but where will that get us? we arent taking any of that stuff with us, so why strive to live for it?

Life is about living it to its fullest, and people try to achieve things to prove that they are great and so that they can be remembered in the future

What's the point of living life to it's fullest? It doesn't matter in a meaningless and pointless world.



Quote
Quote
he whole reason that i dislike evolution is because i find fault in the concept of life being entirely by chance

You must read yours.

What's so strange and impossible about our theory, we believe in a creator, just a being of some sort that created us, no random crap like evolution.



Quote
Quote
The sun will die because everything dies eventually, and stars dying have been observed by scientists and our sun is a star meaning it will eventually die as well

What if we escaped before the three billion years (yes that is estimated how long the suns going to last before half-way explode and suck the planets up) have passed and found a new system?

Gabbe, that's 5.54billion last I checked, and it's probably going to be a long time before we get into space more.



Quote
Quote
Life is about living it to its fullest, and people try to achieve things to prove that they are great and so that they can be remembered in the future

Or do so much badass things that you will be remembered Smile nah just joking. Thats what i think too

Again, what's the point? ::)



Quote
Quote
if life is by chance

What in  the blood hell makes you think that?  Shocked Laughing

If evolution were true then life would've been a product of chance.



Quote
Quote
maybe life is all about money, women, and power; but where will that get us

I like all of these things, ima die anyway so why not enjoy it?

Yah, but why don't you go and fuck every hot girl you see, why don't you torture people for fun, it really doesn't matter in a pointless world.



Quote
Quote
we arent taking any of that stuff with us, so why strive to live for it

I don`t belive in any afterlife, why not just enjoy your time still alive?
Actually, according to science, you will "reappear" if your atmos transfer to be in the exact same position as your atoms have now, and it must be EXACT!

So the real reason you belive in creationism is because of your lusts? and that you really thinks evolution is true, but you don`t want to? Trust me, it doesn`t make you suicidal or anything, im not suicidal so?

HA!
Darwin didn't want to believe in God, so he came up with Evolution. Now you're accusing the people that don't believe in your theory of random chance, because you think they don't want to believe in Evolution? I don't want to believe in Evolution, but whether I want to or not, it's an impossible and unworkable theory! Whereas, Creation is a perfectly logical, and reasonable.



Quote
Logic. DNA. Science. Reason.

Funny how logic, science, and reason, are totally against evolution..........



Quote
im sorry it was that way, but then once again - we'll all find out who's right when we are finally laid to rest...

Why wait?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 2 May 2010, 20:51:59
Quote
Gabbe, that's 5.54billion last I checked, and it's probably going to be a long time before we get into space more.

We may die out or survive but it probably won't affect us in 5 billion years
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: 1purplecow on 2 May 2010, 21:12:40
As far as I know, the Bible is its own defense.  Christianity has evolved in some cases, not all, but more importantly it has not gone extinct.  Even WHEN believers mess up, AS WE'RE JUST A BUNCH OF HUMANS, FLIPPEDY GUINEA PIG, this belief hasn't died out.  It has gone contradicted, but on the humans' part.  While humans can be unreliable, we are also good messengers.  I'm a Creationist; a follower of God.  In a world of veils, I can only do my part and hope not to get caught going in circles, though it will happen. :D  The only thing I can truly "prove" (and to myself alone) . . . "Cogito ergo sum."  But God to me is worth it.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 2 May 2010, 21:28:01
Nice arch, seems your fellow creationist doesn`t have the courage to answer any questions.

Quote
We're talking about two creatures coming together to produce one creature, much more complicated.

Ah, yep, and those two creatures constist of what? cells? and what do cells do?

But those two creatures had to evolve from soemthing and
Quote
i heard that creatures had to evolve

Quote
Evolution is unpredictable, basically random, but nothing in the universe is truely random, "random" things just appear to be random.
The thing is, that the chances for Evolution having success are so minimal that you might as well call it random.

That one is already answered

READ

Quote
You cross-over!  Huh? "nothing is random, but evolution is  as close as it gets"?
I say, "Nothing is random, so is evolution" There are several causes for mutation, the environment, the other beings, maybe even  damage taken from another specie? When mothers give birth after they had a drink, the baby has some chance of getting mutated. There are so many factors that i cannot list them all here.
70 percent of all mutations are bad, but still there are 30% who doesn`t and then im not including the mutations we don`t notice wich doesn`t cause any damage at all!
Now you might argue that then since 70% are bad species will have gotten extinct a long time ago, but, the mutations only occur at one of the individuals, then if it is bad, that creature will die and not reproduce, if it is good, it will have a advantage over the other members of the specie, and evolve. There are of course individuals without mutations, and they are the majority, so if a good mutation shows up, it will reproduce more quickly, with taking less damage than the other members.
A harmful mutation decreases the individuals rate of survival in the environment.
If the mutation is beneficial however, it will increase the fitness of the individual and/or promote traits that are desireable.

Here is from wikipedia:

Mutations are changes in the DNA sequence of a cell's genome  and are caused by radiation, viruses, transposons  and mutagenic chemicals, as well as errors that occur during meiosis or DNA replication

Beneficial mutations

Although most mutations that change protein sequences are neutral or harmful, some mutations have a positive effect on an organism. In this case, the mutation may enable the mutant organism to withstand particular environmental stresses better than wild-type organisms, or reproduce more quickly. In these cases a mutation will tend to become more common in a population through natural selection.

For example, a specific 32 base pair deletion in human CCR5 (CCR5-Δ32) confers HIV resistance to homozygotes and delays AIDS onset in heterozygotes. The CCR5 mutation is more common in those of European descent. One possible explanation of the etiology of the relatively high frequency of CCR5-Δ32 in the European population is that it conferred resistance to the bubonic plague in mid-14th century Europe. People with this mutation were more likely to survive infection; thus its frequency in the population increased. This theory could explain why this mutation is not found in southern Africa, where the bubonic plague never reached. A newer theory suggests that the selective pressure on the CCR5 Delta 32 mutation was caused by smallpox instead of the bubonic plague.

Another example, is Sickle cell disease which is a blood disorder in which the body produces an abnormal type of the oxygen-carrying substance hemoglobin in the red blood cells. One-third of all indigenous inhabitants of Sub-Saharan Africa carry the gene, because in areas where malaria is common, there is a survival value in carrying only a single sickle-cell gene (sickle cell trait). Those with only one of the two alleles of the sickle-cell disease are more resistant to malaria, since the infestation of the malaria plasmodium is halted by the sickling of the cells which it infests.

Quote
*facepalm*
You obviously don't know the meaning of complexity, and you also don't seem to understand how complex the Human body is.

Here:

Quote
Not perfect, but each individuals genitals have to be the right size so they fit.
Why don't you read up on sex, it's not just this goes in this and boom stuff comes out and then a baby appears if a little creature found an egg thingy.

I know how sex works thank you. The objective statement (the first one) has to complex english for me to understand and translate properly to norwegian so i can understand the meaning.

Quote
Of course they have to be compatible, you can't have two "openings", you have to have something to go into that opening.

If you ment that compatible, then yes.

Quote
Gabbe, a male and a female are required to have sex, that's undisputable.

For you without the understanding, maybe, the cells that were the first organisms reproduced, without being male and female, we have various examples today too, and those examples can be observed, sorry, but the bible isn`t a scientific correct book.

Quote
Dude, you have to have mutations to change the genes, and those mutations are pretty much random, hoping that random chance is going to get you from a cell to a Human is completely foolish.

I could`ve been a bot, so many times i have to post the exact same thing, now please

READ

Quote
You cross-over!  Huh? "nothing is random, but evolution is  as close as it gets"?
I say, "Nothing is random, so is evolution" There are several causes for mutation, the environment, the other beings, maybe even  damage taken from another specie? When mothers give birth after they had a drink, the baby has some chance of getting mutated. There are so many factors that i cannot list them all here.
70 percent of all mutations are bad, but still there are 30% who doesn`t and then im not including the mutations we don`t notice wich doesn`t cause any damage at all!
Now you might argue that then since 70% are bad species will have gotten extinct a long time ago, but, the mutations only occur at one of the individuals, then if it is bad, that creature will die and not reproduce, if it is good, it will have a advantage over the other members of the specie, and evolve. There are of course individuals without mutations, and they are the majority, so if a good mutation shows up, it will reproduce more quickly, with taking less damage than the other members.
A harmful mutation decreases the individuals rate of survival in the environment.
If the mutation is beneficial however, it will increase the fitness of the individual and/or promote traits that are desireable.

Here is from wikipedia:

Mutations are changes in the DNA sequence of a cell's genome  and are caused by radiation, viruses, transposons  and mutagenic chemicals, as well as errors that occur during meiosis or DNA replication

Beneficial mutations

Although most mutations that change protein sequences are neutral or harmful, some mutations have a positive effect on an organism. In this case, the mutation may enable the mutant organism to withstand particular environmental stresses better than wild-type organisms, or reproduce more quickly. In these cases a mutation will tend to become more common in a population through natural selection.

For example, a specific 32 base pair deletion in human CCR5 (CCR5-Δ32) confers HIV resistance to homozygotes and delays AIDS onset in heterozygotes. The CCR5 mutation is more common in those of European descent. One possible explanation of the etiology of the relatively high frequency of CCR5-Δ32 in the European population is that it conferred resistance to the bubonic plague in mid-14th century Europe. People with this mutation were more likely to survive infection; thus its frequency in the population increased. This theory could explain why this mutation is not found in southern Africa, where the bubonic plague never reached. A newer theory suggests that the selective pressure on the CCR5 Delta 32 mutation was caused by smallpox instead of the bubonic plague.

Another example, is Sickle cell disease which is a blood disorder in which the body produces an abnormal type of the oxygen-carrying substance hemoglobin in the red blood cells. One-third of all indigenous inhabitants of Sub-Saharan Africa carry the gene, because in areas where malaria is common, there is a survival value in carrying only a single sickle-cell gene (sickle cell trait). Those with only one of the two alleles of the sickle-cell disease are more resistant to malaria, since the infestation of the malaria plasmodium is halted by the sickling of the cells which it infests.

Quote
You are the ones that do not observe, you are the ones that do not refer to science and logic. No Opinion

Observe a god create life?
It`s illogical to refer to something which has never been seen.

Quote
Creationism is fully provable, the fossil record, science, logic, everything is under Creationisms house, whereas evolutionism's sitting on thin rotten pegs, which supprising haven't fallen.

Stop being ridicolous!

Creationism  Evolution
God              The Fossil Record
Bible             Science (evolution supported by 94% of the scientific community)
Faith            Logic

Quote
No Creationism is winning incredibly here, Gabbe, apparently doesn't realize that.

No...Other way around...Your stupidity within the subject do no longer amuse me...
Point me to one question answered within science.

Quote
I agree, although morality issues is not the only reason I'm against Evolution, in fact the morality issues simply provide a drive for me to debate this.

If that is a "drive" for you, i fail to see were truth drives you. Blind faith is the only kind.

 
Quote
What's the point of living life to it's fullest? It doesn't matter in a meaningless and pointless world.

Agreed, but to our brain, it isn`t meaningless...

Quote
What's so strange and impossible about our theory, we believe in a creator, just a being of some sort that created us, no random crap like evolution.

Gods strange and impossible

And now im really pissed to have to quote this the 5th time or sumething...

READ

Quote
You cross-over!  Huh? "nothing is random, but evolution is  as close as it gets"?
I say, "Nothing is random, so is evolution" There are several causes for mutation, the environment, the other beings, maybe even  damage taken from another specie? When mothers give birth after they had a drink, the baby has some chance of getting mutated. There are so many factors that i cannot list them all here.
70 percent of all mutations are bad, but still there are 30% who doesn`t and then im not including the mutations we don`t notice wich doesn`t cause any damage at all!
Now you might argue that then since 70% are bad species will have gotten extinct a long time ago, but, the mutations only occur at one of the individuals, then if it is bad, that creature will die and not reproduce, if it is good, it will have a advantage over the other members of the specie, and evolve. There are of course individuals without mutations, and they are the majority, so if a good mutation shows up, it will reproduce more quickly, with taking less damage than the other members.
A harmful mutation decreases the individuals rate of survival in the environment.
If the mutation is beneficial however, it will increase the fitness of the individual and/or promote traits that are desireable.

Here is from wikipedia:

Mutations are changes in the DNA sequence of a cell's genome  and are caused by radiation, viruses, transposons  and mutagenic chemicals, as well as errors that occur during meiosis or DNA replication

Beneficial mutations

Although most mutations that change protein sequences are neutral or harmful, some mutations have a positive effect on an organism. In this case, the mutation may enable the mutant organism to withstand particular environmental stresses better than wild-type organisms, or reproduce more quickly. In these cases a mutation will tend to become more common in a population through natural selection.

For example, a specific 32 base pair deletion in human CCR5 (CCR5-Δ32) confers HIV resistance to homozygotes and delays AIDS onset in heterozygotes. The CCR5 mutation is more common in those of European descent. One possible explanation of the etiology of the relatively high frequency of CCR5-Δ32 in the European population is that it conferred resistance to the bubonic plague in mid-14th century Europe. People with this mutation were more likely to survive infection; thus its frequency in the population increased. This theory could explain why this mutation is not found in southern Africa, where the bubonic plague never reached. A newer theory suggests that the selective pressure on the CCR5 Delta 32 mutation was caused by smallpox instead of the bubonic plague.

Another example, is Sickle cell disease which is a blood disorder in which the body produces an abnormal type of the oxygen-carrying substance hemoglobin in the red blood cells. One-third of all indigenous inhabitants of Sub-Saharan Africa carry the gene, because in areas where malaria is common, there is a survival value in carrying only a single sickle-cell gene (sickle cell trait). Those with only one of the two alleles of the sickle-cell disease are more resistant to malaria, since the infestation of the malaria plasmodium is halted by the sickling of the cells which it infests.

Quote
Funny how logic, science, and reason, are totally against evolution..........

No? Alot of creationists are ignorant, your just another of the 5% supporting creation in our society.

Quote
Why wait?

Illogical ALERT! CREATIONIST IS BEING STUPID! AGAIN!

Here is your logical origin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah5xFMYbP4s
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Zoythrus on 2 May 2010, 21:48:59
you keep citing a piece of info that shows the adaptability of organisms. Adaptability and Evolution are two similar, but completely different, things.

if you want to stop mentioning it, then stop mentioning it!

No matter how much you dispute it, Gabbe, we Creationists will keep fighting until we get the Word out. We will not be crushed under the treads of this so-called "Science."
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 2 May 2010, 22:00:44
I find both of these theories hard to believe, though I'm inclined to the evolutionist side, I find it hard to believe that a human evolved from a fish ::) ::), but I also find it hard to believe in one super being ::) ::)
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Zoythrus on 2 May 2010, 22:04:30
humans evolving from fish is impossible to begin with; a 5-year-old could tell you that.

and wouldnt you like to know that you are being looked out for by a "Super Being" than believing that you are entirely by chance?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 2 May 2010, 22:11:52
*facepalm*

Gabbe, you are outrageous........................



