Christian Thread

[thakkus]

I'll try to deal with thak later. I don't have time to address the gross enormity of his flawed thinking. I would, however, like to know what version of the Bible he uses.

All versions. I haven't found one to be any better than any other. I am enjoying the discussion, and don't intend to debate my beliefs, but only to share and understand others' beliefs. I will gladly respond to questions or comments. Faith is not something that can be debated conclusively, as in whether or not button A or button B causes the VCR to rewind. Faith has that element spoken of in so many spiritual/religious writings of "belief in things yet unseen." To some, this may be nonsense. To others, the idea that we could believe in that which we haven't directly encountered is fundamental to existence, since we are very finite units in a vast reality of "not yet encountered" things.

Thak

[uniquinous]

Yes yes, but you are discrediting the ability to logically discuss faith much more then its natural boundaries. To say nothing about faith can be discussed is foolish - see the last 133 pages of this thread. Without even getting into what faith is "right", I can say "classical Christianity manifests the following feelins when it comes to religion...". There is fact ABOUT faith, and there is reason BEHIND faith.

[Aro23r]

So... are you saying souls just go to him? Clearly it's not the soul that wants to be in hell, so therefore the pulling force must come from the other end. As such, the devil taking a soul would naturally mean he's taking it FROM somewhere/thing, that where/thing being heaven/god. So, is god uncaring when a soul goes to the devil? Or is he sad? (This also brings into play the "emotions" of such a being).


It's the King Cracker Jack edition.

"The doors of Hell are locked from the inside."
--C.S. Lewis.

There's a difference between love and covetousness.

[uniquinous]

so you're saying jealousy doesn't exist in the heavenly domain? when i saw you post here I thought for a moment you had locked the thread. :p

[Aro23r]

Covetousness is a sin, a "privation of good" (Augustine in Summa Theologicae.) Therefore, since God is all-good (weak phrasing, but I wanna keep consistent with the quote), there is no covetousness.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Covetousness is a sin, a "privation of good" (Augustine in Summa Theologicae.) Therefore, since God is all-good (weak phrasing, but I wanna keep consistent with the quote), there is no covetousness.
All good, so he lets people go to hell. Nice.

[Office_Shredder]

So Aro, I'm allowed to love my neighbor's wife and land to the point of wishing they were part of my domain, but I'm not allowed to covet them?

I really don't see the difference

[Aro23r]

You love your mom? Something tells me you don't "covet" her.

[uniquinous]

No no, you're allowed to hope his wife "seeks redemption"... in your bed.

EDIT: but if someone took my mom away, i'd be pissed

[Jehutyv.2.0]

You love your mom? Something tells me you don't "covet" her.
That analogy fails like a lead balloon, because you are then saying that God loves souls like a son loves a mother.

[Aro23r]

That analogy fails like a lead balloon, because you are then saying that God loves souls like a son loves a mother.

The last time that phrase was used to describe something was when someone was talking to robert plant about his new band. Didn't really fall like a lead zeppelin.

That's pretty much exactly the love God has for humanity, but reversed. Like a father to his sons.

[Jeffery]

A dirty dirty father, who likes to go out and get drunk every night.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

The last time that phrase was used to describe something was when someone was talking to robert plant about his new band. Didn't really fall like a lead zeppelin.

That's pretty much exactly the love God has for humanity, but reversed. Like a father to his sons.
...
Led Zepplin. No.

That just breaks the analogy up. It STILL fails.

[Aro23r]

Heh, alright; if you wanna play semantics, you're right.

[deleryn]

We read an interesting article in our spunky little Bible class today. If anyone's interested in a really *solid* response to the Da Vinci Code, you can read it here (http://www.str.org/site/DocServer/5-6_2006_SG.pdf?docID=961) (can't say I like adobe, though). Koukl and "Stand to Reason" have some pretty good stuff, if you can bear with the advertisements and such.

Anyways, sorry I haven't had time to keep up with the debating and stuff. :(

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Heh, alright; if you wanna play semantics, you're right.
Damn it, you're just like Jeffery. I point out something that makes a flaw in your argument and you claim I'm being picky. It's not semantics at all. Your analogy doesn't work, and therefore you can't use it to support your argument. Just admit it.

[Aro23r]

Was my main idea conveyed by the analogy? I think so.

I was saying the love conveyed is much like the love in a family. But if you wanna be a dick about it, fine, I switched the two nouns. The second analogy involving the "dad" was better than the one with the "mom."

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Was my main idea conveyed by the analogy? I think so.

I was saying the love conveyed is much like the love in a family. But if you wanna be a dick about it, fine, I switched the two nouns. The second analogy involving the "dad" was better than the one with the "mom."
No. The analogy still fails because you are saying it is a son loving a father. God, as you said, is more like a father loving a son. Got it?

[Aro23r]

We read an interesting article in our spunky little Bible class today. If anyone's interested in a really *solid* response to the Da Vinci Code, you can read it here (http://www.str.org/site/DocServer/5-6_2006_SG.pdf?docID=961) (can't say I like adobe, though). Koukl and "Stand to Reason" have some pretty good stuff, if you can bear with the advertisements and such.

Anyways, sorry I haven't had time to keep up with the debating and stuff. :(

That book's a novel. By definintion it's fiction. Why are people getting so uptight about it?


EDIT: Jehutyv. 2.0: Alright then. Pretend that first post said like what my other post said, "Like a father to his son." Let us argue the main point instead of a confused analogy.

[lthlinjction]

"Take the stake out of your own eye, before pointing out the splinter in your brother's eye."

[Jehutyv.2.0]

That book's a novel. By definintion it's fiction. Why are people getting so uptight about it?


EDIT: Jehutyv. 2.0: Alright then. Pretend that first post said like what my other post said, "Like a father to his son." Let us argue the main point instead of a confused analogy.
If you make an analogy the basis of your statement, be ready to back it up as you can. I don't believe OS has any children, so again it is inapplicable.

[uniquinous]

but regardless of the fine tuning of wording - my point still stands. If someone took away my mother or father or close non-romantic love, I'd be kinda upset. So, is god getting upset about everything? Can god have such negative emotions?

[Aro23r]

John 11:35

[Cephas]

So... are you saying souls just go to him? Clearly it's not the soul that wants to be in hell, so therefore the pulling force must come from the other end. As such, the devil taking a soul would naturally mean he's taking it FROM somewhere/thing, that where/thing being heaven/god. So, is god uncaring when a soul goes to the devil? Or is he sad? (This also brings into play the "emotions" of such a being).
Let's see if I can bring this across clearly. From birth, we are sinners. Sin can be viewed as a disease, the end of which is a final spiritual death (I say final, because we are already viewed as spiritually dead, but redeemable until that point). Nowhere in the Bible (at least to my knowledge) do we see Satan posessing or stealing souls. He leads them astray. His names can be translated 'accuser' and 'adversary'. One can ally themself with him (even unwillingly), but he doesn't own them. Hell is not his domain, and the common picture of the devil with his pitchfork tormenting people in hell is a fantasy. He and the other fallen angels will suffer just as much, if not more, as the people there.

Again, Satan does not take a soul. Every soul from birth is already in his... for lack of a better word, 'jurisdiction'. What God wants is for the people to realize their state and come to Him.

I will try to paint a picture to do justice to the thought. Picture a massive factory, in which is located two conveyer belts. One leads down to the factory furnace, where all the garbage is burned. The other leads out to where finished products which are perfect are shipped. We all start on the former, and are as a result destined for the furnace. It is by the intervention of a factory worker that we can be moved from that belt to the other.

God is saddened by sinners, that much seems evident from many passages.
So Aro, I'm allowed to love my neighbor's wife and land to the point of wishing they were part of my domain, but I'm not allowed to covet them?

I really don't see the difference
Aro, uniq, O_S, and Jehutyv - I think the argument is on the wrong basis. If it stems from the above comment from O_S, then the premise is flawed. The suggestion that it is possible to 'love one's neighbor's wife and land to the point of wishing they were part of one's domain' is the same thing as coveting. If I reword it on that basis, what you're asking is 'I'm allowed to covet my neighbor's wife and land, but I'm not allowed to covet them?' The question is absurd in that light, no?

To covet is basically to have an strong desire toward something that is another's (and more specifically, that you should not have).

EDIT: I regret that I am unable to play a more active role in this discussion. I'm in performance right now (we just had opening night) and I'm very busy.

[Hey1001]

All religions are a bunch of stories made up to try to explain what no one has ever been able to find out and never will: where do we come from, how we got here, and what happens when we die. They rationalize the unknown based on the human experience: father, son, love, evil.

[thakkus]

All religions are a bunch of stories made up to try to explain what no one has ever been able to find out and never will: where do we come from, how we got here, and what happens when we die. They rationalize the unknown based on the human experience: father, son, love, evil.

I agree. But why do human societies do this? Why have human cultures always done this?

There are only two camps:

1. By design.
2. By mistake.

[Office_Shredder]

Aro, uniq, O_S, and Jehutyv - I think the argument is on the wrong basis. If it stems from the above comment from O_S, then the premise is flawed. The suggestion that it is possible to 'love one's neighbor's wife and land to the point of wishing they were part of one's domain' is the same thing as coveting. If I reword it on that basis, what you're asking is 'I'm allowed to covet my neighbor's wife and land, but I'm not allowed to covet them?' The question is absurd in that light, no?

To covet is basically to have an strong desire toward something that is another's (and more specifically, that you should not have).

The point is that it IS the same as coveting, which is what god is doing


Aro, that doesn't prove your point. Jesus weeps, and then goes to get Lazarus back. It shows that he desired Lazarus living and Mary being happy to the point of actually going and retrieving him from the dead

[thakkus]

Yes yes, but you are discrediting the ability to logically discuss faith much more then its natural boundaries. To say nothing about faith can be discussed is foolish - see the last 133 pages of this thread.

Plenty can be discussed. Debate and Discussion are not the same thing. In order to conduct an effective debate - one that has at least the possibility for being resolved - the issues being debated must consist of debatable (physical?) material.

A very basic premise of God's existance is that He (It, She, They, whatever) "pre-existed." This means God's existance exists outside of the creation of time, planets, universes, humans, etc. There is no possible venue within the human construct of Socrates' little invention called "debate" for this issue to be resolved.

So when the thinking "faither" agrees to debate the existance of God with a skeptic or agnostic or atheist, the faither is making a mistake because he is involved in a debate that can't effectively happen.

So yes, discuss God and the possibilities and the "reasons" why we have faith, or why we dismiss faith altogether. But don't pretend you've won anything by showing that God's existance can't be proven.

That's the whole point of faith.

[Aro23r]

The point is that it IS the same as coveting, which is what god is doing


Aro, that doesn't prove your point. Jesus weeps, and then goes to get Lazarus back. It shows that he desired Lazarus living and Mary being happy to the point of actually going and retrieving him from the dead

I think love and covet are two totally different verbs. You don't. We won't get anywhere unless we can agree to definitions of these two words.

[drakonfire]

The point is that it IS the same as coveting, which is what god is doing


i agree with aro, we need to get a good definition down before this can go further, not to mention you completely ignored the rest of Ceph's post in regards to your answer

[Twelve]

Covet = wanting something that you should not have.

Ahhh...it'll be good to get back inta dis!

12

[Office_Shredder]

Covet = wanting something that you should not have.

Ahhh...it'll be good to get back inta dis!

12

That you should not have? Coveting something is just desiring something greatly that you don't have, whether or not you are supposed to have it.

And if somebody kidnapped my mom, I would long to have her back, yes.

[Hey1001]

I agree. But why do human societies do this? Why have human cultures always done this?

There are only two camps:

1. By design.
2. By mistake.
I don't know that there are only two camps, but as to why we do it, I think it is quite simple: those questions are overwhelming. Those in power throughout time feed religious "answers" to the populace as part of their effort to control the masses. Like politics, religion is a source of power, which at time has been very oppressive, brutal and abusive. I don't suggest we scratch religions out of the face of the earth, and they have also done and continue to do some good (e.g., charities), and provide some sort of framework to think about the "questions," but one has to be objective about them and keep them at check when they attempt to exercise their human urge to take over and tell us all what to think.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

I don't know that there are only two camps, but as to why we do it, I think it is quite simple: those questions are overwhelming. Those in power throughout time feed religious "answers" to the populace as part of their effort to control the masses. Like politics, religion is a source of power, which at time has been very oppressive, brutal and abusive. I don't suggest we scratch religions out of the face of the earth, and they have also done and continue to do some good (e.g., charities), and provide some sort of framework to think about the "questions," but one has to be objective about them and keep them at check when they attempt to exercise their human urge to take over and tell us all what to think."Those in power". Right, everyone knows that Jesus, the poor son of a carptenter, was in high political power. I suggest you stop now before the religious people AND the scientific people start to beat you down.

[Office_Shredder]

"Those in power". Right, everyone knows that Jesus, the poor son of a carptenter, was in high political power. I suggest you stop now before the religious people AND the scientific people start to beat you down.

Not Jesus, but those who use his name (or any religion) to control the populace.

EDIT: Toned down a bit. Thanks for not being dirka :)

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Oh, alright. Let's look at this post, hm?
All religions are a bunch of stories made up to try to explain what no one has ever been able to find out and never will: where do we come from, how we got here, and what happens when we die. They rationalize the unknown based on the human experience: father, son, love, evil.Find out and never will? Wait a minute, what about creation? Bah, no one's ever found out how humans came into being. Evolution? A crock to filter the faithful and the unfaithful.

Good call, OS. Didn't catch that one the first time around.

To say that it is impossible for a divine being to have spoken to these people is as illogical and closeminded to say that they definitely did.

[Office_Shredder]

To say that it is impossible for a divine being to have spoken to these people is as illogical and closeminded to say that they definitely did.

That there is no evidence for any specific type of deity implies that the probability for the specific divine being that supposedly spoke to someone is infinitismely small.

Even if a divine being exists, it's probably not the right one

[Aro23r]

No matter how you phrase it, no matter what you believe, there is always a "leap of faith." In the total physics, biology way, the history of the universe can only be traced to one Planck's time after the Big Bang. Before that, we have no idea what happened.

It's not difficult to place a diety as the force that existed to create the Big Bang.

[meat.eater]

I have absolutely no problem with Christianity, even though I am not a Christian, or would ever be accepted as one. I find the actual study of religion, particularly Christianity, to be fascinating.

What I do sometimes, because I was a firm Christian in my youth (younger youth, for you smart-ass'), Is look in the bible when I have a daily trouble. I just flip to a page, and the answer is right there. Happens constantly. Which leads me to believe that there is a greater good, even though I stopped believing, because I felt unaccepted. Even though technically, I live my life in sin.

So, then I have to find the balance. God was a huge part of my life, and I experienced conversations with him while I was younger. But I also had conversations with myself, and learned about my faults, my sins, my sexuality. I was dismissed from my church community, after a verbal attack (I would argue was a verbal defense, but thats a different story).

The balance, and the reason it is difficult for me to post in this thread at all, is in my choices. God gave us free will, and I can safely say as I disconnect with the Bible more and more, and sin more and more, that shield that protects me, that clear air that I used to breathe, for wherever I stood was God's sanctuary, as it stated in the Bible, but I started to disconnect from that. And, man do I miss it. But then I look at myself, my choices to be bisexual (I am not about to abmit it was not my choice), and it's hard to go back there. Its hard to even think about going back there.

One thing I will say negatively about "Christians," those with semi-faith, is they are only trying to protect themselves. And they think its God protecting them, but its not. They are only in Christianity to say they are, as 90% of Americans say they do (17% of which believe in Hell...). They only say it as a "well, what if God is true... then I want to go to heaven... if he's real. So I better stay on hsi good side."

Its the same people that come to church and get very spiritual, but then forget about God. After church it's just a social scene for them. They dont even think before they sin. God just fits into their routine, in their daily schedule. From what I found, God Is your daily schedule. And they make excuses, "Oh, I dont have time to pray," "Oh, that might be awkward," but the truth is, that takes no time at all. Its just a state of being. You can have some powerful conversations with God, but so many people take that SO literally and actually think you should sit down in a chair and talk to God. Some even think you need him to answer in some deep booming voice.

Truth is, whenever you say "God, help me," and mean it, as just abotu ever person has, he does help. What he does to help, though, is send you himself. He wont fix your car, or give you money. He'll send you himself, so when you live in the being of God, those things wont happen. Its a free pass to tranquility. And so many people diss it. A friend of mine lost his father in a construction accident, and went through a period of asking God "Why?" and "Help." Then I met him, 2 years later, and he told me this. He told me God never helped. An dI looked at him in the eyes and said: "Maybe God made a family looking for a new life move to southwest Portland right down the street from you, and had their youngest son, Evan, meet you and start talking to you about God, so your faith would birth." And thats the truth of it. Thats how God works. My friend has been in the Lords shadow ever since. He tells me he talks to his father.

Some of you speaking here are the type of people I just described. I would implore you search your heart, search for God, actually do it. And see what you end up typing in this thread after youve experienced it. Its like nothign else in the world. And its, hard to leave. But leaving is what I chose to do, and I have to deal with it.

As for me, though, I dont really know what to do anymore. I would like to talk to some people about this, and I have some outlets (not including my old church). But I could always use a few more outlets. Ive been openly bisexual for 2 years, and experimented and felt guilt and pleasure and more guilt. I dont know if it is what will fullfill me. Its just a feeling, that If I had stayed with God, im sure would have gone away. But now all I hear is the Devils lies, and I know that. I still see myself marrying a woman, but I would never marry anyone while still openly attracted to males.

I think its time for my choice to end. I dont want it to (now I guess the Devil types through me as well, heh), and I dont knwo how to. I guess talking about it helps some. Puts it all out there for me to see.

Thanks for listening, whoever did.

-meat

[Jehutyv.2.0]

That there is no evidence for any specific type of deity implies that the probability for the specific divine being that supposedly spoke to someone is infinitismely small.

Even if a divine being exists, it's probably not the right one

You can't just say that it might not be, therefore it isn't. The improbability of a planet sustaining carbon-based lifeforms is tremendous. But hey, here we are, right? I never said anything about probability regarding those variables. So, stop jumping down my throat and get back to the other topics, okay? Calm down.

[Hey1001]

"Those in power". Right, everyone knows that Jesus, the poor son of a carptenter, was in high political power. I suggest you stop now before the religious people AND the scientific people start to beat you down.
Jesus was a renegade of the Jewish faith, the established religion of his people, i.e., the religion of "those in power." That's why the Romans and the Jews had him killed. With Jesus's death, christianity came to be, and the first Catholics were persecuted, for example, by the Romans. As it sometimes happens, over time the persecuted gained power and became the persecutors, which the Catholic church was for many centuries. Remember the crusades, the spanish inquisition, and the christianization of Latin America.

[andalite]

Meat... :( :(
I guess the only thing I can say to that is, God loves us as we are. No matter what we've done in the past. I'm sorry that you were thrown out of church, I don't think they did the right thing there, God told us to love one another as ourselves, as human beings who are flawed but whom He loves anyway. And... my own moments of randomly clicking on Biblegateway.com...

Acts 20:21- I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus.
32- Now I commit you to God and to the word of his grace, which can build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified.

If you're looking for forgiveness, He's there. If you're still questioning about how you feel about yourself, He's there to help you too.

All of us still sin, even though we are saved. I am wretched, I have hurt people even within the last week with issues of loyalty, and I know that by hurting my brothers I hurt God and I hurt myself for doing it. But I know nothing I do can stop Him from loving me, 'cause He loved me first, before I knew His name.

God bless.

[Hey1001]

Oh, alright. Let's look at this post, hm?
Find out and never will? Wait a minute, what about creation? Bah, no one's ever found out how humans came into being. Evolution? A crock to filter the faithful and the unfaithful.

Good call, OS. Didn't catch that one the first time around.

To say that it is impossible for a divine being to have spoken to these people is as illogical and closeminded to say that they definitely did.
Evolution does not explain where all of this that we call our world comes from. It also does not explain where living things come from. Those are the things I'm referring to (and if you say our world is a b-product of the big bang, then, where did the matter in the big bang come from, and so on).

I never said that it is impossible for a divine being to speak to those people. What I'm trying to say is that the Bible and other religious books (Koran, etc.) are really good literature but are not the word of God and the stories might have been based on real people but were fictionalized or mischaracterized to serve a religious purpose. As a book of teachings the Bible is great, as meat-eater recounts, but I don't believe it's the word of God, but rather the distillation by several people that there is a right way for humans to behave so that we can have some sense of order, peace and a better future.

[Hatchet Warrior]

Alright, I have a great question about something. My friends and some of my family keep telling me I look alot like Jesus. I was wondering what you seriously think about this?

[Hey1001]

No matter how you phrase it, no matter what you believe, there is always a "leap of faith." In the total physics, biology way, the history of the universe can only be traced to one Planck's time after the Big Bang. Before that, we have no idea what happened.

It's not difficult to place a diety as the force that existed to create the Big Bang.
Religion is all about faith. Everything else (i.e., the stories that make the framework of a religion) distorts the faith. For example, the Bible tells the story of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden. But science tells us that manking evolved over time from the first living microscopic organisms. The religious right can't accept this science because it is not in the Bible, so they come up with "intelligent design" to explain evolution in a religious way. If we were to prove conclusively that we come not from a one Adam and a one Eve, but from glorified gorillas, does it really matter to the essence of the Christian faith, which is that there is one omnipotent God? Christianity asks to have faith in what is unexplainable, in the mysteries of life, but that doesn't mean that when we find a scientific explanation to the unexplainable the entire religion is shot down.

[meat.eater]

Alright, I have a great question about something. My friends and some of my family keep telling me I look alot like Jesus. I was wondering what you seriously think about this?

I suppose you could look a lot like the Americanized bearded, long haired man - if thats what you mean. It is unknown as to his appearance.

[TheBlazedAce]

Evolution does not explain where all of this that we call our world comes from. It also does not explain where living things come from. Those are the things I'm referring to (and if you say our world is a b-product of the big bang, then, where did the matter in the big bang come from, and so on).

Very simple answer: matter always existed. There is no need for matter to have been created. Matter and Energy is conserved, this works very well...

The big bang does not claim to be a creation of all matter at all, it is just a conclusion on how the universe came to be the way it is today based off a lot of observed evidence.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

EDIT: Screw it, I'm not going to argue this one. Logic never succeeds on this one.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Evolution does not explain where all of this that we call our world comes from. It also does not explain where living things come from. Those are the things I'm referring to (and if you say our world is a b-product of the big bang, then, where did the matter in the big bang come from, and so on).Yeah, but it sure explains how humans came into being. That's a major concept of creationism. And it is answered much more completely with evolution. Also, yeah, it does explain where living things come from. As for the big bang, see TBA.

I never said that it is impossible for a divine being to speak to those people. What I'm trying to say is that the Bible and other religious books (Koran, etc.) are really good literature but are not the word of God and the stories might have been based on real people but were fictionalized or mischaracterized to serve a religious purpose. As a book of teachings the Bible is great, as meat-eater recounts, but I don't believe it's the word of God, but rather the distillation by several people that there is a right way for humans to behave so that we can have some sense of order, peace and a better future. Logically, it is now 99.9 repeating% impossible for the Bible to be the untouched word of God, due to all of the translating, mass-producing, and redistribution it's undergone. But hey, maybe they were all guided by God. Or maybe one of them read "Goes to get milk, cheese, turkey and bread for a sandwich and drink" as "Walks on water".

I don't know. I wasn't there. But neither was anyone here. So they can't press on with the idea that the Bible proves their words because it is the "INERRANT WORD OF GOD" because that itself is in question.

Just... be more clear with your words next time... you made yourself sound really Aethiest and anti-God. It probably wasn't the intent, but that's something online text can't really give anyway.

[Twelve]

OS-- From Dictionary.com-- To feel blameworthy desire for (that which is another's). The connotation of covet is more than just want...it's negative want.

No matter how you phrase it, no matter what you believe, there is always a "leap of faith." In the total physics, biology way, the history of the universe can only be traced to one Planck's time after the Big Bang. Before that, we have no idea what happened.

Mmmhmm. We all have blind faith in something.

Meat-- I didn't know all of that about your youth. First and foremost I'll say this...it says in the Bible that Jesus was tempted by all kinds of sin. All. So, having a desire to do anything isn't an excuse to do it...we as human beings have the free will to do anything we want.

Secondly, I admire your honesty about everything...with that attitude, you'll achieve all. Hebrews 11:6 fits you adequately.

With Jesus's death, christianity came to be, and the first Catholics were persecuted, for example, by the Romans.

Hmm? We've made a myserious leap from Christian to Catholic here, as well as skipped over a lot...

Alright, I have a great question about something. My friends and some of my family keep telling me I look alot like Jesus. I was wondering what you seriously think about this?

You look like the Euro-Jesus, Black-Jesus, or Jewish-Jesus? ;)

12

[Jehutyv.2.0]

OS-- From Dictionary.com-- To feel blameworthy desire for (that which is another's). The connotation of covet is more than just want...it's negative want.

12
Nice of you to avoid this definition from the same site.
COVET: To wish for longingly.

It's not necessarily something you shouldn't have, that's just how the connotation came to affect the denotation.

Also, connotation is not ever to be considered as denotation.

[drakonfire]

your being nitpicky again jehu

we all know definitions change over time, if we work with the second definition of covet as given by dictionary.com then we can never WANT anything and we might as well become buddhists... operating from context, the first definition is the better biblical definition

[Jehutyv.2.0]

your being nitpicky again jehu

we all know definitions change over time, if we work with the second definition of covet as given by dictionary.com then we can never WANT anything and we might as well become buddhists... operating from context, the first definition is the better biblical definitionDefinitions change all the time, just like the rules that religions use, right? Sounds not too stable.

