No offence but the Norse Gods were almost as bad as the Greeks XD Cool yes, friendly no. Although Loki was awesome. Flamey Armageddon. Yum.

No offence but the Norse Gods were almost as bad as the Greeks XD Cool yes, friendly no. Although Loki was awesome. Flamey Armageddon. Yum.
Loki and Hel (the gal who rules the underworld) are really charismatic personalities, indeed! And don't forget Fenrir ;D Ya, well anthropomorphic religions (ie. Greek and Norse) do have their problems, because, well they are anthropomorphic. But it makes the story so much more interesting when the gods behave like humans, with all those evil schemes and lost loves and revenge, don't you think? :3

Oh definately! Makes them interesting from an analystic point of view. ^_^ But not so fun when I'm a little human, running away screaming in terror because OMG they're trying to kill me! I always felt sorry for the 'little pitiful mortals' in mythology. They always end up with such a rough deal. But this is probably the wrong thread for that...

I find the norse mythology fascinating. I was being introduced to it just today in history class and I found it very interesting.

I don't believe in any religion but I still find them interesting. I like to see other people's way of thinking even though it might not be true. My mom tried to make me into a christian but it didn't work. I was already too absorbed into science. ><

It's all about marketing. Here in Sweden, there are only about... I dunno, 15 people who are still devout north mythol...gists? Yet in Japan, shintoism is a majority. Christianity is the biggest, and most widespread. Those crusades were really good marketing strategies! :)

Those crusades were really good marketing strategies! :)

Yeah, "join us or die" was pretty convincing back then.

Still would be now if anyone tried.

The sad thing is, there are people who still try - it's just a little hard to do it on such a massive scale now XD

What is paganism?

Paganism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism), that's what it is.

It's all about marketing. Here in Sweden, there are only about... I dunno, 15 people who are still devout north mythol...gists?
The contemporary version of Norse religion is called Asatru (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81satr%C3%BA). I remembered it because of this (http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2007/12/21/1179780-inmate-says-he-needs-thors-hammer-drum) news story, about the inmate who sued the Utah Department of Corrections, because he isn't allowed to use Thor's hammer which he needs to practise his religion ;)

Have anyone heard of the Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God?

Have anyone heard of the Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God?

Sounds interesting (and Catholic :D). Will you explain?

Sounds interesting (and Catholic ). Will you explain?
It sounds anti-Catholic to me, actually.

Nah.

I just like poking fun at the Catholics for all of their rules. Of course they let others share the gospel other than the preachers.

Oh, for those who like debating (which likely represents a vast majority that find themselves in this thread), check out my new thread on politics in this sub-forum.

There you can see information about it on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_for_the_Restoration_of_the_Ten_Commandmen ts_of_God

Anyway What you people think about people that claim to have visions? I mention that movement because they were following those visions of the Virgin Mary and ended to be False, but as false visions there have been "real" vision, if you want to call them Real visions. What you people think?

Quite honestly, Shicoco, you should troll elsewhere. That or take some bi-polar medicine to correct your complete and utter ignorance.

You were pro Christian just a page back, and now you're attacking one major denomination of Christianity. If you feel that different about individual practice methods, I recommend you go back to Sunday School.


Let's just say that what little shred of me listening to what you say in this thread, just vanished after this post.

ok... anyway...

Though Catholism is the most dominant religion in the world, I wouldn't say that is the only religion. I mean, I myself, am a Catholic, and hate the fact how Catholics critisize Christians, or Christians critisize Catholics... Especially priests, I hate the fact that they critisize Christians just because they don't celebrate the Eucharist... It doesn't work that way... as long as you how something to believe in that will act as a guideline for doing good service to others or yourself, or something that you can believe that has power and meaning to you, then I don't see the problem. As long as it isn't something that worships the devil or has guidelines that support bad service, then you can still go to heavon... or whatever... Heck, even somone who doesn't believe in any God, somone who doesn't believe in a God who has good behavior and service is just as equally qualified to enter heavon as somone who does.

And about the visions, it isn't the fact that they were real or not, sometimes it is good to try and seek the reality of things and just leave some things as they should. If you suddenly see somone who is kneeling down at a statue of Virgin Mary, praying because it was the place where somone claimed they saw an image of her and tell em that it wasn't real? It'll just break they're hearts. Real or not, in this world, we humans need something to brighten us in our days, something that'll give us courage to know that we are safe, something to get us through life...

Something... to give us hope...

I mean look at the world... don't you think we need something to give us some light?

Quite honestly, Shicoco, you should troll elsewhere. That or take some bi-polar medicine to correct your complete and utter ignorance.

You were pro Christian just a page back, and now you're attacking one major denomination of Christianity. If you feel that different about individual practice methods, I recommend you go back to Sunday School.


Let's just say that what little shred of me listening to what you say in this thread, just vanished after this post.

Lol, you have this all wrong. Catholicism is the foundation for Christianity, and I respect it. I like to joke around every now-and-then about how conventional they are. All in good fun and completely harmless.

Shicoco's taking a lot of heat in this thread, and I don't know how much of it is deserved, as I haven't read all of what he's said. From what I have read though, his arguments are just bad, not malignant.

"Never assume malice when. . ."
Right, M? ;P

Not that Shicoco is stupid or anything like that. :heh:
Welcome to the Ichigos, sir Shishi.

There you can see information about it on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_for_the_Restoration_of_the_Ten_Commandmen ts_of_God

Anyway What you people think about people that claim to have visions? Either they are frauds, delusional or they take hallucinogens, which isn't uncommon in cults. Anyway, claiming to have "visions" is a good way to manipulate credulous people.

I mention that movement because they were following those visions of the Virgin Mary and ended to be False, but as false visions there have been "real" vision, if you want to call them Real visions. What you people think?There is no positive evidence for the existence of "real" vision. It's always unreliable anecdotal evidence, that "someone", "somewhere" had a vision. Maybe some of them are genuine and really believe they had one, but it's just too easy to trick the brain, it's unreliable in these matters.

Real or not, in this world, we humans need something to brighten us in our days, something that'll give us courage to know that we are safe, something to get us through life...
I strongly disagree. I don't think you should believe something, just because it's comfortable or because you like it. I value the pursuit of truth very much. For me it's just tricking yourself into feeling good, shunning reality along the way. It's like Dawkins's example of the Doctor not telling the patient that he has terminal cancer.

Something... to give us hope...

I mean look at the world... don't you think we need something to give us some light?Hope is one of the major Christian virtues and I've never really understood why. Of course, it's good to have a positive mentality, but "hope" is such a lazy concept. "Somewhere and sometime something good surely will happen and some of the bad things will disappear!" So? Do something about it, instead of hoping!

Maybe it's just a primal instinct. I mean, humans *need* answers. To that what we cannot get one - enter religion. It's good enough! Need fulfilled.

Now that we've somewhat evolved, we don't accept religion as an answer as we did in ancient times because it's illogical, vague and contradicting to... well, everything that is proven to be correct.

Big bang theory...Who put that dot there in the first place to explode out? Hence science cannot always be used so religion will stay as an important part of our human nature.

^For the time being. = \

Jesus got banned for our lulz.

(from a friend's sig)

as long as you how something to believe in that will act as a guideline for doing good service to others or yourself, or something that you can believe that has power and meaning to you, then I don't see the problem. As long as it isn't something that worships the devil or has guidelines that support bad service, then you can still go to heavon... or whatever... Heck, even somone who doesn't believe in any God, somone who doesn't believe in a God who has good behavior and service is just as equally qualified to enter heavon as somone who does.