Ok Gabbe, since your so convinced that the fossil record is on your side, would you mind telling us how the Cambrian Explosion fits into your belief?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 2 May 2010, 22:22:34
I do not think that their is a superbeing because no scientific evidence has proved it so far, once you find a good argument, I'll accept that I'm beat, but nothing so far, on either side has supported such a decision. :P :P :P
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 2 May 2010, 22:24:25
Watch "The Case for a Creator", if you want to see good solid proof that there is a creator. :)
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 2 May 2010, 22:37:05
gah, i`ll have to wait for modman, im tired of saying the same things again and again because someone can`t read.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 2 May 2010, 22:52:49
DNA is on your side huh?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdixq0BwTeo



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGAAEFos1hI
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: John.d.h on 2 May 2010, 23:26:05
Will everybody chill for a bit, please?  As my mom always used to say, "fight nice, children!"  This thread has been on a steady slope from intellectual debate to petty bickering and I'm getting tired of it.  If anybody here actually wants to discuss the validity of creationism and evolution, then YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG.  Stop acting like children and have a debate, not a schoolyard brawl.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 2 May 2010, 23:41:49
I know :O :O, thats why I'm trying not to get to involved :P
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: @kukac@ on 3 May 2010, 14:50:41
Oh my, I had to moderate most of the 15th page...

"In an argument, you have opponents and not enemies. You have to defeat them, not to annihilate them!"

Old Hungarian Wisdom :)

[I might be sick, I had to correct my own grammatical error too :( - @kukac@]
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Omega on 3 May 2010, 16:15:03
Very well said John and Kukac! I've been stressing that for a little while.

I fell behind in reading this, so I'm turning to reproduction. How would an animal/human/etc know how to reproduce? If they didn't, the species would die off very fast, yet it seems odd to be born with such knowledge. Unless they were told by someone... Like the big guy?

[You are looking for the instinct? - @kukac@]
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: @kukac@ on 3 May 2010, 18:58:10
Wait a little Omega, I just thought up a way, how to explain the evolution to Arch.

Khmm. So. Let's take a dog. Just a little puppy. I will shoot it's leg, but won't kill it. I give him little food in each bowl, far away from each other, so it has to walk a long way to get enough food. Once his leg heals, I will shoot the other one. And the same goes over and over again. Then the DNA get's an answer: if his leg is more "armoured", and heals faster, it can get food easier! So the DNA rewrites itself: thicker skin, and faster regeneration rate.

I just found a nice female dog for mine. The two dogs create a new one (it was a bit stupid explanation, but hey :D ), who will have the combination of the two predecessor. Let's say, it will have thicker skin.

This is evolution.

Second round.

Let's take 2 human families. One of them will go to gym every day, and build every members to fistfight. The other one will go to universities, and will be insanely magnificent. And it will go over generations. One of them will have "muscular body" written in their DNA, while the other will have "extra large brain".

They are closed families, so they won't meet with any other human type (impossible, I know). Let's start with 10 members for each family. 500 years later, like the different types of dogs, okay?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 3 May 2010, 19:08:17
Good example Kukac though somewhat violent :O :O :O
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 3 May 2010, 21:07:33
Quote
Khmm. So. Let's take a dog. Just a little puppy. I will shoot it's leg, but won't kill it. I give him little food in each bowl, far away from each other, so it has to walk a long way to get enough food. Once his leg heals, I will shoot the other one. And the same goes over and over again. Then the DNA get's an answer: if his leg is more "armoured", and heals faster, it can get food easier! So the DNA rewrites itself: thicker skin, and faster regeneration rate.

That explanation implies intelligence, Evolution is not intelligent, it is pretty much random, and as Gabbe quoted is supposedly caused by radiation, viruses, etc.......
So are you implying ID or something?



Quote
et's take 2 human families. One of them will go to gym every day, and build every members to fistfight. The other one will go to universities, and will be insanely magnificent. And it will go over generations. One of them will have "muscular body" written in their DNA, while the other will have "extra large brain".

Sorry but you know, that just simply is not true.
When I lift weights, my DNA is not being written to have stronger muscles.
Why? Because if I don't lift weights, then I'll revert to my natural physical strength in a week or so.

BTW, it's been proven that the size of a brain does not determine the intelligence of a person.

My Dad's going die laughing at your post, no offense, but it's completely ridiculous.



Also, according to the theory of evolution itself(which of course leaves out the part about how unpredictable the mutations are, and how random), radiation, viruses, etc..., cause mutations, without intelligence, which are basically unpredictable, and could be considered random. So the Evolutionists are saying that the body pretty much experiences random mutations, and then if those mutations cause the body to die, then boom natural selection, the body is dead and the mutation isn't carried on. Now consider that you are talking about pretty much random mutations, with absolutely no intelligence behind them randomly changing parts of extremely complex things. EVOLUTION IS A COMPLETE AND UTTER FAIL!



You still have yet to tell me how a bird evolved wings, your picture is useless, because according to Evolution, it would be very small changes with each generation of birds, not three(somehow intelligent) random mutations. Oh BTW, did I mention you have to have some working wings?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: modman on 3 May 2010, 21:58:03
the whole reason that i dislike evolution is because i find fault in the concept of life being entirely by chance. if life is by chance, what is there to live for? maybe life is all about money, women, and power; but where will that get us? we arent taking any of that stuff with us, so why strive to live for it?

Hopefully you can understand why this is not a logical reason to disbelieve evolution.  There are many facts that we do not like.  Take murder for example: in the year 2000, 52000 people died by intentional homicide.  Does this fact cease to exist because I don't like it?  Of course not.  Why should evolution be any different?  Just because you don't like what you may think evolution causes, it doesn't mean evolution is false.  And even if evolution caused one out of five people to wake up on a night with a full moon and commit suicide, this would not make evolution false, nor any other theory.  A theory stands completely on its ability to explain and thus predict events in reality.  Here's one prediction of evolution: no one will ever ever ever discover a Precambrian chicken.  It's as simple as that.  Creationists, you expect chickens to be about the earth in just about the same numbers as there ever were.

And who deleted my topic?  Whoever did that, please step forward, because I don't see a good reason why you should have done so.  As I said before, this topic is way to crammed with stuff to sift through it.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 3 May 2010, 23:34:11
Kukac deleted your topic, he openly said that.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: modman on 4 May 2010, 02:45:06
How would an animal/human/etc know how to reproduce?

I'm not really sure how to answer this, but God certainly didn't prevent any of the many tribes (which Israel annihilated or attacked in the OT) from reproducing.  It may have to do with observation, and maybe just with an inclination of two mating partners to come into contact with each other.  After that, they probably don't know what they're doing, and hormones take care of the rest.

Kukac deleted your topic, he openly said that.

Hmm...where?

That explanation implies intelligence, Evolution is not intelligent, it is pretty much random, and as Gabbe quoted is supposedly caused by radiation, viruses, etc.

Now consider that you are talking about pretty much random mutations, with absolutely no intelligence behind them randomly changing parts of extremely complex things. EVOLUTION IS A COMPLETE AND UTTER FAIL!

Um, no.  But please refrain from typing in all caps, because I believe it was you that correctly pointed out it does not further your point or make you look smarter.  In fact, I generally skip over things in all caps (like legal notices in installers and long rants).

You still have yet to tell me how a bird evolved wings, your picture is useless, because according to Evolution, it would be very small changes with each generation of birds, not three(somehow intelligent) random mutations. Oh BTW, did I mention you have to have some working wings?

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/evolve.html (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/evolve.html)

Notice how I will explain this.  I will not simply link to the website, nor will I simply C&P from it.  I will explain what I figured out from it.

People's misunderstanding of flight stems from the assumption that animals without flight always behaved as if they did.  Obviously this is false, because flightless birds like peacocks do not even go in trees at all.  They do not need to fly.

The wing probably came from structures like flying squirrels have: flaps of skin which allow them to glide.  Also, when animals leap in the air from the ground, these flaps can help them stay in the air for a longer time, increasing their time for whatever activity jumping was necessary.

Now observe similarities between bats (http://www.zevs.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/bat-1.jpg) and flying squirrels (http://aparadigmshift.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/nfsquir.jpg).  Flying squirrels can only glide, but bats flap.

Also, keep in mind that birds can start flying from the ground up, so their inability to fly once would probably not be deadly.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Zoythrus on 4 May 2010, 02:52:39
what about those animals that were in the process of changing from one to another? if you had a lizard that was turning into a bird, it would have to first get wings which would start out as wing-buds. How would half-wings help a lizard? also, it would lose its front legs, which would make it hard to run (thus making it easier for predators to get to it). explain that...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: modman on 4 May 2010, 03:27:52
Obviously a lizard would have to be able to run fast before being able to fly, and there are plenty who can run on two legs.  Half wings would be helpful because they would help the lizard glide.

Zoythrus, you're on the right track.  Now let me give you a boost: do all mutations have to be either beneficial or harmful?  Of course not.  Think eye color.  Now if the mutation giving our reptile wing buds neither helped nor hindered the reptile, it would continue to progress.

And it would not turn into a bird right away.  Birds have feathers.  But some dinosaurs could fly (and lacked feathers)...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 4 May 2010, 13:22:46
Genetic mutation is not always good immediately but can be good later, for example this one moth breed in England was white with spots for camouflage, but some were black colored, the black one always got eaten because they couldn't hide. Then came the factories and the smog smoke darkened tree bark, walls etc... Now the black moths had an advantage because they could hide while the original, normal white moths got killed
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 4 May 2010, 13:26:54
I think modmans adivce about having onje subject to debate about would be propriate, it will take forever to debate everry single thing.

It seems arch, like you want to disguiss the "random chance" within evolution, i will be happy counter-argue that, as i know it for a fact not to be true.

If you want to disguiss the mat5h about evolution, and the math of evolution maybe 1:99999999999999999999999 to you, the chance for a god like being which has never shown up will be 1: infinity (now im not including the bibles "evidence")
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 4 May 2010, 14:25:07
Modman, you simply cannot ignore that there is not intelligence behind Evolution.

Take the Glest source code(which of course is no where near the complexity of a Human), and randomly alter it, any that crash are to be discarded, so you're going to have to assume that a whole structure will randomly form that will enable the game to run as well as add a new feature. Now considering the chances of that, it's pretty much impossible! Now what do you tihnk the chances are of *** up a feature, maybe just changing 1 letter in the core of the game, and destroying it.

Maybe you think well, a source code has structure and links and stuff, well guess what, the Human body has all that and more! It's not 1 or 2 genes that make up an eye, it's hundreds! Eyes are extremely complex, and you think that not only could that eye somehow be randomly built, you think that somehow you would get a random way for the brain to interpret what the eye sees. The Human body was so obviously designed!

And you think our theory is silly.........



Quote
After that, they probably don't know what they're doing, and hormones take care of the rest.

Guess who put those hormones there......... ::)



Quote
Quote from: -Archmage- on May 03, 2010, 18:12:21
That explanation implies intelligence, Evolution is not intelligent, it is pretty much random, and as Gabbe quoted is supposedly caused by radiation, viruses, etc.

Quote from: -Archmage- on May 03, 2010, 18:12:21
Now consider that you are talking about pretty much random mutations, with absolutely no intelligence behind them randomly changing parts of extremely complex things. EVOLUTION IS A COMPLETE AND UTTER FAIL!

Um, no.  But please refrain from typing in all caps, because I believe it was you that correctly pointed out it does not further your point or make you look smarter.  In fact, I generally skip over things in all caps (like legal notices in installers and long rants).

There are no excuses for not replying to that! That post has crushed your theory, you can't excuse your way out of that!



Quote
Quote from: -Archmage- on May 03, 2010, 18:12:21
You still have yet to tell me how a bird evolved wings, your picture is useless, because according to Evolution, it would be very small changes with each generation of birds, not three(somehow intelligent) random mutations. Oh BTW, did I mention you have to have some working wings?

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/evolve.html

Notice how I will explain this.  I will not simply link to the website, nor will I simply C&P from it.  I will explain what I figured out from it.

People's misunderstanding of flight stems from the assumption that animals without flight always behaved as if they did.  Obviously this is false, because flightless birds like peacocks do not even go in trees at all.  They do not need to fly.

The wing probably came from structures like flying squirrels have: flaps of skin which allow them to glide.  Also, when animals leap in the air from the ground, these flaps can help them stay in the air for a longer time, increasing their time for whatever activity jumping was necessary.

Now observe similarities between bats and flying squirrels.  Flying squirrels can only glide, but bats flap.

Also, keep in mind that birds can start flying from the ground up, so their inability to fly once would probably not be deadly.

Of course you forgot to mention how they randomly developed..... ::)



Gabbe, Evolution is random, go ahead and try to tell me there is intelligence behind evolution!



The math behind evolution is quite on my side, sorry to disappoint you Gabbe.



There is no reliance upon chance behind our theory of a creator, everything in the universe is intelligently designed, and that's MAJOR proof for a creator!



FUN FACT: Didja know that only about 40% of Americans believe in Evolution?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 4 May 2010, 14:42:59
Cursings illegal Arch ;D, and I do believe that evolution has more logical support than creationism :P :P
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 4 May 2010, 14:50:55
In most of Europe, americans are considered dumb....

About that, most americans don`t get proper education either.


RANDOM?

just what in the ******* hell is so hard about read the wikipedia about mutations?
I have seriously some trouble seeing why the hell my post is ignored? oh, wait, ignorance, the core of creationism.
It isn`t worth even read the rest of your post when you mention: random

Creation is random aswell, the creator randomly created the animals and humans and that?
Oh wait, silly me, creation is a faith and requires you to "randomly" change your theory to be able to counter the scientific one.
Evolution changes as evidence is brought up. Creation changes after the need to be ignorant.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 4 May 2010, 14:55:11
Are you insulting me Gabbe, I'm an American, well actually a Czech American, and I am a very good student, and certainly not dumb . >:( >:(
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 4 May 2010, 15:22:30
Quote
Cursings illegal Arch Grin, and I do believe that evolution has more logical support than creationism Tongue Tongue

I don't care what you think.
You believe in luck which really doesn't exist, because this is a cause and effect universe.



Quote
In most of Europe, americans are considered dumb....

Well, I hope you realize that you would be toast right now if it wasn't for the bravery and determination of Americans.

I also find it funny how we are a bit more advanced with technology than Europe, and why our military is totally un-matched world-wide. :| [Because USA did mostly nothing in the second world war? While everyone else fought, they just saved up everything. In the end, whole Europe was laid in ashes, and we had to rebuild it - and that makes you correct in the creationism ;) -@kukac@]



Quote
Creation is random aswell, the creator randomly created the animals and humans and that?
Oh wait, silly me, creation is a faith and requires you to "randomly" change your theory to be able to counter the scientific one.
Evolution changes as evidence is brought up. Creation changes after the need to be ignorant.