You can't look at one definition and just ignore the other. That's like looking at a part of the bible and taking what supports your argument but discarding what disproves it. Oh, wait.

[TheBlazedAce]

No matter how you phrase it, no matter what you believe, there is always a "leap of faith." In the total physics, biology way, the history of the universe can only be traced to one Planck's time after the Big Bang. Before that, we have no idea what happened.

It's not difficult to place a diety as the force that existed to create the Big Bang.
I don't know where you pull this from... but it's not true.

I have been reading books about the big bang for a long time now and have never heard such a statement. In fact, there are people making theories all the time about what happened before the big bang and we definitely have theories of what caused the big bang (i.e. inflation).

You can stick true to your "there's always blind-faith" involved, but it's never going to be that way. I only base my conclusions on observational evidence. In my eyes it's very difficult to assume a "deity" created the force for the big bang when there's much more statistically possible and evident-agreable theories out there. There's also no reason this mysterious force you speak of (which is only mysterious becuase you're trying to ignore the evidence that lines up with it) is based off a single diety or many or whether this diety fits the rest of your criteria or whether it's a diety at all (why isn't it just a force?)...

[Aro23r]

I don't know where you pull this from... but it's not true.

I have been reading books about the big bang for a long time now and have never heard such a statement. In fact, there are people making theories all the time about what happened before the big bang and we definitely have theories of what caused the big bang (i.e. inflation).


Have any of these theories been tested? I know for a fact that superstring theory cannot be tested; there are no emperically verifiable equations in string theory. Besides, all known rules of physics are false. Quantum physics fails as 'large' objects approach fast speeds. Newtonian physics falls apart at both microscopic levels and macroscopic levels approaching the speed of light. Einsteinian physics falls apart when you hit the microscopic level. No matter how you put it, you have blind faith in something

Many people just have different ideas/names for that something.

[Anarchy_United]

my feet itch. Should I;
A. Scratch my feet
B. Pray to god to make it better
C. Kill myself

Prayer is the lazymans way out, this is just a very simplified example of it.

[Aro23r]

Should i:

neg you?
Ignore that?
Deleate the post for its stupidity? Nah, I'll do the first, let everyone see it.

[ThinkTank]

my feet itch. Should I;
A. Scratch my feet
B. Pray to god to make it better
C. Kill myself

Prayer is the lazymans way out, this is just a very simplified example of it.

No dude, just, no.

[Aro23r]

My apologizes for that post, it was out of line. Although I stand by what it was trying to say.

[Office_Shredder]

Have any of these theories been tested? I know for a fact that superstring theory cannot be tested; there are no emperically verifiable equations in string theory. Besides, all known rules of physics are false. Quantum physics fails as 'large' objects approach fast speeds. Newtonian physics falls apart at both microscopic levels and macroscopic levels approaching the speed of light. Einsteinian physics falls apart when you hit the microscopic level. No matter how you put it, you have blind faith in something

Many people just have different ideas/names for that something.

SO many misconceptions here. First, relativity is a direct extension of Newtonian physics, so to say Newtonian physics falls apart when you approach the speed of light is a fallacy. Second, I've never heard the term "Einsteinian physics" before, and I would appreciate it if I never heard it again.

Third, this idea of theories "failing" under certain conditions is actually the wrong way of looking at things. Mathematical physics works like this:
A) Observe something simple about the world, such as F=ma, or variable magnetic and electric fields create each other
B) Write this obvservation down in mathematical form
C) Gather several (or more) observations, and convert them all as in steps A-B
D) Taking these new mathematical axioms, derive further properties of the universe
E) Test these properties

The reason that a theory derived mathematically (essentially, all of physics) will not work under certain conditions is that those conditions do not fit the requisite axioms. So to say relativity does not hold under quantom conditions is thinking the wrong way; instead, relativity was not derived for a quantized universe.

On the issue of the planck time after the big bang: This is a classic example of being misled by scientific terms. We can identify exactly what happened before one planck time after the big bang began (at least, there is no physical principle preventing us). Instead, we (possibly) are not able to tell what happened between the exact moment the big bang began, and one planck second after the big bang started. What's your point? If time is actually quantized into planck seconds, then the question is meaningless in the first place

[Cephas]

Definitions change all the time, just like the rules that religions use, right? Sounds not too stable.

You can't look at one definition and just ignore the other. That's like looking at a part of the bible and taking what supports your argument but discarding what disproves it. Oh, wait.
I'm with the plebs here. Jehu, you're being deliberately obtuse (are you ever not? :rolleyes: ) once again.

First, a translation can never do justice to the original. No, I will not go into the original languages, because
Second, context is a large part of definition. We see in the Bible that we should not covet, but at the same time, we see God desiring obedience and love from His creation, therefore the negative connotation definition stands while the other does not.

You have your moments, but you have done a fantastic job of being dirka's disciple, and you don't seem to be capable of backing down and admitting to a mistake. Perhaps it would be best if rather than continue fighting a losing battle you would simply shut up? Just a thought... :dry:

[TheBlazedAce]

Have any of these theories been tested? I know for a fact that superstring theory cannot be tested; there are no emperically verifiable equations in string theory. Besides, all known rules of physics are false. Quantum physics fails as 'large' objects approach fast speeds. Newtonian physics falls apart at both microscopic levels and macroscopic levels approaching the speed of light. Einsteinian physics falls apart when you hit the microscopic level. No matter how you put it, you have blind faith in something

Many people just have different ideas/names for that something.
Superstring theory isn't a theory that applies to the big bang really, it has to do with unifying all of these theories you mentioned, Einstien's theory of relativity and Quantum mechanics. None of these theories are false, they are if anything incomplete, but where they work they predict to great accuracy the actions we see around us. Another words there's a whole lot of evidence backing up these theories, so it's not blind faith at all to conclude their truth.

Also, despite these theories being a little unreliable in certain extrema, there are definitely parts of physics that are completely true and requrie absolutely no faith to agree with: conservation of matter and energy for a basic start. Again, the theories you mentioned are incomplete, not false and because there is a lot of evidence for them there's no need for blind faith even where they sometimes become unreliable.

This I see applies just as well to the big bang... you see one little bit of it, the few micro seconds after it happens as being hazy or just theory at this point and you assume the whole theory takes blind faith though we have massive amounts of proof for it. Not to mention inflation, probably the best theory out there for what caused the big bang has lots of evidence for it as well (specific sattelite data about temperature readings and predictions among other things, for more information read The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene). You also forget this is a very recent subject that is still being theorized/factualized even today. Theoretical physicists are delving into and changing our current understanding of cosmology all the time. To jump to conclusions at this point is ridiculous.

There's a difference here, science doesn't jump to conclusions at the first sign of evidence, they verify and verify and verify again before announcing a theory plausible. Currently, though the scientific community as a whole might not be confident enough about specific theories it doesn't mean we have nothing (blind-faith), it just means we're not 100% sure. You know what, that's not a weakness at all, that's science and I don't think as many people would have confidence in such a system were it not comprised in such a manner.

Edit: You're also misunderstanding the concept behind a theory that can't currently be proved. It means we have not thought of a way or have the technology to prove it at the moment, but it doesn't at all mean there's no way of ever proving it. Also, though I have a crude understanding of string theory I strongly doubt it has no basis in observational evidence whatsoever. I'm sure the idea behind it is supported by basic observation and logical steps. It's only jumping from hypothesis to experimental proof that we're waiting for but even a hypothesis is anything but blind faith.

[Hey1001]

Very simple answer: matter always existed. There is no need for matter to have been created. Matter and Energy is conserved, this works very well...

The big bang does not claim to be a creation of all matter at all, it is just a conclusion on how the universe came to be the way it is today based off a lot of observed evidence.
E= mc2 only explains the relationship between matter and energy, not where either one of them initially came from. We have to question where M and E came from to begin with. It's as if the European explorers and scientists never questioned that the earth was flat and the world ended at the Atlantic Ocean's horizon, or that the sun revolved around the earth.

[uniquinous]

E= mc2 only explains the relationship between matter and energy, not where either one of them initially came from. We have to question where M and E came from to begin with. It's as if the European explorers and scientists never questioned that the earth was flat and the world ended at the Atlantic Ocean's horizon, or that the sun revolved around the earth.
Except, the two don't equate at all. In the former case, you are saying what those variables don't account for. In the latter cases, you present misconceptions - complete incorrect assumptions. Lack of explanation and WRONG explanation are NOT the same thing.

[Hey1001]

Except, the two don't equate at all. In the former case, you are saying what those variables don't account for. In the latter cases, you present misconceptions - complete incorrect assumptions. Lack of explanation and WRONG explanation are NOT the same thing.
I don't think I'm saying anything about the variables except what is implied in the equation. I am using the misconceptions to respond to TBA's argument that "matter always existed." First, never heard that to be a simple answer. Second, even if it was widely accepted to be a simple answer, history teaches (as with the misconceptions) that widely accepted beliefs turn out to be completely wrong.

[uniquinous]

First, if your original point was to refute "matter always existed", then it is in your best interest to state that instead of going on about E=mc^2 variable origins and their relation to historical misconceptions.

Second, history does not teach us that widely accepted beliefs turn out to be completely wrong. History *shows* that such things are possible, but it also shows us that not ALL widely accepted beliefs behave in this manner, and it FURTHER shows is WHY such misconceptions occur: namely due to unfounded FAITH based assumptions. Einstein's famous equation, along with many astrophyical properties do not come from the belief "man is the only conscious being and thus I'm right" (which started the sun revolving around the earth theory), but rather a TON of studied scientific information. While the future MAY prove the theories not completely accurate, chances are newly founded evidence will just call for some tweaking. This is the exact reason why relativity and newtonian physics mesh so well: the "relativity" aspect is also found in everyday instances much slower then the speed of light, but the relativity influences immediately drop to near zero at that slow speed. Tweaking - simple adjustment - not complete inaccuracy.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

I'm with the plebs here. Jehu, you're being deliberately obtuse (are you ever not? :rolleyes: ) once again.

First, a translation can never do justice to the original. No, I will not go into the original languages, because
Second, context is a large part of definition.
We see in the Bible that we should not covet, but at the same time, we see God desiring obedience and love from His creation, therefore the negative connotation definition stands while the other does not.

You have your moments, but you have done a fantastic job of being dirka's disciple, and you don't seem to be capable of backing down and admitting to a mistake. Perhaps it would be best if rather than continue fighting a losing battle you would simply shut up? Just a thought... :dry:
There is no way I can respond to this without you jumping on my back. Of course I'M the one incapable of admitting mistake when this entire thread has people covering up science with some religious reason pulled out of their ass.

People always compare me to dirka dirka because I, unlike many forumers here, will actually stick to an argument rather than back down just because it's against a so-called "vet". Perhaps his one good quality. But I, unlike he, do not think myself better than anyone else.

I do admit mistakes when I feel I've made one. But again, if I still believe in an argument, I will go forth with it. Pointing out specific flaws in a statement isn't nitpicking, or at least it shouldn't be, or else, you'd all be guilty of nitpicking. I could point out many times where the same is applicable to you.

"My moments". Thanks for being... condescending, for lack of a better term. Have I become such a nuisance that you all must feel great pleasure at knocking me down? I make a small mistake and people go rampaging on me... well, whatever. I don't really care much anymore...

[Hey1001]

First, if your original point was to refute "matter always existed", then it is in your best interest to state that instead of going on about E=mc^2 variable origins and their relation to historical misconceptions.

Second, history does not teach us that widely accepted beliefs turn out to be completely wrong. History *shows* that such things are possible, but it also shows us that not ALL widely accepted beliefs behave in this manner, and it FURTHER shows is WHY such misconceptions occur: namely due to unfounded FAITH based assumptions. Einstein's famous equation, along with many astrophyical properties do not come from the belief "man is the only conscious being and thus I'm right" (which started the sun revolving around the earth theory), but rather a TON of studied scientific information. While the future MAY prove the theories not completely accurate, chances are newly founded evidence will just call for some tweaking. This is the exact reason why relativity and newtonian physics mesh so well: the "relativity" aspect is also found in everyday instances much slower then the speed of light, but the relativity influences immediately drop to near zero at that slow speed. Tweaking - simple adjustment - not complete inaccuracy.
Bottom line, I'm not aware of any science theory that claims that matter has always been there.

[TheBlazedAce]

Bottom line, I'm not aware of any science theory that claims that matter has always been there.
I'm not aware of any science theory that claims otherwise. I also doubt you've read a single book on the subject of cosmology. Just becuase you haven't heard of it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Any type of "creation" comes from a fairy tale, not science.

Don't come in here telling us what you don't know, we already realize you have little knowledge. Rather, tell us what you do know, what you do believe and we can work with that.

[Twelve]

Nice of you to avoid this definition from the same site.
COVET: To wish for longingly.

Luckily, when faced with two definitions, we have the context of the Bible to know which one to pick.

Aro--Still makes me proud to see "Cornell Class of '10". It's too bad, however, that you're never going to see "Slope Day" as it was meant to be. :(

Second, context is a large part of definition.

Just what said...(I quote as I read in order).

As for the rest of the science stuff...I'll leave ya'll to THAT mess.

12

[Cephas]

There is no way I can respond to this without you jumping on my back. Of course I'M the one incapable of admitting mistake when this entire thread has people covering up science with some religious reason pulled out of their ass.

People always compare me to dirka dirka because I, unlike many forumers here, will actually stick to an argument rather than back down just because it's against a so-called "vet". Perhaps his one good quality. But I, unlike he, do not think myself better than anyone else.

I do admit mistakes when I feel I've made one. But again, if I still believe in an argument, I will go forth with it. Pointing out specific flaws in a statement isn't nitpicking, or at least it shouldn't be, or else, you'd all be guilty of nitpicking. I could point out many times where the same is applicable to you.

"My moments". Thanks for being... condescending, for lack of a better term. Have I become such a nuisance that you all must feel great pleasure at knocking me down? I make a small mistake and people go rampaging on me... well, whatever. I don't really care much anymore...
I don't compare you to dirka because you stick to an argument. I compare you to dirka because your argument is pointless. What point is there in henpecking at the definition of a word when it is crystal clear to everyone?

It is commendable to stick to your guns when there is good reason, but it is lamentable to stick to your guns arguing semantics around a word while ignoring context. The phrase 'straigning at a gnat and swallowing a camel' comes to mind... :rolleyes:

You manage to further accentuate the similarities between you and dirka by whining when you are put in your place.

I take no pleasure in 'knocking [you] down'. I merely replied in kind, echoing the sentiment that I saw you voicing toward those against whom you were arguing.

And no, pointing out flaws in an argument is not nitpicking. Pointing out flaws that have nothing whatsoever to do with the debate, however, is another matter entirely, and goes well beyond nitpicking. By so doing, you lose sight of your purpose and argue only for the sake of arguing (If I'm not mistaken, there is a 'glorious argument thread' specifically for that purpose). Every time you post, you need to ask yourself (NB: This applies to everyone engaging in an argument) Does what I plan to say have anything to do with this? Am I sidestepping the discussion altogether and ignoring the thrust of things? If you can't honestly state that what you're planning to say has enough relation to the debate to be of value, then don't post it. I don't think matters need to go to the point where you complain bitterly about being knocked down by the mean 'ol nasty vets. :dry:

[Jehutyv.2.0]

I don't compare you to dirka because you stick to an argument. I compare you to dirka because your argument is pointless. What point is there in henpecking at the definition of a word when it is crystal clear to everyone? Because using a word for your statement and strengthening it with one definition, saying "THIS IS THE DEFINITION, THE ONLY ONE" is a lie. Why would the Bible's use of the word be described in dictionary.com? But saying "THIS WORD CAN MEAN ___, AND IT'S MOST LIKELY WHAT IT MEANS HERE" is much different. I'd have no problem with that.

It is commendable to stick to your guns when there is good reason, but it is lamentable to stick to your guns arguing semantics around a word while ignoring context. The phrase 'straigning at a gnat and swallowing a camel' comes to mind... :rolleyes: First of all, gnats are tricky to swallow, dude. Their like, feelers and stuff get all caught in your throat... anyway, see above for this reason.

You manage to further accentuate the similarities between you and dirka by whining when you are put in your place.Because the only way I wouldn't be whining is by agreeing with every single word you've said and have ever said. I don't even get the chance to deny or resist.

I take no pleasure in 'knocking [you] down'. I merely replied in kind, echoing the sentiment that I saw you voicing toward those against whom you were arguing.This wasn't against you in specific, and I apologize because my statement may have implied that it was. But there are others... and they know who they are.

And no, pointing out flaws in an argument is not nitpicking. Pointing out flaws that have nothing whatsoever to do with the debate, however, is another matter entirely, and goes well beyond nitpicking.The subject was the word covet. I argued about the word covet.
By so doing, you lose sight of your purpose and argue only for the sake of arguing (If I'm not mistaken, there is a 'glorious argument thread' specifically for that purpose). For about a hundred+ pages, this thread has just been arguing. I'm pretty sure most people here aren't out to prove a point, but to shut the other person down (not that that's my intent)Every time you post, you need to ask yourself (NB: This applies to everyone engaging in an argument) Does what I plan to say have anything to do with this? Am I sidestepping the discussion altogether and ignoring the thrust of things? If you can't honestly state that what you're planning to say has enough relation to the debate to be of value, then don't post it. I don't think matters need to go to the point where you complain bitterly about being knocked down by the mean 'ol nasty vets. :dry:If all people thought their posts to be of value before posting them, there would only be about a hundred or so posts on the forums. Please realize that this is the internet, and not a high-grade discussion chamber. No one really cares what is said and who says what here.

[TheBlazedAce]

For about a hundred+ pages, this thread has just been arguing. I'm pretty sure most people here aren't out to prove a point, but to shut the other person down (not that that's my intent)If all people thought their posts to be of value before posting them, there would only be about a hundred or so posts on the forums. Please realize that this is the internet, and not a high-grade discussion chamber. No one really cares what is said and who says what here.
So just becuase some people don't care that means you shouldn't? Some people are murdered, does that give you the right to kill?

Make your posts with care and think about what you write before you post. Perhaps if more people didn't think like you these forums would be a better place.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

So just becuase some people don't care that means you shouldn't? Some people are murdered, does that give you the right to kill?

Make your posts with care and think about what you write before you post. Perhaps if more people didn't think like you these forums would be a better place.... Okay, you made a comparison to murder. What's next? A comparison to hitler? Go ahead, I'll just invoke Godwin's Law on you.

This forum isn't my top priority in life... I'm not going to spend hours pouring thought into a single post. Also, just because someone cares about something doesn't mean I shouldn't. It doesn't, however, mean I should care. That's the flaw in that line of reasoning.

[TheBlazedAce]

... Okay, you made a comparison to murder. What's next? A comparison to hitler? Go ahead, I'll just invoke Godwin's Law on you.
I didn't make a comparison, I made an anology.
Look at the following analogy:
joy:happiness::large:mammoth.

What do the two things, large and joy have in common? Their relationship to the other word, these two things are synonyms.

It's the relationship, or the reasoning you used that I applied to something very extreme, murder, to show how flawed it is.


This forum isn't my top priority in life... I'm not going to spend hours pouring thought into a single post. Also, just because someone cares about something doesn't mean I shouldn't. It doesn't, however, mean I should care. That's the flaw in that line of reasoning.
You're very correct, the line of reasoning that claims what you should do based on other people is flawed, which is what you did, not me.

I on the other hand used a completely different line of reasoning: Make your posts with care and think about what you write before you post. Perhaps if more people didn't think like you these forums would be a better place.

See, I expand both possibilities outward: if everyone cares about what they post, and if everyone doesn't. If everyone does, this forum is a more enjoyable place where lack of reason and wasted posts are frowned upon, but rather if no one cares this place goes down the drain.

Thanks for pointing out your own flaws in reasoning and ignoring mine.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

I didn't make a comparison, I made an anology.
Look at the following analogy:
joy:happiness::large:mammoth.

What do the two things, large and joy have in common? Their relationship to the other word, these two things are synonyms.

It's the relationship, or the reasoning you used that I applied to something very extreme, murder, to show how flawed it is.Since we're so keen on the whole nitpicking subject, why don't you stop it. Here's the definition of analogy.

a. Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.

b. A comparison based on such similarity. See Synonyms at likeness.

Nice try.


You're very correct, the line of reasoning that claims what you should do based on other people is flawed, which is what you did, not me. Now, what you've done here is basically take what I've said and say "NO U".

I on the other hand used a completely different line of reasoning:

See, I expand both possibilities outward: if everyone cares about what they post, and if everyone doesn't. If everyone does, this forum is a more enjoyable place where lack of reason and wasted posts are frowned upon, but rather if no one cares this place goes down the drain.

Thanks for pointing out your own flaws in reasoning and ignoring mine.Also, just because someone cares about something doesn't mean I shouldn't. It doesn't, however, mean I should care. That's the flaw in that line of reasoning.Notice how this says that it doesn't matter if someone cares (or does not) that my course of action is not dictated by other's care. There's where you get that flaw (note: Use of pronoun "you"), assuming that the reason I wouldn't care is because other people don't.

There are thousands of enjoyable posts that have no reason or meaning. People make them all the time for simple, enjoyable discussion. Saying that only completely well thought-out posts are enjoyable is arrogant.

Thanks for pointing out your own flaws in reasoning and ignoring mine.

[Office_Shredder]

Back to E=mc^2

I'd like to point out that that equation doesn't actually even imply conservation of mass and energy.

So I really fail to see how that involves the question of whether mass/energy has always existed

[TheBlazedAce]

Since we're so keen on the whole nitpicking subject, why don't you stop it. Here's the definition of analogy.

a. Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.

b. A comparison based on such similarity. See Synonyms at likeness.

Nice try.

Ok, so what exactly are you saying? Does this definition of analogy not apply to mine? It doesn't change the fact that joy and large are normally dissimilar, but in describing their relationship with happiness and mammoth, respectively, the analogy is indeed an anology. I explained it in the post you're quoting, I'm not saying posting and murder are the same thing, but rather I'm comparing the reasoning you applied to posting as if it were applied to murder to see its flaw.

Your problem isn't that it's a comparison or that it is an anology, but rather that these two things seem normally dissimilar to you and instead of trying to understand what was truly compared you jumped at the fact that they seem so different.

Now, what you've done here is basically take what I've said and say "NO U".
Where? Where did I apply your logic? Your logic was that because most other people don't post with care, then it's ok that I do it. I said the reason you should post with care is because if everyone posted with care the forum would be a better place then if no one posted with care. See, I can apply the same analogy to my reasoning: if no one murdered the world would be a better place then if everyone murdered.

Notice how this says that it doesn't matter if someone cares (or does not) that my course of action is not dictated by other's care. There's where you get that flaw (note: Use of pronoun "you"), assuming that the reason I wouldn't care is because other people don't.

That was your response to my post (though I never used that logic, you did), but let's go back and actually look at what we were talking about in the first place:
Cephas had this to say:
By so doing, you lose sight of your purpose and argue only for the sake of arguing (If I'm not mistaken, there is a 'glorious argument thread' specifically for that purpose). Every time you post, you need to ask yourself (NB: This applies to everyone engaging in an argument) Does what I plan to say have anything to do with this? Am I sidestepping the discussion altogether and ignoring the thrust of things? If you can't honestly state that what you're planning to say has enough relation to the debate to be of value, then don't post it. I don't think matters need to go to the point where you complain bitterly about being knocked down by the mean 'ol nasty vets.
Basically, he's telling you not make posts that are unnecessary or lacking of value towards the debate (we're not talking about every thread on the forums or every post, but more specifically about serious debates here)
Your Response:
For about a hundred+ pages, this thread has just been arguing. I'm pretty sure most people here aren't out to prove a point, but to shut the other person down (not that that's my intent)If all people thought their posts to be of value before posting them, there would only be about a hundred or so posts on the forums. Please realize that this is the internet, and not a high-grade discussion chamber. No one really cares what is said and who says what here.
Your first statement says most people don't care about their posts and your next statement says "no one" really cares, which implies this is your stance. Another words, your line of reasoning went because others don't care, why should I?
My response said this:
So just becuase some people don't care that means you shouldn't? Some people are murdered, does that give you the right to kill?

Make your posts with care and think about what you write before you post. Perhaps if more people didn't think like you these forums would be a better place.
Notice my post and your post aren't centered on similar reasoning at all.

Where are you getting that I said back to you the same reasoning?!


There are thousands of enjoyable posts that have no reason or meaning. People make them all the time for simple, enjoyable discussion. Saying that only completely well thought-out posts are enjoyable is arrogant.

Thanks for pointing out your own flaws in reasoning and ignoring mine.
Again, because the start of the discussion involved posts in debate I wasn't generalizing about all posts in all threads, just about more serious debates, like the one we're in now. I'm not saying never be random, we obviously have threads like that, but this one needs none of it.

Lastly, you talked again about the flaws in your original reasoning and actually never spoke about any of mine. You either pretended like it was your own line or reasoning or you ignored it like you did with my analogy example.

Final question, what are you trying to accomplish by this argument? I know I'm arguing that if more posts were well thought out debates would be of higher value, what are you arguing?

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Ok, so what exactly are you saying? Does this definition of analogy not apply to mine? It doesn't change the fact that joy and large are normally dissimilar, but in describing their relationship with happiness and mammoth, respectively, the analogy is indeed an anology. I explained it in the post you're quoting, I'm not saying posting and murder are the same thing, but rather I'm comparing the reasoning you applied to posting as if it were applied to murder to see its flaw.