....I disagree.

It says plainly in the Bible that Jesus said "I am the the truth, the way, and the light. No one gets to the Father except through me."

Good works will not get you into Heaven.

Good works will not get you into Heaven. . . . according to a dusty, nonsensical old book.
Fix'd. = \

Well no one said the book was accurate...maybe the guys writing it down made a typo...ALOT of typos...

....I disagree.

It says plainly in the Bible that Jesus said "I am the the truth, the way, and the light. No one gets to the Father except through me."

Good works will not get you into Heaven.

And that's why the Muslim and Christian community will never live in harmony.

well i guess with christianity it comes down to whether you believe that the bible is true or not.. or being true with typos...

but what do you expect muslims and christians to do..?

....I disagree.

It says plainly in the Bible that Jesus said "I am the the truth, the way, and the light. No one gets to the Father except through me."

Good works will not get you into Heaven.
Yep, and good works won't protect you from hell. So turn Christian while you still can heathens!

well i guess with christianity it comes down to whether you believe that the bible is true or not.. or being true with typos...

but what do you expect muslims and christians to do..?
Maybe they could enjoy some group activities together! Like burning witches. -_- No, seriously, I don't see a way for two dogmatic religions to get along very well, since religion is based on authority and not on reason, you either accept it or you don't. If something in the bible doesn't make sense, you don't say: "Hey, that doesn't make sense, let's change it!". You'd say: "Mhhh, truly, God works in mysterious ways!"
There is not much room for change and as long as you can justify your actions with your "holy" scripture it's even harder (and hell, the bible is a big book! you can justify about anything, even if it is contradicted in another part).

Mark 8:33

But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.

That line in particular justifies being gay. (If you read it right. ;))

....I disagree.

It says plainly in the Bible that Jesus said "I am the the truth, the way, and the light. No one gets to the Father except through me."

Good works will not get you into Heaven.


Well that's the big thing with Christians, many of them believe in different standards.

Lutherans believe that you can't get into heavon by good works, but more of completely and greatly knowing your bible and abiding by the bible... similar to that of a Baptist...

Catholics on the other hand... believe that through good works, following the scriptures and sacred tradition, you will get into heavon, though, they aren't so leanant about what the bible says, but more on sacred tradition.

And another, though not that of the Christian society, Buddhism, follows the 8 fold path... which follows the basic guidelines of being a good being... good behavior, good service, and etc... Basically, they follow a belief that an individual should be a good man/woman and be peaceful to others whilest serving well for yourself.

Many religions believe in different things and different standards, some of which has caused the conflicts in the modern world. The variety of religions itself is a problem.

But in the end, as long as you are faithful to your own belief, and follow by what you believe is just, then you have little to worry about. If someone says something about your relief that they believe is incorrect, then defend it.

At least, that's what I think.

That line in particular justifies being gay. (If you read it right. ;))

I hope you are kidding.

Of course I was kidding. :P I'll never use the bible to justify anything. I don't need to.

But even if I was serious, would I be the first person to ever twist something out of the bible to mean what I want it to mean?

Maybe it's just a primal instinct. I mean, humans *need* answers. To that what we cannot get one - enter religion. It's good enough! Need fulfilled.

Now that we've somewhat evolved, we don't accept religion as an answer as we did in ancient times because it's illogical, vague and contradicting to... well, everything that is proven to be correct.

Yes. As we have become more technologically advanced, we have been able to explain things better with intelligence. In ancient times, when humans didn't know so much, it was much easier to say the cause was God.

Well that's the big thing with Christians, many of them believe in different standards.

Lutherans believe that you can't get into heavon by good works, but more of completely and greatly knowing your bible and abiding by the bible... similar to that of a Baptist...

Catholics on the other hand... believe that through good works, following the scriptures and sacred tradition, you will get into heavon, though, they aren't so leanant about what the bible says, but more on sacred tradition.

And another, though not that of the Christian society, Buddhism, follows the 8 fold path... which follows the basic guidelines of being a good being... good behavior, good service, and etc... Basically, they follow a belief that an individual should be a good man/woman and be peaceful to others whilest serving well for yourself.

Many religions believe in different things and different standards, some of which has caused the conflicts in the modern world. The variety of religions itself is a problem.

But in the end, as long as you are faithful to your own belief, and follow by what you believe is just, then you have little to worry about. If someone says something about your relief that they believe is incorrect, then defend it.

At least, that's what I think.

No. Catholics are Christians, and therefore believe the only way into heaven is through Christ. They do, though, believe in good works, following the Scripture, and sacred tradition, and they may or may not believe that these things help. But any Catholic will tell you that Jesus is the most important part.

Would you like to define "through Christ"? Also, there is an Edit button, use it.

When Christians say "through Christ" we mean that salvation can only come from the event of Jesus dying for our sins, and that we must accept Him as our savior to be saved.

Also, I couldn't use the edit button, I'm not quite sure how to quote manually and make it come out the same way it does when you press the button.

So then, would you say that in order to enter heaven, you must believe in Jesus on earth and accept him as your savior? Or, can you die an unbeliever, then be like "Oh shit, alright, alright, you're my savior."?

There is an Mquote button next to the quote button, it is used for Multi Quotes, You can press Mquote, then Quote on another person and both with load as quote. The tags for quotes are [ Quote ] enter quote here [ /quote ] (eliminate the spaces in the [ ])

That is a very good question, and not the first time I've heard it. Many believe that you can't after you are dead, and it might even say whether or not this is possible in the Bible.

Thank you for the help. The tags aren't the problem, but the multiquoting...could you explain that a little better? I'm still not quite sure how it works.

Oh, and did they delete a bunch of threads in the music forum regarding popular music from games and such?

Then, according to the bible, are all the innocent people who die in Africa without ever hearing the word of god going to hell? I mean, I'm sure there are many remote places where thousands of people die without ever even hearing of Jesus, or a monotheistic religion. Are they going to hell?

Alright, say you want to quote, Darkbring, Angelic, and me, all in the same post. Click, Mquote at the bottom of Darkbring's post, Mquote at the bottom of Angelic's post, then click Quote at the bottom of my post. It will then open a reply with all three quotes in it. (and I'm not sure about the music threads)

Then, according to the bible, are all the innocent people who die in Africa without ever hearing the word of god going to hell? I mean, I'm sure there are many remote places where thousands of people die without ever even hearing of Jesus, or a monotheistic religion. Are they going to hell?



Exactly, thank you for saying that Asuka... Take the Aztecs for instance, they sacrificed young boys in order to please their Gods, though to us we would think that really psycho-like and slaughter, many of the families who sacrificed their own son for the sake of a God were honored to do so, and the child itself was honored to do it. People do what they think is right to be faithful to their belief. Again, their are many beliefs and standards out there, and who knows which ones are the true... An individual basically just goes by what guidelines he/she was taught through generations and generations passing it down. Like for ex. if your parents were Jewish, then you too would have fallen into that tradition of belief.

You people are forgetting we're talking about Christianity. Dissect the word a bit, and you'll find the first word being Christós. It IS the Being of the Anointed One (lit. defined). If you remove Christ from Christianity, you get a resin of the Jewish faith.

In Christianity, the only way for salvation given is through Christ's death, and the unconditional acceptance of that.

Then, according to the bible, are all the innocent people who die in Africa without ever hearing the word of god going to hell? I mean, I'm sure there are many remote places where thousands of people die without ever even hearing of Jesus, or a monotheistic religion. Are they going to hell?