Ok, now that is the most stupid and ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

You talk about how evolution isn't random, and then you say that "Creation is random as well". Ouch stop shooting yourself in the foot!

Creationism is not random, we believe in an intelligent being of some sort that created the universe and all life. There simply is nothing random about that!



Quote
just what in the ******* hell is so hard about read the wikipedia about mutations?
I have seriously some trouble seeing why the hell my post is ignored? oh, wait, ignorance, the core of creationism.
It isn`t worth even read the rest of your post when you mention: random

So radiation has some sort of intelligence?

Radiation from cell phones is damaging to the Human body. Why? Because it scrambles the DNA in cells and screws them up. My proof: All the people with tumors right where they hold their cell phone.

Viruses. You really think viruses help at all, you really think that they can enhance DNA, I thought viruses made people sick, and sometimes killed them. :|

About Transposons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposon#Transposons_causing_diseases

Sure sounds "helpful"!

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutagen
In biology, a mutagen (Latin, literally origin of change) is a physical or chemical agent that changes the genetic material, usually DNA, of an organism  and thus increases the frequency of mutations  above the natural background level. As many mutations cause cancer, mutagens are typically also carcinogens.

This also sounds "helpful". ::)

Quote from: Gabriel
...as well as errors that occur during meiosis or DNA replication

Cool, some errors, also very "helpful".

You know, with all this harmful stuff, I really don't see how you expect these harmful things to make any helpful, logical, and intelligent modifications to any DNA.



Quote
Are you insulting me Gabbe, I'm an American, well actually a Czech American, and I am a very good student, and certainly not dumb . Angry Angry

The American educational system is all fucked up, being a good student in an American school means nothing.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 4 May 2010, 15:24:41
Where did that creator being come from then, and thank you for supporting the Americans Arch :) :)
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 4 May 2010, 15:29:14
Quote
Quote
In most of Europe, americans are considered dumb....

Well, I hope you realize that you would be toast right now if it wasn't for the bravery and determination of Americans.

I also find it funny how we are a bit more advanced with technology than Europe, and why our military is totally un-matched world-wide. No Opinion

I din`t sy i think so, America actually got top students aswell, but agree with me that the poor population is very dumb right?

Your totally owned by China, they are just under you military, and military doesn`t matter as long as both china and india has the nukes to destory the world 1000 times...And china owns you economically, however, im glad we have the americans to destroy the terrorists, and kill of any threat to the civilized western world.

Quote
Quote
Are you insulting me Gabbe, I'm an American, well actually a Czech American, and I am a very good student, and certainly not dumb . Angry Angry

The American educational system is all fucked up, being a good student in an American school means nothing.

That is somehow true, our system is somewhat to harsh on the students.
Quote

Creationism is not random, we believe in an intelligent being of some sort that created the universe and all life. There simply is nothing random about that!

Our ecosystem could been screwed.

How was the creator created?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 4 May 2010, 15:35:22
The educational system sucks here, I know :O :O, thats why I homeschool, so that I can learn from Czech textbooks which outmatch most of what we have in America. Our military is pretty strong though, China's not as high tech. Were falling apart though, the worlds falling into another war. :scared: :scared:
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 4 May 2010, 15:48:35
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWkx-3N2qoM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1-Iqt02Asg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9YexwXDmQQ
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: @kukac@ on 4 May 2010, 15:50:05
Quote
Viruses. You really think viruses help at all, you really think that they can enhance DNA, I thought viruses made people sick, and sometimes killed them.

Then your genes weren't enough good, and you were not able to survive the evolution. However, if your body can make up an antidote, you can pass down for generations. And they will become more resistant against that kind of virus, so it was helpful.

Oh wait, that's not gonna happen, since evolution does not exist! To bad, guys giving us injections don't know about this fact  :-X
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: @kukac@ on 4 May 2010, 15:50:57
Seriously, we are not getting anywhere this way. Decoding my signature would be easier this way :D
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 4 May 2010, 16:15:18
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmmQJf8PO1A

This is actually very ridicolous...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kag2yXDFoAU

Complete idiot christian.

Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 4 May 2010, 16:19:20
Quote
Where did that creator being come from then,
Answer me Arch
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 4 May 2010, 16:23:47
Quote
Where did that creator being come from then,
Answer me Arch

He keeps getting on with the random [Censored - @kukac@], he aint going to answer you.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 4 May 2010, 16:25:05
I know but I would like an answer and not dodging the point :O :O :O :O :O
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 4 May 2010, 16:34:46
Well, watch the two last videos, they show the ridicolousness of christians.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 4 May 2010, 16:40:19
Quote
Where did that creator being come from then

We're talking about a guy who created the universe, and me(maybe not my soul though), so telling you where God came from would be pretty much impossible as a Human, you'd have to ask him, and I have no clue how you would do that as a Human.



Quote
Your totally owned by China, they are just under you military, and military doesn`t matter as long as both china and india has the nukes to destory the world 1000 times...And china owns you economically, however, im glad we have the americans to destroy the terrorists, and kill of any threat to the civilized western world.

That's because of Obama.
And no, the American military is far far far more powerful that the Chinese military, if they attacked us, we could wipe them off the planet in an action of self-defense.



Quote
Our ecosystem could been screwed.

Yes, and if our extremely complicated ecosystem had been developed by evolution, then the chances of the ecosystem fitting together so well the way it does now would be minimal. :|



Quote
How was the creator created?

Again, only God would know that.

But of course a question like that for Evolutionists would be devastating!

Where did your molecules and whatever caused the Big Bang come from?
And where did the universe with physical properties, that would allow for whatever caused the Big Bang, to cause the Big Bang come from?



Quote
Complete idiot christian.

Typical of atheists to pick on the people that aren't well suited for a debate about evolution.



You guys should really read: The Greatest Hoax on Earth?
It's by Johnathan Sarfati, if you want to know stuff about just look it up, and my Dad is reading it now, I show his these arguments and he tells me about how much of the stuff you're using against Creation, is covered in Johnathan Sarfati's The Greatest Hoax on Earth. Modman, I'd be willing to buy you a copy of it, that's how much I recommend it, especially to you, because it's a very well-written and complicated book, something I think you would be able to understand better than Kukac or Gabbe(also considering that English is not their main language).
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 4 May 2010, 16:55:35
Quote
Chinese Military Ability vs. American Military Ability

Many people ask who would win a war, the Chinese or the Americans; I will now answer that question. First off, China has a much larger army (possible that the number lies somewhere around 2.4 million) than that of the United States (less than 2 million). China also has nuclear capability but only has a known amount of twenty ballistic missiles with intercontinental range where as the United States has over 2,000 nuclear weapons with the ability to hit any location on the planet.

The Chinese has a low technological development as most of the weaponry they utilize is imported from Russia. The Chinese main armored vehicle, which is numbered above 8,000 units, is the T-55 main battle tank. Chinese have a number of total armored vehicles near 10,100, including their new T-96 main battle tanks which may not be deployed until the many flaws are fixed. China’s T-55 tanks are over 40 years old and require massive amounts of money to repair.

Chinese air power is measured to be around 4,350 aircraft which are also out of date. Their newest fighter aircraft are the Russian Mig-29s or the Russian Su- 47s. Information about the Chinese military is not completely known or publicly shown; so much information about this topic is disputed. The main Chinese fighter is the 1970 Russian Mig-19. The Chinese do not invest much of their budget in air power, so during any attack on Chinese territory, the Chinese will lose all air actions.

China does have a navy with submarines. The Chinese are not building a navy, but they are selling older vessels to purchase newer Russian ships and submarines. The Chinese have only about 1,000 ships which are still outdated by American standards. The newest aircraft carrier in the Chinese navy is equivalent to America’s WWII aircraft carriers.

America has a much more modern military: Our newest main battle tanks are called the M1A2 Abrams. These tanks are the heaviest in the world, weighing in at over 72 tons. Each M1 tank has a 120 mm smoothbore cannon that can fire either rounds that explode on impact (HEAT) or rounds that act like an arrow with no explosive charge (sabot). America soldiers are equipped with modern body armor that can protect the wearer against 7.62 mm bullets. The American military also issues camouflage for the terrain, M-16A2 assault rifles with a M203 grenade launcher underneath the barrel, M4A1 assault rifles for special operations soldiers, and has armored personal carriers that can survive .50 caliber bullets. The Chinese offer no body armor and no camouflage.

The American air force just released the new F/A- 22 Raptor fighter aircraft with stealth ability; this means that the Raptor is nearly invisible to radar. The Raptor can also fire a missile at a target over fourteen miles away and just turn around knowing that the missile will not miss the target. F/A-35 aircraft are also new to the year of 2006. the F/A- 35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) comes in three different versions: The air force version which takes off of a runway carrying more weapons, the navy version that can be launched from an aircraft carrier, and the marine version that can takeoff and land vertically.

America has the largest and most advanced navy on the planet. Nuclear-powered submarines that carry nuclear missiles are called “Boomers.” Boomers remain underwater for over six months; there are nine boomers out at sea at the same time while nine other boomers are being maintained at their docks. America nuclear-powered aircraft carriers are the largest ships in the world; they carry a range of aircraft that can strike any target of any kind in any place on the planet. Destroyer ships are equipped with various missiles which can target and destroy aircraft, ships, submarines, and land targets.

If a war was to break out between China and America, nuclear weapons would not be used. If China would to launch a nuclear missile at the United States, he radioactive dust would drift with the wind right into China’ s major cities along the coast. If America would to launch nuclear missiles, China would respond by firing theirs, which just lead to more Chinese deaths. America is located at a great pace because wind blows west towards China, so nuclear weapons would damage both countries.

China has very little allies and many enemies. North and South Korea hate China, Taiwan has been in a cold war with China for a long time, Mongolia does not like China, Russia wants Shanghai harbor within Chinese territory (Shanghai does not freeze in the winter, and Russia has most of its factories located near the Chinese border), India has not been in good relations with China because of several military “accidents,” European countries do not like China, and America and all of America’s allies hate China because of communism. You can be sure that Russia would help America fight against China, the United Kingdom and Australia would help America, and most European countries would help out America too. China might get some help from countries that are nearby and afraid of nuclear weapons, but they may not be that powerful anyway.

In the end, the one with the most friends will win. America would beat China and distribute its territory to allies in the area in exchange for free or cheap oil. If a war ever does break out, we would not have to worry about too much, as China is too old to fight.

I wrote this a while ago. Most of it is now out-of-date, but I don't care.
__________________
I think, therefore I am a concentrated machine of displaying thought and emotion with the ability to "think outside the box," rebel against any rule, and have natural rights to freedom of speech and the right to never be a slave of anything; not even death can stop me from this!

from another forum. this diguission ends now.




Quote
We're talking about a guy who created the universe, and me(maybe not my soul though), so telling you where God came from would be pretty much impossible as a Human, you'd have to ask him, and I have no clue how you would do that as a Human.

God has no evidence, therefore he doesnt exist. god is irrelevant, its the creator we want to know something about.
Quote
Typical of atheists to pick on the people that aren't well suited for a debate about evolution.

She called that show, she wanted in a debate, she lost totally, why we make fun of christians is because theyr so tragic sad that it is laughable. after the caller went on, they talked about if that call was legit or not, i think it is, there are afterall enough dumb people out there. Why do you talk about us making fun of "i belive though i have no evidence for it" people, when you make fun of us without reason.

All you say is that

"It`s obivious"

Without any claims at all, thats a great evidence for creation :thumbup: NOT

Watch this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmmQJf8PO1A

Before any of your claims matter you must proove god.

Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 4 May 2010, 17:11:19
Theists don`t care if theyr wrong, Atheists do. Here is my back-up

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti25MXFKMew
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Zoythrus on 4 May 2010, 17:25:35
Gabbe, we Christians are not idiots. If it werent for Christians, America wouldnt exist.

And there is a God. He is alive and quite well, but you just seem so wrapped up in ignorance that you cant see Him.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 4 May 2010, 17:31:38
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSxgnu3Hww8

See nr 8
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 4 May 2010, 18:55:36
Gabbe, about the American military, that article is out-of-date.

Our military could defeat the whole world at once, nuclear weapons could be shot down if shot at us, we also have missiles so accurate that we can put one down a chimney. I don't think the entire world against us would stand a chance.



Back on topic:

*facepalm*

Gabbe, evolution is not random, nothing is.
Evolution is worse, it's relying upon damaging things to hopefully do some good.

A belief in a creator is perfectly logical, I call him "God", because I don't want to say "a Creator" all the time(and because that's what most other people call him), I now realize that saying "a Creator" would be better.
It's completely undisputable that the universe has a creator. What you don't realize is that life needs a creator, and if you watch "The Case for a Creator" you will surely understand why life couldn't have started without a creator. I know that you want me to quote the video, but sorry, the visual graphics and talking fit together, giving you the talking would be kinda stupid without the graphics. BTW, Gabbe, did you get the movie yet?

THe reason I say random mutations is because you're relying on damaging things(radiation, viruses, transposons, DNA errors, etc...) to get you positive changes. The chances of that happening are very very bad. So by saying random mutations I'm making your chances look better than they actually are.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 4 May 2010, 19:38:36
call it damage if you want. 70% of mutations are bad 15% good 15% neutral.

We still have factors, these are the following:

The bad mutation only happens on one individual.
A specie usually consist of larger groups, i just estimate 5 million? change this number if you want
The good mutations are likely to pass on to the next generation. lets say 6,5% of the good mutations survive
The neutral ones are still neutral and will not affect the specie in any way.
Divide the 6,5% of the good mutations on 5 million.
Then we have 0,0000013% good mutations if one good mutation happens.
The 70% bad mutations Will probably have half of them survive.
35% bad mutations die off.
35 divided with 5 million.
0,000007% off the specie population die off with bad mutations
0,000007% off the specie population survive.
0,000002% with mutations in total survive.
2:7 that the the mutations will occur witht he whole specie.

Then the 6,5 % of good mutations will replicate, and most species replicate atleast four new individuals. and it is required 2 of the same specie to reproduce.
Then after one generation it would double the species with the good mutation.

This math is complicated, what if we joined forces and gathered information to solve the problem? I assume you also want to know the truth.

What we need of information is:

How many generations will it take for speciation to occur

What we have is:

70% of the mutations occuring are bad, but we don`t knwo the amount of individuals getting mutations.
15% of the mutations are good, but we don`t know the amount of individuals getting mutations
15% of the mutations are neutral, but we don`t know the amount of individuals getting mutations
It isn`t likely every bad mutation die off, so we can maybe divide that number with 2
It isn`t likely all of the good mutations will survive, lets take 2:3 of that number since it is more likely for those mutations to survive.
The neutral mutations stay neutral and don`t change.
We can assume that the specie have 5 million in population, if im not correct, feel free to talk to me about it.

X:5 billion?

This will give us the number of mutations occuring with the specie after one generation

then we must find out how many of the mutations are bad and how many are good.