Your problem isn't that it's a comparison or that it is an anology, but rather that these two things seem normally dissimilar to you and instead of trying to understand what was truly compared you jumped at the fact that they seem so different.I didn't make a comparisonYou denied something, I proved that denial wrong. You nitpicked at my words, I showed you that they hold no disastrous difference. Got it? Good, that bit is settled.


Where? Where did I apply your logic? Your logic was that because most other people don't post with care, then it's ok that I do it. I said the reason you should post with care is because if everyone posted with care the forum would be a better place then if no one posted with care. See, I can apply the same analogy to my reasoning: if no one murdered the world would be a better place then if everyone murdered.Thanks for pointing out your own flaws in reasoning and ignoring mine.You said that I had pointed out my own flaws when it was clearly yours. Got it? Good, that bit's settled.


That was your response to my post (though I never used that logic, you did), but let's go back and actually look at what we were talking about in the first place:
Cephas had this to say:

Basically, he's telling you not make posts that are unnecessary or lacking of value towards the debate (we're not talking about every thread on the forums or every post, but more specifically about serious debates here)
Your Response:

Your first statement says most people don't care about their posts and your next statement says "no one" really cares, which implies this is your stance. Another words, your line of reasoning went because others don't care, why should I? Baaah, wrong. My line of reasoning was "because most others don't care, what makes my case so special?"
My response said this:

Notice my post and your post aren't centered on similar reasoning at all.

Where are you getting that I said back to you the same reasoning?!Can you find a place in my post where I said the word "reasoning" or anything like it? Can you? No, you can't.

The reasoning may not have been the same, but the message was. "Here is/are your statement's flaws."
Got it? Good, that bit's been settled.

Again, because the start of the discussion involved posts in debate I wasn't generalizing about all posts in all threads, just about more serious debates, like the one we're in now. I'm not saying never be random, we obviously have threads like that, but this one needs none of it.Too late.

Lastly, you talked again about the flaws in your original reasoning and actually never spoke about any of mine. You either pretended like it was your own line or reasoning or you ignored it like you did with my analogy example.Never spoke of 'em. Then I guess this doesn't exist.just because someone cares about something doesn't mean I shouldn't. It doesn't, however, mean I should care. That's the flaw in that line of reasoning. You said this
just becuase some people don't care that means you shouldn't?Which means that I do not care BECAUSE some people don't, which was not the truth. I am not fueled by the community in that. I couldn't care less if they did care or not. I still wouldn't care. How many times do I have to say the word "care" before you get that?

Final question, what are you trying to accomplish by this argument? I know I'm arguing that if more posts were well thought out debates would be of higher value, what are you arguing?Are you kidding? You start this shit with me and I automatically have a reason against you? I'm just defending myself here.

[TheBlazedAce]

You denied something, I proved that denial wrong.
You nitpicked at my words, I showed you that they hold no disastrous difference. Got it? Good, that bit is settled.
You already defined analogy, which is not simply a comparison, but rather "Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar." They are not exactly the same thing. If I said something was tiny and you claimed I said small, I would clerify by explaining that I did not just say it was small, I said it was tiny. Yes, no disastrous difference, but it doesn't change the fact that I can make a perfectly sensible analogy between posts and murder, which is what you were refuting.

You said that I had pointed out my own flaws when it was clearly yours. Got it? Good, that bit's settled.
My entire last point showed every step of the way in the discussion and no where did I use the logic that you claimed had flaws. I already proved this, so stop pretending any different. I clearly showed that this was your logic. Unlike you, I actually showed it through posts one step at a time.

Baaah, wrong. My line of reasoning was "because most others don't care, what makes my case so special?" You never explained this once. I already showed where and why what you stated expressed that invalid line of reasoning. You can't change your words now. If you meant something else learn to write what you mean next time.


Can you find a place in my post where I said the word "reasoning" or anything like it? Can you? No, you can't. This whole time we have been arguing about each of our own logic behind our statements. I guess you're telling me now you had absolutely none. That's really not helping your side of this argument.

The reasoning may not have been the same, but the message was. "Here is/are your statement's flaws."
Got it? Good, that bit's been settled.
Ok, so you just said you never had reasoning, but now you're assuming you do? You never pointed out any flaws that were of my statements, you were just pointing out your own, I've already shown this.

Too late.If the conversation is talking about debate threads and I say you need valid posts, I'm talking about debate threads. It's you who pretended like the subject changed. It's too late for you to start pretending now like you knew what was being talked about. Admit for once you made a mistake, what's the problem with you people?!

Never spoke of 'em. Then I guess this doesn't exist. You said this

Which means that I do not care BECAUSE some people don't, which was not the truth. I am not fueled by the community in that. I couldn't care less if they did care or not. I still wouldn't care. How many times do I have to say the word "care" before you get that? You implied otherwise and I already showed how, if you meant something else learn to better express your writing to mean what you say next time.

Are you kidding? You start this shit with me and I automatically have a reason against you? I'm just defending myself here.
Ok, I understand, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing and I'm trying to argue a point, very good.

Also, cursing is not needed, it only cheapens the debate criteria.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

You already defined analogy, which is not simply a comparison, but rather "Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar." They are not exactly the same thing. If I said something was tiny and you claimed I said small, I would clerify by explaining that I did not just say it was small, I said it was tiny. Yes, no disastrous difference, but it doesn't change the fact that I can make a perfectly sensible analogy between posts and murder, which is what you were refuting.Baaah, wrong. I was refuting your claim that an analogy wasn't a comparison.


My entire last point showed every step of the way in the discussion and no where did I use the logic that you claimed had flaws. I already proved this, so stop pretending any different. I clearly showed that this was your logic. Unlike you, I actually showed it through posts one step at a time....No, you proved something which was already known, which is that you didn't use my reasoning.
Thanks for pointing out your own flaws in reasoning and ignoring mine. This statement alone proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you took my point, which was that you had a flaw in your reasoning, twisted it, and said that I had a flaw in my reasoning using my examples.
You never explained this once. I already showed where and why what you stated expressed that invalid line of reasoning. You can't change your words now. If you meant something else learn to write what you mean next time.You already took an assumption to come up with my line of reasoning. You assumed incorrectly. I told you the proper line. Now you're saying I don't know my own line of reasoning. Nice.

This whole time we have been arguing about each of our own logic behind our statements. I guess you're telling me now you had absolutely none. That's really not helping your side of this argument.Oh, wow. You confused the words "said" and "had". Nice one there.


Ok, so you just said you never had reasoning, Nope, see abovebut now you're assuming you do?Unlike you, I haven't assumed anything about my own line of reasoning. You never pointed out any flaws that were of my statements, you were just pointing out your own, I've already shown this. No, I was pointing out yours. What you've shown is false and I've already said why it was yours I was pointing out.

[QUOTE=You]If the conversation is talking about debate threads and I say you need valid posts, I'm talking about debate threads.You clearly didn't understand. I guess even the tiniest amount of subtlety is too much here. There's already been randomness in this very thread. It's you who pretended like the subject changed. Find that. It's too late for you to start pretending now like you knew what was being talked about. Admit for once you made a mistake, what's the problem with you people?! Look how angry you're getting. Maybe people shouldn't get so serious in their posts.

You implied otherwise and I already showed how, if you meant something else learn to better express your writing to mean what you say next time.I didn't imply that. You assumed it incorrectly when there is no logical evidence toward it.


Ok, I understand, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing and I'm trying to argue a point, very good.Baaah, wrong. I'm staying with my defense here instead of just letting you trample me.

Also, cursing is not needed, it only cheapens the debate criteria.Which, of course, is very important and serious.

[Hey1001]

I'm not aware of any science theory that claims otherwise. I also doubt you've read a single book on the subject of cosmology. Just becuase you haven't heard of it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Any type of "creation" comes from a fairy tale, not science.

Don't come in here telling us what you don't know, we already realize you have little knowledge. Rather, tell us what you do know, what you do believe and we can work with that.
I would like to know what books is it that you read wherein the author states that matter has always been here, and that do not raise the question of what was here before there was matter, or where did the matter come from. That someone tries to explain the origin of our universe based on some theory such as the big bang does not mean that they believe that matter was always here or that they don't question what happened before that.

I've read Cosmos, by Carl Sagan. I recommend it.

[TheSilverRider]

Its so good to have Twelve back in the Christian Thread! Thanks for coming back man!

[Twelve]

Its so good to have Twelve back in the Christian Thread! Thanks for coming back man!

Word. I'm on patrol. Looking back, I do indeed wish I had been here for some of these discussions, that's for sure. Especially the one about women taking over the church.

12

[Cephas]

Word. I'm on patrol. Looking back, I do indeed wish I had been here for some of these discussions, that's for sure. Especially the one about women taking over the church.

12
Not women taking over, but the feminization of the church. The nuance is subtle, but important. If you want to go back to it, by all means do so. I hardly think we've exhausted the topic.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Not women taking over, but the feminization of the church. The nuance is subtle, but important. If you want to go back to it, by all means do so. I hardly think we've exhausted the topic.
I have an image of Cephas somewhere in a dark corner of a library reading up on this, muttering silently to himself, "Hahaha, I'll show them... they won't beat me..."

[Office_Shredder]

I have an image of Cephas somewhere in a dark corner of a library reading up on this, muttering silently to himself, "Hahaha, I'll show them... they won't beat me..."

It's like Miss Da Vinci Code.

Only YOU can figure out how to stop the women from taking over the church!

[thakkus]

It still comes down to two options:

1. God made us.
2. We made God.

Which of these a person adopts determines everything else.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

There's also "God made something, but not us" and "God didn't make anything, but still exists" along with plenty of other options.

[Office_Shredder]

It still comes down to two options:

1. God made us.
2. We made God.

Which of these a person adopts determines everything else.

What if we are god?

Sheesh, no creativity

[uniquinous]

many evolutionists believe in god, they just don't believe god made man and womankind in our final forms.

[thakkus]

There's also "God made something, but not us" and "God didn't make anything, but still exists" along with plenty of other options.

Interesting.

[Office_Shredder]

Interesting.

I think you're the only person here who thinks that way actually.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

I think you're the only person here who thinks that way actually.
Seriously. Even I didn't think it was interesting, and I posted it.

[TheBlazedAce]

I would like to know what books is it that you read wherein the author states that matter has always been here, and that do not raise the question of what was here before there was matter, or where did the matter come from. That someone tries to explain the origin of our universe based on some theory such as the big bang does not mean that they believe that matter was always here or that they don't question what happened before that.

I've read Cosmos, by Carl Sagan. I recommend it.
You don't seem to understand. No book claims that matter was created at the big bang, at least no scientifically accepted book. I read the first few pages of this book, it doesn't say... anything. Where's the science? All scientists understand very well the law of conservations of matter/energy. Seriously, youv'e read one book. Go read another ten before you can considerably add anything to this discussion.

I've read the following books concerning the big bang: A Brief History Of Time, it's sequal The Universe In A Nutshell, The History Of Spacetime, The Theory of Everything, The Elegant Universe, The Fabric Of The Cosmos, and there's more, I just don't remember every title off the top of my head at the moment. I've also taken multiple courses in cosmology and I've read over 100 publications/online sources about cosmology. Seriously, basing your entire ideals off of one book is ridiculous, this isn't religion, it's science.

[Twelve]

Not women taking over, but the feminization of the church. The nuance is subtle, but important. If you want to go back to it, by all means do so. I hardly think we've exhausted the topic.

Why thank you...I've got quite a few thoughts on this matter.

When I first skimmed through the original premise, I thought to myself, "When haven't women been very powerful and influential in the church?" Heck, the first people that Jesus chose to see when he rose from the dead were women. (John 20:14, among other places).

In my experience in churches, I've learned to respect the impact and power that they have. In the movie "My Big Fat Greek Wedding"(great movie, by the way), the mother says, "Your father may be the head of the family, but I'm the neck, and the neck moves the head." In my experience, it's indeed the women who quite often direct the church in ways that we don't obviously see.

It's been said that even the Roman Empire was led by the wives of those in power. ;)

Now, as far as the church becoming "feminine"...that is, that the church is starting to appeal more to what generally appeals to women: feeling. And that this "feeling" is being placed at a higher place than "truth"...

Biblically, all people were expected to place "truth" above their "feelings"...there's a complete abscence of Biblical heroes doing "what they feel like". It's always "God's Will". Both men AND women were capable of doing this.

Now, if indeed it is women who are causing many churches to become to "feely", can we then say it is men who cause many churches to be too legalistic and conservative? Jesus constantly tore up the Pharisees for going that route.

Basically, churches fall apart for a variety of reasons...it might be useless to go back and find a "sex" responsible. The trick is just trying to stay true to the Word, since there is room for both sides. I read a book recently (can't remember the name) where the writer explains how God shows both strong (typical) feminine and masculine traits in the Bible...hence there is room for both.


12

[h()()t]

Wow...this is the thread I got banned cuss of...funny how it is still alive.

[spartan_117]

I am a christian, and my favorite verse is: Ephesians 2: 8-9
- For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not o yourselves, it is a gift from God so that no man may boast.

[Office_Shredder]

Well maybe i'm the only one here that actaully knows what he's talking about besides darkness.

If by darkness you mean deathbydarkness, I suggest you start walking out the door...

I don't think anybody agreed with him, even his side;)

P.S. If any1 has a problem with this thread, at least be mature enough to confront someone in a dignified manner rather than try and insult us without any good reasoning. If you want to argue against christianity, i'd be glad to prove you wrong any day.

What? Did you read this thread, or just the first page? At least read the last page or two to realize that there hasn't been any random insulting of christianity.

[TheBlazedAce]

why is evelution called A THEORY????
The word theory means "1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena." -dictionary.com

The theory you're reffering to has a different meaning: "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."

It is not the one used to describe evolution. A law is "A statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met."

You're misconception of the language used doesn't alter what is being described.

[Cephas]

Well maybe i'm the only one here that actaully knows what he's talking about besides darkness. I am a christian, and my favorite verse is: Ephesians 2: 8-9
- For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not o yourselves, it is a gift from God so that no man may boast.

P.S. If any1 has a problem with this thread, at least be mature enough to confront someone in a dignified manner rather than try and insult us without any good reasoning. If you want to argue against christianity, i'd be glad to prove you wrong any day. Half of this thread is insults, o and frylock one big question. If "evelution can bat 1000. every time" than why is evelution called A THEORY????
spartan, it hurts just to read the first bit. I might be hurt by your harsh judgment, but I'll try not to take it personally. You may want to consider revising though, seeing as you seem to be judging every person who has posted in this thread for ~140 pages save for dbd. Have you read what we've said?

[Cephas]

Why thank you...I've got quite a few thoughts on this matter.

When I first skimmed through the original premise, I thought to myself, "When haven't women been very powerful and influential in the church?" Heck, the first people that Jesus chose to see when he rose from the dead were women. (John 20:14, among other places).

In my experience in churches, I've learned to respect the impact and power that they have. In the movie "My Big Fat Greek Wedding"(great movie, by the way), the mother says, "Your father may be the head of the family, but I'm the neck, and the neck moves the head." In my experience, it's indeed the women who quite often direct the church in ways that we don't obviously see.

It's been said that even the Roman Empire was led by the wives of those in power. ;)

Now, as far as the church becoming "feminine"...that is, that the church is starting to appeal more to what generally appeals to women: feeling. And that this "feeling" is being placed at a higher place than "truth"...

Biblically, all people were expected to place "truth" above their "feelings"...there's a complete abscence of Biblical heroes doing "what they feel like". It's always "God's Will". Both men AND women were capable of doing this.

Now, if indeed it is women who are causing many churches to become to "feely", can we then say it is men who cause many churches to be too legalistic and conservative? Jesus constantly tore up the Pharisees for going that route.

Basically, churches fall apart for a variety of reasons...it might be useless to go back and find a "sex" responsible. The trick is just trying to stay true to the Word, since there is room for both sides. I read a book recently (can't remember the name) where the writer explains how God shows both strong (typical) feminine and masculine traits in the Bible...hence there is room for both.


12
I don't think that the article indicates that women shouldn't have power within the church (I'll add my own note here: all power comes from above, and provided it is exercised under authority), but that there is a definite imbalance.

One of the things that was noted in the article was with regards to men needing purpose. If that need is not being met, there is a good chance that the local church in question is stagnating, no? You know what I'm quoting when I say that 'where there is no vision, the people perish'.

The imbalance is practical, not theoretical. Perhaps everywhere you've been has been blameless in this matter, but everywhere I've been has not been alltogether guiltless. It is with the knowledge of the situation that steps can be taken to restore some balance.

[thakkus]

Evolution bat 1000? Even evolutionists don't claim such absurdity. There's nothing conclusive about evolution, yet its theories do a solid job of seemingly explaining things, which is why the scientific community overwhelmingly supports it. And that's fine. Science's job is to study and learn and try to figure things out. They should be following and studying theories like evolution because it's the best theory put forth so far.

But any legitimate scientist will tell you that it definitely does NOT bat 1000. There are holes in evolution that simply haven't been filled yet because we don't know what goes in them.

Spartan - I'm a Christian too, but there's no way to prove Christianity. It's not possible.

[thakkus]

I think you're the only person here who thinks that way actually.

Shredder, that feels like a compliment, but I can't really tell. What do you mean "thinks that way actually?"

:)

[uniquinous]

:dry: spartan - prefacing your remark with "I am a christian" does absolutely nothing to help argue any points you plan on making. You really need to better understand the scientific meaning of the word "theory". It's not simply "I have a decent guess at something...", but rather "this is a highly tested and verified conclusion based on a ton of evidence".

bah

[TheBlazedAce]

There are holes in evolution that simply haven't been filled yet because we don't know what goes in them.
What holes? What theory of evolution have you been studying? What are you talking about? Stop trying to represent the scientific community, they do not think evolution is an incomplete theory.

[thakkus]

What holes? What theory of evolution have you been studying? What are you talking about? Stop trying to represent the scientific community, they do not think evolution is an incomplete theory.

I recently listented to a live debate on Evolution vs Intelligent Design Theory. Randall Wenger, an intelligent design advocate and Jeremy Gunn, Director of the ACLU's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief debated the Dover, PA intelligent design case. It was recorded on 10/19/2005.

You can actually email the National Constitution Center if you have questions or want to listen to the debate yourself. Write to programs@constitutioncenter.org

Anyway, Gunn is a strong supporter of evolution as the only science that should be taught regarding origins and development of species. In his own words, he admits Evolution is a theory precisely because it is incomplete, but this is NOT GROUNDS for replacing it with the religious teaching of intelligent design.

Even strong supporters of evolution recognize that it a theory that is continuously being studied and observed. More is learned all the time. Things that were once thought true turn out to be likely not. In turn, things unknown get discovered. It's a theory and, by definition, theories contain holes.

So your argument defeats itself in this case.

[TheBlazedAce]

I recently listented to a live debate on Evolution vs Intelligent Design Theory. Randall Wenger, an intelligent design advocate and Jeremy Gunn, Director of the ACLU's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief debated the Dover, PA intelligent design case. It was recorded on 10/19/2005.

You can actually email the National Constitution Center if you have questions or want to listen to the debate yourself. Write to programs@constitutioncenter.org

Anyway, Gunn is a strong supporter of evolution as the only science that should be taught regarding origins and development of species. In his own words, he admits Evolution is a theory precisely because it is incomplete, but this is NOT GROUNDS for replacing it with the religious teaching of intelligent design.

Even strong supporters of evolution recognize that it a theory that is continuously being studied and observed. More is learned all the time. Things that were once thought true turn out to be likely not. In turn, things unknown get discovered. It's a theory and, by definition, theories contain holes.

So your argument defeats itself in this case.
A theory does not contain holes by definition. A theory in scientific terminology is "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena." -dictionary.com

Not to be misinterpreted as "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."

I do not know who these people are, but I have a feeling neither has a doctorate degree or is a biologist/scientist. Neither are representative of the scientific community concerning evolution. The theory behind evolution, the basis behind which all living organisms have devoloped into how they are today has absolutely no holes. No peer reviewed, scientifically sound journal has ever written an article that questions the theory of evolution or assumes holes in the theory. More and more evidence is continuously found that supports the theory, not the other way around.

Intelligent design does not question evolution, it simply argues that evolution seems to have a purposeful process as if it were being designed, as if some guiding force or guiding power were controlling it. First let's understand that and then I'll argue against intelligent design.

[Office_Shredder]

Thakkus, by holes, the person probably means gaps in our knowledge of the evolutionary tree of life on earth.

However, the theory of evolution does not encompass what specific pathways organisms evolved via

[Hey1001]

You don't seem to understand. No book claims that matter was created at the big bang, at least no scientifically accepted book. I read the first few pages of this book, it doesn't say... anything. Where's the science? All scientists understand very well the law of conservations of matter/energy. Seriously, youv'e read one book. Go read another ten before you can considerably add anything to this discussion.

I've read the following books concerning the big bang: A Brief History Of Time, it's sequal The Universe In A Nutshell, The History Of Spacetime, The Theory of Everything, The Elegant Universe, The Fabric Of The Cosmos, and there's more, I just don't remember every title off the top of my head at the moment. I've also taken multiple courses in cosmology and I've read over 100 publications/online sources about cosmology. Seriously, basing your entire ideals off of one book is ridiculous, this isn't religion, it's science.
I never alleged that matter was created in the big bang. What I'm arguing is that when we don't have an explanation for something, e.g., where the matter came from to begin with before the big bang, it is at that frontier between the known and the unknown (similar to when one dies) that, for me, gives rise to a faith in that there is a higher power or God. When we find explanations to the physical world (e.g., the earth is round and we can circumnavigate it, or we now understand weather patterns so there is no need to sacrifice living things to appease the weather god) then there is no need for religion to step in and fill the gap of the unknown. My point is that there is always a frontier of what we humans know about our world and existence because we will never know everything. We experience or have faith in part to help us deal with what remains unknown.

I've read a few publications myself and assorted other matters, although not as much as you say you have read. Carl Sagan was a reknowned Cornell scientist that explained in very simple terms the concepts of the big bang and other physical phenomena.

I get the sense from your postings that you believe we pretty much know everything there is to know; at least with respect to major scientific theories such as the big bang and evolution. Humankind has many times taken for granted apparently sound scientific theories, such as that the sun revolves around the earth, only to be proven wrong. I believe that theories such as the big bang and evolution are sound theories. But if scientists working in those fields took that simple view, the production of knowledge would stop, on the belief that we know what there is to know about them. That would be a terrible mistake. Theories such as these help us understand the world and predict outcomes, but it is continuous testing of theories that produce knowledge, and at times disprove the theories themselves. That we find evidence that tends to support a theory does not mean that in the future we won't find evidence that tends to disprove it.

[Office_Shredder]

I never alleged that matter was created in the big bang. What I'm arguing is that when we don't have an explanation for something, e.g., where the matter came from to begin with before the big bang, it is at that frontier between the known and the unknown (similar to when one dies) that, for me, gives rise to a faith in that there is a higher power or God. When we find explanations to the physical world (e.g., the earth is round and we can circumnavigate it, or we now understand weather patterns so there is no need to sacrifice living things to appease the weather god) then there is no need for religion to step in and fill the gap of the unknown. My point is that there is always a frontier of what we humans know about our world and existence because we will never know everything. We experience or have faith in part to help us deal with what remains unknown.

Multiple flaws in this logic:
1) There is no reason to "deal" with what remains unknown. Is it too difficult to admit you don't know what happened before the big bang? Are you so insecure in your existence that you can't say "I don't know what will happen when I die"? Furthermore, do you then concede that the concept of god to fill these unknowns is then a bald faced lie, because we can't possibly truly know anything about an idea whose sole purpose is to fill that which we don't know?

2) Faith in god directly impedes further scientific inquiry (historically speaking). Instead of making up stories about how the universe came into being, it is much more efficient to scientifically derive what happened empirically

I've read a few publications myself and assorted other matters, although not as much as you say you have read. Carl Sagan was a reknowned Cornell scientist that explained in very simple terms the concepts of the big bang and other physical phenomena.

Emphasis on simple? Books like that never give you the real story

I get the sense from your postings that you believe we pretty much know everything there is to know; at least with respect to major scientific theories such as the big bang and evolution.

The last time scientists using the scientific method took for granted essential knowledge of the entire universe, relativity and quantum mechanics were discovered. Essentially, we took scientific knowledge from the macroscopic to the micro and super scopic (forgive the terminology).

Now where is there to go? Humankind has many times taken for granted apparently sound scientific theories, such as that the sun revolves around the earth, only to be proven wrong.

Actually, that wasn't sound scientific theories, that was a religious theory. Makes you think

I believe that theories such as the big bang and evolution are sound theories. But if scientists working in those fields took that simple view, the production of knowledge would stop, on the belief that we know what there is to know about them.

If scientists assumed they were unsound theories, everyone would stop working on them.

That would be a terrible mistake.

I agree. That's why instead, we continue to test them not to check if they're true, but to further prove that they're true. If a test doesn't turn out how we expect, we then check the theory to see what's missing

Theories such as these help us understand the world and predict outcomes, but it is continuous testing of theories that produce knowledge, and at times disprove the theories themselves. That we find evidence that tends to support a theory does not mean that in the future we won't find evidence that tends to disprove it.

Agreed. However, to further our knowledge base, we MUST assume that the most strongly supported theories (in terms of evidence), are the most likely to be true. Or else all that evidence means nothing (and we can never even assume it's true).