Alright, say you want to quote, Darkbring, Angelic, and me, all in the same post. Click, Mquote at the bottom of Darkbring's post, Mquote at the bottom of Angelic's post, then click Quote at the bottom of my post. It will then open a reply with all three quotes in it. (and I'm not sure about the music threads)

Ok, this is a good argument. Many Christians believe that God judges those who have never heard the word of Jesus, such as Africans, differently. We actually discussed this last Tuesday at my Bible study. I'm not entirely sure if it mentions anything in the Bible about this, but we do believe that those who have never heard of Jesus will be judged according to their works rather than accepting Jesus. This includes Africans, Aztecs, babies, etc. God is a fair God. We wouldn't think he'd make a baby go to hell. At the Bible study, somebody mentioned that maybe he bases your judgement on if you would have ever accepted the Christ. He is omniscent, so he'd know this.

Ok, that makes sense. And when am I not a new member anymore?


Exactly, thank you for saying that Asuka... Take the Aztecs for instance, they sacrificed young boys in order to please their Gods, though to us we would think that really psycho-like and slaughter, many of the families who sacrificed their own son for the sake of a God were honored to do so, and the child itself was honored to do it. People do what they think is right to be faithful to their belief. Again, their are many beliefs and standards out there, and who knows which ones are the true... An individual basically just goes by what guidelines he/she was taught through generations and generations passing it down. Like for ex. if your parents were Jewish, then you too would have fallen into that tradition of belief.

First off...the Jews are God's chosen people heh. He's got something special planned for them. And there are many beliefs out there, but some can be confirmed more easily on a humanly basis.

And Christians do sacrifices too...but not on their sons. Those who follow old tradition (such as Catholics) may still do lamb sacrifices. They use the blood of a lamb to temporarily wash away sins until the real Lamb comes. Talks about it in the bible, somewhere in the old testament.

Why do animals or people always need to die to wash away sins in Christianity? = \
What's wrong with just saying "sorry?"

Because, in days of old, sacrifice proved one's loyalty. Think of it like how we shake hands back BCE. vs shake hands today. It used to be an action to check for hidden weaponry in the sleeve of the hand. Hugs are the same, to check for blades.

Those actions were to prove loyalty.

Think of it like how we shake hands back BCE. vs shake hands today. It used to be an action to check for hidden weaponry in the sleeve of the hand. Hugs are the same, to check for blades.

Those actions were to prove loyalty.
Huh, I had no idea our greetings had such interesting histories!
Sacrifice is still silly, though. Telling somebody to waste their goat or child to prove their loyalty to you is a bit...overdoing it. Especially when you're supposed to be omniscient anyway. Why would you need to hug someone to check for blades when you can see through their clothes? ;)

Wow, such a hotly debated topic... Not going to bother reading through all 70 pages of the stuff....

Personally I'm a hardcore atheist, but I'd like to understand the perspectives of those that do believe in various religions.

For example, I know that there are different levels of 'faith', so to speak. Some would believe in everything the bible says, while others interpret its contents in a liberal way. How do you people feel about eachother? I'm aware that there's a new thing going on known as Intelligent Design (well, maybe not new...). How do religious groups view this new concept?

Finally, since much of science conflicts with religion, what's your stance on science?

And Christians do sacrifices too...but not on their sons. Those who follow old tradition (such as Catholics) may still do lamb sacrifices. They use the blood of a lamb to temporarily wash away sins until the real Lamb comes. Talks about it in the bible, somewhere in the old testament.

It has never been in the catholic belief to sacrifice lambs. Jesus sacrificed himself, which is a far greater sacrifice than any lamb could offer. We participate in Jesus's Sacrifice by receiving the Eucharist every mass. The Eucharist is a far greater act of worship and tribute to God, than any lamb sacrificial.

Actually, my pastor was describing to me how lamb sacrifices work...I don't know of anyone who still does it today, but the Bible does describe the process somewhere in its confines

Which part of the bible? I don't recall there being any lamb sacrifices in the new testament.

yeh, leviticus says heaps about burnt offereings
and the reason why we dont do burnt offerings now.. (Well this is what i was taught).. is pretty much because.. Jesus Christ sacrificed himself for us.. which then sent the Holy Spirit to us... so we now have the direct connection and dont need to go through offerings and such
yeh.. i dont really know all that much in that area... sorry


but i guess in a sense... yeh, sacrificing lamb and whatnot.. shows your devotion and whatnot
because back in those days, currency was cattle and all that... so to sacrifice them shows humblness and i guess self sacrifice(?)...
you know, showing how much you would give to someone

how much would you give to your girlfriend/boyfriend.. well if you truly love them, pretty much you give everything
and so.. how much would you give to God..? so much more...
but yeh, maybe i dont know what im on about... im not actually making much of a point here.. sorry!

Finally, since much of science conflicts with religion, what's your stance on science?

Actually, a lot of science is in agreement with the Bible

I saw a news article that said scientists now believe that the dinosaurs were wiped out by one major cataclysmic event. The Bible says there was a massive flood that wiped out every living thing on the earth except for those that were on Noah’s ark.

We now know that the earth is round thanks to our telescopes and satellites, but somewhere in the Bible (Psalms I think, if you really want to know the verse I’ll look for it) it says that the earth is round. King David knew the world was round many years before a telescope was invented!

There's more modern science that is in the Bible, but those are the main two that I remember :3

Which part of the bible? I don't recall there being any lamb sacrifices in the new testament.

No, it would definitely not be in the New Testament lol. The New Testament is mainly the gospel of Christ, and his Word. The Old Testament contains the commandments, laws, proverbs, etc.


Actually, a lot of science is in agreement with the Bible

I saw a news article that said scientists now believe that the dinosaurs were wiped out by one major cataclysmic event. The Bible says there was a massive flood that wiped out every living thing on the earth except for those that were on Noah’s ark.

We now know that the earth is round thanks to our telescopes and satellites, but somewhere in the Bible (Psalms I think, if you really want to know the verse I’ll look for it) it says that the earth is round. King David knew the world was round many years before a telescope was invented!

There's more modern science that is in the Bible, but those are the main two that I remember :3

Some science does agree. You know I've heard that people have found fish remains in mountains...how does a fish get up a mountain? Well, if there is water as high as a mountain (such as a great flood :D), then it is possible.

Some science does not agree. According to the Big Bang theory, the sun was created, then Earth. According to the Bible, the Earth was created before the sun. Even the plants and trees were created before the sun! That's pretty cool.

Yeah, as told in my Theology class, science and the bible both have their debates and agreements... Such as when the Israelites were marching around I think Jerusalem for 6 days, then, on the seventh day, they shouted at the wall and it came tumbling down. They've actually proven that the walls of Jerusalem does show some signs of a break by force. They've also found evidence of Moses parting the waters at the Red Sea.

Science and the bible aren't really competitive as some say. Believe it or not, there are actually astronomers and scientists in Vatican2 or there in Europe. Though the bible has been passed down generations and generations as it being the truth and fully true, and many people arising questions about just bizarre things... It doesn't mean that you can't do a little investigation.

And as my Theology teacher said, "you can translate anything in the bible as spiritually symbolic... or a reality."

Are you sure these 'agreements' aren't just different interpretations of science or the bible in an attempt to find agreement?

Actually, I won't go into that. Let's take... for example, human beings. According to the bible, humans were created as we stand now, originating from Adam and Eve, while science says that we evolved from apes. When your belief really does come in conflict with science, what do you choose to believe?