Once we have that we must find out how many generations it would take for the specie to speciate and become two seperate species.

Then we must find out how much time we have.

Then find out how much time it would take to produce all the species at earth.

If it adds up we`re right
If it doesn`t add up your right creationists

Deal?

Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 4 May 2010, 19:49:56
I'm calling it damage because it is!

Besides, you would need a lot longer than 4 billion years to Evolve anything close to a Human.
4 billion years is not an eternity, and even if 15% of mutations were helpful(which very obviously isn't true, if you read up on the causes of mutations), it would take forever!
You would have to have massive miracle leaps of changes if you're to make a Human, besides you simply have to acknowledge the fact that we are not evolving now, and I don't see any reason we would've been 3 billion years ago.

I'm going to go read up on the Cambrian Explosion.......
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 4 May 2010, 19:51:48
So you won`t help me do the math?

And you ahven`t done it before?

Your simply making decision out of nowhere?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 4 May 2010, 21:57:29
The math has been done.

And there is no way that we right now could calculate the math.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Zoythrus on 4 May 2010, 22:26:47
i dont think that the math matters.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 5 May 2010, 00:06:34
Zoythrus the math matters.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: 1purplecow on 5 May 2010, 00:52:29
In a nutshell, this part of the debate is stating "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger."  But that leaves out yo children--they won't be immuned to the sickness that you did (mainly because new viruses are constantly being created) but that advances nothing--it only slightly changes one particular human body. 
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: 1purplecow on 5 May 2010, 00:54:38
I don't think an immunity to one's sick-week saves it for future generations.  take smallpox for example . . . people still get them.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Zoythrus on 5 May 2010, 01:01:57
when i said that math doesnt matter, i meant that neither God nor random evolution had to calculate the chances of things happening.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 5 May 2010, 06:31:08
That is because you know that god wouldn't stand up to the math.
You're Christian, Arch isn't, therefore the math matters to him because I already know he seeks the truth. Not more basement for his religion. Theists don't care if they're wrong, look the video: "theists, smarter than atheists?"
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 5 May 2010, 12:07:40
I'm sorta a Christian, but not a religious one.

I've always hated religion, loved science
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 5 May 2010, 13:26:13
Your a creationist, that defines someone not christian beliving in creation.

About that less than 50% belive in evolution,

45% belive in evolution
40% belive in creation
15% belive nothing, have not heard of any, or do not care

This was for America only.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Zoythrus on 5 May 2010, 14:17:12
i do care about the math, but this is just outside my field of study (i like chemistry, not math). and i cannont prove that God exists, He has designed the world with hints so that we would find Him. Don't worry, He'll prove Himself soon...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 5 May 2010, 14:48:55
i don`t worry, I actually feel sorry for you wasting your time praying for some god...

Quote
i do care about the math

Thtas nice, then i know you want to find the truth, and the truth matters a hell of a lot more than a belief right?
Quote
but this is just outside my field of study

Thats okay, but wait decide your side until i have got this one through.

Quote
(i like chemistry, not math)

Perhaps you can still help me, can you find the exact amount of time a cell duplicates and the exact time it dies off?

Quote
and i cannont prove that God exists

Of course not, he is the result of the lack of knowledge our ancestors had, they filles everything with god, and then somehow it has survived until today, it won`t much longer though, evolution and science is a growing community, at the cost of the church and creationist community.

Quote
He has designed the world with hints so that we would find Him

You don`t know if he exist, yet you know he has designed the world with hints for us?

Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 5 May 2010, 14:57:24
Typical of creationists, the only explanation you have for how God was created is that he always existed, yeah right, that is not a good argument, I say that while someone may have created us, they in turn had to evolve or be created :P :P, nothing is forever ::)
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 5 May 2010, 15:21:38
God is something called "omnipotent", you should look it up, and god cannot be seen, nor can he be touched, and he cannot be smelled, basically he cannot be anything. hes invisible to if the rest werent enough. and still he exist?

Look up the definition of existance.

I think we can make clear that god doesn`t exist, and without god no christianity. With god accepted, christians can keep up with their lies as much as they want, as they can argue with the apparently most stupidest argument ever "god did it" of course he did! Science hasn`t just prooved many things god was supposed to be doing liek a million times...

With god out of the picture, nothing in christianity matters, because god is the core, and god can`t be prooved, nor can he be prooved, still he exist, again, look up the word existance and look at the definition. So according to science, something that cannot be prooven doesn`t exist even though it cannot be disprooved, lookup the definition of Disproval, disprooving something only matters if something is already prooved.

Since god isn`t already prooved, there is no need to disproove, your theory is unsubstantial to the limits. Lookup the definition of unsubstantial is your unsure what that means. By that said, creation also fails if your christian (no arch, this is not the case for you), so no creation for christians, actually, no religion for you christians, and this also applies for any other religion, and no, atheism is actually not a religion (yes, im saying what the "top ten creationist arguments" video says, saying that it is would be like saying that not collecting stamps is a hobby, and not smoking is a habit, you get what i ment.

When gods proof is brought up it will mean that science must disproove it, yet, no actual evidence or proof for god has been brought up, so there will be no need to disproove his/her/its existance. If you want to talk about the bible, here we go, the bible cannot be seen on as evidence for god, because if that would be the case, actually that is the case, God says the bible is correct, and the bible says that god exist, this goes on infinity and this is not a argument.

God

Bible

What more is there?

Ah yes, Jesus!

Jesus spoke the word of god, he had a personal experience, that is great...

(call the hospital, get this guy or gal to a psychologist, hes gone mad!)

( i changed the topic back into religious as there already is a creationist and evolution topic)
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 5 May 2010, 15:25:27
It would appear evolution is winning at least logically they are
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 5 May 2010, 15:28:00
I have been smakec in the face by a christian dude that CREATION and CHRISTIANITY is logic science and that stuff...

(zoythrus)
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 5 May 2010, 15:44:58
The idiotic Evolutionists don't realize that without a God there would be no Big Bang, no physics, and they are claiming that his universe his just here and he doesn't exist.

It's indisputable that a creator exists, whether he's the Christian God or not.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 5 May 2010, 15:46:31
Nothing just appears or exists forever you creationist, Where did God come from >:( >:(, answer now
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 5 May 2010, 16:03:08
I have a theory, the extra terrestrial lifeform Ted accidentaly blew up his apartment while making beer, and thats how the universe come to begin, you have your unsubstantial theories, we have ours. nah just joking, but it is true, your theory is without proof and cannot be disprooven, therefore it is not science, because science is theories that is sutained by proof, why is there intelligence behind the BB? And i thought you said you would call it a createor, not god, look up the definition of god, then look up the definition of a creator.
It isn`t science that a god exist, because there is no science, therefore it is undisputeable that your theory isn`t science, so you can no longer refer to science as the creator has to be prooven first. If your a railien and belive in that we were seeded here by aliens, you are a atheist, but were did those aliens come from? and so on. Where does physics relate to a creator? and i also said that this didn`t aply to you arch as i was talking about the christian creator and this was rather a response to Zoythrus about his christianity. i think also you mispelled is, but i won`t get into that, however, we aren`t claiming that the universe does just exist, or thats not what scientists claim, they claim that the universe have been formed by BigBang, science doesn`t proove what was before that, but science will actually admit that than just come up with some random theory about a creator. And you also mispelled this. Lookup theory, a theory is already sustained by logic, i agree with you that a creator is possible, but it is yet to evidence to show off. And since there is yet no proof, it cannot be disprooved, as i said before, lookup proof or evidence. Your theory isn`t supported by anything but itself, god and the bible explains eachother, sot he bible and god is not evidence for any.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Omega on 5 May 2010, 16:38:15
45% belive in evolution
40% belive in creation
15% belive nothing, have not heard of any, or do not care
45 + 40 + 15 = 110%???

What was the part again about the math???
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 5 May 2010, 16:49:16
  45
+40
85


  85
+15
100


That was just easy
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 5 May 2010, 16:52:24
Gabbe, it is now perfectly clear that you know pretty much nothing about the Creationist viewpoint.

Do you speak English?



Geez Omega, where did you learn your arithmetic?!
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 5 May 2010, 16:55:47
Okay, point me toa creationist source that posses science.

(maybe we should continue this in C vs E topic)
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 5 May 2010, 17:02:09
I already have.

1-The Case for a Creator(movie).
2-The Greatest Hoax on Earth(book).

Both in English, maybe you can get a translation, but I don't know.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 5 May 2010, 17:05:11
 i suppose i could buy the book, but i`ll see the movie first, its not coming yet  :'( maybe i can download it, since i already bought it, they can`t sue me for any illegal actions...

I just felt to laugh at omega and say: Ha ha, epic fail kid! :O
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: ElimiNator on 5 May 2010, 17:29:20
Did you all see these?
Code: [Select]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIeLRD1L9yY&feature=PlayList&p=B89BE864450B3E66&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=18[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tr2CP86XVuw&feature=PlayList&p=B89BE864450B3E66&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=19[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwuvYtBNZsk&feature=PlayList&p=B89BE864450B3E66&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=20[/youtube]
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: @kukac@ on 5 May 2010, 17:32:22
Quote from: Barabó Attila
Pedig nincs hatalmasabb nálad
Semmi ami utadba állhat
Te vagy a legprimitívebb isten
És te vagy a legfejlettebb állat,
[...]
Ha nem is tudod, de te vagy az ász
Önmagadnak is felette állsz

Rough translation by me:

Quote
There isn't anyone more powerful than you
There is nothing, that can stand against you
You are the most primitive god
And you are the most advanced animal
[...]
Even if you know, you are the ace
You are standing even above yourself.

What is this thing I'm talking about? :D
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 5 May 2010, 17:33:12
i`ll do it, be aware that some of the thermodynaimcs might already have been answered.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 5 May 2010, 18:04:33
When we die or brain stops functioning we don`t go anywere.
The guy belives that the bible is the word of god, but i already stated that the god and the bible prooves eachother
And he belives that evolution is dumb which is wrong, the evolution is actually science.

If god isn`t accepted this videos is

He thinks we shouldn`t doubt god, but when we do, he doesn`t exist.

StarTrek is actually realistic to our current science, nooooooo, this video plain denies science.

So, basically he is calling me a devil and a lier and a dumb idiot.

God is made in our image.

Hitler was a creationist and he belived strongly in god, and that is sooooooo not objective or relevant to the subject.

And that guy actually lies alot, and he lies big, and he does just what he said hitler did...

It was funny how it can be musinderstood "they wanted my banana"

And "The person is the sucker" was hella funny!

Hes getting off the topic...

Now hes advertising for DinoLand or something...

he didn t argue with ANYTHING called backups or evidence.

Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 5 May 2010, 18:06:19
And for craps sake, there is one theory of evolution, hes says there is several...geezes, a old man is stupid again...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 5 May 2010, 18:08:08
im posting a lot alone here now...

He says evolution is the origin of life, but evolution is how it evolved, abiogenesis is how life came to be the scientific theory which can be prooven with experiments with amino acids.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: modman on 6 May 2010, 03:46:10
Don't worry, He'll prove Himself soon.

That's what the Aztecs said about Huitzilopochtli.  And what the Babylonians said about Anu.  And what the Germanic peoples said about Thor.  And what the Greeks said about Apollo.  Or what the Maya said about Kukulcan.  Do you understand now why no one takes that kind of statement seriously?

Did you all see these?

Unfortunately yes.  The man thinks forming higher elements out of lower elements is impossible, yet claims to have a scientific degree and have taught high school science for 15 years.

If you agree with Mr. Hovind on that point, please explain how the Sun works, and how thermonuclear devices harness so much energy.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: 1purplecow on 6 May 2010, 04:22:03
God: creates stuff; man: transforms stuff; devices: Matter can neither be created nor destroyed but only transformed, bro. Hang loose.  Peace out. cockerspaniels'nailsarenotblue?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: @kukac@ on 6 May 2010, 06:20:20
(http://fffmks.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/jesus-zombie.jpg)
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 6 May 2010, 13:29:16
God himself had to evolve or be created as things don't just appear, I like the pic Kukac :O :O, I won't argue until this declaration is challenged properly by one of the creationists. If it is not answered it means that they don't have an answer
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 6 May 2010, 17:18:55
God doesn't evolve. ::)

Let's argue in the other topic please. :|
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Zoythrus on 6 May 2010, 17:32:13
Jesus wasnt "ressurected" in the literal sense, that would imply that He rose from the dead by an outside force, but He used His own power as God to do that.

more proof of God - What has every civilazation had? a pantheon of gods. Why? Because of this thing called a "God-Shaped Hole." God put in every man the want to worship something (preferably Him). If this want did not exist, these civilizations would not have created dieties, and the idea to do so would never cross their minds. People try to fill this hole with whatever they can, but only God will suffice.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 6 May 2010, 17:34:39
You can`t pull god in every hole of science...god was evidence for everything a long time ago, now hes shrinking..
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 6 May 2010, 17:39:37
I agree, and God is an excuse to not think about something and have an easy solution, God did it, God made it, why not actually think about the problem.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 6 May 2010, 17:49:41
I'm curious why Evolution doesn't solve it's problems.......
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Zoythrus on 6 May 2010, 18:01:25
if animals were evolving over millions of years, then that would mean that there would be millions of different "missing links." explain why we cant find the millions of different half-lizard/half bird skeletons that would need to have happened for evolution.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 6 May 2010, 18:21:23
ah, fossils, we also havent found a fraction of all the spceis on earth..
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 6 May 2010, 19:26:51
Exactly, mans knowledge of the Earth is quite rudimentary
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 6 May 2010, 20:36:11
You know, atheist belive something, we pray daily, we worship, and we know he exist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vk8EANdpAj0
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: xxcatmysteryxx on 7 May 2010, 22:31:39
Ah I'm bored with this and I don't know what to say or argue anymore and yea... I haven't been on in a while how is everyone
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 8 May 2010, 07:57:12
Im bored to, and now i got sick, won`t reply herer anymore...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 8 May 2010, 14:09:05
I'm good.

Get well Gabbe. :)
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 8 May 2010, 15:17:05
thx arch.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Seanachaidh on 12 May 2010, 04:07:42
We are here because we are very, very, very lucky. So how come I haven't won the lottery twenty times in a row yet?

This is called the teleological argument.  It is faulty because it implies that order can only come from a designer, in this case God.  Unfortunately, the only way we differentiate "ordered" universes from those which are not is that they contain life.


order can and does only come from a Designer.  The level of order within our universe is staggering, and to say that it is was the work of nothing more than a natural phenomenon is awfully arrogant.  According to the second law of Thermodynamics, Every system, if left to itself, invariably tends towards disorder.  The evolutionary theory goes against that law by assuming that everything became more and more complex the longer it exists.

Trying to start up the debate again.  -_-
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 12 May 2010, 06:07:53
please no, stop the debate, it`s beeen going on for way too long...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 12 May 2010, 13:12:53
Our system is being thrown into disorder ::) ::), i will withdraw as well if there are no good arguments.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 12 May 2010, 13:16:48
The laws of thermodynamics only works in a closed system btw, repeated words tho...