How many times must I drop a ball before you believe gravity exists?

[Jehutyv.2.0]

How many times must I drop a ball before you believe gravity exists?FOOL! God MAKES that ball drop!

[Office_Shredder]

FOOL! God MAKES that ball drop!

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.

[uniquinous]

Just in case you missed O_S on this matter...

The correct definition of theory has been stated by me previously, yet the misconception seems to have persisted. Now it has been directly stated and quoted with a reliable source, please see that this correct definition is noted and used. A lack ofspecific bones means there are small gaps in the speific evolution of mankind. I'll scan a great Nature illustration of this as soon as I'm back at school for you all. Despite this, the overall theory of evolution is not compromised in the least.Think of it this way, if I specifical_y leave out a letter in the word specifical_y, you can pretty much determinewhat word I'm trying to type. Furthermore, lack of this letter does not disprove the existance of the english language.

[uniquinous]

sorry, was on dialup and, well, somehow double posted...

[thakkus]

I am not saying evolution is wrong. I am saying that any serious evolutionist admits we know less about evolution than we don't know. In other words, there is still much to understand and our understanding not only has limits, but often leads to correction of previously held beliefs about itself.

[Tama Drummer]

I know I'm kind of going off topic with creation or whatever's being discussed now, but I wanted to ask this.

Are drums the instrument of the devil?
I was talking to someone online who goes to a christian school, and he said drums are not aloud in their school band because they are used in rock bands and rock bands are evil, or something like that. They only allow guitar, piano, flute, and recorder I believe.

Of course, this makes no sense seeing as their are tons of christian rock bands, not to mention the churches that play music (sometimes rock) along with drums as worship music.

Also, guitars are used in practically every rock band, and the piano is used heavily too. I know bands like Cradle Of Filth (black metal, very likely concidered evil by this school) use whole orchestra to accompany their music sometimes, so I'm sure a flute and recorder have been used in "evil" music.

[Office_Shredder]

I am not saying evolution is wrong. I am saying that any serious evolutionist admits we know less about evolution than we don't know. In other words, there is still much to understand and our understanding not only has limits, but often leads to correction of previously held beliefs about itself.

Can you show an example? I'd like to see this in context

[Sluff]

I know I'm kind of going off topic with creation or whatever's being discussed now, but I wanted to ask this.

Are drums the instrument of the devil?
I was talking to someone online who goes to a christian school, and he said drums are not aloud in their school band because they are used in rock bands and rock bands are evil, or something like that. They only allow guitar, piano, flute, and recorder I believe.

Of course, this makes no sense seeing as their are tons of christian rock bands, not to mention the churches that play music (sometimes rock) along with drums as worship music.

Also, guitars are used in practically every rock band, and the piano is used heavily too. I know bands like Cradle Of Filth (black metal, very likely concidered evil by this school) use whole orchestra to accompany their music sometimes, so I'm sure a flute and recorder have been used in "evil" music.

Most likely it is just their beliefs.

Just because one Christian school says that drums are the instrument of the devil, doesn't mean they are. Its just their beliefs.

I find it kind of odd that they would even think that way.

[Cephas]

FYI, discussions between thak, hey you and that other guy I'm simply ignoring. Just as with TSR, I will not be drawn into a debate by someone mouthing off... Now, on to the current:
I know I'm kind of going off topic with creation or whatever's being discussed now, but I wanted to ask this.

Are drums the instrument of the devil?
I was talking to someone online who goes to a christian school, and he said drums are not aloud in their school band because they are used in rock bands and rock bands are evil, or something like that. They only allow guitar, piano, flute, and recorder I believe.

Of course, this makes no sense seeing as their are tons of christian rock bands, not to mention the churches that play music (sometimes rock) along with drums as worship music.

Also, guitars are used in practically every rock band, and the piano is used heavily too. I know bands like Cradle Of Filth (black metal, very likely concidered evil by this school) use whole orchestra to accompany their music sometimes, so I'm sure a flute and recorder have been used in "evil" music.
Tama,

There are many different people who come up with many different things. Churches and Christian groups tend to range from very loose (where emphasis is put on inclusion to the point of ignoring what the Bible says) to very legalistic (where people nitpick at the slightest things... note that the idea discussed earlier as to why some thing instruments have no place in the church stems from this side of things).

My guess is, your friend's school is very conservative, or legalistic. Much like the Pharisees of Jesus' day, they seem to be making rules out of thin air. The Jewish idea (as I understand it, if someone knows better, feel free to correct me) behind the 'extra' rules not found in scripture was to protect the rules that were found in scripture. The whole seperation between meat and dairy seems to have stemmed from 'Thou shalt not seethe (boil) a kid in his mother's milk.' (Ex 34:26b). The Jews took that, and to be absolutely sure that they wouldn't break that rule, they built a fence of rules around it, and another fence around that one, all adding to what was originally said. While the thought behind that is a good one, but means are wrong.

The idea behind drums being the 'devil's instrument', or rock being the 'devil's music' is equally farfetched, in my opinion. If someone can back up the claim from the Bible, I will be willing to listen; but until then, it strikes me as baseless and ludicrous. Here's the best (and yes, even so, it is VERY weak) explanation I've heard to keep Christian's away from rock to date: Those same beats are used in Africa for demon worship. :dry: I won't contest the statement, but I will say that we see music used (read: corrupted) in the Bible for foul ends. That doesn't mean that all music is bad.

The real question that should be asked is this: is it uplifting?

(I think I've given more than my two cents... I'll shut up now...)

[mushroom_girl]

Are drums the instrument of the devil?
I don't think so.

My friend invited me to a church concert with Christian rock bands and rappers. It was actually really good!

But then again, this church also does a fear factor where they made people eat cooked cow hearts....

[Hey1001]

Multiple flaws in this logic:
1) There is no reason to "deal" with what remains unknown. Is it too difficult to admit you don't know what happened before the big bang? Are you so insecure in your existence that you can't say "I don't know what will happen when I die"? Furthermore, do you then concede that the concept of god to fill these unknowns is then a bald faced lie, because we can't possibly truly know anything about an idea whose sole purpose is to fill that which we don't know?

2) Faith in god directly impedes further scientific inquiry (historically speaking). Instead of making up stories about how the universe came into being, it is much more efficient to scientifically derive what happened empirically



Emphasis on simple? Books like that never give you the real story



The last time scientists using the scientific method took for granted essential knowledge of the entire universe, relativity and quantum mechanics were discovered. Essentially, we took scientific knowledge from the macroscopic to the micro and super scopic (forgive the terminology).



Actually, that wasn't sound scientific theories, that was a religious theory. Makes you think



If scientists assumed they were unsound theories, everyone would stop working on them.



I agree. That's why instead, we continue to test them not to check if they're true, but to further prove that they're true. If a test doesn't turn out how we expect, we then check the theory to see what's missing



Agreed. However, to further our knowledge base, we MUST assume that the most strongly supported theories (in terms of evidence), are the most likely to be true. Or else all that evidence means nothing (and we can never even assume it's true).

How many times must I drop a ball before you believe gravity exists?
The ptolemaic view that the sun revolved around the earth was a scientific concept. See the following links or you can verify it yourself. That view lasted about 15 centuries as the "correct" scientific view before it was disproven. The modern view has thus only been around for about 4 centuries. Big bang and evolution have been around for a lot less. They are certainly relatively new concepts still in the scheme of human existence, and we should rightly be questioning them, no matter how sound or logical they sound. After all, simple observation of the sun still supports the ptolemaic view. That is why we need to continue questioning the current scientific theories, including evolution, big bang, and the like, not to imbue the with religious crap, but to better understand the world we live in.

http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~jatila/xmm/workshop2002/keplerlaws.pdf#search='Jatila%20van%20der%20Veen%2 0ptolomey'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemaic_system#The_Ptolemaic_system

If humankind would have not dealt with the unknown, we'd still be living in caves (Caveman 1: "Hmm, I wonder if that hot orange thing that burns everything in its path could be tamed so that we can use it to cook this mammouth steak" Caveman 2: "Forget about it, we don't know how to, so let's not deal with it"), or, had Copernicus not challenged the ptolemaic scientific view, trying to land on the moon, Mars, etc. (NASA: "Damn, we shoot the rocket in the direction of the moon, but it ends up in the sun. Wonder why?"). Curiosity about the unknown, and questioning the supposedly known, is what's produced knowledge, innovation and understanding of the physical world and social order.

There is no insecurity in wanting to know what happens when one dies. It's intellectual curiosity. I've had several beloved ones die that I know I will never see again in this life, but the faith that maybe I'li see them again in a post-life dimension is comforting. Having faith does not equal to being insecure. Some of our most strongest and "secure" leaders throughout the history of humanity also had faith, not to mention everyday folk in our midst. Faith can be a good thing. Imposition of faith to dominate others is a bad thing.

As to using the concept of god to explain the unknown, it seems to be as good a concept as any. Some people believe there has been divine intervention in their lives, and see that as "proof" of the existence of a god. I haven't had any such experience, and I doubt many of those that claim them, but I'm not looking for proof that there is a god, I choose to have faith that there is one. A god not necessarily as described by a particular religion, but a higher power nonetheless. A god I don't have to pray too, but I choose to do so sometimes in the hope that it hears me, and helps me in difficult times. Having that faith is useful (utilitarian, if you will) and thus not a bad thing to have. Makes you a better person (if you have faith in an good god, as opposed to an evil one). I don't seek to impose my faith on others, that is an individual matter.

Faith in God sometimes fosters scientific and humankind development, sometimes hinders it. Sometimes churches, in the quest for learning about the unknown, have produced great discoveries.

You ask: How many times must I drop a ball before you believe gravity exists? Say you are dropping the ball in a second floor of a building. Quantum physics teaches that there is a probability, albeit very, very small, that at the time the ball is about to make impact with the floor the atoms in the floor and in the ball align themselves in such a way that the ball goes through the floor. If you are going to go making discoveries by simple observations, and not questioning what you already "know," then how many times would you have to drop the ball to observe the ball-through-the floor phenomenon predicted by quantum physics? You could be doing it for a lifetime and not observe the phenomenon. Does it mean it couldn't happen?

[thakkus]

Can you show an example? I'd like to see this in context

Ardipithecus Skeleton May Fill Gap in Human Evolution
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Associated Press
WASHINGTON — Fossils have long provided snapshots of the human family tree, but a new find in Africa gives scientists a kind of mini home movie showing man's primal development.

"Because the 4.2-million-year-old fossil is from the same human ancestral hot spot in Ethiopia as are remains from seven other human-like species, scientists can now fill in the gaps for the most complete evolutionary chain so far."

***

Even the scientific community admits to the need to fill exisitng gaps. This article posted last month is pro-evolution/science. It is not some propoganda. The language used here is the language used by serious scientists who understand what it means to work hard with a theory, like evolution.

[drakonfire]

I don't think so.

My friend invited me to a church concert with Christian rock bands and rappers. It was actually really good!

But then again, this church also does a fear factor where they made people eat cooked cow hearts....

thats kinda gross

Tama: i agree with ceph, is there a message behind the music and is it uplifting? (IE if the message behind it is that life is pointless and i wanna commmit suicide, probably not the best music for a christian to listen to) that said, i listen to a lot of christian rock groups (shroom girl you might be interested in these too)

project 86, thousand foot krutch, demon hunter, just to name 3, there are plenty more names i could throw out there though, bands like Zao, Norma Jean, Showbread, Relient K (see my siggy, they are not rock, more pop) Underoath, Audio Adrenaline (great example of christian band, they do lots of high energy uplifting songs, use plenty of drums) oh speaking of, if you want drums check out Newsboys, they do this crazy thing where their drummer goes up in the air... nevermind, just check this video out (yes he IS perpendicular to the ground) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4038107471764676127&q=newsboys

anyway, if you check those bands out and like any of them, let me know, i can introduce you to more of them (and no, not all of the are blatently christan, project 86 has some awsome stuff that i simply love because they aren't ranting about how life sucks, and demon hunter, well... you gotta listen to infected for yourself)

EDIT: longer vid (1 min) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5820708256147215168&q=newsboys

[RAGING INFERNO]

You know, this might be just a random thought about this thread but, I'm a total Christian I totaly love god and Jesus, but I dont like it when you here someone talk well, how should I put this? well, Have you ever heard like in cartoons(the ones that are supposed to be somthing that teach you:pokemon,most disney shows etc.) say something like "Justice and love will always win". somthing like that. it's cheesy, true but cheesy. I admit, I like dark, mytserious things. I'm curious about thiings that people think are evil dont take this wrong, I'm a hard core Christian but you just cant help but thinking, "this is stupid" or "dude you're gay, Justice? Love?" I know it's true but still

[drakonfire]

lol, raging, i really don't think its random, especially if you consider the thread's original intent, right on bro, don't lose that fire (refining is ALWAYS a good idea, but don't ever lose it)

[uniquinous]

I am saying that any serious evolutionist admits we know less about evolution than we don't know.
And any serious physicist admits we know less about gravity then we don't know. Despite this, we can very readily predict how gravity works right here in the useful plain of every day Earth.

The ptolemaic view that the sun revolved around the earth was a scientific concept. That view lasted about 15 centuries as the "correct" scientific view before it was disproven.Now, before you go comparing those 15 centuries to the last 4, let's take a look at what science was back then. Was there a scientific theory? No. Was science very wholly based on religeous tales? Yes. The fact is, the "science" back then wasn't "science" by any means of our current definition, as it was highly swayed by religeon. Now, you're trying to compair the ptolemaic view, one which WAS heavily swayed by religion and did NOT actually have any strong proof in it's favor, against evolution, which is strongly unbiased by external influence and does actively have much supporting it. Sorry, this comparison is quite poor.

Even the scientific community admits to the need to fill exisitng gaps. This article posted last month is pro-evolution/science.Really dear, you need to read what I've been typing. A gap in a word, such as one which has a missing letter, does not give evidence towards the failure of the English language. Similarly, a gap in a specific phylogenetic tree, such as the one you just stated, does not provide a scrap of evidence towards the failure of evolution as a whole. What we don't know does not hurt evolution, but what we DO know supports it in every way.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Man, I love it when Uniquin gets like this. He ditches his passive little "Uh, okay?" mode and goes into "Bitch, you're gonna go down" mode.

[Tama Drummer]

Tama: i agree with ceph, is there a message behind the music and is it uplifting? (IE if the message behind it is that life is pointless and i wanna commmit suicide, probably not the best music for a christian to listen to) that said, i listen to a lot of christian rock groups (shroom girl you might be interested in these too)

Well, I can't say all the music I listen to doesn't have negative lyrics, as I'm pretty sure many of the bands speak of the devil and stuff like that, by I don't listen to music to hear the lyrics or gain a message from them. Most of the time, I don't even know what their saying, I just enjoy the overall sound.

It's uplifting to me though? If that counts.


Yea, that's pretty cool with the drummer in Newsboys. Slipnot's drummer does that as well, and I think there was another too. I wanna do it. :D

[Hey1001]

Now, before you go comparing those 15 centuries to the last 4, let's take a look at what science was back then. Was there a scientific theory? No. Was science very wholly based on religeous tales? Yes. The fact is, the "science" back then wasn't "science" by any means of our current definition, as it was highly swayed by religeon. Now, you're trying to compair the ptolemaic view, one which WAS heavily swayed by religion and did NOT actually have any strong proof in it's favor, against evolution, which is strongly unbiased by external influence and does actively have much supporting it. Sorry, this comparison is quite poor.

It is my understanding that the ptolemaic theory was not influenced by the church, but rather adopted by the church after it was formulated. Aristotle, who dates back, to the 300s BC, formulated some of its first principles, based on simple observation: from our earthly perspective, the sun and moon appear to go around the earth. Thus, that theory evolved over centuries.

You give too little credit to what the human race achieved over those 15 centuries. The more we learned about the medieval period that is included in those centuries, the less they appear to be the "dark ages." And then the western world had the Renaissance, which was quite outstanding. Science might not have been the way it is today, but what they did discovered was essential to get us to where we are today technologically.

I'm not arguing that current theories such as evolution or the big bang are deficient or wrong. They are theories that have helped us understand our world, but like theories before them, they are subject to revision, modification, improvement, and even to be discredited if future discoveries prove so.

Also, scientific theories such as these that appear to explain the world so neatly do not negate the existence of God. On the other hand, where the theories are proven correct, it is inappropriate for religion to try to interject unnecessary religious explanations. Both science and religion can coexist. I believe many notable scientists have said so or live according to this precept.

[Cephas]

You know, this might be just a random thought about this thread but, I'm a total Christian I totaly love god and Jesus, but I dont like it when you here someone talk well, how should I put this? well, Have you ever heard like in cartoons(the ones that are supposed to be somthing that teach you:pokemon,most disney shows etc.) say something like "Justice and love will always win". somthing like that. it's cheesy, true but cheesy. I admit, I like dark, mytserious things. I'm curious about thiings that people think are evil dont take this wrong, I'm a hard core Christian but you just cant help but thinking, "this is stupid" or "dude you're gay, Justice? Love?" I know it's true but still
First off, welcome to the thread. :)

Now, let's see if we can find some balance. I agree with you about the sissy-panzy way of looking at things people have (many of the at the very least nominal Christians) with relation to good and evil, right and wrong. I reject that, because while perhaps ultimately, things will be brought before God, in a practical sense in the here and now, that is not how things play out. The rosey view on life is only anywhere close to true with care bears and barney (and perhaps uniquinous too ;) ). Reality is darker than that.

I'm concerned that you've gone too far in the other direction (likely in rejecting the girly uniquinous view :D) though. In rejecting one wrong, we often gravitate to another which is, while contrary, equally wrong. Paul's words in Philippians 4:8 seem appropriate; just remember that it begins with true. He is not dealing in fanciful reality (like our friend uniquinous).

Many apologies to uniq for the slanderous use of his name above. He seems to have a sense of humor, and I imagine he can stomach a lighthearted poke. If Northwind had been recently active in the thread, he would have had his place in this post instead of uniquinous. *pokes Northwind*

[Office_Shredder]

It is my understanding that the ptolemaic theory was not influenced by the church, but rather adopted by the church after it was formulated. Aristotle, who dates back, to the 300s BC, formulated some of its first principles, based on simple observation: from our earthly perspective, the sun and moon appear to go around the earth. Thus, that theory evolved over centuries.

Oh..... so you admit that the times in the bible when it says the sun goes around the earth, it's really just the words of man, not god?

You give too little credit to what the human race achieved over those 15 centuries. The more we learned about the medieval period that is included in those centuries, the less they appear to be the "dark ages." And then the western world had the Renaissance, which was quite outstanding. Science might not have been the way it is today, but what they did discovered was essential to get us to where we are today technologically.

Umm.... over the past four centuries, we went from horse drawn wagon to spaceships. Over those 15 centuries.... we went from horseback to horse drawn carriage.

Damn, I think the last four won.

I'm not arguing that current theories such as evolution or the big bang are deficient or wrong. They are theories that have helped us understand our world, but like theories before them, they are subject to revision, modification, improvement, and even to be discredited if future discoveries prove so.

What's your point?

If people decided that because Newton's three laws weren't 100% totally provable that alternative theories had to be taught, we would have gotten nowhere.

Furthering our scientific knowledge REQUIRES making best use of the knowledge we have. And that knowledge is that evolution is true

Also, scientific theories such as these that appear to explain the world so neatly do not negate the existence of God. On the other hand, where the theories are proven correct, it is inappropriate for religion to try to interject unnecessary religious explanations. Both science and religion can coexist. I believe many notable scientists have said so or live according to this precept.

Has anybody here argued otherwise?

[Aro23r]

Oh..... so you admit that the times in the bible when it says the sun goes around the earth, it's really just the words of man, not god?

Umm.... over the past four centuries, we went from horse drawn wagon to spaceships. Over those 15 centuries.... we went from horseback to horse drawn carriage.
Damn, I think the last four won.

And that knowledge is that evolution is true


That first one is a dirty trick, OS, and you know it. Heh, words of man thing again.


That's a bigger difference than you think. There is a much bigger technical difference than a horseback rider and a horse-drawn chariot than there is the latter to a spaceship.
The difference between a chariot and a spaceship is simply brute force. Instead of burning oats and water to pull your chariot, you burn liquid oxygen.

That knowledge is that evolution is true is pretty much a circular arguement. The knowledge 2000 years ago is that God is real and needs to be worshipped. So, if you wanna talk about knowledge saying that "theories" are true, you better have an example from the past of such a thing.

[uniquinous]

Cephas - ow my eye! Why j00 p0k3 m3!? btw, I don't really have a huge problem with people calling me girly - i think i'll live (maybe)

It is my understanding that the ptolemaic theory was not influenced by the church, but rather adopted by the church after it was formulated.And... praytell, why do you feel it was formulated? When man was arrogant to believe he was the center of the universe? Let me remind you that Aristotle was a philosopher, primarily, despite his inventive ideas. Let me also remind you that the time of Aristotle VERY strongly came to the "scientific" conclusion that the sun (and everything else) revolves around MAN because we were so damn special that it couldn't be any other way. :dry: Get your historical influences straight, por favor.

like theories before them, they are subject to revision, modification, improvement, and even to be discredited if future discoveries prove so.
So... you're major argument is that it's not been proven 100% and completely uncontestable? :confused: Welcome to life - find me something that is.

[thakkus]

My point remains that serious scientists recognize the limitations in our knowledge of the theory of evolution. I happen to believe evolution is the best theory out there, and it stands up under much scrutiny. However, it is in no way conclusive or complete. Much much more is yet to be learned. New knowledge continuously causes science to rewrite and re-right previous ideas in the theory.

[Office_Shredder]

My point remains that serious scientists recognize the limitations in our knowledge of the theory of evolution. I happen to believe evolution is the best theory out there, and it stands up under much scrutiny. However, it is in no way conclusive or complete. Much much more is yet to be learned. New knowledge continuously causes science to rewrite and re-right previous ideas in the theory.

You still haven't cited an example where scientists find reason to doubt the theory, but have only mentioned the actual evolutionary tree

[uniquinous]

My point remains that serious scientists recognize
whoa whoa whoa let's just stop right there. You make it sound like "serious scientists" are some bizarre form of superbrain that humanity keeps locked up in labs. For the record:
<----serious scientist
so please, don't preach to me what "scientists" believe because 1) gross generalizations are bound to be wrong, and 2) I am one.

the limitations in our knowledge of the theory of evolution. However, it is in no way conclusive or complete. Much much more is yet to be learned. New knowledge continuously causes science to rewrite and re-right previous ideas in the theory.
This is false. The general theory of evolution is pretty complete. The EVIDENCE, on the other hand, is not. Please, if you don't understand the difference of these two points, which I've tried to stress several times, respond with QUESTIONS, not more statements. Evolution is pretty conclusive at this point, and while the EVIDENCE might still need to be written, the theory, need not be. Your only counterargument to this point was that it happened with other "theories" 4 centuries ago, and everyone's pretty much already shot down that argument.

[Twelve]

One of the things that was noted in the article was with regards to men needing purpose. If that need is not being met, there is a good chance that the local church in question is stagnating, no? You know what I'm quoting when I say that 'where there is no vision, the people perish'.



VERY good point. Still, I think the fault must ultimately lie on the men. I believe that their purposes are misplaced into all of the distractions in society. And I believe men have a choice as to which direction they wish to be distracted. But what you speak of is very on point...yet, as long as EVERY church in America isn't like that, it's ok.

Spartan - I'm a Christian too, but there's no way to prove Christianity. It's not possible.

Since Christianity needs faith. I'm quite happy that it can't be proven through a microscope. Yet it can also not be disproven and there are no flaws within it---seeing people try is where I have fun.

Are drums the instrument of the devil?

No. But you'll find people who even believe Smurfs are evil.

12

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Since Christianity needs faith. I'm quite happy that it can't be proven through a microscope. Yet it can also not be disproven and there are no flaws within it---seeing people try is where I have fun.Though what you mistake for people trying to disprove it is actually us trying to make the playing field even again... saying that such and such DOESN'T prove the bible.



No. But you'll find people who even believe Smurfs are evil.

12Dude, smurf your smurfing smurf up your smurfy smurfily smurfacious smurf.

[Office_Shredder]

And I believe men have a choice as to which direction they wish to be distracted.

:eek:

That's so unchristian!


:p

[Hey1001]

Oh..... so you admit that the times in the bible when it says the sun goes around the earth, it's really just the words of man, not god?



Umm.... over the past four centuries, we went from horse drawn wagon to spaceships. Over those 15 centuries.... we went from horseback to horse drawn carriage.

Damn, I think the last four won.



What's your point?

If people decided that because Newton's three laws weren't 100% totally provable that alternative theories had to be taught, we would have gotten nowhere.

Furthering our scientific knowledge REQUIRES making best use of the knowledge we have. And that knowledge is that evolution is true



Has anybody here argued otherwise?
You are arguing with yourself. My view has been that the Bible is the word of man, not God. Check past postings. I've never said evolution is not true. I'm not trying to disprove evolution or any other modern theory.

[Hey1001]

Cephas - ow my eye! Why j00 p0k3 m3!? btw, I don't really have a huge problem with people calling me girly - i think i'll live (maybe)

And... praytell, why do you feel it was formulated? When man was arrogant to believe he was the center of the universe? Let me remind you that Aristotle was a philosopher, primarily, despite his inventive ideas. Let me also remind you that the time of Aristotle VERY strongly came to the "scientific" conclusion that the sun (and everything else) revolves around MAN because we were so damn special that it couldn't be any other way. :dry: Get your historical influences straight, por favor.