Are you sure these 'agreements' aren't just different interpretations of science or the bible in an attempt to find agreement?

Actually, I won't go into that. Let's take... for example, human beings. According to the bible, humans were created as we stand now, originating from Adam and Eve, while science says that we evolved from apes. When your belief really does come in conflict with science, what do you choose to believe?

Whoa, you need to know your facts before you post something like this. Science, or more specifically, Darwin's theory of Evolution by Natural Selection DOES NOT STATE that we evolved from apes/monkeys. It says that we have common ancestors.

Evolution is about history, as it has technically been proven as impossible. I will explain. The male sperm propels itself with a tail-like thing called a flagellum. This flagellum is a very complex thing, and works much like a modern motor. It consists of over 40 parts, and, if any are removed, the flagellum won't work. Since evolution is theorized to be slow, it means that the flagellum had to evolve one part at a time, but it couldn't have, because without all the parts, it won't work. And natural selection states that things that don't work don't last long enough to reproduce. So, in order to have been created by evolution, all the parts had to have spontaneously evolved into being at once. The flagellum is too complex for that. It is clear that something intelligent designed it (such as God).

For a cool picture of a flagellum, go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum

Irreducibly complex is a false concept generated by one ID supporter in an attempt to gain credibility for his own theory. This, more or less, became a rally point for all supporters of intelligent design mostly due to the fact that very little other valid points exist. In fact, so many people have brought up this point with me that it's getting a little tiring.

Here's how the concept of irreducibly complex fails at disproving natural selection/evolution: The proponent makes the assumption that what are components of a complex structure must and can only have been a component of that structure. This is a false believe. Prior to the combination of different parts to form that flagellum, the parts are fully capable of being useful by functioning as their separate evolutionary advantages that allowed them to survive through natural selection. In other words, prior to being part of the flagellum, all the parts were likely already useful in their own way.

Evolution is not 'proven impossible'. This is a ridiculous claim that like 90% of the population outside the United States would laugh at. Darwinism and evolution states that all changes in an organism occur due to random chance and mutation. Those that are beneficial to survival were popularized and gradually the species become more adapted to the environment in which it lives. What I said was that SCIENCE states that we evolved from apes. Science as the discovery of prehistoric human skulls that resemble apes, where the resemblances increase with the age of the skull through means of carbon dating.

In fact, intelligent design itself hardly qualify as a theory, much less something that has any truth in it. There are no testable claims made by the proponents. I could claim that I was King Arthur in a past life, and no one can do anything to prove me wrong if I give no other claims or means of testing it.

Please do not belittle my knowledge in science, and specifically, evolution.

Want an article? You got it.
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/05/30/050530fa_fact

Although in a way I guess you answered my question.

Edit: Oh, and evolution doesn't have to happen slowly. Genetic disturbances could happen over the course of a second. Stuff like Down Syndrome are the results of these quick accidents. If it so happened that those individuals are more adept at surviving/reproducing, they would be slowly outnumbering the 'normal' people on Earth.

Some science does agree. You know I've heard that people have found fish remains in mountains...how does a fish get up a mountain? Well, if there is water as high as a mountain (such as a great flood :D), then it is possible.Plate tectonics. [link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics)]


They've actually proven that the walls of Jerusalem does show some signs of a break by force. They've also found evidence of Moses parting the waters at the Red Sea.Sounds interesting. Source, please.


Evolution is about history, as it has technically been proven as impossible. <snip> The flagellum is too complex for that. It is clear that something intelligent designed it (such as God).Hahaha. "Technically proven impossible", I like that phrase. Just like how God technically exists, right?


For a cool picture of a flagellum, go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FlagellumFor a scientific explanation of the evolution of the flagella, go here: [link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella)]

Found a short 2 minute youtube video of an interview that basically talks about the flaws of 'irreducibly complex'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW_2lLG9EZM

Plate tectonics. [link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics)]

Sounds interesting. Source, please.

Hahaha. "Technically proven impossible", I like that phrase. Just like how God technically exists, right?

For a scientific explanation of the evolution of the flagella, go here: [link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella)]

I have a theology book that explains all of this... hopefully soon I could scan it and post it on here... that is... if I remember...

here's one evidence of the red sea... apparently, they've found chariots on the sea floor there... this is different than what I've heard...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33168

Actually, a lot of science is in agreement with the BibleAnd even more in disagreement.

I saw a news article that said scientists now believe that the dinosaurs were wiped out by one major cataclysmic event. The Bible says there was a massive flood that wiped out every living thing on the earth except for those that were on Noah’s ark.
Please don't equate a scientific explanation, ie. an asteroid impact that wiped out most of the species on earth 65 million years ago, with a giant flood, that supposedly wiped out all life on earth 4000 years ago, while the Chinese were happily discovering the advantages of agriculture.


We now know that the earth is round thanks to our telescopes and satellites, but somewhere in the Bible (Psalms I think, if you really want to know the verse I’ll look for it) it says that the earth is round. King David knew the world was round many years before a telescope was invented!May I remind you that it was common knowledge in the Greek world, that the world is a sphere? Eratosthenes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes) even calculated the circumference of the world with great precision. Christian theologians of the time interpreted their scripture differently however. They came to the conclusion that the earth was flat and while Christianity brought about the Dark Age in Europe the knowledge of the Greek had been forgotten, only to be rediscovered in the renaissance over 1500 year later.

There's more modern science that is in the Bible, but those are the main two that I remember :3
The bible is a big book. There are more than enough ambiguous passages waiting to be linked to modern scientific discoveries.

Are you sure these 'agreements' aren't just different interpretations of science or the bible in an attempt to find agreement?Yes, thank you for pointing that out. :)

Found a short 2 minute youtube video of an interview that basically talks about the flaws of 'irreducibly complex'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW_2lLG9EZM
Kenneth Miller is awesome, his lectures are really funny and informative. I like his talk on the Flagellum http://youtube.com/watch?v=RQQ7ubVIqo4 ;)

I have a theology book that explains all of this... hopefully soon I could scan it and post it on here... that is... if I remember...

here's one evidence of the red sea... apparently, they've found chariots on the sea floor there... this is different than what I've heard...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=33168
Seriously, the one who found these chariot wheels, Ron Wyatt, is a bad bad source. 10 minutes of research on the internet revealed that he apparently, besides the chariot wheels, also discovered the Ark of the Covenants, Noah's Grave, the Tablets of the 10 Commandments and a whole bunch of other and important biblical relics.
Sadly the wheel examined by Hassan is nowhere to be found - an astounding occurrence for such a valuable artifact - so an independent assessment is not possible.Yeah, it's a shame that none of these artefacts can be evaluated by an independent expert... :/
Really, one should always be sceptical of these news in the mainstream media. They often just want a story that draws the attention of the audience and throw away all rigorous scientific inquiry in the process. Not to mention their fact checking...

The only real relic mentioned in the bible that's been found is the dead sea scrolls.

dead sea scrollsWhere's the Second Impact? http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a16/RedPharmacist/emot-colbert.gif

Evolution is not 'proven impossible'. This is a ridiculous claim that like 90% of the population outside the United States would laugh at. Darwinism and evolution states that all changes in an organism occur due to random chance and mutation. Those that are beneficial to survival were popularized and gradually the species become more adapted to the environment in which it lives. What I said was that SCIENCE states that we evolved from apes. Science as the discovery of prehistoric human skulls that resemble apes, where the resemblances increase with the age of the skull through means of carbon dating.