Watch these videos and make sure not to use the arguments presented:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSxgnu3Hww8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfZFsXfCy6s

So what are the other laws of thermodynamics?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 12 May 2010, 14:02:58
Quote
order can and does only come from a Designer.  The level of order within our universe is staggering, and to say that it is was the work of nothing more than a natural phenomenon is awfully arrogant.

Agreed. :thumbup:



Gabbe: I watched those two videos. "The Thinking Athiest" apparently is extremely uninformed about Creationism. :P
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 12 May 2010, 14:05:55
This universe is not perfectly ordered Arch, Seanachaidh, and creationist company, The sun will one day shrivel up the earth, is that perfectly ordered. ::) >:( >:( :bomb: :wicked: :P :O :(
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 12 May 2010, 14:14:32
We're probably going to have colonized the whole galaxy by then. ::)



Can you feed wood and nails to a machine that randomly assembles things, and hope to have a good strong and sturdy ladder within 1000 years, I highly doubt that.
The wood is not cut, and the machine has to cut the wood almost perfectly.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 12 May 2010, 14:17:59
Quote
We're probably going to have colonized the whole galaxy by then. Roll Eyes
Humanity is in decline, we are not getting any better, just look the, USA is shutting down its space program, we'll never get out of this galaxy at such a rate >:( >:( :o
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 12 May 2010, 14:24:25
Rawr! this random shit is getting really old, but i say, lets take up the debate again? Im replenished with joy for it, lets try to stay serious :) i know, it was me and kukac last time but...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 12 May 2010, 14:34:49
Sorry but i`ll have to be archs definition of "an ass" and tear down your post sean.

Quote
order can and does only come from a Designer.  The level of order within our universe is staggering, and to say that it is was the work of nothing more than a natural phenomenon is awfully arrogant.


Please look up the following definitions it is very hard to read your post when the words are infact incorrect to use.

Order
Phenomenon
Awfull
Arogant

Quote
just look the, USA is shutting down its space program, we'll never get out of this galaxy at such a rate

I`ll have to side with arch on this one, there are BILLIONS of years till the sun blows, its estimated around 6, the rate is in our favour at the extreme.

Quote
Humanity is in decline, we are not getting any better

Yes...You know, thats what they said during the medieval times...

Quote
Can you feed wood and nails to a machine that randomly assembles things, and hope to have a good strong and sturdy ladder within 1000 years, I highly doubt that.
The wood is not cut, and the machine has to cut the wood almost perfectly.

Look, if you really do want to put examples to simplify/simplyfy (idk how to write it, only say it :D) your view for us, you`ll have to refer to what it is to be a example for. If Evolution is the case, then this is incorrect explanation, if it is abigenesis your only somewhat correct.

I will once again like you to see what the words is intended to mean before stating that "thats how it is"

in this case this will be

Abiogenesis
Random
Evolution

Quote
We're probably going to have colonized the whole galaxy by then. Roll Eyes

Don`t get too optimistic  :O :O
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 12 May 2010, 14:55:01
The sun will destroy itself in 6billion years but that doesn't mean conditions will be livable for the time past, second of all we may be extinct from other causes by then ::)
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 12 May 2010, 15:00:13
Quote
The sun will destroy itself in 6billion years but that doesn't mean conditions will be livable for the time past, second of all we may be extinct from other causes by then Roll Eyes

I`ve made a topic for this stuff...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Seanachaidh on 12 May 2010, 17:30:37
This universe is not perfectly ordered Arch, Seanachaidh, and creationist company, The sun will one day shrivel up the earth, is that perfectly ordered. ::) >:( >:( :bomb: :wicked: :P :O :(

That is not what I was referring to.  What I'm referring to is the evolutionary theory, which deals with organisms, not the universe as a whole.  Evolution "assumes" that organisms become more complex and stable when left to themselves,  which again goes against the second law of thermodynamics.

The simple fact that the universe isn't perfectly ordered further supports the fact that in order to follow scientific law, it had to be perfectly ordered to begin with, and further  

Quote
The laws of thermodynamics only works in a closed system btw, repeated words tho...
The earth is a closed system.  


Quote
order can and does only come from a Designer.  The level of order within our universe is staggering, and to say that it is was the work of nothing more than a natural phenomenon is awfully arrogant.


Please look up the following definitions it is very hard to read your post when the words are infact incorrect to use.

Order
Phenomenon
Awfull
Arogant

I'm not about to take english lessons from someone who is not sure how to spell simplify, and does most of his arguing through posting ill-informed Youtube videos.

edit:Srry, that last statement was a little harsh...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: John.d.h on 12 May 2010, 18:11:21
Earth is not entirely a closed system, as we get input from the sun.  The universe as a whole is a closed system if and only if there is no god.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 12 May 2010, 19:05:22
Earth is not entirely a closed system, as we get input from the sun.  The universe as a whole is a closed system if and only if there is no god.

Thermodynamics are laws of the universe, so the universe doesn`t work as a closed system since the laws only matters within the universe.

This universe is not perfectly ordered Arch, Seanachaidh, and creationist company, The sun will one day shrivel up the earth, is that perfectly ordered. ::) >:( >:( :bomb: :wicked: :P :O :(

That is not what I was referring to.  What I'm referring to is the evolutionary theory, which deals with organisms, not the universe as a whole.  Evolution "assumes" that organisms become more complex and stable when left to themselves,  which again goes against the second law of thermodynamics.

The simple fact that the universe isn't perfectly ordered further supports the fact that in order to follow scientific law, it had to be perfectly ordered to begin with, and further 

Quote
The laws of thermodynamics only works in a closed system btw, repeated words tho...
The earth is a closed system. 


Quote
order can and does only come from a Designer.  The level of order within our universe is staggering, and to say that it is was the work of nothing more than a natural phenomenon is awfully arrogant.


Please look up the following definitions it is very hard to read your post when the words are infact incorrect to use.

Order
Phenomenon
Awfull
Arogant

I'm not about to take english lessons from someone who is not sure how to spell simplify, and does most of his arguing through posting ill-informed Youtube videos.

edit:Srry, that last statement was a little harsh...

I did have problems to notice the argument. :| :| :| :| :| :| :| :| ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Nice loadpack of insults without any backup tho.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: John.d.h on 12 May 2010, 19:08:12
Earth is not entirely a closed system, as we get input from the sun.  The universe as a whole is a closed system if and only if there is no god.

Thermodynamics are laws of the universe, so the universe doesn`t work as a closed system since the laws only matters within the universe.
Huh? :confused:
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 12 May 2010, 20:05:50
The laws of thermodynamics are the laws of this universe. anything outside the universe doesn`t have anything to do with the thermodynamics as that is the laws of this specific universe. that means it wouldn`t work as a closed system since anything outside won`t be affected. was that clearer?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 12 May 2010, 20:29:13
Just to answer the new creationist dude,

Quote
The earth is a closed system. 


The earth aquires heat and light from the sun, the earth is not a closed system. UNDISPUTEABLE

Quote
I'm not about to take english lessons from someone who is not sure how to spell simplify

I was actually asking you to be more precise when stating something, you didn`t really do what i told you to do right? Oh great, we have soem arrogance and ignorance here. If you do not know the definition of the two, please, use the very helpfull tool "Google.com (http://Google.com)" to enlighten yourself with evidence. How i spell has zero to do with how you express yourself and you have shown that you understood me, never the less i did write the word how it is supposed to be, and yes im not sure how to spell it, thank you for your guidance on how to. Am i asking you to take english lessons? No, i cannot find that anywere in my post. I simply asked you to express yourself clearer so i can understand better what you mean because i could also ramble up words you couldn`t understand and you would stand there clueless of what to say.

Please use these links:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=order+definition (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=order+definition)

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Phenomenon+definition (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Phenomenon+definition)

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=awfull+definition (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=awfull+definition)

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=arrogant+definition (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=arrogant+definition)

Now what i could do is start making fun of you and your understanding of what a debate and arguing is, because you obiviously don`t know. On television our politicians "debate" and that is not how a debate should work. A debate should be used to find the truth, i am sure arch can verify that i only search truth, currently i think evidence points evolution and abiogenesis. Not god and creation. But you`ll find google very helpfull as you search along for the defintion of words that i may use.

Quote
and does most of his arguing through posting ill-informed Youtube videos.

How are they ill informed, arch said that they were ill informed, but how are they ill informed, copying arch doesn`t help, arch, don`t reply to this, i want to see him answer that for himself. (btw i call you he since i only know sean as a male name) Those videos are by the way made by a former christian who actually were studying religion and then he thought of how to defend his belief, he searched for evidence for his belief to defend it but he found that evidence points the other direction. I would call this a expert witness.

And just to re-inform you about evolution and abigenesis since you obiviously can`t have read that far when your even too lazy to look up some words on google i will post here.

Evolution is how life evolved on earth.
Evolution has many different factors determining what kind of mutations that will come, random is not used.
Abiogenesis is a theory about how life can form from Amino Acids, Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with how life come to begin!
Abiogenesis can be performed today and yes you can create life with amino acids today.

Quote
Srry, that last statement was a little harsh...

Your statement weren`t harsh, it were ignorant, you did not reply to me, second law of thermodynamics is already answered.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: John.d.h on 12 May 2010, 20:46:35
The laws of thermodynamics are the laws of this universe. anything outside the universe doesn`t have anything to do with the thermodynamics as that is the laws of this specific universe. that means it wouldn`t work as a closed system since anything outside won`t be affected. was that clearer?
Err... I think I know what you're saying, but I don't see how it applies here.  If there is something outside of our universe or metaphysical plane (like a god), then that certainly does change things, and that would mean that the universe is not a closed system b/c it's being affected by an outside force, in the same way that Earth isn't a closed system b/c it received energy from the sun, meteors, cosmic rays, whatever.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 12 May 2010, 20:53:29
A god cannot be prooven nor tested to be prooven. Its a hypothesis, nothing indicates anything should be outside the universe, if there were evidence for such, the laws of thermodynamics would still not apply as their only affecting our universe.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Zoythrus on 12 May 2010, 21:01:31
hey guys, it was fun, but im going to back out of this conversation now. Why? because i have fulfilled my duty to this thread. This is a debate, not an argument, and im tired of arguing. I have given my side of this debate, so now it's your turn to hear what i said (although i doubt that you will).

Peace to the rest of you,
Zoy
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 12 May 2010, 21:05:00
i don`t know the difference between argument and debate. I heard what you said, replied to it, didn`t get answers though..
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Zoythrus on 12 May 2010, 21:17:12
a debate is a discussion between friends with different beliefs, but an argument is more violent. it was never my hope to have a violent conversation, just a friendly debate. there's no point in arguing over religion. so what if you dont agree with my point of view, i dont really care; as long as i have said something in its defense, that's all i can do.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 12 May 2010, 21:22:58
are you a solipsist?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Zoythrus on 12 May 2010, 21:29:08
what does Solipsism have to do with anything?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 12 May 2010, 22:10:23
If you are, a dispute will be unresolveable.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: modman on 13 May 2010, 02:15:53
We are here because we are very, very, very lucky. So how come I haven't won the lottery twenty times in a row yet?

This is called the teleological argument.  It is faulty because it implies that order can only come from a designer, in this case God.  Unfortunately, the only way we differentiate "ordered" universes from those which are not is that they contain life.


According to the second law of Thermodynamics, Every system, if left to itself, invariably tends towards disorder.

Quick!  Off the top of your head, do you know what the zeroth law of thermodynamics is, or the first?  Didn't think so, unless you happen to study physics (I do).

The second law of thermodynamics actually says nothing about disorder.  It is about the efficiency of heat engines, declaring that an engine may never be 100% efficient.

Also, this law applies only to closed systems, which the Earth certainly is not.  The sun is always supplying Earth with energy.  Adding energy to a system can create "order".  For example, a room filled with two mixed gasses can be separated by a partition (say oxygen and helium).  It requires work (in the technical sense) to move molecules from one side to the other to sort them (thus creating order).  The second law says more about the probability of one system than what must be.  The sun could provide this energy.  If you're interested, you can accomplish sorting fairly easy: with a centrifuge.  The oxygen will fall to the center because it is more massive.

The second law does come into play if the Sun disappears (hypothetically) because it creates a finite period in which life can survive on Earth.

Quote
The evolutionary theory goes against that law by assuming that everything became more and more complex the longer it exists.

You might want to note that the creation of the universe violates the law of conservation of energy.

What I'm referring to is the evolutionary theory, which deals with organisms, not the universe as a whole.  Evolution "assumes" that organisms become more complex and stable when left to themselves,  which again goes against the second law of thermodynamics.

Hmm...You seem to be a little confused (still, you know one more fact than Ben Stein: I highlighted that info).  First, you say you are only referring to evolutionary theory, then you bring up the second law of thermodynamics.  You may want to read the actual context (and indeed the text itself) of the second law of thermodynamics.

The earth is a closed system.

No, it isn't.  The only way it would be closed is if it did not receive nor emit radiation.  Still not convinced?  Research black body radiation.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Seanachaidh on 13 May 2010, 03:07:45


Quote
(btw i call you he since i only know sean as a male name)

While I do the research that everyone asks of me, I'll just point out that, although I am male, sean isn't my name.  Seanachaidh is actually a Celtic term.  Right now I'm backing out of this debate until I have a little more information about your opposing viewpoints.    ;)

Also, Modman, please explain to me a little more on how the prospect of Creation violates the law of conservation of energy, Is this assuming that there wasn't energy to begin with?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 13 May 2010, 12:28:59
I'm not going to get into all this thermodynamic talk.



Evolution relies on harmful things(radiation, transposons, viruses, DNA errors) to randomly produce unintelligent changes to extremely complex cells, and somehow come up with an intelligently designed Human body. Evolutionists believe that complexity gives intelligence, why, because evolutionists believe that having a complex brain and body, gives you intelligence. Now I have seen no proof that something extremely complex just has intelligence, and a will. Besides, you still have to face down spiritualism, you have to tell the people that walk on fire, that walking on fire is impossible.



Why is evolution random?
Quote from: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html
The genetic variation on which natural selection acts may occur randomly, but natural selection itself is not random at all.

Natural selection is getting rid of creatures which don't have advanced genetic changes.
The theory of evolution is random. To rely on random genetic mutations, then claim that evolution is not random is ridiculous.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: John.d.h on 13 May 2010, 17:08:17
I think you're misunderstanding what it means by "random".  The mutations themselves may be random, but organisms will live or die based mainly on their fitness for survival rather than chance, meaning that natural selection itself is not random.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Hectate on 13 May 2010, 17:16:07
You know, I've been ignoring all the debate threads on purpose, but today when I saw this one in the unread posts I thought to myself "I wonder if this is actually religious debates or just an extension of the evolutionary debate". Small surprise to see that it was the latter, at least for recent posts.