So... you're major argument is that it's not been proven 100% and completely uncontestable? :confused: Welcome to life - find me something that is.
Aristotle is best known for being a philosopher, but he was much more than that. Look it up. He probably came to the conclusion that the sun and moon go around the earth because that is what common sense tells anyone when one looks up at the sky. Check it out.

I don't know where you get that my "major argument" is what you allege it is.

Modern man would be as arrogant as you say ancient men were if we were to believe that the theories that we now rely on to explain the world are infallible.

[uniquinous]

.. ...saying "check it out" does not prove you correct in any manner. Now I and several others have asked you to bring forward specific examples instead of tossing aside our valid claims with things like "look it up". I suggest you try it. Aristotle was a philosopher who looked up at the sky. Scientist? NO. He lived in a time where society as a whole believed man was so special that we were the center of the universe. Not just this little solar system, not just the galaxy, the entire universe. They see things go round, they believe as a society that manking is special and everything, EVERYTHING, revolves around us... Is it that unlikely that he believed the sun revolved around us too? Again: science? NO. Don't compare apples to oranges.

If you state your main argument is something other then I've stated (being you claim that this isn't 100% infallable etc etc), please specifically state what it is. While you're at it, please provide anything that is 100% and completely uncontestable.

In your response, put down these three numbers with appropriate answer:
1) What specific examples do you have to back your point on Aristotle?
2) What is your main argument?
3) Please name something that is 100% completely uncontestable.

[Cephas]

VERY good point. Still, I think the fault must ultimately lie on the men. I believe that their purposes are misplaced into all of the distractions in society. And I believe men have a choice as to which direction they wish to be distracted. But what you speak of is very on point...yet, as long as EVERY church in America isn't like that, it's ok.

Ultimately, yes, the fault lies with the individual. A new believer takes his direction from those before him though, and if they are aimless, it can well be expected that the apple will not fall far from the tree. :(

[Hey1001]

.. ...saying "check it out" does not prove you correct in any manner. Now I and several others have asked you to bring forward specific examples instead of tossing aside our valid claims with things like "look it up". I suggest you try it. Aristotle was a philosopher who looked up at the sky. Scientist? NO. He lived in a time where society as a whole believed man was so special that we were the center of the universe. Not just this little solar system, not just the galaxy, the entire universe. They see things go round, they believe as a society that manking is special and everything, EVERYTHING, revolves around us... Is it that unlikely that he believed the sun revolved around us too? Again: science? NO. Don't compare apples to oranges.

If you state your main argument is something other then I've stated (being you claim that this isn't 100% infallable etc etc), please specifically state what it is. While you're at it, please provide anything that is 100% and completely uncontestable.

In your response, put down these three numbers with appropriate answer:
1) What specific examples do you have to back your point on Aristotle?
2) What is your main argument?
3) Please name something that is 100% completely uncontestable.
Aristotle was not only a philosopher, but also studied numerous matters, including astronomy, physics, and biology. Check the wikipedia link in one of my prior postings (scroll up once you're in the link and click on "Aristotle"), or look it up yourself. It's a simple search. You will find that the geocentric theory required a lot of math, not just the plain observation that the sun and moon appear to revolve around the earth or, as you allege, man's belief that we were the center of everything. WIth regard to the latter, you will find the following in the link:

"Not all Greeks agreed with the geocentric model . . . some Pythagoreans believed the Earth to be one of several planets going around a central fire."

If you're going to pick an argument in midstream, do your homework and read the past postings on the matter. I think my position on the issue of science and religion is sufficiently clear. What is your position, if you have one? That we now know enough? Isn't that position egocentric? Maybe it was attitudes like yours that retarded the advancement of science.

[uniquinous]

In your response, put down these three numbers with appropriate answer:
1) What specific examples do you have to back your point on Aristotle?
2) What is your main argument?
3) Please name something that is 100% completely uncontestable.
huh... is it really that difficult to directly address such simple queries?

Don't talk to me about retarding science. I have discovered novel protein and nucleotide sequences, and am published. You... use wikipedia and referrences such as "Not all Greeks agreed with the geocentric model . . some Pythagoreans believed..." Tell me - was Aristotle considered Pythagorean? You see years before I was first published I dabbled a bit in philosophy as well. You are good at quoting things, but clearly don't see the bigger picture. OK, I'll use your own methods:
Other objections included the idea, put forward by Aristotle, that the natural state of heavy objects like the Earth was at rest, and that some force was required to move them. It was also believed by some that the Earth's rotation on its axis would cause the air and objects in it (such as birds or clouds) to be left behind.

A major flaw in the Eudoxan and Aristotelian models based on concentric spheres was that they could not explain the changes in brightness of the planets caused by a change in distance.There's wikipedia for you. Is that what you call science? Blindly ignoring blatant evidence? It seems to be what you follow nonetheless. Wait wait wait - I'll do one better, and take the out of context quote you used previously and place it correctly within the rest of the text:Pythagoreans taught that the Earth was a sphere, but not at the center; they believed that it was in motion around an unseen fire. Later these views were combined, so most educated Greeks from the 4th century BCE on thought that the Earth was a sphere at the center of the universe.

In the 4th century BCE, two influential Greek philosophers wrote works based on the geocentric model. These were Plato and his student Aristotle.


Now again I will ask - the three abovementioned numbered queries. They really aren't that difficult, and no, wikipedia can't help you.

EDIT - you asked what my position was, and unlike you I can actually hold a decent conversation and respond to questions. My stance is this: your argument is incorrect.

[thakkus]

Uniquinous -- I tried to quote you and respond but something went wrong with my post, so let me just say that I will concede the argument that the theory is full of holes and accept your refutation that the theory itself stands nearly complete, with evidence being the thing that is less complete. As a scientist, you are better equipped to address the issue, for certain.

My original point was to suggest that scientists aren't running around telling people that evolution is irrefutable fact. And it does seem to me that new knowledge appears which causes older knowledge to be rewritten. I won't spend a lot of time looking for examples of this, but will concede the original debate.

Thanks for the lively discussion.

Thak!

[Hey1001]

huh... is it really that difficult to directly address such simple queries?

Don't talk to me about retarding science. I have discovered novel protein and nucleotide sequences, and am published. You... use wikipedia and referrences such as "Not all Greeks agreed with the geocentric model . . some Pythagoreans believed..." Tell me - was Aristotle considered Pythagorean? You see years before I was first published I dabbled a bit in philosophy as well. You are good at quoting things, but clearly don't see the bigger picture. OK, I'll use your own methods:
There's wikipedia for you. Is that what you call science? Blindly ignoring blatant evidence? It seems to be what you follow nonetheless. Wait wait wait - I'll do one better, and take the out of context quote you used previously and place it correctly within the rest of the text:

Now again I will ask - the three abovementioned numbered queries. They really aren't that difficult, and no, wikipedia can't help you.

EDIT - you asked what my position was, and unlike you I can actually hold a decent conversation and respond to questions. My stance is this: your argument is incorrect.
If wikipedia is not good enough for you, feel free to find another source.

[uniquinous]

.. ... Did you not actually read the post? I used Wikipedia, your own source, and it says you're wrong. I can find a large number of sources outside of wikipedia that would verify this, if you'd like - let me know.

[Shiny Flors]

I have an off topic question,

As I understand it,(something I picked up in Physics) the universe is expanding. Is it possible to determine where in outer space the Big Bang happened by retracing the farthest known reaches of the galaxy to a center point?



About the feminization of the church, since male church attendance is declining, what could be done to help restore men coming to church?

12 mentioned that a cause of declining church attendance of men is numerous social distractions. Do you think the declining morality of modern society is related to declining church attendance?

[uniquinous]

On that note - I'm wondering if there is a way to "restore men" without compromising the attendance of women. Is there some mutual exclusivity within religious gender issues?

[TheBlazedAce]

As I understand it,(something I picked up in Physics) the universe is expanding. Is it possible to determine where in outer space the Big Bang happened by retracing the farthest known reaches of the galaxy to a center point?
There is a misconception I had for a long time until reading up enough on the subject. You see, the universe, or spacetime specifically is expanding outward, but we are on its edge, not throughout it. Imagine for a second a balloon and imagine a drawn dot on the balloon. As the balloon expands our dot expands outward, but if you drew many other dots they would expand outward as well. It would seem that the farther away a dot was to us the faster it was expanding.

This is the observations we have seen through long-distance telescopes, that the farther away something is from us, the faster it seems to be moving away. Were this not the case, that we were not all on an outside "edge" of spacetime then those on the edge of the balloon would always seem to be moving faster then those further on the inside (the outside of the balloon expands the fastest when you're blowing it up right?).

This paints a very nice picture for us of the universe for a few reasons: firstly, everything is symmetric, and symmetry is a pattern we have surely noticed in the universe (everything has mass, everything is governed by certain physical laws everywhere, we all move through spacetime at the exact same speed, etc.). secondly, this makes no galaxy the center of the universe, in fact it means nothing is at the center of the universe really, in terms of spacetime and it can't ever really be reached. Thirdly, this beautifuly has a side effect of continual symmetry by making everything, for the most part, to move at the same speed relative to spacetime. If things were nearer to the center then the outside then some of the galaxies would move at different speeds relative to the expansion of spacetime. Seems like no big deal until you take into account Einstien's theory of relativity, which simply in this picture states that since some move at different speeds through space, they will be moving through different speeds through time. Then there is no real "age" of the universe anymore because different sections of the universe aged differently. Fortunetly, this way, where we are all on the edge of the universe, all moving at the same speed relative to spacetime and all moving through time therefore at the same rate, the entire universe does have an age, we can understand and predict what might be going on somewhere other then our galaxy and we can apply much more sound theories to our view on cosmology.

[Shiny Flors]

I don't think attendance of women would be compromised. In the article there is something about if a man attends church then his family also attends 97% of the time. I think this has to do with women wanting to be lead. When I talk to some women they usually don't have problems going to church but rather going to church alone. If men would start attending I think women would also attend.

[lazygun]

Yes,because women are not complete without a man,..F.M.S.W's!.:bad:

I weep for the future.

[Shiny Flors]

To The BlazedAce,

I like your balloon analogy. As the balloon expands I agree everything moves outward and some dots seem to expand faster than others. Is it possible then to deflate the balloon and see where all the dots originated from or since we are all on the edge is that impossible since everything seems to be expanding at different speeds as the balloon is inflated.

[Twelve]

Though what you mistake for people trying to disprove it is actually us trying to make the playing field even again... saying that such and such DOESN'T prove the bible.


Really? Is that what it was? Then I would join you. I like my science and religion to have two seperate arenas, and to agree when they touch. I believe it's very possible. It's only a problem when the two try to prove the other WRONG...that's when it becomes ridiculous.

That's so unchristian!

Nah...free will is very Christian.

As I understand it,(something I picked up in Physics) the universe is expanding. Is it possible to determine where in outer space the Big Bang happened by retracing the farthest known reaches of the galaxy to a center point?

This very question led the formerly atheist Einstein to eventually believe in a god.

About the feminization of the church, since male church attendance is declining, what could be done to help restore men coming to church?

12 mentioned that a cause of declining church attendance of men is numerous social distractions. Do you think the declining morality of modern society is related to declining church attendance?

Well, let's just look at Judeo-Christian history, as recorded in the Bible. True Judaism/Christianity was never a popular thing. The Bible talks often of a "remnant" of people. Remember when Elijah couldn't even FIND anybody else who followed the truth(though God reassured him that there were man who "have no yet bent their knee to Ba'al").

We live in a Western Society that has embraced "popular" Christianity ever since the time of Constantine. Since then, "popular" Christianity has defined culture and has been used to control and lead people. It has been used to define laws and be the foundation for governments.

But "popular" Christianity has never been true Christianity. Even during the time of "popular" Christianity, the climax of which probably happened during the Crusades, there was always a "remnant" that I believe worshipped God in "spirit and in truth". These people would know even then that the "Crusades" was a very secular thing to do, masked by the name of Christ.

Today, as western culture becomes more and more "secular", I think church attendance is just going to show more and more the true "remnant" that was always there.

I truly hope we never have to have a time where things were like the days of Elijah. I like my Christian comforts. Yet, as more and more churches become "femanized" or "masculanized" or "liberal" or "conservative" or "progressive" or "legalistic", thereby cutting down on the number of plain, old fashioned "Churches"....

*shrug*

On that note - I'm wondering if there is a way to "restore men" without compromising the attendance of women. Is there some mutual exclusivity within religious gender issues?

The idea is that churches are becoming so "feminine", that men don't want to go. I think that a church should just be "real", not "feminine" or "masculine". What that article doesn't note is that there are plenty of "masculine" churches too.


12

[TheBlazedAce]

To The BlazedAce,

I like your balloon analogy. As the balloon expands I agree everything moves outward and some dots seem to expand faster than others. Is it possible then to deflate the balloon and see where all the dots originated from or since we are all on the edge is that impossible since everything seems to be expanding at different speeds as the balloon is inflated.
As theorized, if the force of gravity overcame the initial inflationary force of the expansion of the universe then the universe would begin to implode back upon itself and I think this would be the only way to go back to the actual "center". Oddly enough the universe's rate of expansion seems to be actuall accelerating. Whatever force is causing the expansion seems to work opposite of gravity and seems to be stronger the farther away objects are seperated.

A proposed theory involves just gravity. See, gravity is effected by energy (or a better word to use is pressure) as well as gravity (this is only included in einstein's theories or relativity). Two springs of equal mass would produce the same force of gravity on each other, but if one spring was compressed and held in compression (having potential energy) by some means then its force of gravity on an object of equal mass would be greater then the uncompressed spring. It's incredibly hard to imagine, but what if something contained negative potential energy somehow, then the force it creates would be weaker then any other object of equal mass. This is my favorite explanation for what causes the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. This negative pressure or negative potential energy created by some field (currently known as a higgs field) is what may have caused the initial inflation of the universe and is what might be causing the current expasion rate. The universe certainly does work in mysterious ways. :D

[uniquinous]

indeed it does

Today, as western culture becomes more and more "secular", I think church attendance is just going to show more and more the true "remnant" that was always there.Ah, excellent point. I also agree that religion should be "real" and not catered to the stereotypes of any gender/race/politics. However (and I'm sure this is where we differ), I do very much see a lot of Christianity as a religion that does try to cater to groups' individual aspects at the time, many instances doing so just to make a transitionary conversion easier or more appealing.

[Office_Shredder]

A proposed theory involves just gravity. See, gravity is effected by energy (or a better word to use is pressure) as well as gravity (this is only included in einstein's theories or relativity). Two springs of equal mass would produce the same force of gravity on each other, but if one spring was compressed and held in compression (having potential energy) by some means then its force of gravity on an object of equal mass would be greater then the uncompressed spring. It's incredibly hard to imagine, but what if something contained negative potential energy somehow, then the force it creates would be weaker then any other object of equal mass. This is my favorite explanation for what causes the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. This negative pressure or negative potential energy created by some field (currently known as a higgs field) is what may have caused the initial inflation of the universe and is what might be causing the current expasion rate. The universe certainly does work in mysterious ways. :D

Of course, it would help if we knew about dark matter a bit more before we tried to explain this away... seeing how (if I recall correctly), it makes up over 3/4s of the universe.


Nah...free will is very Christian.

Lol... twelve, you missed it.... if men get to choose which distraction they're distracted by...

what's the most distracting thing for men?

Now what's the alternative?

Think about it

:p

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Really? Is that what it was? Then I would join you. I like my science and religion to have two seperate arenas, and to agree when they touch. I believe it's very possible. It's only a problem when the two try to prove the other WRONG...that's when it becomes ridiculous.
12
Indeed, we understand the concept very well. God is a being whose existence you cannot disprove with science, and whose acknowledgement depends on faith.

Then there are people like TSR (you really should have a talk with that boy), with whom you have conversations such as...
You: You know, you can't logically prove the existence of God. The Bible doesn't do that.

Them: Yes it does.

You: How?

Them: Because there are no contradictions.

You: First of all, that doesn't prove anything. It could be a coincidence for all we know.

Them: No it's because God is inerrant.

You: How do you know a "God" did it?

Them: Because the bible proves it.

You: ...

Them: AHA! Your silence means that I win, obviously.

[Hey1001]

.. ... Did you not actually read the post? I used Wikipedia, your own source, and it says you're wrong. I can find a large number of sources outside of wikipedia that would verify this, if you'd like - let me know.
I'm not arguing here to win, or for the "gotcha" attitude. I don't understand why you keep saying I'm wrong. Are you trying to prove that I'm wrong in giving any credit to 3d century science? Hey, don't waste your time, cause I know it is not match for, say, nanotechnology or string theory, but in its time it was the best there was and without it, we would not have the science we have today. And, contrary to your assertion, the geocentric theory did not originate as a religious theory. The Catholic church, which adopted it, did not even exist at the time of Aristotle!
Also, while we have learned that the earth is not at the center of our solar system as we know it today, we have yet not determined where's the center of the universe. For all you know, we could still be it. Now, don't go attributing to this statement some religious connotation, because I intend none. It is a factual matter. We have no idea where the center of the universe is, if there is a center, so, to the extent there is one, there is no proof that it isn't us. So, on your attack on 3d century BC folk as being egocentric, they still have not been proven wrong.

[Office_Shredder]

Also, while we have learned that the earth is not at the center of our solar system as we know it today, we have yet not determined where's the center of the universe. For all you know, we could still be it.

Not really. As has been explained, the way the universe appears to be expanding, we're on the edge of it along with all other matter. Read the balloon analogy again..... we can tell we're on the edge of the balloon, how could we possibly be in the center too?

Also, can you give a definition for "center" of the universe?

[Hey1001]

Not really. As has been explained, the way the universe appears to be expanding, we're on the edge of it along with all other matter. Read the balloon analogy again..... we can tell we're on the edge of the balloon, how could we possibly be in the center too?

Also, can you give a definition for "center" of the universe?
Our understanding of the "universe" is still in its infancy. We don't know that much about the vast world that surrounds us. Heck, we're still learning about our solar system. So even if current evidence and observations indicate that we "appear" to be at the edge of the universe, that is hardly conclusive of the position we occupy in the "universe."

Uni made the initial reference to the "center of the universe." I take it to mean a point equidistant from the edges of the "universe." But, what is beyond those edges. beyond the balloon you refer to? Another universe?

[Office_Shredder]

Our understanding of the "universe" is still in its infancy. We don't know that much about the vast world that surrounds us. Heck, we're still learning about our solar system. So even if current evidence and observations indicate that we "appear" to be at the edge of the universe, that is hardly conclusive of the position we occupy in the "universe."

Uni made the initial reference to the "center of the universe." I take it to mean a point equidistant from the edges of the "universe." But, what is beyond those edges. beyond the balloon you refer to? Another universe?

To answer your last question: Empty space.

Space is an infinite void. There was a pinprick of immense energy in the center. That pinprick exploded. The energy coalesced to form matter. That matter flew away from the "center" of the universe. Eventually, the universe became as it is today.

Now, of particular interest (for you physicists), is approximating where this center could be located. Due to gravity and other inter-particle interactions, and non-constant speeds between particles, and changes in direction that may have occured, it's not reliable to backtrack the universe to a single point. Thus, the only way to backtrack would be to somehow check out on all the fringe photons (which have never been affected by anything, having always moved faster than anything but light), and backtrack them. However, the theory of relativity precludes this. Imagine the big bang begins. If you are moving at the same velocity as the pinprick of energy (since there's no absolute zero motion point), you see a ball of light expand around the pinprick. However, imagine you are moving at .5c relative to the pinprick. If you pass the pinprick as the light is released, you will still see a perfect sphere of light. But this sphere will be centered around you. Because all light appears to be moving at c, it will appear as if the light is moving as a sphere relative to your inertial frame of reference. It's really this effect that precludes any attempt to find the center.

[Hey1001]

To answer your last question: Empty space.

Space is an infinite void. There was a pinprick of immense energy in the center. That pinprick exploded. The energy coalesced to form matter. That matter flew away from the "center" of the universe. Eventually, the universe became as it is today.

Now, of particular interest (for you physicists), is approximating where this center could be located. Due to gravity and other inter-particle interactions, and non-constant speeds between particles, and changes in direction that may have occured, it's not reliable to backtrack the universe to a single point. Thus, the only way to backtrack would be to somehow check out on all the fringe photons (which have never been affected by anything, having always moved faster than anything but light), and backtrack them. However, the theory of relativity precludes this. Imagine the big bang begins. If you are moving at the same velocity as the pinprick of energy (since there's no absolute zero motion point), you see a ball of light expand around the pinprick. However, imagine you are moving at .5c relative to the pinprick. If you pass the pinprick as the light is released, you will still see a perfect sphere of light. But this sphere will be centered around you. Because all light appears to be moving at c, it will appear as if the light is moving as a sphere relative to your inertial frame of reference. It's really this effect that precludes any attempt to find the center.
OS,

I appreciate your explanation and will assume that it is the most current understanding of the origins of "our universe." Still, the problem I have is in accepting that beyond the balloon there is merely empty space. We just don't have the capability to know that beyond the bubble there is nothing more. And, getting back to the christian topic, it is there that I have to take the leap of faith and believe that some higher power is behind the big bang and everything beyond. Faith is irrational, cause there is no proof of that higher power. I suppose some people choose to have the faith, others don't. At that extreme, I do, until we know more.

As to the question of the center of the universe, it was just a rhetorical question for uni. However, even if it is true that we are at the edge of the universe balloon you describe, the question remains, is there a larger Universe enveloping our own, and if so, are we at the center? I'm not saying we are, but rather that we don't know where we are with respect to that Universe that encompasses the totality of space. Actually, based on this definition, that Universe would have no center, or no edges or boundaries.

This reminds me of the MIB II movie, in which there were universes in a locker at Grand Central Station in NYC. We don't know that in a grand scale, we are just one of those universes in the Grand Central Station of an absolute universe.

The more we know about our universe, the more we realize how much more is there to know.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12801391/

[uniquinous]

This is a perfect example of your line of reasoning. f You read something on a topic, such as what Blazed has so eloquently explained previously, yet you interpret it completely incorrectly because you can't see the bigger picture. He stated "we don't know where the center of the universe is". You took it to mean "it could be anywhere, such as here". In all actually, while we don't know where the center is, we know where it isn't, and it isn't here (yet another claim wrong due to misinterpretation).

I'm not arguing here with the "gotcha" attitude - I'm arguing here for one reason: you are stating incorrect assumptions as fact, and they are nothing of the sort. I have a low tolerance for ignorance - sorry.

[Shiny Flors]

Our understanding of the "universe" is still in its infancy. We don't know that much about the vast world that surrounds us. Heck, we're still learning about our solar system. So even if current evidence and observations indicate that we "appear" to be at the edge of the universe, that is hardly conclusive of the position we occupy in the "universe."

Uni made the initial reference to the "center of the universe." I take it to mean a point equidistant from the edges of the "universe." But, what is beyond those edges. beyond the balloon you refer to? Another universe?


Before God created the universe what was there? Nothingness? This is what is beyond the borders of the universe. If you can accept nothingness in the creation story, you should be able to accept it in cosmology.

[thakkus]

So even if current evidence and observations indicate that we "appear" to be at the edge of the universe, that is hardly conclusive of the position we occupy in the "universe."

This is an excellent point. There is no credible way to predict with certainty that our current understanding won't be found incorrect at some future point. This was the original point I was trying to make about our understanding of evolution. We may think we know, but may learn that we, in fact, did not know. You do a better job of making my point than I could! :rolleyes:

[thakkus]

I'm not arguing here with the "gotcha" attitude - I'm arguing here for one reason: you are stating incorrect assumptions as fact, and they are nothing of the sort. I have a low tolerance for ignorance - sorry.

I know this wasn't written to me, but I'd like to address a core issue I see in the post.

Fact is a term we coined to depict what we believe is accurate. Reality and "fact" may actually be two very different things. I think the demonization of speculation is another example of something someone decided isn't proper in a debate. And, by the way, debate is a term we coined to describe a strategy for showing an argument to be stronger than another. The results of a debate can, at times, support a completely false concept or premise. So, within the rules you are establishing as the only rules (debate? fact vs opinion? reasoned argument vs speculation) you may in "fact" have the advantage. But the "fact" still remains, for example, that even if God were real, our current system of debate would not allow for the proving of this "fact." In other words, an athiest who met God in person could not, in fact, actually prove God existed using our argumentation tools.

Our limitations cant be overlooked.

[Office_Shredder]

But the "fact" still remains, for example, that even if God were real, our current system of debate would not allow for the proving of this "fact." In other words, an athiest who met God in person could not, in fact, actually prove God existed using our argumentation tools.

What if he or she took a picture?


As to the question of the center of the universe, it was just a rhetorical question for uni. However, even if it is true that we are at the edge of the universe balloon you describe, the question remains, is there a larger Universe enveloping our own, and if so, are we at the center? I'm not saying we are, but rather that we don't know where we are with respect to that Universe that encompasses the totality of space. Actually, based on this definition, that Universe would have no center, or no edges or boundaries.

Going back to my last point again... even if there is a center of the universe, different observers will claim it is in different locations. In fact.... if I was to trace out how light has moved since the beginning of the universe, it would appear to me as if the light escaping the big bang is centered around me. At the same time, it would appear to an alien on the other side of the galaxy as if it was centered around it.