Carbon dating isn't very accurate, and when it is, the scientists completly ignore it.
Some scientist might dig up an Allosuar, and say "HEY, lets go carbon date this!"
The rest of the scientist are exciteted and agree, so they go to their little lab and carbon date it.
They test it multiple times, trying to get the most accurate date.
They might get three testings that said the bone was 10,000 years old and one that said 8 billion years old .
They choose the one date that agrees with their evolution theory even though three out of the four testings said it was about 10,000 years old. :\

Carbon dating isn't very accurate, and when it is, the scientists completly ignore it.
Some scientist might dig up an Allosuar, and say "HEY, lets go carbon date this!"
The rest of the scientist are exciteted and agree, so they go to their little lab and carbon date it.
They test it multiple times, trying to get the most accurate date.
They might get three testings that said the bone was 10,000 years old and one that said 8 billion years old .
They choose the one date that agrees with their evolution theory even though three out of the four testings said it was about 10,000 years old. :\Cite. Your. Sources.

Actually, no. The dates are fairly consistent through various trials. But that's beside the point. For the sake of argument, let's say carbon dating has no value. How do you explain the skulls themselves? What about this one: the embryo of many mammals develop what closely resemble gills. This leads to the likelihood that at one point, terrestrial organisms lived in aquatic environments. Due to the fact that there are no selection pressures while an organism is still unborn, the gills remain on these embryos. How does the bible explain that?

What you have done is exactly typical theist behavior. Attempt to poke holes in the reigning theory. Regardless of whether evolution is true or false, your own religion has gained absolutely no credibility from these points.

And what's also funny is that almost all of the people disagreeing with evolution are directly affiliated with some sort of creationist organization. I've yet to see any neutral scientist put forth any valid points.

Here you go:

Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong

The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless? The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection. According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.

Scientific Fact No. 2 - Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong

The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. These pictures are placed in all evolutionists' text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.

Scientific Fact No. 3 - Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong

Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water causing several molecules to combine in a random way which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms. This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals.

Scientific Fact No. 4 - Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong

The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother's womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.

Scientific Fact No. 5 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong

The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.

Scientific Fact No. 6 - Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong

The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics that has never been proven wrong. Scientists cannot have it both ways. The second law of thermodynamics is proven to be correct. Evolution lacks any scientific proof. Evolution is simply an empty theory.

Scientific Fact No. 7 - Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong

There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom.

Scientific Fact No. 8 - Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong

Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The "Big Bang" theory doesn't solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.

Scientific Fact No. 9 - Lack of Life on Mars Proves Evolution is Wrong

Two NASA two land rovers named Spirit and Opportunity explored Mars during 2004. The topography shows obvious signs of past liquid rivers flowing in numerous places. The rovers have proven that water was once abundant on the surface of Mars, but they have not been able to find any signs of life or any signs of past life on the planet. Mars has a proven history of flowing water on the surface and an atmosphere suitable to support life forms. The planet has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the "spark" of life according to the evolutionary theory, yet there is no life on Mars. The river beds and river banks show no signs of vegetation or trees. The ground has no fossils and no organisms. The place is absolutely sterile.

Scientific Fact No. 10 - Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong

Mars is not the only place that shows no signs of life. The entire universe lacks any sign of life. There are no radio signals that can be related to intelligent life forms. None of the billions of galaxies has been found to emit any intelligent radio signals. Scientists have been pointing every type of radio telescope possible into space for several decades in hopes of finding an intelligent signal. No signs of life beyond Earth have been found. We are alone.

You will note that 7 and 8 are extremely strong arguments. While I believe in 9 and 10, I will admit that they aren't very strong arguments.

Knowing the pomposity of scientists, I know they must have a reason for number 7, let's hear it.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1

Cite. Your. Sources.

It's in a book called Answers in Genesis, which is where my example is based off of (Actually, its more of a story, but whatever xD)

I also used Google and found these sites

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Reliability%20of%20creationist%20sourc es




Actually, no. The dates are fairly consistent through various trials. But that's beside the point. For the sake of argument, let's say carbon dating has no value. How do you explain the skulls themselves? What about this one: the embryo of many mammals develop what closely resemble gills. This leads to the likelihood that at one point, terrestrial organisms lived in aquatic environments. Due to the fact that there are no selection pressures while an organism is still unborn, the gills remain on these embryos. How does the bible explain that?

What you have done is exactly typical theist behavior. Attempt to poke holes in the reigning theory. Regardless of whether evolution is true or false, your own religion has gained absolutely no credibility from these points.
And what's also funny is that almost all of the people disagreeing with evolution are directly affiliated with some sort of creationist organization. I've yet to see any neutral scientist put forth any valid points.
Here’s a quote from a book called “Answers in Genesis” which will hopefully answer your question.

These “Pharyngeal clefts,” as they are more properly called, or “throat pouches,” never have any breathing function, and are never “slits” or openings. They develop into the thymus gland, parathyroid glands and middle ear canals- none of which has anything to do with breathing, under water or above water!




And what's also funny is that almost all of the people disagreeing with evolution are directly affiliated with some sort of creationist organization. I've yet to see any neutral scientist put forth any valid points.

I didn’t even know there was such thing as a neutral scientist. As far as I know, you either believe we all evolved by chance, or you believe an intelligent Designer created everything.
So, yes, everyone who disagrees with evolution does tend to believe God exists, and evolutionist says we all evolved and that there is no God.

Also, I'm not sure if there is a word limit in one post, so I'm doing this in another.

This, is very interesting...

A story about two friends from day one.

Once upon a time there was a Polonium 218 element of the family of radioactive isotopes. Nuclear chemists classify Polonium 218 as radioactive because the nuclei of the atom continually emit alpha, beta and gamma radiation. This radiation loss causes the atom to disintegrate or decay into a smaller atom. Eventually the material will become lead, which we commonly use for fishing weights and lead-acid batteries in our cars.

Polonium 218 would be classified in elementary school as being "hyperactive." It can't sit still very long. In only three minutes, half of the atoms decay into a lighter element, and in only one day it is all changed.

Polonium 218 can be created by the decay of a parent atom such as Uranium 238 or some other element below Uranium 238 in the chain. It can also be created as the parent without having come from the decay of a heavier atom. This is very important, so remember this fact.

Once upon a time there was granite rock. Granite is a very unique rock but at the same time is very common and plentiful. It can easily be found in mountain areas such as the Rocky Mountains of Colorado. Granite is easily identified by its hard crystalline structure and light color. The crystals are large enough to be easily seen with the eye. It has an interesting structure with a mixture of light-colored quartz and feldspar crystals, and darker crystals of mica and hornblende. Granite is solid and hard without cracks or seams, and it is very strong.

Granite has another very unique property in that it cannot be created by scientists. It is considered to be an "original" material in the Earth. When melted and allowed to harden, it does not return to the original granite crystalline structure. The new smaller crystalline material is called rhyolite. Granite cannot be made by cooling the initial molten materials. This is very important, so remember this fact.

Granite never contains fossils such as are found in sedimentary rocks. All of these properties have led many scientists to refer to granite as a creation rock, since it could not have solidified from molten material according to the evolutionary theory.

Evolution cannot explain the presence of granite in its present structure. And where is this granite? Everywhere. Granite is the bedrock shell which encloses the entire Earth. Its exact thickness is unknown, but scientists have speculated that it forms a layer about 4.35 miles (7 km) thick, and in some areas possibly 20 miles (32 km) thick. It occurs on every continent.