Out of curiosity, has anybody thought to actually discuss differences in various religions? The evolution/creation thing has gone around and around time and time again, but it's not "Religious Debates" as the title would lead one to believe. I've not had anybody talk to me about how Buddhism differs from Zen philosophy, how Christianity is related to Judaism, or why they believe in monotheism instead of polytheism. If any of these type of subjects interest you, I'd enjoy a (as always) civil conversation concerning them.

So anyway, sorry for the OT.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: @kukac@ on 13 May 2010, 18:21:23
Quote
I'm not going to get into all this thermodynamic talk.

Mistake.

Quote
Evolution relies on harmful things(radiation, transposons, viruses, DNA errors) to randomly produce unintelligent changes to extremely complex cells, and somehow come up with an intelligently designed Human body.

Evolution is simply based on "counter-problems". If your skin receives radiation, but you don't die (a vital point!), then you might be able to create cells that might repel lesser radiation.

Quote
Evolutionists believe that complexity gives intelligence, why, because evolutionists believe that having a complex brain and body, gives you intelligence.

Complex brain, maybe, but I don't think so that's in case, however, I don't think that a complex body can give you any intelligence (Stegosaurus or wth).

Quote
Now I have seen no proof that something extremely complex just has intelligence, and a will.

Like a maths problem has intelligence :confused: I wouldn't call "AI" intelligence either.

Quote
Besides, you still have to face down spiritualism, you have to tell the people that walk on fire, that walking on fire is impossible.

I think I would just simply fall through the fire. But can you prove me, that walking on fire is possible? (Because walking on water is :D ).

Quote
The genetic variation on which natural selection acts may occur randomly, but natural selection itself is not random at all.

Read the bolded words again. It is possible that mutations occur randomly, however, that's not mostly in case, it's only the minority of the evolutionary chain.

Quote
Natural selection is getting rid of creatures which don't have advanced genetic changes.

You don't seem to get it either: Natural selection is not something, that kills creatures that are weak.

Weak creatures will eventually die, and can't pass down their genes. That causes Natural Selection.

Quote
The theory of evolution is random. To rely on random genetic mutations, then claim that evolution is not random is ridiculous.

Once again: you are the only one, who claims evolution is random :)
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Seanachaidh on 13 May 2010, 21:50:16
Quote
Your are the only one claiming that evolution is random.

I also happen to believe that evolution is based on random mutations somehow creating an intelligent being.  I haven't read of any evidence to the contrary.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: @kukac@ on 14 May 2010, 07:15:02
Walking on water:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ry2aG9QES0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2XQ97XHjVw
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 14 May 2010, 07:59:56
Not much time on the internet.
Quote

I also happen to believe that evolution is based on random mutations somehow creating an intelligent being.  I haven't read of any evidence to the contrary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation)

... its so easy and yet noone seems to seek the evidence.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Zoythrus on 14 May 2010, 13:23:21
Walking on water:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ry2aG9QES0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2XQ97XHjVw

Jesus didnt just "walk" on water, He stood on the water. but physics states that you would have to constantly be in motion to do that, Jesus didnt follow that law (He made them, so he didnt have to).
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 14 May 2010, 13:34:18
Walking on water:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ry2aG9QES0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2XQ97XHjVw

Jesus didnt just "walk" on water, He stood on the water. but physics states that you would have to constantly be in motion to do that, Jesus didnt follow that law (He made them, so he didnt have to).

You must proove that jesus made the law(s).
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: @kukac@ on 14 May 2010, 14:57:17
Jesus' criminal record: Broke the laws of physics.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 14 May 2010, 15:15:35
Jesus' criminal record: Broke the laws of physics.

?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: John.d.h on 14 May 2010, 16:46:06
Anybody want to weigh in on reincarnation?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 14 May 2010, 16:55:54
john, not happening. Noone can proove it oh well, most here can`t be prooved anyways... ::) ::) ::) ::)
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: John.d.h on 14 May 2010, 20:03:00
lol Well I'm just tired of the evolution argument, since it's been going on for ages and is going nowhere fast. :P
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 14 May 2010, 20:49:37
well actually, if evolution is false, how to proove creation, if think evolution were 1:999999999999999999999999999999 or something, how would you proove creation? then we come to these arguments: "its obvious" "look at the trees" "look at the sky" or anything like that.

Evolution 1:999999999999999999999

Creation 1: infinity

Who would you side with?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Hectate on 15 May 2010, 05:08:25
lol Well I'm just tired of the evolution argument, since it's been going on for ages and is going nowhere fast. :P
Agreed! In fact, I nearly stated as much in my post on the last page, but was ignored.

Reincarnation? I'll bite. Theologically, what purpose does it serve? I've heard it's mainly related to ones "karma" that determines what one would come back as?

It seems that forgetting past lifes would be no different than never having them. It's not information that can be accessed so it won't effect ones behavior. Unless of course the idea includes the concwpt of people's personalities (attitudes and behaviors) are influenced by way of ones whole (all lives) being.

So, what do you thin k or have read/heard, John?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Omega on 15 May 2010, 06:54:46
Jesus is the son of god! Are you telling me the son of god, who's father created the rules of this world, can't bend one of them?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 15 May 2010, 07:28:27
Jesus was a ordinary man from the middle east, are you telling the that the ordinary man from the middle east, who got a regular father like all of us, can bend the rules of the universe?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Omega on 15 May 2010, 07:31:50
Except that he WASN'T an ordinary man and DIDN'T have an ordinary father.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 15 May 2010, 07:40:07
i know, he was the result of that Maria cheated on someone right?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Seanachaidh on 16 May 2010, 00:33:42
i know, he was the result of that Maria cheated on someone right?

And you critcized me on not knowing the different between debate and argument?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 16 May 2010, 01:59:08
This arguments pathetic, ehem, this brawl is pathetic, its gonna end just like evolution vs. creation which I admit I was involved in, in a stalemate that takes up pages of posts >:( >:( >:( :bomb: :wicked: :wicked:
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: John.d.h on 16 May 2010, 04:12:38
Agreed! In fact, I nearly stated as much in my post on the last page, but was ignored.
I picked up on it, but I think just about everybody has picked their topic/battle. ::)

Quote
Reincarnation? I'll bite. Theologically, what purpose does it serve? I've heard it's mainly related to ones "karma" that determines what one would come back as?
Yeah, all of the religions believing in reincarnation that I'm familiar with have some kind of karma system, under various names.  The Hindus believe in both good and bad karma, while the Jains believe all karma is bad and thus, you should try to interfere with the world as much as possible, because you might accidentally cause harm (like swallowing a bug, which is why their monks wear coverings over their mouths).  I seem to remember something about the Aztecs believing warriors came back to life as butterflies, which I guess is pretty cool if you like killing people and tasting with your feet.

Quote
It seems that forgetting past lifes would be no different than never having them. It's not information that can be accessed so it won't effect ones behavior. Unless of course the idea includes the concwpt of people's personalities (attitudes and behaviors) are influenced by way of ones whole (all lives) being.
My understanding of the Hindu view is that everything about your life is the result of your karma, so it's not just that you're born a human, but also that you're born in such-and-such a caste to parents of such-and-such socioeconomic status, etc., and I think they believe that karma keeps going through all your lives.  Rollover karma, I guess you could say.  A side effect of this is that their religion doesn't require them to help people, because if something bad is happening to someone it's their own fault for being a bad person/snake/badger a couple hundred years ago.  I'm not sure about Buddhists, Jains, Scientologists, or others on that matter.

There's a huge problem I have with the "past-life hypnosis" stuff.  Unless your past lives are somehow embedded in your brain during your future lives, it just doesn't make sense... and then wouldn't they build up over time until there wasn't room?  Maybe that's why I'm so easily distracted. :look:

I think it's safe to say that a fear of death is pretty universal among humanity.  As far as I know, every religion believes in an afterlife, even if they don't believe in a god/gods (like Buddhists).  Think about how defensive people get when you attack their identity (call some random guy a fag or a bad father and see what happens1), and what's more threatening to your identity than the thought that in 100 years you won't even exist at all?  You die, your corpse rots, and for the most part everybody forgets you ever existed and probably nothing you did in life will even matter in the long run.  Depressing, ain't it?  The second part is the fear of the unknown.  Try to imagine not existing.  I bet you can't.  You might be able to imagine, say, being surrounded by nothingness, darkness, sensory deprivation, whatever, but imagine not existing.  Not even your mind exists, so you can't even know you're dead.  There's not even a "you" to not be able to think about not existing. (I think I should stop before I confuse myself. :confused:)  Anyway, I think that's a big reason why all societies come up with a concept of the afterlife.  It's a lot easier than imagining the possibility of not having one.

From a societal perspective, I think that beliefs about the afterlife serve a big purpose when it comes to people's behavior.  Quite simply, if your death is going to be the same as everybody else's no matter what and nothing you do in life really matters to anybody in a couple centuries, why do anything but enjoy what little time you have left (at the expense of everyone else if need be, since their lives don't matter either)?  Why should I risk my life for anything if death is the most terrifying thing possible?  Believing that you will get some kind of reward or punishment for their deeds gives people a sense of purpose, that they should do a, b, and c, but not x, y, and z (fill in the variables for whatever religion you like) because what you do in life does matter.  Without an afterlife, life is depressing, our actions are pointless, and death is terrifying.

Honestly, I have no idea what awaits me when I die, and it's scary.  If the Baptists or Buddhists are right then I'll be fine, but if the Catholics or Atheists are right then I'm doomed in the worst ways imaginable.  I don't particularly expect reincarnation (it just seems a little "out there" for me), but I guess I'll just have to wait and see (or not).

Once a religion has established that there is something after death, then I think reincarnation is a pretty easy choice for many.  The world goes through all kinds of cycles and springs back to where it was before (like seasons), so it seems like the same could be true for life and death.  Add on that we begin life weak, bald, and helpless, then grow strong and wise, then start the downward slope back towards being weak, bald, and helpless (say around age 25 :look:), culminating with death.  When you return to the same point where you started, it seems pretty natural that you're going to start again, right?  One of the things I always found myself wondering when it came to ideas about Heaven was "Okay, then what?  What comes after that?"  Somehow, the idea of a temporary condition (life) followed by a permanent one (eternal afterlife) just doesn't sit right in my mind.

Plus, the idea of coming back to life as a shark is totally badass.

1:
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Hectate on 16 May 2010, 06:17:33
I agree that reincarnation is a bit out there - although some of that is probably cultural as well. Logically, it would seem that life as a bug or whatever would be so amoral (without moral decisions, different than immorral) that one could not influence karma in any way in such a state. Unless I misunderstand the concept altogether.

Concerning afterlife and religion - yes, it definitely has the ability to influence people, whether by desire for good karma, fear (of hell/punishment/etc), or even just apathy (such as you noted about non-existence). I agree that I've also wondered about how it is possible to occupy one's self for an eternity. Sure if time doesn't apply in the same way it might be different - but like non-existence it is difficult to comprehend.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 16 May 2010, 08:59:55
I wasn`t trying to be pathetic, i was asking questions about christianity, and i could continue questioning till we get to whereas god exist.

About that reincarnation thing, i think it was made by a indian king or something that wanted more control over his people. Like he said, be nice and give me all your things and you shall be rewarded with eternal life as a higher being. don`t you think so?

EDIT & OT: Who changed the text under my image to SPAMBOT!?!?!
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: @kukac@ on 16 May 2010, 10:58:20
It was to prevent people doing "evil" things, because normally anyone would do anything. They claimed that if you do something bad, something bad will happen to you after your death -.- Basically, these religions are the law of the ancient times: a prison.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 16 May 2010, 12:49:37
all religions prevent freedom.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: xxcatmysteryxx on 17 May 2010, 01:48:32
Walking on water:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ry2aG9QES0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2XQ97XHjVw

Chris Angel did this.... hes awesome
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: jda on 17 May 2010, 03:28:33
Hey, Gerês, Portugal is just about 70 km from where I live! And I never saw this there. Then again, them guys don't have Portuguese names... :P
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 18 May 2010, 16:54:14
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Bql0cpVHbA'

This isn`t ill informed....
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 18 May 2010, 17:00:57
Are those our friendly neighborhood muslims.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 18 May 2010, 17:02:18
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcJwRCv9g88

Here is your common friend!
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 18 May 2010, 17:04:32
Religion is a big problem when taken to the extreme. >:( >:( :wicked: :wicked:
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 18 May 2010, 17:08:51
Lol, it is always a problem, when it gets to the extreme, the government brings in military.

Watch religion (fairytale, same thing) fail, this doesn`t only count for islam, also for christianity, thunderf00t is more powerfull than any god, lets worship him, oh wait, i can do that too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPJP2Q6MqtE

Guys, seriously, continue this religious debate, we have like 50 guests watching it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HnIKk9aB4g

Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 18 May 2010, 17:22:55
The films are Awful, :( :( >:(, such people should be shot. >:( >:( >:( :wicked: :wicked: :dead: :dead: :dead:
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 18 May 2010, 17:34:52
I know, i would say, kill all islams so they will not perceed with the sharia law or any other activity of theirs, look here, noo blood, but i cannot garauntee against nightmares:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fbXvq_ZIbw
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: jda on 18 May 2010, 18:10:14
The films are Awful, :( :( >:(, such people should be shot. >:( >:( >:( :wicked: :wicked: :dead: :dead: :dead:
I know, i would say, kill all islams so they will not perceed with the sharia law or any other activity of theirs, look here, noo blood, but i cannot garauntee against nightmares:
Guys... that doesn't really help.

And those videos... had points ... and pitfalls.
"you can't start a fire and you expect to take over the world? - LMAO"
Now that was really lame (not to mention the whole video that would have been just as funny with no narration, no captions and a simple title).
Who said "they want to to take over the world"?  :look:

Loose facts:
The current President to the European Comission, José Barroso, former Minister for Foreign Affairs in Portugal (and later Prime Minister) of which I am a citizen stated on the press inquiring (just for ratings as usual) about Portugal selling bullets to Iraq before the first Gulf War in 1991, more or less this "I didn't have the time to read every document I was asked to sign, I just signed it without knowing what it was!".
1. Arsehole.
2. Everyone in the Western world was selling arms to the Iraq before the first Gulf war... And to it's enemy Iran too! Actually, we were all very happilly in Europe and the North America selling armament to most every country in the Middle East and Africa. Most of us still are to one or the other.
Oh but do we miss the good ol' days of the Cold War when we would have them guys fight each other ... and sell' em weapons of personel and mass destruction... All for a perfectly good cause, of course, be it Communism or Capitalism, who cares? We just need to keep this balance of power going steady to keep selling 'em weapons to fight the war we don't want to fight ourselves (nor do really care about)...
Well... even a great lie such as that can't go on forever so... let's end that... Anyways... we've been having them fight for so long now they don't even need an ideal, good ol' way back rooted hatred will do just fine...  :thumbup:

Did we all forget about this?... Or instead took words like "I didn't know what I was signing" as any relevant to the real questions?...