[uniquinous]

Fact is a term we coined to depict what we believe is accurate. Reality and "fact" may actually be two very different things. I think the demonization of speculation is another example of something someone decided isn't proper in a debate. And, by the way, debate is a term we coined to describe a strategy for showing an argument to be stronger than another. The results of a debate can, at times, support a completely false concept or premise. So, within the rules you are establishing as the only rules (debate? fact vs opinion? reasoned argument vs speculation) you may in "fact" have the advantage. But the "fact" still remains, for example, that even if God were real, our current system of debate would not allow for the proving of this "fact." In other words, an athiest who met God in person could not, in fact, actually prove God existed using our argumentation tools.

Our limitations cant be overlooked.
Yes and this seems to be the other popular argument recently: "we don't know for 100% sure so you can't say you're right either". Again I give you the same challenge I gave Hey1002: find me something that is 100% certain. The fact is, in this world we must go with what presented the absolute strongest argument at the time. If we can't believe our very strong documentation, unbiased research results, and repeatable experiments, we really can't believe anything. So to both of you: put aside these silly notions of "I'm not listening to you because god hasn't decended from the heavens and told me it's true yet" mindset. IF you're stuck on the "religeious" aspect of that last sentence, go back and try to consider the point of what I'm saying, not just the words - as some of you have trouble grasping the larger picture.

[Twelve]

Ah, excellent point. I also agree that religion should be "real" and not catered to the stereotypes of any gender/race/politics. However (and I'm sure this is where we differ), I do very much see a lot of Christianity as a religion that does try to cater to groups' individual aspects at the time, many instances doing so just to make a transitionary conversion easier or more appealing.

This is true. Many Churches do bend over backwards, even destroying the truth to get converts. I'm highly opposed to this, and I am very suspicious of churches with more than 100 people, to be honest. ;) Not saying it's impossible to have a large mass of people (heck, the first Christian sermon brought in 3,000) serving God, but it's all too often the case that "true" Christianity is brushed aside for the sake of numbers.

And...the world sees this and calls us hypocrites.

Lol... twelve, you missed it.... if men get to choose which distraction they're distracted by...

what's the most distracting thing for men?

Now what's the alternative?

Think about it

Gross. ;)

But when I used "distraction"(shouldn't have used that word, I see), it was based on the idea that we're all going to be busy with something, be it good or bad.

Indeed, we understand the concept very well. God is a being whose existence you cannot disprove with science, and whose acknowledgement depends on faith.

I think many Christians don't like the idea that God can't be "proven". There will never be evidence AGAINST God, because the Bible states correctly that all of creation is evidence for God. But to truly KNOW God, you must have faith. Must.

I have no problem with this. To me, it is like...to fall in love, you MUST allow yourself to be weak.

This is an excellent point. There is no credible way to predict with certainty that our current understanding won't be found incorrect at some future point.

Actually, 100% of past evidence proves that we WILL change our mind about every "theory" that we have. We can predict with certainty that this will happen, because it ALWAYS has happened.

Those scientists today who believe that they have found the truth of this world are extremely conceited and foolish, if they think that THIS generation is the correct one, never to be proven wrong in the future, unlike EVERY generation of scientists in the past.

Science's ability to question and correct itself constantly is beautiful; once a scientist says that another science is no longer science(like the view on ID), then it's foolishness.

This is why I love Christianity...the entire beginning and end of our beliefs is stable and will never change. ;)

12

[uniquinous]

HEy - I kinda promised this not too long ago - I suppose this should go in an "evolution vs creationism" thread, but it seems *this* thread is a bit more applicable as it's a hot topic here, so it gets posted here.


http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/7909/4401100ai204lz.jpg
Accompanying Article Found Here (http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060424/full/4401100a.html)


Notice how, despite researchers being a bit stumped about the fine details of all their findings, despite the small gaps that do appear within this timeline, the theory of evolution is completely unharmed.

Another interesting Nature article I recomend the readers of this thread check out is Seeking Meaning in the Void (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7088/full/4401114a.html) (which was coincidentally published just above an article entitled "Sympathy for the devil" (about the Tazmanian Devil) :)

[Office_Shredder]

Actually, 100% of past evidence proves that we WILL change our mind about every "theory" that we have. We can predict with certainty that this will happen, because it ALWAYS has happened.

Those scientists today who believe that they have found the truth of this world are extremely conceited and foolish, if they think that THIS generation is the correct one, never to be proven wrong in the future, unlike EVERY generation of scientists in the past.

This is incorrect. History has shown that scientific theories will be modified, not thrown out. Scientists know they have a great theory when it just fits right; every piece of data collected strengthens it even more. This is true with most of science today... I'm not saying we know everything, but we know alot.

Galileo wasn't "right", but he was spot on. Same with Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, Lorentz, etc. etc. etc. Although none of them had what we would call a completed theory, each of them took us a step in the right direction. And we're continuing to move in the right direction today

Science's ability to question and correct itself constantly is beautiful; once a scientist says that another science is no longer science(like the view on ID), then it's foolishness.
12

The problem is that ID ISN'T science. To be science, something must follow the scientific method. ID doesn't do that.... its followers don't present testable hypotheses, nor do they verify their information through scientifically rigorous tests.

[Hey1001]

Before God created the universe what was there? Nothingness? This is what is beyond the borders of the universe. If you can accept nothingness in the creation story, you should be able to accept it in cosmology.
I don't accept nothingness in the physical world without adequate proof. Our quest for knowledge requires that we either prove or disprove that there is nothingness beyond the known physical world. The edge of the known world is but one more frontier into the unknown, which we should eventually explore.

[Office_Shredder]

I don't accept nothingness in the physical world without adequate proof. Our quest for knowledge requires that we either prove or disprove that there is nothingness beyond the known physical world. The edge of the known world is but one more frontier into the unknown, which we should eventually explore.

I'm confused. If it's beyond the known physical universe, of course we don't know what's out there. However, that we haven't seen anything from there (which is why it's not part of the known physical universe), is good indication that nothing is there.

And how can you not accept nothingness? What do you think space IS?

[Jehutyv.2.0]

And as soon as we go into nothingness beyond our universe, it instantly becomes something.

[Cephas]

What do you think space IS?
Well DUH! It is the key you use to seperate your words! Boy, forumers are getting dumber and dumber these days... :rolleyes: ;)

[Hey1001]

In addition to Cephas's definition, the astronomical space is a lot of empty space with things in it, like meteors, planets, energy, etc. What I take to be the nothingness we're talking about is the complete absence of matter an energy beyond the edges of the balloon we've been talking about.

[Office_Shredder]

In addition to Cephas's definition, the astronomical space is a lot of empty space with things in it, like meteors, planets, energy, etc. What I take to be the nothingness we're talking about is the complete absence of matter an energy beyond the edges of the balloon we've been talking about.

Kind of like..... the complete absence of matter and energy between the meteors and planets and such?

Actually, that's not true, there is cosmic radiation. But you can't travel fast enough to get outside of the bounds of cosmic radiation, so the point is moot

[TheBlazedAce]

I don't know think you guys are quite understanding the explanation I put forth. The balloon represents spacetime. We can only travel through spacetime. We can not travel past the edge of the balloon or towards the center, we are the edge. Spacetime, the three space dimensions and one time dimension is encompassed in this "edge". I only used a balloon analogy (removing one dimension to make it easier) to explain our understanding of cosmology, but let me make it clear that we can not move anywhere outside of spacetime.

I personally don't see why you care about what extends beyond the current expansion of spacetime. We once didn't understand how are cosmos are shaped or that we exist within a vast expanse of other similar bodies (stars, planets, solar systems, galaxies), but now we do. Wait patiently and we may find those answers eventually, but lack of knowledge at the moment to explain there is anything besides empty space doesn't mean we should fill that gap with numerous explanations of unproveable powers.

[thakkus]

The fact is, in this world we must go with what presented the absolute strongest argument at the time. If we can't believe our very strong documentation, unbiased research results, and repeatable experiments, we really can't believe anything. So to both of you: put aside these silly notions of "I'm not listening to you because god hasn't decended from the heavens and told me it's true yet" mindset.

I've wrestled this dinosaur before, and am content with the possibility that all of reality lay within the boundaries of the "discourse tools" we've invented as a species. Maybe, just maybe, this thing called science is the key to understanding all things. I just doubt the likeliness of such a thing.

[Office_Shredder]

I've wrestled this dinosaur before, and am content with the possibility that all of reality lay within the boundaries of the "discourse tools" we've invented as a species. Maybe, just maybe, this thing called science is the key to understanding all things. I just doubt the likeliness of such a thing.

Is religion the key to understanding all things?

Has christianity developed kinetic molecular theory? Has Buddhism developed the theory of relativity? Has Islam discovered the electron?

Science is not the key to understanding all things. Science is the key to understanding as much of the universe as possible

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Is religion the key to understanding all things?

Has christianity developed kinetic molecular theory? Has Buddhism developed the theory of relativity? Has Islam discovered the electron?

Science is not the key to understanding all things. Science is the key to understanding as much of the universe as possible
Nah, but the Jews realized that eating raw pig may kill you.

[Office_Shredder]

Nah, but the Jews realized that eating raw pig may kill you.

Religion isn't what let them understand that, religion is just how they enforced that people shouldn't eat raw pig

[Hey1001]

Nah, but the Jews realized that eating raw pig may kill you.
What about eating raw goats, or lamb? Doesn't that kill in the same way than eating raw pig kills? Why is it that Jews do not eat cooked pig?

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Religion isn't what let them understand that, religion is just how they enforced that people shouldn't eat raw pig
OS, you take ALL of my posts WAAAY to seriously.

[TheBlazedAce]

What about eating raw goats, or lamb? Doesn't that kill in the same way than eating raw pig kills? Why is it that Jews do not eat cooked pig?
"The unclean food should not be eaten... it is the law of God!... and it may bring a sickness or be unhealthy to your brain or heart or liver... it is now well known that pigs may give trichinosis, rats bubonic plague, bats rabies... all of them declared unclean animals in Lev.11... and, of course, fatty foods may bring obesity, high cholesterol..." -http://biblia.com/jesusbible/leviticus2.htm

It is easy to understand the ancients realized that at the time these animals especially were poorly cooked and often prooved a bad idea to eat, so instead of writing it out as law that these would be understood as bad because of this reason they just said it is God's word not to eat them. This could have been what lead to their survival during the epidemic known as the black death...

[Northwind]

Is religion the key to understanding all things?

Has christianity developed kinetic molecular theory? Has Buddhism developed the theory of relativity? Has Islam discovered the electron?

Science is not the key to understanding all things. Science is the key to understanding as much of the universe as possible
What are you talking about here? You are totally comparing apples and oranges. No "religion" didn't "develop" any of these things. However, that isn't religion's purpose, so it would be odd if it did.

You could legitimately ask whether Christianity, Buddhism, or Islam (or any other religion) has given meaning to peoples' lives or shown them a way to live or helped them to be better people. Why should religion be charged with discovering kinetic molecular theory? Do you ask your local video game store to sell you groceries?

Folks, this doesn't have to be so complicated. The purposed of science (ideally) is to use our powers of observations and experimentation to find out the nature of things. The purpose of religion (ideally) is to help people live more meaningful lives. Why do these have to be pitted against each other?

I think Thakkus hits the nail on the head here. Religion and science operate in different spheres and woe be unto either when it crosses the line (as they both often try to do). I get disturbed when I see "scientifically-minded" people assume that all religions must take some sort of fundamentalist "anti-science" line or when religious people assume that scientists can't be religious. Don't take the cheap way out and paint all religions or scientists with the same stereotypic brush.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

<---- Scientist what believes in that God feller.

[Twelve]

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/7909/4401100ai204lz.jpg
Accompanying Article Found Here (http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060424/full/4401100a.html)


*Yawn*

Are you really going to make me go through the boring task of finding the many links that completely refute that mess? I mean, c'mon. I thought we were beyond the "find the missing link in your backyard" stage of science. ;)

This is incorrect. History has shown that scientific theories will be modified, not thrown out.

I didn't say "thrown out", though that does happen with plenty of scientific theories. If you want to use the word "modified", sure, go ahead, but fact is that the beauty of science is that it never really reaches the truth about anything. It just knows MORE and MORE about it.

The problem is that ID ISN'T science. To be science, something must follow the scientific method. ID doesn't do that.... its followers don't present testable hypotheses, nor do they verify their information through scientifically rigorous tests.

And there you go right ahead and call tons of scientific research "not science".

"To be science, something must follow the scientific method".

According to who, OS? When should science ever be bound by a "method"?

I hear what you're saying, but there are plenty of scientists who do believe in ID.

Has christianity developed kinetic molecular theory? Has Buddhism developed the theory of relativity? Has Islam discovered the electron?

But Christians, Buddhists and Muslims have been and will be involved with finding out these things.


12

[Northwind]

"To be science, something must follow the scientific method".

According to who, OS? When should science ever be bound by a "method"?

I hear what you're saying, but there are plenty of scientists who do believe in ID."
I'll let Uniq defend his earlier post, but couldn't pass this statement up. "Science" has to follow the "scientific method" because otherwise, it's not science. It isn't even possible to imagine what "non-scientific" science would even be. The scientific method is what _defines_ science. That's like someone say that it is possible to speak Spanish without speaking Spanish. :confused:

As for the ID thing. ID is, by definition, not science as it seeks a non-physical explanation for physical existance. This can't be proven or tested and is thus NOT science. (Doesn't necessarily mean that it's wrong, just that it's not science.)
But Christians, Buddhists and Muslims have been and will be involved with finding out these things.
True.

[Poop Slinger]

.... This is why I love Christianity...the entire beginning and end of our beliefs is stable and will never change. ;)

12

An interesting way to approach that, yet I hope you don't truely stand on that point. Which sub division of Christianity are you speaking of. Or just Christianity in general.. "He was born. He died. He asended into heaven. He will come again".

Outside of that Christian people are much like scientists. They question each other. They question their foundations, beliefs and even seperate from each other to form other divisions of Christian groups to practice what they believe to be right about Christianity.


And regarding nothingness. What exists between atoms?? between eletrons and netrons? Its nothingness its space. Sure there are reactions that take place and enegry is created or destroyed. but for briefs periods nothingness exists. And on space. We only know what we know about our ever expanding universe based on red shift. What makes us believe we aren't growing inside or ontop of some other space, has always been beyond me. We say we are at the edge.. or near it but to that I always think of the how at one point man though the whole world was flat. It was a great theory for its time and I think the same could be said for our believes of our growing universe. I've always pictured it as a cup of milk spilled on the table. the table was already there and now the spill continues to grow as it encompassed and travels over the edge of the table.

[Office_Shredder]

[COLOR="DeepSkyBlue"]What are you talking about here? You are totally comparing apples and oranges. No "religion" didn't "develop" any of these things. However, that isn't religion's purpose, so it would be odd if it did.

I agree with you here. But there are people who have decided arguing that science is not capable of answering questions about the origin of man, life, and the universe, and that religion is better suited to those questions. My reply was merely a way of showing that science IS well suited to answer questions about the world, and religion is not.


I didn't say "thrown out", though that does happen with plenty of scientific theories. If you want to use the word "modified", sure, go ahead, but fact is that the beauty of science is that it never really reaches the truth about anything. It just knows MORE and MORE about it.

And the more we know about stuff, the more accurate our knowledge is. We know alot about evolution, we know alot about astronomy, and as such our knowledge is getting to be very accurate

[Jehutyv.2.0]

I'll let Uniq defend his earlier post, but couldn't pass this statement up. "Science" has to follow the "scientific method" because otherwise, it's not science. It isn't even possible to imagine what "non-scientific" science would even be. The scientific method is what _defines_ science. That's like someone say that it is possible to speak Spanish without speaking Spanish. :confused:
You mean like the Argentinians?

[Jehutyv.2.0]

*Yawn*

Are you really going to make me go through the boring task of finding the many links that completely refute that mess? I mean, c'mon. I thought we were beyond the "find the missing link in your backyard" stage of science. ;)Really? Only possible things that try to refute it are...
"LOL THE FALL"
"LOL FAKE FOSSILS"
"LOL NOAH'S ARK THEY DIED IN THE FLOOD AND GOD SORTED THEM INTO DIFFERENT SEDIMENTARY LAYERS."

That's about that size of it. Also, just because we've gone over something doesn't make us wrong.

Thanks for that condescending "*Yawn*" though. Very good debating manners.


But Christians, Buddhists and Muslims have been and will be involved with finding out these things.

12But... that's not the point. The point is that there religion didn't make them follow those things. There is nothing in the texts about finding stuff like that. That's like saying "Well, black people have done stuff, therefore the black community invents stuff." But they don't. They're just individuals not attached to any racial or religious group.

Though I do agree with Northwind in that that's not religion's purpose.

[thakkus]

Interesting discussion. I wanted to quote a bunch of you, but I'll just respond and hope the point comes through.

As a Christian myself, I have a hard time with ID thinking because it clearly has no scientific basis. I realize my point of view is not popular among my fellow Christians, like Twelve (whom I respect). But in truth, science merely recognizes and tests behavior. It has no interest in the purpose or intention behind things. Science makes no comment for or against God because the God issue is in no way scientific. In fact, science lacks the tools to address God in any way. Scientists agree almost 100% with this view, from what I've been able to gleen.

To believe in God and accept science is in NO WAY contradictory. If God exists, then we simply gain deeper understanding of Him as we uncover truths about science.

It does, however, cause Christians like myself to see and read the Bible differently, looking for more spiritual lessons and imagery, as opposed to scientific literalities. But to me, allegory and poetry speak much longer lasting spiritual truths than do measurement and data. So I don't need the Bible to be literal in order to be a believer.

Evolution is the best theory around for understanding the behavior and origins of life. Every ID "theory" put forth has been refuted soundly. We Christians should stop fighting science and start accepting it as the genius of the God we serve.

[Twelve]

I'll let Uniq defend his earlier post, but couldn't pass this statement up. "Science" has to follow the "scientific method" because otherwise, it's not science. It isn't even possible to imagine what "non-scientific" science would even be. The scientific method is what _defines_ science. That's like someone say that it is possible to speak Spanish without speaking Spanish. :confused:

As for the ID thing. ID is, by definition, not science as it seeks a non-physical explanation for physical existance. This can't be proven or tested and is thus NOT science.

Interesting. It's funny how those in power define what things are, so that whenever somebody comes up with new ideas that may pull the rug up from everyone, these new ideas are dismissed as not being genuine.

Back when science was controlled by the "church"(or, as I like to say, the "popular " church), people who came along with "new" science were also labeled as non-scientists. In those days, they were killed for those ideas.

Now, people aren't getting killed (yet), but they are persecuted just the same for daring to have an idea that goes against what is "defined" as science. This time, the people in power aren't the "popular" church, but the pattern is the same.

An interesting way to approach that, yet I hope you don't truely stand on that point. Which sub division of Christianity are you speaking of. Or just Christianity in general.. "He was born. He died. He asended into heaven. He will come again".

Outside of that Christian people are much like scientists. They question each other. They question their foundations, beliefs and even seperate from each other to form other divisions of Christian groups to practice what they believe to be right about Christianity.

I'm speaking of Christianity in general: all those who call themselves Christians believe in the opening of the Bible in Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth",

and the "middle" of the Bible of John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God", Later on, it says that Jesus is the Word in flesh.

and the "end" of the Bible in Revelations 22:20 "Yes, I (Jesus) am coming soon".

All Christians know not to add or subtract from God's Word, giving it a definite beginning and end. Now as for the details within that Word, of course there is room for debate. Paul says there is plenty of room for opinion in Scripture. But our foundations of the "house" regarding the past, present and future our set. Meanwhile, we do have room to move around above the unchanging, firm foundations of that "house".

And the more we know about stuff, the more accurate our knowledge is. We know alot about evolution, we know alot about astronomy, and as such our knowledge is getting to be very accurate

Well, many astronomers have told me, "The more we know, the more we don't know."

Really? Only possible things that try to refute it are...
"LOL THE FALL"
"LOL FAKE FOSSILS"
"LOL NOAH'S ARK THEY DIED IN THE FLOOD AND GOD SORTED THEM INTO DIFFERENT SEDIMENTARY LAYERS."

Good proof that both "sides" have moronic arguments. I agree.

That's about that size of it. Also, just because we've gone over something doesn't make us wrong.

Or right. Just boring.

Thanks for that condescending "*Yawn*" though. Very good debating manners.

I'm joking. But I did cover my mouth.

But... that's not the point. The point is that there religion didn't make them follow those things.

But that's MY point. And my point is that their religion doesn't hinder the study of science either.

As a Christian myself, I have a hard time with ID thinking because it clearly has no scientific basis. I realize my point of view is not popular among my fellow Christians, like Twelve (whom I respect).

I guess it's time to give my true position...lol. I think ID is a joke, but then, I think much of what is barked from scientists is a joke too. I just find it hypocritical of the scientific community to take a section of their own and then label it "not science". It's funny and ironic to me, yet sad in the sense that atheist scientist forget the persecuction THEY went through when THEY were not "in power".

To believe in God and accept science is in NO WAY contradictory. If God exists, then we simply gain deeper understanding of Him as we uncover truths about science.

AMEN!

12

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Good proof that both "sides" have moronic arguments. I agree.
I wouldn't say evolution's side is moronic. It makes sense. Similar animals become us. Not much difficulty there. But thanks for saying your side is moronic.


Or right. Just boring.Which I keep saying is my point. You imply that since we've covered this topic, it's wrong. But, once again, the truth is that it DOESN'T make us wrong OR you right and vice versa.



I'm joking. But I did cover my mouth.Of course you were joking. This is the INTERNET. You can't have YAWNED on the internet. It's still rude and condescending and totally impolite in terms of having a debate. You want to turn this into something else? Let's do it. But don't try to disguise your arrogance with "I'm joking."





But that's MY point. And my point is that their religion doesn't hinder the study of science either. Stem-cells. Abortion. Studying evolution, which debunks creationism, which goes "against religion". I can tell you that many religious people would not be happy with those. But let's NOT get into an abortion debate.



I guess it's time to give my true position...lol. I think ID is a joke, but then, I think much of what is barked from scientists is a joke too. I just find it hypocritical of the scientific community to take a section of their own and then label it "not science". It's funny and ironic to me, yet sad in the sense that atheist scientist forget the persecuction THEY went through when THEY were not "in power". Are you actually saying that there are not people who believe in ID who are in power?



AMEN!

12
Right. Creationism (religion) and evolution (science) don't contradict each other. For the two not to contradict, you've got to be willing to realize that maybe there are more metaphors in your pretty book than you think.

[Northwind]

Interesting. It's funny how those in power define what things are, so that whenever somebody comes up with new ideas that may pull the rug up from everyone, these new ideas are dismissed as not being genuine.

Back when science was controlled by the "church"(or, as I like to say, the "popular " church), people who came along with "new" science were also labeled as non-scientists. In those days, they were killed for those ideas.

Now, people aren't getting killed (yet), but they are persecuted just the same for daring to have an idea that goes against what is "defined" as science. This time, the people in power aren't the "popular" church, but the pattern is the same.
12
I think you're missing my point. It isn't that "scientists" are now in power (which by the way is sooo demonstrably not true) and get to decide what is and isn't science - it's that there is a specific meaning to the word "science (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=science)" (And I think that we'd agree that we are discussing the first definition here). This definition doesn't depend on who's "in power" and who's not. It simply depends on there being a systematic way to observe and test hypotheses.

While religions have previously attempted (and some are currently attempting) to answer "scientific" questions, it is BY DEFINITION _not_ science as it isn't grounded in systematic observation and experimentation.

If people use appropriate scientific methodology to "pull the rug out from under" current scientific understandings, then other "scientists" will be forced to abandon their current line of thinking and adopt new thinking. This is the great strength of science and what separates it from religious understandings (which is not mutable by experience).

As I said before, I don't think there needs to be an inherent tension between science and religion - but I also don't think that it's reasonable to argue that "science" is whatever anyone says it is.

[Twelve]

Are you actually saying that there are not people who believe in ID who are in power?

No. I'm saying that scientists who believe in evolution are currently larger in number than those who believe in I.D.


Right. Creationism (religion) and evolution (science) don't contradict each other. For the two not to contradict, you've got to be willing to realize that maybe there are more metaphors in your pretty book than you think.

You really need to get to know scientists who believe in creation, as well as Christians who believe in evolution. It'll do you good.

As for the rest of your post, here is a joking yawn over the internet again:

*gahn*....

If you can't keep it light, then I can't help you.


NW, I get your points. I do. But there are plenty people with PHDs in the scientific field who would debate your interpretation of "science", as well as debate that the entire process of evolution is or ever has been subject to "systematic observation and hypothetical testing". You have to read around. You have to talk to these people and/or read their arguments. Until the day that they are refuted, it will remain science.

On the day that "science" sits back and says "We're done. We have to truth and anybody who says otherwise isn't practicing science", then "science" is dead.

Now, Christianity CAN say this because a necessary part of Christianity is putting authority into a book that says "We're done" in terms of laws and doctrine.

But the analogy can still be used in Christianity, when it comes to somebody's morality. If somebody ever says, "I'm done being a better person. I've achieved perfection. Anybody who says otherwise is wrong."...

That conceit is the same thing "science" has if it ever got to that point.

The lovely part about science, however, is that, even though there have ALWAYS been immense persecution and pressure put on those who come and "pull the rug" from under what is UNDERSTOOD as science, the truth always does prevail somehow.

Seeya Monday, fools!