These are the two friends from day one. We know they were friends because they lived together. The Polonium 218 lived only a very short time (3 minutes), but he left his mark on his friend, granite, in that short time. Polonium emitted alpha particles which left a very distinct mark in the granite. These marks are called Polonium halos. These halos are tiny colored concentric circles which must be viewed with a microscope. The concentric circles are actually concentric spherical marks which appear as circles after the rock is cut open. "How many halos are there?" you may ask. One trillion times 10 billion are present on every continent around the world. They are everywhere.

The Polonium 218 was the parent radioactive isotope because other distinct halos which are created by other isotopes are not present. The Polonium halos are not accompanied by Uranium 238 halos.

One minute there was nothing. The next minute there were parent Polonium 218 radioactive atoms locked in the center of solid granite. The granite rock could not have formed from cooling molten rock. Granite will not form that way. In fact, scientists cannot make granite by any method. They can make diamonds but not granite. Granite is solid. The Polonium could not penetrate existing granite because it is not porous or cracked. This was day one.

These friends are absolute scientific proof that evolution is dead. First, the granite could not have been produced by evolutionary theories, the Earth cooling, etc. Second, the Polonium locks the entire time period into an instantaneous event proven by nuclear chemistry. The time is not "millions and millions and millions" of years. The granite was produced as a solid with the Polonium parent elements inside at that instant. Within the first three minutes, half of the Polonium had decayed into a lower element. The Earth, granite and Polonium were created by God together in an instant.

Let the systematic deconstruction begin.


Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless?Evolution does not ask "why?". Evolution has no sense of future; the here and now is the only place where evolution occurs.

Lineages of organisms are not designed for some future purpose; they are changed by opportunities to which they can respond and by the selective processes that their environment imposes on them. Evolution is limited by developmental and genetic constraints. If an adaptation is useful to a lineage, chances are that it will be preserved.


The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment.There was a wing stub? Source?


The wing was much too small for the bird to fly.I must have your source for this.


This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment.How is the bird with a half-size wing at a disadvantage?

The rest of your first "scientific fact" hinges on this assertion. Please explain how you arrive to the conclusion that the bird with a half-size wing is at a disadvantage its environment.

Please don't ignore some points made in that paragraph, and don't ignore #7.

So, over a course of millions of years, birds evolved wings that eventually became useful? And one day, it flapped them it found it could fly? Possible, but natural selection states that only the good traits are passed on. Useless wings weigh the bird down, and get in the way.

Some people think that scientists make up theories because they just can't believe that there is a supreme being that is more powerful than themselves. I won't say this. Maybe they enjoy the challenge of coming up with a solution.

Note that the evolution is a theory, and not a law. Darwin was a bright individual, and the theory of evolution is absolutely brilliant, and does make some sense and answer some questions. But the evidence I have found and posted above basically proves evolution impossible, however, I will listen to other theories.

Gotank: You are smart, so you probably know that evolution is the leading theory only scientifically speaking, not overall. Roman Catholicism has it beat by millions of followers.

Also, I have heard of neutral scientists that are against the Theory of Evolution. Many agree that it has been proven impossible. The Big Bang theory is one big guess too, but that's only in my opinion. Scientists are too sure of themselves sometimes. But, I will hear your argument on the Big Bang if you state it politely.

The "10 scientific facts" that supposedly prove evolution wrong are so laughable, I almost cried. Whoever wrote these up, did a great job collecting all common misconceptions and misinformation, proving his/her vast ignorance of everything scientific... So, let me get this straight first please...
THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION is NOT THE BIG BANG THEORY. It doesn't say a damned thing about how the universe came to be, that is the big bang theory. It doesn't even say how LIFE came to be, that's abiogenesis. Everything the theory of evolution explains is how life evolves over time. Easy enough to understand, isn't it? I don't have the time to waste on these so called "10 scientific facts". So I'll be brief.

-------------------------------------------------------

Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong

The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless? The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection. According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.
Even not fully evolved wings could be used for gliding or for slowing your fall. Feathers are very good insulators.
-------------------------------------------------------

Scientific Fact No. 2 - Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong

The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. These pictures are placed in all evolutionists' text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.
You don't just randomly line them up. You have a god-damn time line. You find them in different sediments. They're of different age. And you notice that they change over time. Go figure.
-------------------------------------------------------

Scientific Fact No. 3 - Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong

Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water causing several molecules to combine in a random way which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms. This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals.
Evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution) has nothing to do with Abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis). Shows how tremendously ignorant the writer of these "arguments" is
-------------------------------------------------------

Scientific Fact No. 4 - Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong

The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother's womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.
The evolution of sex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sex) is an important topic in evolutionary biology. I didn't quite see the point of your argument here. Mutation is ubiquitous and not even limited to the reproduction process. There are errors in transcribing genes all the time. Mutation isn't even the most important point here, but the recombination of the genes of both parents, creating new (different) sequences.
-------------------------------------------------------

Scientific Fact No. 5 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong

The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.

Oh yeah, please tell that to any person who has cancer, I'm sure they'll be relieved to hear that their illness isn't real, because it's impossible for there to be errors in DNA... -_-
-------------------------------------------------------

Scientific Fact No. 6 - Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong

The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics that has never been proven wrong. Scientists cannot have it both ways. The second law of thermodynamics is proven to be correct. Evolution lacks any scientific proof. Evolution is simply an empty theory.
Oh yeah, this winter I saw a snowflake. I marvelled how this could be possible? Could this snow crystal... this order... emerge from a chaotic mass of buzzing H2O molecules? Yeah. Obviously. I think you should look for your 8th grade chemistry book ;)
-------------------------------------------------------

Scientific Fact No. 7 - Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong

There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom.Watch this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk) He talk about recent research "which identifies the exact point of fusion of two primate chromosomes that resulted in human chromosome #2." Awesome discovery and it just so happens to refute your point ;)
-------------------------------------------------------

Scientific Fact No. 8 - Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong

Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The "Big Bang" theory doesn't solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.
Yeah, they "ignore the problem" since it's a problem of cosmology and not of biology. If you want to learn something about the big bang, ask an astrophysicist not an evolutionary biologist...
-------------------------------------------------------

Scientific Fact No. 9 - Lack of Life on Mars Proves Evolution is Wrong

Two NASA two land rovers named Spirit and Opportunity explored Mars during 2004. The topography shows obvious signs of past liquid rivers flowing in numerous places. The rovers have proven that water was once abundant on the surface of Mars, but they have not been able to find any signs of life or any signs of past life on the planet. Mars has a proven history of flowing water on the surface and an atmosphere suitable to support life forms. The planet has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the "spark" of life according to the evolutionary theory, yet there is no life on Mars. The river beds and river banks show no signs of vegetation or trees. The ground has no fossils and no organisms. The place is absolutely sterile.Abiogenesis (the science of how life arose from non-life) has nothing to do with evolution.
-------------------------------------------------------

Scientific Fact No. 10 - Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong

Mars is not the only place that shows no signs of life. The entire universe lacks any sign of life. There are no radio signals that can be related to intelligent life forms. None of the billions of galaxies has been found to emit any intelligent radio signals. Scientists have been pointing every type of radio telescope possible into space for several decades in hopes of finding an intelligent signal. No signs of life beyond Earth have been found. We are alone.

You will note that 7 and 8 are extremely strong arguments. While I believe in 9 and 10, I will admit that they aren't very strong arguments.