Did we forget that after we Westerners killed millions of Jews in Europe we thought they should have a place of their own... somewhere else, say the Middle East?...

Man, us westerners really screw up the world pretty good, don't we?... And I mean "the world", not just our own countries or the little people in them...
/OT

And yes, fanatic religion (or most anything else "fanatic") is ... well ... is there a word for it?...  :look:
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 18 May 2010, 18:21:34
mhm, muslims, if they care so much for aaalaaahhh why dont they jst go and fuck someone then say that they gave the world a child of islam, the religion of "peace"....

If anyone could defend islam, sorry, but defending terrorists and yeah..uhm...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: jda on 18 May 2010, 18:38:47
I'm not defending terrorism.
But I am saying it's hypocritical to acuse them of wanting to do something we've been doing: take over the world.
Even if they do want to take over the world... WE are holding that position. And I don't believe you can convince me that's a morally correct position to hold.
It is nonetheless in our nature.

So yeah, they're **insult** for wanting it. But we are no better. So... if you want to be coherent, just keep *** them over and admit that's what you want to do.

We are no better to them than they are to us. We are stronger than them though. So there, stop the bloody whining. :P

EDIT: To wyvern and to you I am just saying "kill them all" is not a sollution (or a need really, unless you feel guilty and need to purge yourself by killing someone worse than you).
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 18 May 2010, 19:09:36
I feel guilty for us sending our soldiers to protect me and then watch them die on TV + let in the people were trying to hold out. I feel resposibility to those soldiers in the Iraq and middle east that die for us, then we let those muslim a**holes in without saying a thing. The muslims do not provide anything! I am afraid to paint ugly pictures of the pedophil prophet muhammad, because i got muslims in my neighbourhood wanting to stab me if i do so. I am not afraid of painting ugly paintings of jesus, caus ei know christians won`t stab me if theyr not mentally ill or something. I feel angry at them for oppressing free speech, i feel sad for them to be human like me, yet to kill innocent people and then pray to god, and get a reward for it too! I feel happy that their whole nation is at the brink of destruction! I feel to nuke their asses so hard theyll not have a chance to survive! i know, we cant nuke cause the worlds gonna die...

Basically, i feel for crushing the whole of muslims to pure dust and then laugh at the religion so hard i`ll probably die. Don`t blame me, they started it, i didn`t tell them to go insane and awake the sleeping giant. Muslims, the sharia, any thing related to that religion is way worse than christianity. I hate those bastards for actually being alive, it is an insult to say that they deserve it. They actually deserve the thing called hell, i did not tell em to do things that would make me think that about them. Guess what, its their fault, purely, if they had not done it, i wouldn`t hate them, they knew that we would hate them when they started killing people, they knew the consequences, they are the ones doing the bad things, i can`t do anything about the way i feel for them, THEY started it, THEY can`t fix it, THEY deserve according to me, eternal torture and burning in hell, if it ever existed. I don`t care for the "moderate muslims" if they tell me their just as good as any christian, no, they also deserves it, if they ever listened to what the Koran said, they`ll convert immeidately, but no, they are preechign their asses of, then their little brainwashed minds are saying it to be holy and true, liek what the hell? How can ANYONE EVER defend such thing? Christianity transformed into western values, we don`t torture any more, if not completely nesesarry, we do not kill civilians, but i dare to say that we have the RIGHT to kill islamics and their country and everything. THEY ARE THE ONES DOING THE BAD THINGS! we don`t halfway bury women and then throw rocks on them till they die. IF YOU ARE MUSLIM YOU ARE EVIL!

Those bastards even dare to migrate illegal into Norway after shouting in the streets in their homeland that "NORWAY you wil pay! DENMARK you will pay!" How can we ever allow them even to get near our border?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 18 May 2010, 19:32:44
I'm not saying kill them all, but they have no right to impose their beliefs on others, if they want islam they can have it in the middle east but they can't bring it and try to impose it on others. >:( >:( >:(
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 18 May 2010, 19:42:11
The Koran tells em to impose it on us, Free speech/free rights vs Immoral bastards, who wins? sorry, but they can`t have their beliefs.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Zoythrus on 18 May 2010, 20:29:49
well, Gabbe, for once i can agree with you. Islam is a religion of bondage and fear. they serve Allah solely because they will be killed if they dont. as we all know, i'm a Christian, i serve a God who doesnt force us to serve Him (but He does say that serving Him will make life better). Our God doesnt say, "well, all my slaves, i want you to kill anyone who doesnt like me; they deserve to go to Hell." If He hated us all, He wouldnt have tried to be our friend.

The main problem i have with Islam (besides the bondage and fear thing) is that Allah doenst love anyone. He only allows believers to survive. Allah does not (nor ever did) have man's best interest in mind. He doesnt care if his people die, he just wants to see the "infidels" (like me) die...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: jda on 18 May 2010, 20:42:59
First of all, let's get this straight:
Just 'cause some asshole puts a 'moderate mulsim' caption on some radical muslim face, it doesn't make the said radical moderate.
Actually, if it was the said radical himself who called himself moderate... it still doesn't make him moderate.
Agreed?

Now, on your first paragraph (on your former post), the only thing I read that actually gives you a right to fight back was:
I am afraid to paint ugly pictures of the pedophil prophet muhammad, because i got muslims in my neighbourhood wanting to stab me if i do so. (snip) I feel angry at them for oppressing free speech
Still, how the heck does that justify this (also from your first paragraph):
Quote
I feel to nuke their asses so hard theyll not have a chance to survive!
???  :o :o :o

Less relevant:
Quote
I feel happy that their whole nation
What "whole nation" are you talking about?
Quote
i feel sad for them to be human like me, yet to kill innocent people and then pray to god, and get a reward for it too!
What reward?

Quote
Basically, i feel for crushing the whole of muslims to pure dust and then laugh at the religion so hard i`ll probably die. Don`t blame me, they started it, i didn`t tell them to go insane and awake the sleeping giant. Muslims, the sharia, any thing related to that religion is way worse than christianity. I hate those bastards for actually being alive, it is an insult to say that they deserve it. They actually deserve the thing called hell, i did not tell em to do things that would make me think that about them. Guess what, its their fault, purely, if they had not done it, i wouldn`t hate them, they knew that we would hate them when they started killing people, they knew the consequences, they are the ones doing the bad things, i can`t do anything about the way i feel for them, THEY started it, THEY can`t fix it, THEY deserve according to me, eternal torture and burning in hell, if it ever existed. I don`t care for the "moderate muslims" if they tell me their just as good as any christian, no, they also deserves it, if they ever listened to what the Koran said, they`ll convert immeidately, but no, they are preechign their asses of, then their little brainwashed minds are saying it to be holy and true, liek what the hell? How can ANYONE EVER defend such thing? Christianity transformed into western values, we don`t torture any more, if not completely nesesarry, we do not kill civilians, but i dare to say that we have the RIGHT to kill islamics and their country and everything. THEY ARE THE ONES DOING THE BAD THINGS! we don`t halfway bury women and then throw rocks on them till they die. IF YOU ARE MUSLIM YOU ARE EVIL!
Now this is just a load of crap.
Back when we were burning "wiches" alive, and doing all sorts of not at all more pleasant things than those currently being done in some islamic countries, we had the exact same religion that is still dominant in our countires nowadays.
Blame their religion if you will, I blame their culture. Not the same. Nobody nuked us to get where we are now BTW. And if they did, we'd be nowhere. Do you understand where I'm getting at?
And BTW they didn't tell you to try and control their countries in such a way that they would feel anger or hatred against "you" either.
And they knew (and cared) their actions would make us hate them as much as our ancestors knew their actions would make the islamics hate us. And erm ... this has been going on for centuries now and ... well ... it's not "purely their fault" any more it's not purelly our own, you know? It's just bloody fucked up history period.

Quote
Those bastards even dare to migrate illegal into Norway after shouting in the streets in their homeland that "NORWAY you wil pay! DENMARK you will pay!" How can we ever allow them even to get near our border?
Tell me one thing... recognise any of the faces from the videos on your neighbourhood? Are they the same actual persons?

Now a foreword: I probably won't reply again because you obviously feel too strongly about this. And I'd just be wasting my time continuing this discussion.

I'm not saying kill them all, but they have no right to impose their beliefs on others, if they want islam they can have it in the middle east but they can't bring it and try to impose it on others. >:( >:( >:(
True. Can you impose Democracy on them?

Zoythrus posted while I was writing. Interestingly... I'm feeling increasingly inclined to not even check on the answers...
Here's for you, Zoythrus (EXPLICIT WORDING):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 18 May 2010, 20:47:47
WOW, zoy! your actually one of the christians beliving that i won`t go to hell! (that indicates that you either belive i`ll go heaven or i just die)

mhm, jda, muslims and free speech/free rights are contradictions, you cannot have these together, the Koran tells you as any other holy book that you should preech about your religion, i say that they can preech as much as they want, but killing civilians and threaten me on my life, then i hate them, thats how the real world works.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Zoythrus on 18 May 2010, 21:06:56
@ Gabbe: on the topic of Hell, i dont want to comment (but refer back to the thing i said about making life better by following God...)

@jda: yeah, i watched the video, and i cant believe that he could be so mislead.

I know that God exists, want more proof? ok, let's talk about morals. yes, morals; the right and wrong that everyone talks about. if we had evolved from animals, we would have no morals; we would be a bunch of indifferent, thoughtless creatures. now, maybe we did evolve morals, but the only things that we would think of is everything we were told not to do (jealousy, hate, contempt, lust, selfishness, etc). if we evolved from animals, then we would think like an animal - what can i do to benefit me? animals only think about themselves, what they will eat, where they will sleep, etc. if we thought like this, it would be commonplace to be so selfish; no one would talk about morals, they wouldnt exist. answer me this, do you have to teach your kids how to be jealous? do you tell them to steal from people? if we were taught to be selfish, then we would not care to think of others. these "good" things would be looked down upon in society.  

then, if being selfish is the "right" thing to do, why are we taught to do good and are punished for doing evil? why do we feel bad in ourselves when we do wrong? evolution by very nature would insist that what we consider to be "right" is wrong, but society says otherwise.

only God could have implanted morals in us.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 18 May 2010, 21:12:18
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCovYF51qHE

The vids just sayin..

Im sure my cat likes to be with me, its a reason it follows me all around my garden for nothing every single day :D

You can`t really give god credit for our society though, cause it developed alot longer before religion was even a idea

Quote
I know that God exists, want more proof

PS. thats not proof, lets stick to the evidence here okay? ;)
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Zoythrus on 18 May 2010, 21:25:24
most of that video was taken out of context. one of the reasons God commanded the Israelites to kill so many people is because He knew that they're beliefs would taint His people. He wanted their religion wiped out because the Israelites would have stumbled, and God would have had to pour His wrath upon them (again). God made promises (which He always keeps) to Jacob, Abraham, and the rest that He would take care of their children. He was looking for their best interests.

Also, God gave rules to the Israelites, and they promised to follow them. When they didnt, God would put them back on track. He knew that by following His rules (morals), that they would have prospered.

When Jesus came to earth, one of His jobs was to bring in the New Covenant. The New Covenant states that Jesus was to take the punishment for all of mankind's sins. Man no longer had to fear God's wrath, because Jesus paid the price (the perfect offering to God).
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 18 May 2010, 21:29:00
Quote
taint
?

Quote
When they didnt, God would put them back on track

How?
Quote
God made promises (which He always keeps) to Jacob, Abraham, and the rest that He would take care of their children. He was looking for their best interests.

I want a brand new gaming rig now, and i have debth to pay, can god give me money?

mhm, how was it out of context about the rape incest and infanticide?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: jda on 18 May 2010, 21:42:55
mhm, jda, muslims and free speech/free rights are contradictions, you cannot have these together, the Koran tells you as any other holy book that you should preech about your religion, i say that they can preech as much as they want, but killing civilians and threaten me on my life, then i hate them, thats how the real world works.
If your neighbours threaten your life, ok, kill 'em! :P What do the other muslims have to do with it?  :look:
(And no... don't kill your neighbours... besides the fact you'd go to jail... in my book, a man is still innocent til proven guilty and you can't be guilty of a crime you didn't commit yet, can you? Besides, I myself don't believe in the death penalty some of our countries still have).

@ Zoythrus
Assumptions, assumptions...
1. Animals do not "think" all the same way... Compare lion to goat for example.
2. Morals or "right and wrong" are concepts like any other, including the concept "there is no god".
3. The theoric possibility Evolutionism is wrong doesn't proove the existence of God, not even in theory.
4. Some animals are predominantly individual, others are predominantly societary. Societary animals have sanctioned "good" and sanctioned "bad" behaviours and there are actual defyances to them and actual punishments in those animal societies. We learn Good and Wrong the exact same way. Logically arguing with someone very emotionally charged is pointless 99% of the time (faith in itself carries stong emotional charge BTW).
5. Like all other societary animals, humans are societary because each individual selfishly needs the others (even just for emotional contact and exchange) which I think is much more beautiful IMO than any religious/moral view I know of it.
6. In case you haven't noticed yet... I believe humans are selfish even in spite of their social needs most of the time.

one of the reasons God commanded the Israelites to kill so many people is because He knew that they're beliefs would taint His people. He wanted their religion wiped out because the Israelites would have stumbled, and God would have had to pour His wrath upon them (again).
Do you realise how THAT IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE JIHAD?!

Jesus Christ... (am I using His name in vain :P)... I'm outta here... You're psyched on this subject. :P
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 19 May 2010, 01:15:09
Muslims don't want to get democracy, they don't have to get it, but their way of life is impractical and if we don't buy their resources they will fall apart, second of all I believe that their religion promises eternal bliss, 99 virgins if you die fighting the infidel, the religion leads to radicalism, and from other sources, what Gabbes movies show is true. Allah cares for no one which is something I'll agree with Zoythrus on.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 19 May 2010, 01:22:36
Intelligent people can have morals without religion, however, in the the early middle ages when christianity took root many of the people were quite, stupid and uneducated, when a person is dumb they tend to behave bad but the threat of divine punishment meant that people were scared to loot, kill, etc.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Zoythrus on 19 May 2010, 02:57:36
i would get into Christian doctrine, but you guys dont care. you will diss whatever i say, so there is no point in mentioning anything bigger than what i am saying now. now, if you actually cared (and i dont mean just saying so you can mock me more), i would tell you more of my point of view.

i am leaving this conversation (brawl), again.

later people,
Zoy
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: John.d.h on 19 May 2010, 05:01:59
i would get into Christian doctrine, but you guys dont care. you will diss whatever i say, so there is no point in mentioning anything bigger than what i am saying now. now, if you actually cared (and i dont mean just saying so you can mock me more), i would tell you more of my point of view.

i am leaving this conversation (brawl), again.
Yeah... honestly, I think few people in this thread are mature/reasonable enough to discuss beliefs in any manner other than bashing.  (There are a few, just not very many.) :-\
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 19 May 2010, 05:56:49
For people who believe in evolution and human having morals: Go get a brain and think that over.
Should I get going on this one?