12

[sayter]

This thread is still alive? Im almost afraid to chime in :)

[Northwind]

NW, I get your points. I do. But there are plenty people with PHDs in the scientific field who would debate your interpretation of "science", as well as debate that the entire process of evolution is or ever has been subject to "systematic observation and hypothetical testing". You have to read around. You have to talk to these people and/or read their arguments. Until the day that they are refuted, it will remain science.

On the day that "science" sits back and says "We're done. We have to truth and anybody who says otherwise isn't practicing science", then "science" is dead.
12
While I certainly agree with your last point, I don't think that anyone has been saying that "science" is doing or should do this.

As for your first point, having a Ph.D. doesn't mean that all one's opinions are scientific. As for "scientists" debating what science is about - I still argue that anyone (whether they claim to be a scientist or not) who proposes that science doesn't include systematic observation and hypothesis testing has a deep misunderstand of what science is.

Regarding the level of scientific scrutiny that the theory of evolution has been subjected to, I guess it could be debated. (My reading suggests that it's received plenty of scrutiny.) But, if it is debated, it should at least be debated on the scientific merits of the theory and the observations supporting this.

And while I'm no ID expert, everything that I have seen that's been proposed by the "ID scientists" thus far ain't science. ID proponents (to a one, repackaged creationists) make the common mistake that simply understanding the process regarding how evolution occurs must somehow challenge the idea of God. Once they make this mistake they are off and running to "reclaim God" from an idea (evolutionism) that doesn't challenge the existance of God one iota.

[uniquinous]

damnit i step away for a little bit and good stuff pops up and nearly passes me by! You're all going to.... erm, nevermind - inapropriate for this thread. :p

*Yawn*

Are you really going to make me go through the boring task of finding the many links that completely refute that mess? I mean, c'mon. I thought we were beyond the "find the missing link in your backyard" stage of science.I'm glad that you're back because you make things a bit more interesting and all, but if you're not actually gonna say something significant to the conversation, save it. I'm not offended - but it really is unneeded, and it's in no way any decent form of defense for the strong argument I presented.

And there you go right ahead and call tons of scientific research "not science".

"To be science, something must follow the scientific method".

According to who, OS? When should science ever be bound by a "method"?Northwind put this pretty well, but "good" science is something that doesn't seek a particular explanation. A good scientist will very readibly publish an article that completely discredits their original hypothesis (and usually such events are intriguing and informative phenomena).

This is because science, as a concept, is unbiased: the ends aren't supposed to justify the initial thoughts - it's supposed to justify what *is*.

Interesting. It's funny how those in power define what things are, so that whenever somebody comes up with new ideas that may pull the rug up from everyone, these new ideas are dismissed as not being genuine.Is that why Bush fired all the pro-stem-cell scientists from his "unbiased" bioethical committee? :dry:

Back when science was controlled by the "church"(or, as I like to say, the "popular " church), people who came along with "new" science were also labeled as non-scientists. In those days, they were killed for those ideas.

Now, people aren't getting killed (yet), but they are persecuted just the same for daring to have an idea that goes against what is "defined" as science. This time, the people in power aren't the "popular" church, but the pattern is the same.You, much like Hey1001, are comparing modern science to that joke of a european elitist bullshit society. However, you will find in modern times that the entire use of peer reviewed journals is for the specific reason of keeping very tight checks on the science community by the science community. Data that can't be reproduced gets torn to shreds. New ideas that people are skeptical about at first aren't simply thrown out. No no, we like shooting people down properly by repeating their experiments and showing them why they fail. HOWEVER, a "new" idea which is right will be very much strengthened when the leading competitor, in an attempt to prove them wrong, finds the same results. (And yes, the leading competitor WILL publish that the results were confirmed.) Note also, this isn't "I heard someone with a PhD once say..." - it's verified, factual, retestable. What this means, in the end, is that unbiased *truth* is what prevails - not what someone *wants*, but what *is*.

If you can't keep it light, then I can't help you.And your mother's a whore. Just keeping it light, right? No. This (http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showpost.php?p=837149&postcount=2195) is keeping it light, and witty - you are just being dull by complaining about your boredome.

[Office_Shredder]

Well, many astronomers have told me, "The more we know, the more we don't know."

That would be: the more we know, the more we realize we don't know.

When we learn something new, we find three new things we didn't realize we didn't know. However, that still means we knew more than before, it's just that there are more questions to be answered. This doesn't make the current data body any less significant.


NW, I get your points. I do. But there are plenty people with PHDs in the scientific field who would debate your interpretation of "science", as well as debate that the entire process of evolution is or ever has been subject to "systematic observation and hypothetical testing". You have to read around. You have to talk to these people and/or read their arguments. Until the day that they are refuted, it will remain science.

I very much so doubt that there is a large body of scientists who think the scientific method should not be the golden rule of science. It is THE way of testing hypotheses with no bias.

Also, there has been a lot of testing of evolution. For example:
Hypothesis - Snakes evolved from sea creatures
Experiment - Find transition snake fossil
Result - Found snake fossil that appears to have the beginnings of legs
Conclusion - snakes evolved from land creatures

Sometimes it's wrong (like above). But likewise, many fossil based hypotheses turn out true

On the day that "science" sits back and says "We're done. We have to truth and anybody who says otherwise isn't practicing science", then "science" is dead.

I agree. Now, what do you think creationists are trying to do?

Now, Christianity CAN say this because a necessary part of Christianity is putting authority into a book that says "We're done" in terms of laws and doctrine.

Well, I see you do agree with my observation above. So why do you continue to call ideas driven by Christian belief "science"?

The lovely part about science, however, is that, even though there have ALWAYS been immense persecution and pressure put on those who come and "pull the rug" from under what is UNDERSTOOD as science, the truth always does prevail somehow.

Hmmm.... how are ID proponents being persecuted against? Because people insist they follow the same scientific method everyone else is following? Hell, there are as many, if not more, people who believe in some form of ID than evolution in America. How is this persecution?

[spartan_117]

Have you ever heard of the Miller experiment? It was at the University of Chicago where they attempted to create life in the laboratory, thus proving evolution. However, they cheated by excluding oxygen (By the law of diffusion, oxygen HAS ALWAYS been in the atmosphere, or it would not be today). They excluded oxygen because they knew that oxygen would oxidize (which creates rust and decay) the material and they would not form life successfully. So, after cheating to overcome the oxygen hurtle, they STILL failed, by creating only a maximum of 8 amino acids (not even half of what is required to make a single simple life form).
Also, have you ever studied the structure of a DNA molecule? Adenine, Thymine, Guanine, and Cytosine are the four base molecules needed to create a DNA strand, along with the end-molecules of deoxyribose. Each molecule boasts a number of atoms of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen. Yes OXYGEN. so, the Miller experiment failed to create life because oxygen was not administered, and it would have failed because oxygen cannot simple be "added" to a chemicle and expected to create life. Also, there are 20 amino acids on a strand, and since 200 are needed for life, the chance of random mutation occuring in the precise order for evolution to occure would be, in the simplest aspect, 20 to the 200th power!!! So, those chances are roughly .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0001 !!!

Evolution is statistically impossible. Also, variations within a single kind of animal (kind means they can produce offspring together--cat and dog are not the same kind, but coyote and dog ARE because they are able to produce offspring) anyway, those variations within a single animal kind are not evolution. (If changing around the letters in the word "CHRISTMAS" cannot create "ZEBRA" then why can't the evolutionists figure out that random mutations are LIMITED to within a single animal kind). Nobody has ever seen a dog produce a non-dog. Also, finding a skull that is half-human and half-ape DOES NOT prove evolution (it just proves that there was an animal that had both ape and human characteristics).

Besides, if evolution is true, then what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce with? Also, if evolution is true, did the first fish that evolved onto dry land have lungs or did it have gills? Evelution is a imporvable THEORY it takes just as much faith as creationism.

[thakkus]

Spartan,
If you roll ten dice, the odds of getting the exact ten numbers that show up, in the order they show up, are just as astronomical as the example you just stated. And yet, you rolled the dice and there they are.

Odds only matter if there is a prediction made beforehand.

What are the odds of someone's life unfolding exactly the way your life has unfolded, with the times and places and events all lining up? Too huge to calculate. Yet your life is a perfect example of this exact thing occuring, against all odds.

So odds don't mean what Creationists typically think they mean.

To all:

But again, I really want to stress that the only real inappropriate thing occuring in this debate is the debate itself. Debating God and evolution is like debating calculus and poetry. Eh? What do calculus and poetry have to be in conflict about? The answer is nothing. When religious believers agree to debate evolution on the basis that they believe God created all things, they make a huge, unwinnable mistake. There is no way to debate and win the God argument. It is simply a matter of faith. It can be reasoned faith, to an extent, but still, it is faith.

On the same note, Christians who say Evolution is an atheistic view are making a mistake because there is nothing whatsoever atheistic about evolution, since it deals in no way with theology. It's like accusing evolution of being Spanish or poetic. Sure, many evolutionists are atheistic, but that in no way means evolution is atheistic. It would be like saying since many Greeks own restaurants that owning a restaurant is a Greek thing. Not at all.

Christians need not fear evolution in any way. It has no bone to pick with Jesus or belief in God or the life of a spiritual person.

Thak

[Office_Shredder]

Spartan

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

Miller/Urey Experiment

By the 1950s, scientists were in hot pursuit of the origin of life. Around the world, the scientific community was examining what kind of environment would be needed to allow life to begin. In 1953, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey, working at the University of Chicago, conducted an experiment which would change the approach of scientific investigation into the origin of life.

Miller took molecules which were believed to represent the major components of the early Earth's atmosphere and put them into a closed system


The gases they used were methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), and water (H2O)

Notice the existence of oxygen in water. In the beginning of the world, it was believed that the oxygen content was much lower than it is today. As such, it's possible that there was an environment in which oxygen would not have played a significant role.

Next, he ran a continuous electric current through the system, to simulate lightning storms believed to be common on the early earth

Electrolysis of water? Hydrogen and oxygen. So there you go. Oxygen. Hmmmm

At the end of one week, Miller observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon was now in the form of organic compounds

That's not bad for a first try.

Two percent of the carbon had formed some of the amino acids which are used to make proteins

Only eight, eh? I guess maybe he just didn't use enough material.... because 2% is awesome for a one week period.

Perhaps most importantly, Miller's experiment showed that organic compounds such as amino acids, which are essential to cellular life, could be made easily under the conditions that scientists believed to be present on the early earth

This seems to be the opposite conclusion that you reached Spartan. I'm tempted to believe the Duke chemistry department over your uncited research though.

In 1961, Juan Oro found that amino acids could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in an aqueous solution. He also found that his experiment produced an amazing amount of the nucleotide base, adenine

More amino acids.... hmm..... I thought we couldn't make those though. And wait! Is that adenine? Wow.... already 1/4 of the way there. Imagine what we could get in a billion years of trying this stuff out.

Experiments conducted later showed that the other RNA and DNA bases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing atmosphere

Hmm.... guess we didn't really need a billion years. Less than forty seems to have done the trick.

While you happen to be right at the end
There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller's experiment because it is now believed that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules

That so many of your "facts" were wrong indicates a lack of knowledge on the subject

[Hey1001]

Just saw The Da Vinci Code, which reminded me of the debates going on in this thread. After all the publicity, the bad reviews, and not having read the book, I found it an ok thriller. I found the second half better than the first one. As for the religious controversy, it is just fiction, but the premise of the movie still makes you think about the what if . . . All in all, I give it a limited recommendation. Has anyone else seen it?

[uniquinous]

Have you ever heard of the Miller experiment? It was at the University of Chicago where they attempted to create life in the laboratory, thus proving evolution. However, they cheated by excluding oxygen (By the law of diffusion, oxygen HAS ALWAYS been in the atmosphere, or it would not be today). They excluded oxygen because they knew that oxygen would oxidize (which creates rust and decay) the material and they would not form life successfully. So, after cheating to overcome the oxygen hurtle, they STILL failed, by creating only a maximum of 8 amino acids (not even half of what is required to make a single simple life form).
Also, have you ever studied the structure of a DNA molecule? Adenine, Thymine, Guanine, and Cytosine are the four base molecules needed to create a DNA strand, along with the end-molecules of deoxyribose. Each molecule boasts a number of atoms of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen. Yes OXYGEN. so, the Miller experiment failed to create life because oxygen was not administered, and it would have failed because oxygen cannot simple be "added" to a chemicle and expected to create life. Also, there are 20 amino acids on a strand, and since 200 are needed for life, the chance of random mutation occuring in the precise order for evolution to occure would be, in the simplest aspect, 20 to the 200th power!!! So, those chances are roughly .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0001 !!!

Evolution is statistically impossible. Also, variations within a single kind of animal (kind means they can produce offspring together--cat and dog are not the same kind, but coyote and dog ARE because they are able to produce offspring) anyway, those variations within a single animal kind are not evolution. (If changing around the letters in the word "CHRISTMAS" cannot create "ZEBRA" then why can't the evolutionists figure out that random mutations are LIMITED to within a single animal kind). Nobody has ever seen a dog produce a non-dog. Also, finding a skull that is half-human and half-ape DOES NOT prove evolution (it just proves that there was an animal that had both ape and human characteristics).

Besides, if evolution is true, then what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce with? Also, if evolution is true, did the first fish that evolved onto dry land have lungs or did it have gills? Evelution is a imporvable THEORY it takes just as much faith as creationism.
There are quite a few misconceptions in this passage, many of which have been eloquently pointed out. I would like to stress the difference, however, between pure and compound materials. There's a difference between needing oxygen within a larger molecule, like the organic base pairs you've stated, and pure gaseous oxygen (O2). As you are well aware, the water (aqueous environment) in which this experiment was performed is in fact made of H2O - the oxygen is in water. The fact still remains that gaseous pure oxygen (O2) very readily oxidizes compounds, yet oxygen within a compound will not. Similarly, the table salt you eat every day is made up of sodium and chloride. When in water these ions dissociate freely. However, if you were to obtain pure potassium, or pure sodium, and dumped these elements into water, they would quite literally explode. The difference between compound and pure elemental form is dramatic.

[spartan_117]

Frylock I admit you are somone who knows lots more about chemistry and science in general than I do. But even through your constructive critisism I found that you failed to answere one of my other questions as you will see below.
"If evolution is true, then what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce with? Also, if evolution is true, did the first fish that evolved onto dry land have lungs or did it have gills? "

[spartan_117]

[QUOTE=Office_Shredder]Spartan

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html
Hmm.... guess we didn't really need a billion years. Less than forty seems to have done the trick.

Forty what?

[uniquinous]

oh, let me address that for you now -

you are thinking that there must only EITHER be sexual or asexual reproduction. That's not the case as both can simultaneous exist. In fact, many bacteria today can do just that: primarily they reproduce asexually through mitosis. However, a "male" bacterium and a "female" bacterium are able to come together, link, and pass genomic information across the bridge. This, for all intents and purposes, can be seen as early sexual reproduction: where an organism can acquire new genetic information.

You can also observe such model organisms as the nematode worm. Nearly all offspring are hermaphrodites (can reproduce by themselves), yet every so often a smaller "male" worm is born which can cross-breed with the hermaphrodite version to mix the gene pool a bit.

[TheBlazedAce]

Frylock I admit you are somone who knows lots more about chemistry and science in general than I do. But even through your constructive critisism I found that you failed to answere one of my other questions as you will see below.
"If evolution is true, then what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce with? Also, if evolution is true, did the first fish that evolved onto dry land have lungs or did it have gills? "
Amphibians were most probably the bridge between sea and land. On top of that, there are mammels that live in the sea (whales), so I don't understand why this is so much of a concern.

Wikipedia had this to say about amphibian lungs: The lungs of most frogs and other amphibians are simple balloon-like structures, with gas exchange limited to the outer surface area of the lung. This is not a very efficient arrangement, but amphibians have low metabolic demands and also frequently supplement their oxygen supply by diffusion across the moist outer skin of their bodies."

Also, if evolution is not true then why does a heirarchy tree exist naturally?

edit: This is a post done way back by someone who explained the naturally formed heirarchy tree existant in nature. I'll let his words speak for themselves:
twin nested hierarchy

a nested hierarchy is a system of classification. it takes the structure of a tree with higher levels of generality near the root node and higher levels of specificity at the leaf nodes. for example, when you go to a library, to find a book you want, you have to search through several layers of classification. say we were trying to find the book "the blind watchmaker" by richard dawkins. the first thing we would do is choose between the three major sections of the library, fiction, non-fiction, and reference. the book we are looking for is non-fiction, so we choose the non-fiction section and descend one level of the tree. once we are in non-fiction, we must determine what bookshelf our book is in. to do this, we use the dewey decimal system. 500 is the classification for the natural sciences and mathematics, so we again descend one level. the next step is 575, for evolution and genetics. and the next step is 'D' for dawkins, and finally 'B' for "the blind watchmaker." the classification tree for finding a library book is a type of nested hierarchy.

however, it is not what is known as a "true" hierarchy. that is, books do not fall into this classification scheme on their own accord. humans must assign weights to particular classification levels. for example, we could have chosen to start with 'D' for dawkins, and then go to non-fiction, followed by 'B', followed by 575. sounds strange, but the fact is that you would find books just as easily either way.

an example of a true nested hierarchy would be languages. languages can be grouped into hierarchies without placing arbitrary uneven weights on certain characteristics. we can classify languages like french, italian, spanish, and latin together, and likewise we can put english, german and dutch together. with those 2 groups, we can then link them to other languages like polish, slavic, hindi, etc. what makes this a true nested hierarchy is that no matter what order you choose for your grouping, you get the same (or at least extremely an similar) tree.

one of the founders of modern biology, linnaeus, was the first person to comprehensively apply a nested hierarchy classification system to living organisms. what he discovered was that living forms make a true nested hierarchy. all organisms that have milk glands also have four limbs. all organisms with four limbs also have a backbone. all organisms with a backbone also have a jaw, and, unbeknownst to linnaeus, all organisms with a jaw also have mitochondria. groups always completely contain their subgroups.

the reason that this provides astounding evidence for evolution is that true nested hierarchies are always produced by processes of inherited descent. a designer could have chosen any pattern at all for the forms of life - including no pattern whatsoever. but the one pattern we do see is exactly the one we would expect for evolution.

[Office_Shredder]

Forty what?

Forty years to figure out how to make other organic molecules necessary for life.

[thakkus]

Don't insects and slugs reproduce without partners?

[uniquinous]

insects no (for the most part)
slugs are hermaphrodites, but also readily reproduce sexually, and tend to undergo a process involveing the gnawing off of their or their partner's penis after intercourse to be free from entanglement (the gnaw-ee then remains female for the rest of its life)

this has been a proud TMI production

[Twelve]

This thread is still alive? Im almost afraid to chime in :)

During my...um..."exile", you started a thread that I wanted to post in. Now I can't find it.

But, if it is debated, it should at least be debated on the scientific merits of the theory and the observations supporting this.

So, the only way to proof a theory wrong is to follow the rules that support this theory.

In that sense, of COURSE this theory can never be proven wrong. The whole thing MUST be reworked, because even the rules should be changed, if needed.

Anyways, NW, we're walking around in well-written circles at this point.

And while I'm no ID expert, everything that I have seen that's been proposed by the "ID scientists" thus far ain't science. ID proponents (to a one, repackaged creationists) make the common mistake that simply understanding the process regarding how evolution occurs must somehow challenge the idea of God.

But see, the reason why I don't support ID is because PURE ID does not support a "god". It stands for an Intelligent Designer. That's the purest form of ID. Many CHristians are jumping on the bandwagon, but pure IDers do not stand for a "god". Heck, they say that it might even be an alien who started it all. ;)

I'm glad that you're back

I'm sure. :rolleyes:

but if you're not actually gonna say something significant to the conversation, save it. I'm not offended - but it really is unneeded, and it's in no way any decent form of defense for the strong argument I presented.

Nah. Lighten up, brah.

Northwind put this pretty well, but "good" science is something that doesn't seek a particular explanation. A good scientist will very readibly publish an article that completely discredits their original hypothesis (and usually such events are intriguing and informative phenomena).

This is because science, as a concept, is unbiased: the ends aren't supposed to justify the initial thoughts - it's supposed to justify what *is*.

You speak as science SHOULD be. Yet I would argue that 95% of science simply proves what society wants it to prove.

Is that why Bush fired all the pro-stem-cell scientists from his "unbiased" bioethical committee?

The analogy goes both ways.

You, much like Hey1001, are comparing modern science to that joke of a european elitist bullshit society. However, you will find in modern times that the entire use of peer reviewed journals is for the specific reason of keeping very tight checks on the science community by the science community. Data that can't be reproduced gets torn to shreds. New ideas that people are skeptical about at first aren't simply thrown out. No no, we like shooting people down properly by repeating their experiments and showing them why they fail. HOWEVER, a "new" idea which is right will be very much strengthened when the leading competitor, in an attempt to prove them wrong, finds the same results. (And yes, the leading competitor WILL publish that the results were confirmed.) Note also, this isn't "I heard someone with a PhD once say..." - it's verified, factual, retestable. What this means, in the end, is that unbiased *truth* is what prevails - not what someone *wants*, but what *is*.

I'll assume that you calling another argument "bullshit" was spoken in the same light as me "yawning" at your argument...all in fun and meant to be a joke.

*cough*

Meanwhile, the above paragraph basically says, "We have this and this and that now to make sure that our science now cannot be flawed. NOW we have it right!"

That mindset is the premise of every bad science-fiction flick.

And your mother's a whore.

Oh, dem be fightin' words. Yo momma's so fat, she bungie-jumped and went STRAIGHT to hell. :p

When we learn something new, we find three new things we didn't realize we didn't know. However, that still means we knew more than before, it's just that there are more questions to be answered. This doesn't make the current data body any less significant.

Actually, if indeed finding 1 thing leads to 3 things you don't know, the current data body IS becoming less and less significant.

I very much so doubt that there is a large body of scientists who think the scientific method should not be the golden rule of science. It is THE way of testing hypotheses with no bias.

I realize this. And I respect this. But it should in know ways be used as a weapon to prohibit the discovery of truth. It's hypocritical to call a branch of science non-science. I would argue that almost EVERY new branch of science was laughed at in it's initiation, and dismissed.

I agree. Now, what do you think creationists are trying to do?

Creationists are simply using science to defend the Bible against people who would abuse science against it. Meanwhile, they're finding more and more ways that science PROVES the Bible.

Well, I see you do agree with my observation above. So why do you continue to call ideas driven by Christian belief "science"?

Why are you equating Christianity with Creationism?

Hmmm.... how are ID proponents being persecuted against? Because people insist they follow the same scientific method everyone else is following? Hell, there are as many, if not more, people who believe in some form of ID than evolution in America. How is this persecution?

They're not being crucified. But please read this, for example:

Hunter Rawling, president of Cornell, calls a "witchhunt" on all IDers (http://www.cornell.edu/president/announcement_2005_1021.cfm)

I mean, heck..ROUND 'EM UP HUNTER!!

12

[uniquinous]

Nah. Lighten up, brah.Really, it has nothing to do with lightening up - I just don't like wasting my time in what otherwise could be an intellegent discussion with idiocy. The reason why I said I was glad you were back (and did mean it, for this thread only), is because in the past you have managed to provide some form of decent counterargument. Monkus came in here not too long ago while you were banz0r3d and felt so bad for the noobs I was pwnzing that he went on their side just so we could have a decent debate.

You speak as science SHOULD be. Yet I would argue that 95% of science simply proves what society wants it to prove.Can you please provide specific examples from any top peer reviewed scientific journal that simply proves what society wants? Did you actually read my explanation of how these systems work? The fact is, 95% of published research has little to do with what "society wants". Society doesn't care whatsoever that someone found a gene that gives fruit flies extra eyes. You think society wanted any outcome for my thesis research on using engineered viruses as nanowires? You think anyone cares that there are publications on what drugs DON'T work on sicknesses? Please, reference Nature, Cell, Science, or the New England Journal of Medicine, and find me a single primary research publication that is swayed by anything other then the unbiased results that were acquired.

No, on the other hand, ID science *is* influenced by what the researcher at the time wants to see - they skew their results with the specific conclusion already constructed in their head. The scientific method uses things like double blind experiments and competitors confirming results for a reason.

The analogy goes both ways. Good claim, now please back it with specific examples. I'm not quite aware of the current American scientific community shunning anyone for confirmable yet "displeasing" results/mindset.

I'll assume that you calling another argument "bullshit" was spoken..... ...No. I'm saying the elitist "scientific societies" of 18th and 19th century England was bullshit, and wholly unscientific. Money could raise your scientific rank back then, not intelligence, and I don't like the classism that was displayed.

Meanwhile, the above paragraph basically says, "We have this and this and that now to make sure that our science now cannot be flawed. NOW we have it right!"Then tell me, 12, since you seem to suggest we in fact don't have it right... how the scientific community can better it's system of checks on itself to better ensure that only the purest and most unbiased of factual evidence makes it to the greater publications.

Actually, if indeed finding 1 thing leads to 3 things you don't know, the current data body IS becoming less and less significant.Not true. We recently found a specific drug happens to work incredibly well against specific types of lung cancer. What this also allowed us to realize was that each different form of lung cancer needed to be remedied in different ways, through different genes and different therapy techniques. Regardless of knowing that there is more we don't know, we still found a VERY affective method of dealing with a common type of cancer, which is incredibly significant.