Knowing the pomposity of scientists, I know they must have a reason for number 7, let's hear it.Do you know why we haven't found any signs of life from these billions of galaxies? We haven't looked yet. SETI is a small programme it doesn't have as much funding as I'd like it to have. It has only scanned an infinitesimal part of the sky thus far. Stars that are in our immediate neighbourhood.


You will note that 7 and 8 are extremely strong arguments. While I believe in 9 and 10, I will admit that they aren't very strong arguments.

Knowing the pomposity of scientists, I know they must have a reason for number 7, let's hear it.
Watch the video to number 7 and you'll know. Number 8 is probably the worst argument you could bring up against evolution, 'cause, well, it's not even about evolution...

Please don't ignore some points made in that paragraph, and don't ignore #7.Don't worry, I will go through all of your "scientific facts". I'll move on to "Scientific Fact" #2 as soon as you thoroughly explain your understand of "Scientific Fact" #1.

Possible, but natural selection states that only the good traits are passed on. Useless wings weigh the bird down, and get in the way.No. A change is passed on regardless of whether a change is useful or harmful (or neutral). It just so happens that those with the disadvantage die and those with the advantage survive.

Some people think that scientists make up theories because they just can't believe that there is a supreme being that is more powerful than themselves. I won't say this. Maybe they enjoy the challenge of coming up with a solution.Yes, they enjoy it. (I'll ignore the ad-hominem for now)

Note that the evolution is a theory, and not a law.
I'm so sick and tired of this... :cry: Why is it that some people believe a theory gets somehow "upgraded" to a law when there's enough evidence...
- A "scientific fact" is just an empirical observation (ie. something happens).
- A "scientific law" is often an aspect of nature that can be reduced to a simple set of formulae (ie. the laws of thermodynamics).
- A "scientific theory" explains a large body of evidence (ie. atomic theory)

The theory of evolution is what explains the fact of evolution (life changed over time) and regardless of the amount of evidence it won't ever be called a scientific law, because that's an entirely different classification.


Darwin was a bright individual, and the theory of evolution is absolutely brilliant, and does make some sense and answer some questions. But the evidence I have found and posted above basically proves evolution impossible, however, I will listen to other theories.
It is good that you try to keep an open mind. Evaluate the arguments you see and try to learn from the points others make. Don't take what others say on faith, please check up what I'm saying and look for evidence yourself. Never be restricted to what only one side of an argument presents. :)

Gotank: You are smart, so you probably know that evolution is the leading theory only scientifically speaking, not overall. Roman Catholicism has it beat by millions of followers.Strange though, that evolution is accepted by Catholics and the pope. Science isn't a democracy anyway, it's a meritocracy. There's no such thing as a popularity vote over scientific truth.

Also, I have heard of neutral scientists that are against the Theory of Evolution. Many agree that it has been proven impossible. The Big Bang theory is one big guess too, but that's only in my opinion. Scientists are too sure of themselves sometimes. But, I will hear your argument on the Big Bang if you state it politely.There are very few scientists who are against evolution. And biologists who don't trust the validity of evolution are almost non-existent. Check out Project Steve to see what I mean: Project Steve (http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp)

Wow, I don't refresh this page for like half an hour and this much stuff shows up... Only glimpsed at the point about organisms not being able to change their chromosome number. That's hopelessly false. A certain rat species found in Australia is discovered to be quadploid (possessing 4x the duplicate amount of chromosomes). This was likely a result of non-disjunction. Yet the rat suffers no survival disadvantage.

Other oddities in nature exist, such as the male bee, which is in fact only a haploid.

One of the whole arguments that man evolved from monkeys is based on our identical genetic structure to that of monkeys. Organisms are NOT locked to having the same number of chromosomes. While the reproductive patterns of complex organisms such as humans might have restrictions on chromosome numbers, single celled organisms do not.

Actually, I don't feel like debuting your arguments simply because they've already been done. You, on the other hand, have yet to provide ANY evidence to suggest the existence of a supernatural being. Don't keep sidestepping this problem.

I don't care about what happened in Jerusalem, I don't want to know about a cracked wall or whatever. Show me the scientific evidence that suggest there exist a being right now that has a supernatural influence on our lives.

Actually, I think Christianity is about as convincing as Haruhism.

About bird wings: Peacocks. Enough said.
Wait, it isn't? Fine, just because not fully developed wings may not allow birds to fly as they do now, it doesn't mean they can't serve another purpose. Wings were originally limbs, and limbs are quite useful for survival. the development of feathers at the beginning may allow the organism to move swifter or conserve energy through gliding or lengthened hops, which may well be the origin of bird flight.

Edit: I don't think I'll be making any more posts on this tonight. It's definitely an interesting debate though, and likely one of the most civil ones involving religion vs atheism I've participated in.

You guys make good arguments! I still think evolution is very weak. And please remember, you cannot argue against me using stuff like, "This was likely a result of non-disjunction. Yet the rat suffers no survival disadvantage." I don't believe in evolution, so I don't care how it affects its survival.

ATTENTION MATT: THE POPE DOES NOT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION. CHRISTIANS BELIEVE THE WORLD IS ROUGHLY 6,000 YEARS OLD.

And EVERYONE totally IGNORED this, so I will repost it. Gotank, consider this me not side-stepping the 'prove God' issue.

A story about two friends from day one.

Once upon a time there was a Polonium 218 element of the family of radioactive isotopes. Nuclear chemists classify Polonium 218 as radioactive because the nuclei of the atom continually emit alpha, beta and gamma radiation. This radiation loss causes the atom to disintegrate or decay into a smaller atom. Eventually the material will become lead, which we commonly use for fishing weights and lead-acid batteries in our cars.

Polonium 218 would be classified in elementary school as being "hyperactive." It can't sit still very long. In only three minutes, half of the atoms decay into a lighter element, and in only one day it is all changed.

Polonium 218 can be created by the decay of a parent atom such as Uranium 238 or some other element below Uranium 238 in the chain. It can also be created as the parent without having come from the decay of a heavier atom. This is very important, so remember this fact.

Once upon a time there was granite rock. Granite is a very unique rock but at the same time is very common and plentiful. It can easily be found in mountain areas such as the Rocky Mountains of Colorado. Granite is easily identified by its hard crystalline structure and light color. The crystals are large enough to be easily seen with the eye. It has an interesting structure with a mixture of light-colored quartz and feldspar crystals, and darker crystals of mica and hornblende. Granite is solid and hard without cracks or seams, and it is very strong.

Granite has another very unique property in that it cannot be created by scientists. It is considered to be an "original" material in the Earth. When melted and allowed to harden, it does not return to the original granite crystalline structure. The new smaller crystalline material is called rhyolite. Granite cannot be made by cooling the initial molten materials. This is very important, so remember this fact.

Granite never contains fossils such as are found in sedimentary rocks. All of these properties have led many scientists to refer to granite as a creation rock, since it could not have solidified from molten material according to the evolutionary theory.

Evolution cannot explain the presence of granite in its present structure. And where is this granite? Everywhere. Granite is the bedrock shell which encloses the entire Earth. Its exact thickness is unknown, but scientists have speculated that it forms a layer about 4.35 miles (7 km) thick, and in some areas possibly 20 miles (32 km) thick. It occurs on every continent.