For people who believe in some kind of intelligence(a creator[not necessarily God from the Bible...], intelligent energy stuff[don't know what to call it], taking all possibilities with intelligence behind them), and humans having morals: Good job! You understand logic!



I'm almost thinking of writing a book about this. :P
I think my Dad might want to write something about this topic when he's retired, I could help him........



Quote
when a person is dumb they tend to behave bad but the threat of divine punishment meant that people were scared to loot, kill, etc.

You're picking on a piece of the crowd there bub, you're completely leaving out the honorable people would didn't do it because they knew it was wrong.
I could easily claim with total moral backup that if you evolutionists believe what you do, then the only reason you don't go out and rape people and steal, is because you might get caught and put in jail.



I'd also like to see you present the part in the genetic code where the honor in people comes from. Most people are generally pretty honorable.



So much stuff that makes person who they are, just isn't in their genetic code. If you haven't noticed, emotions 'affect' a person they don't 'control' a person.
I'm also extremely curious, why I can't stop thinking about a specific individual, where's the damn love gene for goodness sake?!



I'm going to enjoy watching you guy stumble around over these questions. :P
Of course I'm expecting you to slip your way out of these questions, but I'll just keep putting them in your face waiting for a good reasonable answer.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: xxcatmysteryxx on 19 May 2010, 10:22:48
mhm, muslims, if they care so much for aaalaaahhh why dont they jst go and fuck someone then say that they gave the world a child of islam, the religion of "peace"....

If anyone could defend islam, sorry, but defending terrorists and yeah..uhm...

actually not al people who are islam/muslium are not terrorists just the extremist who want the power. FYI there god is Allah and they are more religoius then us

and in school we're reading this book about Afghanistan but not with the war and stuff but how life was like for this one girl growing up she lost her leg and her failmliy anyways I recommend you read it, its pretty good book its called The Other Side of the Sky
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: @kukac@ on 19 May 2010, 10:52:24
i would get into Christian doctrine, but you guys dont care. you will diss whatever i say, so there is no point in mentioning anything bigger than what i am saying now. now, if you actually cared (and i dont mean just saying so you can mock me more), i would tell you more of my point of view.

i am leaving this conversation (brawl), again.
Yeah... honestly, I think few people in this thread are mature/reasonable enough to discuss beliefs in any manner other than bashing.  (There are a few, just not very many.) :-\

Well, no one is forced to join, or even read this topic :P (But the mods should read every last of them  :-\ )
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 19 May 2010, 13:16:50
mhm, evolution is how most of the world works, evolution is basically changes to something, arch, describe logic and what it means.
Arch, do you belive cells duplicate? Do you belive things changes over time?

By the way arch, you are free to belive that there is something more to the human body even if you think evolution to be right. Evolution doesn`t even tell you anything about the mind. I think that the only reason your being flamed at is because you are mis informed or you have not the right information about the subject, kinda one thing but i ment to seperate things...

Quote
where's the damn love gene for goodness sake?!

people fell in love. They do so mostly because of the other individuals smell. I don`t know much about this, i have been questioning this a long time ago and i remember i foudn an answer, but i don`t remember anything else that there were something expalining that...

Basically love is the smell of your partner...
Quote
but I'll just keep putting them in your face waiting for a good reasonable answer.

Lemme do something similar...

Quote
Quote
where's the damn love gene for goodness sake?!

thats your question, heres mine...

Quote
Where`s the damn creator for goodness sake?!
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 19 May 2010, 14:23:46
Guys, think about this, most creationists say that earth was created in six days, correct, now think about the order of creation, then think about the phases in which the evolutionists say the world was created. Now think,other then time wise and the first day of creation, it all matches, oceans form, animals come into the ocean, plant life comes on earth, animals come on earth, humans come on earth, the order of it is the same on both sides, and even the big bang could compare with light versus shadow, the differing things are time and God
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 19 May 2010, 15:28:16
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsCaB_j3p_4
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 19 May 2010, 16:54:19
Your argument is ridiculous. :|

I'm done here.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 19 May 2010, 16:55:28
This topic should be locked, it almost has the most posts in the forum
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 19 May 2010, 16:59:18
thats because everyone want to share their opinion, and defend it aswell, some ally some become enemies, some stay neutral, yet noone has been neutralized.

I don`t think lock it, it is fun and attracts guest, just look when it had been down for about a month, then when sum1 posted, suddenly half the guests were watching it... It gives the forum users...

Quote
Your argument is ridiculous. No Opinion

I'm done here.

atleast i have some...

[Bad claim dude, too bad for you that you don't realize how bad you make the evolutionists look. --Arch (no offense)]

join the forums in the message i sent you, would proove your debating skills
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 19 May 2010, 17:00:35
True
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 19 May 2010, 18:49:20
Zoy the vid wasn`t out of context, how the hell can it be, if your so sure, then gimme the bible page, sorry, but the bible is a fucked up book with contradctions all over...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 19 May 2010, 20:08:36
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztdnNmKYHh4

Make the Islam dead...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: modman on 20 May 2010, 01:54:50
I've really tried not to participate in these debates anymore, because I want people to join www.debatingchristianity.com/ (http://www.debatingchristianity.com/) so that we can have a debate which is run a little better than the comments page for a YouTube video.  Honestly, this has turned into a blog post.

Gabbe, please stop posting videos.  Videos don't work in debate unless you give people time and encouragement to respond to them.  Otherwise, everyone who disagrees with just shake their heads.

And if you do join that website, please PM me with your username so I know who you are.  There you will see how a debate is supposed to be run.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 20 May 2010, 12:52:18
Debating Christianity is ridiculous, the debate would be better named: Debating Evolution.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 20 May 2010, 13:10:02
MHM I JOINED IT A WHILE AGO, MY NAME IS probably gabbetroop i wrote a huge intro post got 10 tokens :P they debate evolution, but only in the science section.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: modman on 20 May 2010, 23:48:31
Debating Christianity is ridiculous, the debate would be better named: Debating Evolution.

So you are afraid to espouse your beliefs there but not here? :angel:

Plus, what better opportunity to show them how wrong they are, since you have an even playing field to say whatever best supports your views?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 21 May 2010, 13:49:16
lmao, arch, seriously join the debating christianity forum, there are guys there that you`ll also consider idiots cuz they don`t support your belief...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Omega on 21 May 2010, 15:57:59
Completely agreed. Yet they still do it out of some false placed sense of 'righteousness'. The problem is their opinion of what is right and what is wrong. It shows how they can misintrepid words.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 21 May 2010, 16:18:42
Completely agreed. Yet they still do it out of some false placed sense of 'righteousness'. The problem is their opinion of what is right and what is wrong. It shows how they can misintrepid words.

mhm, agreed with who and what?

Something i just have to ask you Omega, as a christian i really know, do you think i deserve to go to hell?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Omega on 21 May 2010, 16:24:11
I am not god. It is not for me to decide who goes to to heaven and who goes to hell.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 21 May 2010, 16:25:58
i was asking for your opinion, not gods opinion.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Omega on 21 May 2010, 16:35:21
Well, I think as long as you don't kill, steal, rape, etc; you can enter heaven, but not while having athiest views. Time for some change I should think?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 21 May 2010, 16:45:51
When you die you rot and your "spirit is" erased from the world
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 21 May 2010, 16:48:14
thanks Omega, two christians that don`t think i`ll going hell  :)
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 21 May 2010, 17:05:38
I don't think you'll go to hell but I'm not particularly religious.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 21 May 2010, 17:07:16
i thinm you don`t even belive in hell, me neither, but god says im going there...atleast the bible says so..
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 21 May 2010, 17:08:47
Quote
i thinm you don`t even belive in hell
too true
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 21 May 2010, 17:10:59
howd i know that???? :D

mhm is the bible biased a lile`?
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 25 May 2010, 14:19:09
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2deQOotw6NM
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: xxcatmysteryxx on 25 May 2010, 22:06:12
that was a pointless video it had no point to it. And ha he used Google Earth I love that download so much

Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: xxcatmysteryxx on 25 May 2010, 22:21:34

Something i just have to ask you Omega, as a christian i really know, do you think i deserve to go to hell?

well I don't believe in heaven but I kinda believe in hell. Think about it none of that is really there like up in the sky its just clouds then space nothing for heaven it would just be a virchural relitality there is no prove that it would exist. But hell think about it in the ground the earth goes down forever and it really is hot there and we can't really travel there to see whats down there.  When some people die they stay to earth as a ghost if they are bad staying here on earth forever is hell. but other a little better people there spirts is just stuck here because they don't desvere to go to heaven or hell because they did a little bad stuff in there life but not enough to go to hell.

Yah im a little werid with what I think I know people tell me that alot

Gabbe I don't think you would go to hell enless you did something REALLY bad and a bunch of stuff more than once. and i don't know you as a real person so I can't really say. Sorry but I don't think you would go to heaven because you probally had to do something a little bad because people AREN'T perfect; like cheat on a test, steal something like candy; Lie.
Also i know i wouldn't be going to heaven because I know im a bad person......
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: -Archmage- on 26 May 2010, 04:40:26
He was trying to say that that guy in the movie is stupid. :|

Google Earth is cool, especially the flight simulator, even though it kinda sucks and is hard to use. :P



AS for the Bible debate........

It's quite likely that it was written into the Bible later so that Churches could get money to release people from their sins.
I really doubt that an all-loving, all-powerful, God/Creator, would put people in an eternal fire. :look: Besides I'd think God could come up with something more painful than fire..........



Quote
Also i know i wouldn't be going to heaven because I know im a bad person......

You're a bad person?



Sure I lie, but I always try to either lie or tell the truth to get the best outcome, if telling the truth is only going to get me yelled at, when a lie is harmless, I'll just tell the lie. :P
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: modman on 27 May 2010, 03:55:17
I personally think that absolute morality (DO NOT lie in any circumstance, even if it means you jeopardized others' lives) can only be afforded by people with pampered lives who have never seen hardship.  Put two people on an island with resources for one, and we'll see how long your morality holds up.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 27 May 2010, 05:14:24
the scientific hell would be the mantel?

Mhm, IF such thing as god existed and he/she/it created a hell of "fire" what would humans describe it as?
mhm cat weren`t you atheist? Yet im hell? A omnipotent god creates humans with free will, knowing them to start porn industry and becoming prostitutee killing murdering rape enslave kidnap...Noones going to heaven whatsoever....For people living in the rich world, just being here and eat is a terrible sin because it causes people in poor countries to starve...I would dare to say that if god exist hes/she is/it is worse than the devil himself...

The video was explaining how atheist DO HAVE MORE FUN in live because they don`t pray or anything and they see life as valueable, christian and any religion for tht sake, "life is eternal torment and you shall not enjoy it! you shall hate life but you shall not suicide! 1-2 hours of sex in a whole year! nothing more! preferable less!" i think i stand correct? right? And atheist trust science more than religion, so the benefits of science would come quicker if we didn`t have people still living in the middle ages.

And i checked what the creationist in eliminators video was, well, he is in jail for 10 years for something.
I found a video of him:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gzdv2dsPPKw

I checked with the math, it has been done, in favour of evolution, it is possible.  i will find the source soon..just wait...

Andfor the eye thing, that argument is from darwins book, and it says in the intro how this is not explained by evolution, most creationists fail to read the rest of the book were it is explained.

For the glest code compared to the eye, a code has something to do, if the code is chaned just little bit, it won`t work, if the eye is changed back at a large, it still works.

mhm, arch, do you belive the historical jesus or the fairytale one?

When watching, the cambrian explosion lasted 800 million years...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sui4CadfhDM
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: adrian, adde on 27 May 2010, 14:13:34
if u guys thinks  that god isnt real why do you think we dont are real then >:(
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 27 May 2010, 14:15:07
We are real because of "abiogenesis", it is a theory of how life can originate. God has nothing to do with it basically.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 2 June 2010, 20:52:08
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxdxZ47JouU

really nice christians...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: modman on 6 June 2010, 22:36:23
if u guys thinks  that god isnt real why do you think we dont are real then >:(

Complexity is not an explanation for things, it is what we are trying to explain from the bottom up with naturalistic processes like evolution.  Proposing God as a solution is like building a building from the top down: you need something, like a crane (evolution) to be grounded.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 6 June 2010, 22:39:54
I haven't been following this topic for quite a while, whats the new debate about.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 6 June 2010, 22:45:30
still ol` evolution
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: wyvern on 6 June 2010, 22:46:10
the topic that will never have an answer ::) ::) :P :O
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 6 June 2010, 22:53:47
Oh yeah, the top creationists and evolutionists gather on Skype for a debate, thunderf00t dprjones and PCS aka venomfangx is going to be there!
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: Gabbe on 12 June 2010, 08:48:00
Quote
The moons distance is not proof of a young earth. The rate is closer to the 3.75cm/yr rather than the 2.5 cm/yr rate. Multiply 4.54 billion by 3.75 and you get 1.70^10 cm total or 170 million meters which gives us 170250 km the moon has moved away from the earth. The average distance of the moon from the earth is 382500 km which means if the speed of movement has been constant the starting position of the moon was 212500km away from the earth. It should be noted that the speed of movement has not been constant being affected by a number of factors but in the case of this argument it does not matter since the minimum distance the moon needed to form is around five earth radii or 31890km.

young earth is disprooved...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: gameboy on 3 September 2010, 07:33:48
What are we talking abt here, coz i am very interested in joining this thread BUT i have not the patience to go and read 24 pages of debate...
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: gameboy on 3 September 2010, 07:47:22
So far there hasn't been any proof of there not being a God. The only argument that claims to prove it is the 'Problem of Pain' and even that has been debunked.
You give me one argument that proves that there isn't a God and I'll believe you. BUT you must also disprove the 20 something proofs that there is a God using that argument. You may say some shit abt Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Well its easy to not believe them and prove their non-existence 'because' we know their roots, we know how their 'myth' came to be. No one knows who came up with a being 'almighty and all knowing'. that belief is crazy, its absurd. and thats why I believe it. Its not something anybody could make up. And God doesn't have to conform to Science, Science has to conform to God. And what u said abt the universe being ordered and all it just goes to show that it has a designer. I mean, u don't look at a book and go, 'oh...musta been written by a 2 year old randomly pressing keys on a keyboard and then 'magically' this book came into being.' no everything created must have a creator, it is the law of life.
Everything is caused, but there has to be a causer or all that is won't be. The chain of events must stop somewhere for it cannot go on forever.
Title: Re: Religous Debates
Post by: John.d.h on 3 September 2010, 08:12:52
Silly me, I must have missed this one. (http://glest.org/glest_board/Themes/glest2/images/icons/quick_lock.gif)

No offense to anyone.  It's just that this topic has gotten ugly in the past, so we'd prefer to leave it alone.  Some members of this forum have joined the forums at debatingchristianity.com (http://debatingchristianity.com) and taken the discussion there.