But it should in know ways be used as a weapon to prohibit the discovery of truth. It's hypocritical to call a branch of science non-science. I would argue that almost EVERY new branch of science was laughed at in it's initiation, and dismissed.But ID people aren't "discovering truth". They are simply using the information that happens to work for their conclusion and completely ignoring everything that doesn't work towards their conclusions. That's incredibly biased, and thus, not science. You are yet again making the historical claim. The fact is, today's scientific fields are anything but restrictive. More and more academic institutions are pushing scientific borders, stressing the importance of previously unconventional interdisciplinaried studies, and really exploring new scientific realms.


Creationists are simply using science to defend the Bible against people who would abuse science against it. Meanwhile, they're finding more and more ways that science PROVES the Bible.Please, tell me, who are these people so spiteful that they have only dedicated their lives to produce publications with the sole purpose of refuting the bible? I have yet to meet any. Really, please give an example of accepted literature that abused science with the intent on using their publication against the bible.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Besides, if evolution is true, then what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce with? Also, if evolution is true, did the first fish that evolved onto dry land have lungs or did it have gills? Evelution is a imporvable THEORY it takes just as much faith as creationism.
I already answered the lung/airsac/what have you thing a while back.

http://tacticsarena.com/forum/showthread.php?p=750371&highlight=existant#post750371

[Twelve]

Really, it has nothing to do with lightening up - I just don't like wasting my time in what otherwise could be an intellegent discussion with idiocy. The reason why I said I was glad you were back (and did mean it, for this thread only), is because in the past you have managed to provide some form of decent counterargument. Monkus came in here not too long ago while you were banz0r3d and felt so bad for the noobs I was pwnzing that he went on their side just so we could have a decent debate.

Ah, those must have been the days...:bigsmile:

Can you please provide specific examples from any top peer reviewed scientific journal that simply proves what society wants?

No.

Did you actually read my explanation of how these systems work?

Yes. And until the day man has reached perfection, they will always make flaws.

Society doesn't care whatsoever that someone found a gene that gives fruit flies extra eyes.

But they do care that the "gay gene" was apparently found.

You think society wanted any outcome for my thesis research on using engineered viruses as nanowires?

Absolutely not. But the 75% of that 95% goes right into military research...what society wants.

Please, reference Nature, Cell, Science, or the New England Journal of Medicine, and find me a single primary research publication that is swayed by anything other then the unbiased results that were acquired.

I never said that this kind of unbiased research didn't exist.

No, on the other hand, ID science *is* influenced by what the researcher at the time wants to see

Once again, the same thing can be said about evolutionists.

Good claim, now please back it with specific examples.

Back what? That people in authority always try to make sure other people aren't doing a thing to undermine that authority? You brought up Bush, I brought up evolutionists. Fair enough.

.. ...No. I'm saying the elitist "scientific societies" of 18th and 19th century England was bullshit, and wholly unscientific. Money could raise your scientific rank back then, not intelligence, and I don't like the classism that was displayed.

No, it's cool man...I knew what you meant. I just wish we can fast-forward ourselves 3 centuries, when they're calling all that we're doing "bullshit"...just as they in the 18th century surely called the works of those in the 15th century "bullshit".

Then tell me, 12, since you seem to suggest we in fact don't have it right...

Nope. My premise is based on the conceit and hypocrisy of saying "I'm right, and anything that goes against the EXACT way I'm doing it is wrong, and not even in my class".

Not true. This is what happens when you jump on arguments made by other people. I was moving along a line of logic with Office. Now, please let us continue. :cool:

More and more academic institutions are pushing scientific borders, stressing the importance of previously unconventional interdisciplinaried studies, and really exploring new scientific realms.

Only "pushing" the borders? ID BREAKS the borders down.

Really, please give an example of accepted literature

Now, that's a tricky request. Accepted by WHOM? The branch of scientific community that thinks and agrees with Uniq?


12

[uniquinous]

Yes. And until the day man has reached perfection, they will always make flaws.Yes, you're right. There's no such thing as perfection as this point of yours is completely true. HOWEVER, whereas a large part of society back in the day looked at the science-elitism and said is was wrong for specific reasons, the same isn't true today. The science community really does look at our means and methods and tries our hardest to break down convention in order to assure the obliteration of bias.

But they do care that the "gay gene" was apparently found.It's incredibly important to differentiate between popular science (those that makes the tabloids, skewed interpretations on things to make a good story for the nightly news, etc) and peer-reviewed published (what I would call "pure") science. There's always gonna be some nutjob popping up claiming he discovered something absolutely ridiculous. However, the scientific community doesn't support those unfounded claims, and they never make text books. Regardless, they make the News at 11 and mislead many Americans into thinking that's what "science" is all about.

Absolutely not. But the 75% of that 95% goes right into military research...what society wants.I would argue that the majority of scientific research is split between academia and industry.

I never said that this kind of unbiased research didn't exist.Right, but the Journals I cited aren't some obscure "this-really-is-possible-in-remote-places" obscurity. These are considered to be the standard - the best - what all top science is all about - what everyone strives for.

Once again, the same thing can be said about evolutionists.Now here's a rather important point to note: ID "scientists" are generally people who specifically target all of their "scientific" endeavorsto proving ID. In other words, the title speaks to not only their beliefs, but their actions/profession/target. On the other hand, there's really no such thing as an evolutionist. It's more of just a title regarding general accepted beliefs, and NOT their profession. I'm an "evolutionist" because I believe in the prinicples, not because I practice science that deals with it. So, you actually *can't* say the same thing about "evolutionists" because it's a more abstract term then "ID science" that doesn't deal with actions.

Only "pushing" the borders? ID BREAKS the borders down.Yes, but so does ordering a chicken as the head of the NIH. Broken boarders aren't always good. Yes, they *may* be, but in this case, methinks not.

Now, that's a tricky request. Accepted by WHOM? The branch of scientific community that thinks and agrees with Uniq? Yes, give me a piece of literature accepted by the greater scientific community of this country which you feel happens to abuse the underlying principles of unbiased research for the purpose of defiling the church/bible in some way. Heck, gimme a paper that accomplishes that for ANY purpose. I'm asking you to bring me a case that was accepted, but *you* can point out logical and inherent reasons that the research conducted was unethical, in your own eyes. It's asking to directly place your own sense of right and wrong upon the scientific community. Interesting, no? :)

[TheBlazedAce]

Hunter Rawling, president of Cornell, calls a "witchhunt" on all IDers (http://www.cornell.edu/president/announcement_2005_1021.cfm)
This article is by no means a call for a "witchhunt". I don't know if you assumed no one would read it, but it's actually nothing but an address to the university making it's affirmed conclusion that they will not teach ID in their classrooms. It is incredibly subjective showing both sides of the argument and coming to a proper conclusion. It never once mentions the word witchhunt or claims any people not agreeing with this point of view should be discriminated against or ridiculed. You make it sound like this man has the same indecency as witchhunters of the past who simply burned people to death because they claimed they were witches. I think the article is an incredibly informed read, but why did you poise it in such distaste?!

But they do care that the "gay gene" was apparently found.

This is a huge misconception. A "gay gene" in the human genome was never discovered. I analyzed a lot of the evidence for homosexuality being innate or not on a different forum:
How do twins not involve genetics? Are you actually supposing that somewhere in genetics is embedded an attraction to trees? For the last frekin time, I am not the whole representation of the entire 7 billion people living on this planet. I can definitly say there was a moment in my life where I considered, "am I gay?" and came back with the answer "no."

I could have considered otherwise and I can definitly see other people choosing other things. Let's say I had gay experiences previously in my life, would that have changed the decision? Let's say lots of my friends were gay, would that have changed my decision? When I see my decision, I mean anyone's decision. Stop talking about me and start talking about people, this is becoming ridiculous. You are not the same as everyone else. Are people allergic to chocolate? I love chocolate, guess everyone else can't possibly be allergic to chocolate? Are you allergic to chocolate? No, well I guess that's it, let's rap up guys, we have concluded obviously that no one is allergic to chocolate. There are many out there that vouch contrary to what you're saying that claim that they "chose" to be gay, are they all lying as well?

Edit: forgot to respond to the first statement: what evidence? There does? I tried to look for it and lo and behold there doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence. The only evidence mentions identical twins having a tendency to be both gay, yet it ignores the evidence that has identical twins that are not both gay.

http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html

This site also has its own references. This site is not a christian-based source, although all of them say the same thing, it's a psycology-related site. I noticed you didn't link to anything. I believe I found an article on fruit flies that claims that a certain gene implaneted into the flies caused them to be gay and the same gene exists in humans, but make sure not to miss the part that says but there exists no evidence to show this.

Another site, the one on your side:
http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/gayrelig/743.html

There are no references, I wonder why. All the evidence for genetics have vague interpretational patterns:
-"The study found that 30% of homosexuals have more ridges on the left hand while 14% of heterosexuals shared the same trait."
-"According to scientists at the University of Texas, the cochlea (a structure in the inner ear) in lesbians is different than in heterosexual women."
-" In 1991, a neuroanatomist at the Salk Institute, Simon LeVay, examined the brain tissue from 41 people.

He found that a structure within the hypothalamus called the INAH3 of heterosexuals was twice the size of the INAH3 of homosexuals, thus pointing to a bilogical origin of homosexuality."

All vague, the ones with percentages have extremely small ones that could only show that it's coincidence and the ones without for some reason have no control study to show it's possibly anything else. Correlation does not equal causation, this is one of the first rules of statistics and economics.
edit: I'd like to make a statement, I am by no means against homosexuality and I want to make that clear. I believe strongly that what sex one is attracted to is in fact a choice. I have analyzed a whole lot of evidence for both sides so if you want to argue this I would love to, but again let me make it clear I am not against homosexuality in any way. I believe it to be a choice anyone has the right to make and making that choice is a freedom we all deserve just as it is a freedom for others to make the choice to be against this lifestyle. I do not believe that just because some people are against this lifestyle that those who choose it should suffer.

edit2: Some of you may wonder why if I am for the rights of homosexuals why I would bring up evidence for the opposing side. I am an advocate of science and as such am after the truth, not simply set on proving what I believe. I want to discover the truth no matter what side I have to choose.

Lastly, uniq, I would just like to remind you though religion is notorious for these stubborn non-scientific ways (though by no means am I saying that is all religion attempts to accomplish in the scientific world) there have been many scientists even in this century who are guilty of these crimes (cold fusion is the best example I can think up right now, but I'm sure there are more).

Lastly, as a conclusion to this last statement, I do not pick sides, I do not "want" to prove anything, but I want to find the truth and I will doubt everything claimed until I see the proof.

[Office_Shredder]

Lastly, uniq, I would just like to remind you though religion is notorious for these stubborn non-scientific ways (though by no means am I saying that is all religion attempts to accomplish in the scientific world) there have been many scientists even in this century who are guilty of these crimes (cold fusion is the best example I can think up right now, but I'm sure there are more).

The difference being that science fraud such as that is found out. You don't see anyone "teaching the controversy" of stem cell research in South Korea, or whether Pons was really kept under wraps by big oil.


Actually, if indeed finding 1 thing leads to 3 things you don't know, the current data body IS becoming less and less significant.

No, because you still know more about the universe than you did before. That it turns out you know less than you thought you know is irrelevant, you have gathered more information than before.

Imagine there are 100 doors, one of which has a car behind it. You only know about doors 1-10. You pick door 3. I then tell you that either door 3 or 4 is right, and then reveal doors 11-100, and let you know one of them may be the correct answer. To you, it may seem as if the odds of you winning decreased drastically. In fact, it went from 1% to a 1/92 chance (greater than 1%, too lazy to open calculator now). It's the same concept with knowledge.... even though we didn't know we didn't know a fact, it was still there not being known.


I realize this. And I respect this. But it should in know ways be used as a weapon to prohibit the discovery of truth. It's hypocritical to call a branch of science non-science. I would argue that almost EVERY new branch of science was laughed at in it's initiation, and dismissed.

It's not being used as a weapon. It's being used as a way to streamline bad methods of discovering truths of the universe.

On the idea of science being laughed at: Newton wasn't laughed at. Einstein wasn't laughed at. Planck wasn't laughed at. Those three scientists are the ones who, respectively, created the initial mathematical models behind classical mechanics, relativity, and quantum mechanics. But scientists didn't laugh at them; instead, it was a mixture of confusion (for Einstein: how the hell do we test this? It looks like it works, but we really need to test it), to admiration (for Newton: ZOMG!! F**KING GENIUS!!!).

[thakkus]

Twelve/Uniq

Just to jump in here...even as a Christian, I am also a strong skeptic of many things. The more I take the time to listen to real scientists and skeptics discuss their views and findings, the more I understand that the I.D. and Creationist groups are misrepresenting real scientists. Scientists aren't typically interested in the God question at all, and almost never have a problem with someone believing in God. However, the I.D. movement and Creationist movement directly target mainstream scientists, which results in science fighting back.

Of course, when science fights back, I.D. accuses them of having an anti-God or atheistic agenda. I believe the agenda is actually perpetuated by the ID and Creationism groups, moreso than by science.

Evidence of this is found in the scientific community's willingness to adjust, amend, and re-write their findings whenever conclusive evidence suggests they should. ID and Creationism, however, will rarely if ever give an inch. This is the real evidence of an agenda.

Finally, the more I learn about real science, the less skeptical I become of God. I don't need pseudoscience to strengthen my faith. Real science does it just fine. The more one truly understands about how things evolved, the more miraculous it actually becomes, in my view. That the eye evolved in a step-by-step fashion taking millions of years is way more beautiful and amazing than if it had been zapped into being the way the allegory states. God is truly awesome.

I suggest checking into The Skeptics Guide to the Universe website or podcast www.skepticsguide.com or the Evolution 101 podcast on iTunes or talkorigins.com or the Creationism and The Big Bang podcast for a real look at what science and skepticism are saying.

[Twelve]

The science community really does look at our means and methods and tries our hardest to break down convention in order to assure the obliteration of bias.

I'm not going to sit back here and say that there aren't scientists who do try to do their work without bias.

It's incredibly important to differentiate between popular science (those that makes the tabloids, skewed interpretations on things to make a good story for the nightly news, etc) and peer-reviewed published (what I would call "pure") science.

AMEN. I totally agree on this point. I'm quite happy to read that you view the "gay gene" and other funny "discoveries" as popular science. If indeed these "peer-reviewed" works are immune from such things....well, I'll take your word for it.

On the other hand, there's really no such thing as an evolutionist. It's more of just a title regarding general accepted beliefs, and NOT their profession.

Much of your argument, Uniq, has to do with your opinion and the way YOU view science. I believe your view of the scientific community is an intelligent one, and definately higher than ones that I've heard before. Yet, the fact remains that there are scientists that call themselves "IDers" and "Evolutionists". They too can defend their titles.

This area is more or less a stalemate, Uniq.

Yes, but so does ordering a chicken as the head of the NIH. Broken boarders aren't always good. Yes, they *may* be, but in this case, methinks not.

You cannot compare that analogy to the work put into ID. I'm sorry. ID wouldn't have gotten as far as it did if there was not very respectable and supported proof behind it.

Yes, give me a piece of literature accepted by the greater scientific community of this country which you feel happens to abuse the underlying principles of unbiased research for the purpose of defiling the church/bible in some way.

You completely missed my last point which led to the above statement. I'll say it bluntly: I'm not going to put up evidence that must fit into your own personal ideas of credibility to make MY point. That makes no sense...your request is impossible to fulfill and I won't even waste time trying.

What I WILL refer to is the Communist Regimes of Europe and Asia, which upheld science, evolution and atheism and led to the persecution of Christians right up to the 80's.

I WILL refer to even this thread. Note that a Christian statement cannot even be said, a Christian thought cannot even be spoken, without people using science to try and put it down. That is the very story of this thread, a story that is continuing even up to this very post.

I think the article is an incredibly informed read, but why did you poise it in such distaste?!

You must have missed the part where he calls on all true scientists to rise up and squash what is merely religious zealotry.

This is a huge misconception. A "gay gene" in the human genome was never discovered.

This is a misconception that I agree "misconceived" many. Note that I wrote that it was "apparently" found. Perhaps the rest of your writing was for those who would like to believe in its existence...I know that there is no gay gene. But my reasons for believing that stem from Christianity.

No, because you still know more about the universe than you did before. That it turns out you know less than you thought you know is irrelevant, you have gathered more information than before.

This section of our debate is pure foolishness, but still, it's fun.

Let's use logic: if finding out one thing means you DON'T know three more things, then you ARE knowing less and less. This is a basic law of infinity. ;) If indeed the goal of knowledge is to GATHER more, then you are failing more and more with every morsel that you learn!

Meanwhile, your analogy only works if knowledge is finite. ;)

Newton wasn't laughed at. Einstein wasn't laughed at. Planck wasn't laughed at.

What? Newton and Einstein were both laughed at, when they expressed their ideas. Perhaps we're reading two different histories...but I know for a FACT that Einstein was laughed at. And I know that Einstein laughed at others who dared to go against HIS claims (because yes, EINSTEIN MADE MISTAKES!!)

12

[TheBlazedAce]

You must have missed the part where he calls on all true scientists to rise up and squash what is merely religious zealotry.
Why didn't you quote directly? This phrase is never used, "rise up" is not said once, neither is the word "zealotry", "squash", or "true scientists". Religion is reffered to on the contrary as being accepted throughout the university as much as possible as there are countless organizations for various sects of religion.

This is far worse then misquoting, you're outright lying about what is being said here since none of these words are used. Please quote an exact word for word section where a statement like this is made though I don't remembery anything of the such being said so harshly.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

I've stayed out of this for a bit, but Twelve, you've said somethings that are just utter bullshit. Easy enough.I'm not going to sit back here and say that there aren't scientists who do try to do their work without bias.Yes, but, sadly, everyone has bias, whether you try to use it or not.




You cannot compare that analogy to the work put into ID. I'm sorry. ID wouldn't have gotten as far as it did if there was not very respectable and supported proof behind it. Could've. Look at religion. One guy says, "Hey, check this out, there's this guy called God. You can't see him, but if you worship and praise him, you get to go to this really cool place called "Heaven" when you die." Everyone else says, "Sounds good to me."




You must have missed the part where he calls on all true scientists to rise up and squash what is merely religious zealotry.See TBA's post.


This is a misconception that I agree "misconceived" many. Note that I wrote that it was "apparently" found. Perhaps the rest of your writing was for those who would like to believe in its existence...I know that there is no gay gene. But my reasons for believing that stem from Christianity. Now hang on. You're telling me that you believe there is no gay gene because of Christianity? I'm surprised you haven't choked yet.



This section of our debate is pure foolishness, but still, it's fun.

Let's use logic: if finding out one thing means you DON'T know three more things, then you ARE knowing less and less. This is a basic law of infinity. ;) If indeed the goal of knowledge is to GATHER more, then you are failing more and more with every morsel that you learn!Baaah, wrong. It's not three things you don't know. It's three things you know you could know but don't. Great difference. The amount of things you know is increasing, and is therefore more useful.

What? Newton and Einstein were both laughed at, when they expressed their ideas. Perhaps we're reading two different histories...but I know for a FACT that Einstein was laughed at. And I know that Einstein laughed at others who dared to go against HIS claims (because yes, EINSTEIN MADE MISTAKES!!)

12Nice caps and multiple exclamation points. What's next, "The bible is right because it is THE INERRANT WORD OF GOD!!!"? You're losing it, man.

[spartan_117]

Just a friendly question,
Does any one agree with me that evolution cannot be 100% proven? Does anyone else agree with me when I say that evolution takes faith just like christianity takes faith? That was the main point I was trying to make in my post about the miller experiment,(if you look at the conclusion paragraph)

Faith-
n.
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
h in God?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Just a friendly question,
Does any one agree with me that evolution cannot be 100% proven? Does anyone else agree with me when I say that evolution takes faith just like christianity takes faith? That was the main point I was trying to make in my post about the miller experiment,(if you look at the conclusion paragraph)

Faith-
n.
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
h in God?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith
If you want to go about it that way, nothing can be 100% proven. Tell me something that can, and I'll give you an example of how it could be false. Also, this belief rests on logical proof, so it does not take faith, or if it does, it takes far less faith than it does to believe in God.

[Office_Shredder]

spartan:
go jump off a cliff.

No, seriously! You put your faith in god, not gravity. After all, gravity is just some silly theory! But you have faith that god MUST exist. So he'll save you because he values life.

At what point does "well, it's not 100% proven, so I'll put my faith in god instead" become dangerous and unhealthy?

[andalite]

Well, it says He'll save your soul probably, but He doesn't have to save you from the physical consequences of your own... silliness... and sin in testing Him.

And since when is death a bad thing? It's a sad thing, but it has to happen to everyone sooner or later. It's just sadder when it's untimely.

[uniquinous]

yeah but if he accidentally kills himself won't he automatically go to hell? :p

But really, Spartan. Putting all the fossils aside - how do you explain the genetics of evolution? It shows, pretty well, that genes and proteins were slowly changed as species evolved. How do you explain that? How do you explain vestigial reflexes and DNA fragments? Give me an alternative besides evolution. You think god just put those things in to throw the heretics off the trail? Come on.

[mushroom_girl]

And since when is death a bad thing?
It's bad for people like O_S who know they're going to hell. :p

Evolution nor God cannot be 100% proven...at least not anytime soon. Someday while I'm alive, I hope to either witness the next coming of Jesus or the miraculous being missing from the evolutionary chain.

It's thoughts like this that keep me agnostic.

[Office_Shredder]

Evolution nor God cannot be 100% proven...at least not anytime soon. Someday while I'm alive, I hope to either witness the next coming of Jesus or the miraculous being missing from the evolutionary chain.

Which miraculous being missing from the evolutionary chain? No matter how many fossils are found, creationists will continue to insist there are missing links. At what point will you draw the line?

[mushroom_girl]

Which miraculous being missing from the evolutionary chain? No matter how many fossils are found, creationists will continue to insist there are missing links. At what point will you draw the line?
I'll draw the line when the pope agrees with evolution.

;)

[Lonely Tylenol]

Just a friendly question,
Does any one agree with me that evolution cannot be 100% proven? Does anyone else agree with me when I say that evolution takes faith just like christianity takes faith? That was the main point I was trying to make in my post about the miller experiment,(if you look at the conclusion paragraph)

Faith-
n.
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
h in God?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith

Two friendly questions...

First, what is it about the evolution of man or other species that evolution completely fails to prove?

Second, how is it that the thread-goers here have not completely talked to death every available religious topic not beneath anyone with decency and moved on to the "altar-boy" arguments? I honestly didn't think anybody could take a religious discussion this far.

EDIT: I'm going to take another moment of my time and donate it to this thread (I know how all the old posters must love having me here) and say that Office_Shredder is right, and that there are enough "links" to form a complete chain between monkey and man, map out most of the progression of species and explain how major evolutionary leaps were made.

[thakkus]

There was an extraordinary missing link discovered just within the past few months, some kind of walking fish. I'll check the story and post some sources next time. It was a mindblower.

The Hell issue is an interesting one. The fire of Hell must obviously be allegorical or symbolic since real fire would certainly kill/consume whatever it burned over time. Then again, if souls occupy Hell, real fire would have no effect since spirits probably don't feel temperatures.

I think Hell is a psychological condition brought upon by oneself.

[mushroom_girl]

I think Hell is a psychological condition brought upon by oneself.
Or something to scare people into behaving themselves. Same thing with heaven, being some sort of reward.

It's not necessarily a bad thing to think that about hell. But I'll live my life and if I do anything bad enough to end up in hell, then it's no one's fault but my own. :)

[thakkus]

Okay here's the link to the World Science story from April about the walking fish fossil discovered.

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/060405_tiktaalikfrm.htm

[thakkus]

Or something to scare people into behaving themselves. Same thing with heaven, being some sort of reward.

I'd say Hell is a choice. Anyone desiring anything other than Hell, certainly won't be there (wherever there is).

[mushroom_girl]

I'd say Hell is a choice. Anyone desiring anything other than Hell, certainly won't be there (wherever there is).
Wait...so you mean that if I don't want to go to hell, then I won't?

Great! I'll just go on out and shoot some people for the fun of it then. ;)

[Office_Shredder]

I'll draw the line when the pope agrees with evolution.

;)
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8712_message_from_the_pope_1996_1_3_2001.asp

[mushroom_girl]

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8712_message_from_the_pope_1996_1_3_2001.asp
I only have time to skim over the article, but what I got from it was that the Church considers it to be a serious theory? Or rather, versions of the evolutionary chain to be truthful?

[Office_Shredder]

Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, fresh knowledge has led to the recognition that evolution is more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory.

Yeah...

For clarification, Pope John Paul II did write this

[mushroom_girl]

I never knew that. I always assumed the Pope would be anti-evolution.

I like the fact that he's at least open-minded. :)

[thakkus]

Wait...so you mean that if I don't want to go to hell, then I won't?

Of course not. No one can go to Hell unless they choose it.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Of course not. No one can go to Hell unless they choose it.

Like a state of mind?

[Altiris]

Yeah, I am pretty confused by that statement. Seeing as how Hell is a factor of belief in the christian religion, what religion believes that a trip to Hell is a choice, and why would it even matter, because no one in thier right mind would choose to go to Hell upon death.

[thakkus]

no one in thier right mind would choose to go to Hell upon death.

God: Come and enjoy Paradise with me, my child.

Hell Chooser: I'm not into religion, pal.

God: This isn't religion. This is just rest and peace and love. Come on in.

Hell Chooser: Yeah right. I've heard that line of crap before. Forget it.

God: This is not a line.

Hell Chooser: Everybody's sell'n something man. Not interested.

And on and on until the only choice is "Hell."