These are the two friends from day one. We know they were friends because they lived together. The Polonium 218 lived only a very short time (3 minutes), but he left his mark on his friend, granite, in that short time. Polonium emitted alpha particles which left a very distinct mark in the granite. These marks are called Polonium halos. These halos are tiny colored concentric circles which must be viewed with a microscope. The concentric circles are actually concentric spherical marks which appear as circles after the rock is cut open. "How many halos are there?" you may ask. One trillion times 10 billion are present on every continent around the world. They are everywhere.

The Polonium 218 was the parent radioactive isotope because other distinct halos which are created by other isotopes are not present. The Polonium halos are not accompanied by Uranium 238 halos.

One minute there was nothing. The next minute there were parent Polonium 218 radioactive atoms locked in the center of solid granite. The granite rock could not have formed from cooling molten rock. Granite will not form that way. In fact, scientists cannot make granite by any method. They can make diamonds but not granite. Granite is solid. The Polonium could not penetrate existing granite because it is not porous or cracked. This was day one.

These friends are absolute scientific proof that evolution is dead. First, the granite could not have been produced by evolutionary theories, the Earth cooling, etc. Second, the Polonium locks the entire time period into an instantaneous event proven by nuclear chemistry. The time is not "millions and millions and millions" of years. The granite was produced as a solid with the Polonium parent elements inside at that instant. Within the first three minutes, half of the Polonium had decayed into a lower element. The Earth, granite and Polonium were created by God together in an instant.

lol, here:

"Mankind has left behind the Great Pyramids of Egypt (4,500 years ago), the Great Wall of China extending 3,400 miles in length (started 2,700 years ago), Silbury Hill of England (4,600 years ago) and Stonehenge of England (5,000 years ago). These and other structures were made by man and date back 4,500 years or so. Our complex languages like Greek are dated back 4,000 years with little change from the modern language. There are locations all over of the Earth where civilizations would typically choose to live that date back 4,000 years according to archaeological diggings. Yet, we cannot find any human settlements dating back 10,000 years. Where are the pictures of the structures they built 10,000 years ago? There aren't any because no structures existed. They simply do not exist because humans did not exist at that time. Ape-like creatures existed, not humans."

"Stretch out a timeline with 1,000,000 divisions representing years. Evolutionists tell us that humans have evolved very little over this timeline because evolution progresses very slowly. Based on the theory of evolution we should easily find massive signs of civilization going back a few hundreds of thousands of years, but the signs of civilization are not there. Humans have existed for the last six divisions. The previous 994,000 divisions are completely empty. Evolutionists simply ignore the fact that intelligent humans suddenly appeared in the very recent past, certainly within the last 8,000 years. These humans were as smart as humans are today, maybe smarter. They accomplished awesome construction projects that suddenly appeared. Where are the cities that date back a mere 20,000 years? There are none. The foundations for many cities should exist if humans existed at that time, but not one city can be found. A simple settlement cannot be found that is 20,000 years old. The only crude tools and bones found are from ape-like creatures. Even these are in question because the dating methods are not reliable."

Evolution first and foremost deals with live organisms, not rocks and elements. You can't 'prove' evolution wrong by bringing up a point about how we are incapable of producing / lack understanding of how granite is formed. Please refrain from just copying and pasting random passages from websites. There's no point in wasting time for us to point out flaws in your arguments because they're obviously already proven wrong if they fail to appear anywhere bigger than a small website titled 'Bible Life Ministries'.

Oh, and just for an instance, let's suppose you're right, no natural process is responsible for the creation of granite. How, in any way, DOES THAT PROVE IT'S A CHRISTIAN GOD THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CREATION? Why not the gods of millions of other religions?

If you analyze that story without considering evolution at all, you get an argument like 'granite is created by something other than humans/natural processes' it must be created by god. That's a terribly flawed argument.

Edit: Seriously, stop just copying and pasting big articles from random websites and hope that we'd take the time to read and rebute it, when clearly you haven't put any time into writing it yourself.

Edit2: About religious individuals that believe in some form of evolution: This goes back to what I said earlier. I can definitely observe different levels of 'faith' even amongst Christians. Are you saying that all other Christians that don't believe in the 6000 year thing is also wrong? If so, you're a terribly small group...


And please remember, you cannot argue against me using stuff like, "This was likely a result of non-disjunction. Yet the rat suffers no survival disadvantage." I don't believe in evolution, so I don't care how it affects its survival. You're saying that incomplete wings hinders survival and thus can't develop in the first place. This is using natural selection already.

Evolution first and foremost deals with live organisms, not rocks and elements. You can't 'prove' evolution wrong by bringing up a point about how we are incapable of producing / lack understanding of how granite is formed. Please refrain from just copying and pasting random passages from websites. There's no point in wasting time for us to point out flaws in your arguments because they're obviously already proven wrong if they fail to appear anywhere bigger than a small website titled 'Bible Life Ministries'.

Oh, and just for an instance, let's suppose you're right, no natural process is responsible for the creation of granite. How, in any way, DOES THAT PROVE IT'S A CHRISTIAN GOD THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CREATION? Why not the gods of millions of other religions?

If you analyze that story without considering evolution at all, you get an argument like 'granite is created by something other than humans/natural processes' it must be created by god. That's a terribly flawed argument.

Edit: Seriously, stop just copying and pasting big articles from random websites and hope that we'd take the time to read and rebute it, when clearly you haven't put any time into writing it yourself.

Edit2: About religious individuals that believe in some form of evolution: This goes back to what I said earlier. I can definitely observe different levels of 'faith' even amongst Christians. Are you saying that all other Christians that don't believe in the 6000 year thing is also wrong? If so, you're a terribly small group...

You're saying that incomplete wings hinders survival and thus can't develop in the first place. This is using natural selection already.

I never did say it disproved evolution. Just thought it was pretty cool. Now, please look at that last bit of info I found on the web...it makes good sense, and I never thought about it in that way. You have come up with an explanation for everything else.

Oh, and I never said the granite thing proves my God exists. But it does put a hardship on current science-based theories.

And for the moment, I will copy and paste articles. They contain good info. This thread isn't about whether or not I can put it in my own writing, it's about religion.

And if modern theories are indeed proven false? What good will that do to support the truth in Christianity? We arrive once again at the problem that there lack any sort of solid scientific proof for your religion. As proponents of Christianity, you should be more focused on finding evidence to support your beliefs, rather than taking the easy route out and bringing up problems with evolution which require lengthy explanations to explain why your point doesn't suffice.

The thing I have against copy and pasting articles is that too much material exist on the internet to support arguments. I could probably compile a 600 page book on the existence of the santa clause just from Google searches in one night, and if someone else is going to prove me wrong, they'd have to waste time competing with an endless source. It'll help the debate along if you could actually shorten it into a more concise form of information.

Here's the refutation to your polonium point.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

And if modern theories are indeed proven false? What good will that do to support the truth in Christianity? We arrive once again at the problem that there lack any sort of solid scientific proof for your religion. As proponents of Christianity, you should be more focused on finding evidence to support your beliefs, rather than taking the easy route out and bringing up problems with evolution which require lengthy explanations to explain why your point doesn't suffice.

The thing I have against copy and pasting articles is that too much material exist on the internet to support arguments. I could probably compile a 600 page book on the existence of the santa clause just from Google searches in one night, and if someone else is going to prove me wrong, they'd have to waste time competing with an endless source. It'll help the debate along if you could actually shorten it into a more concise form of information.

Here's the refutation to your polonium point.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html


Umm...evolution came up, so I started to discuss it. And if modern theories are disproven, maybe some will believe in a sort of God. That's good news to me.

As Christians, there are many things that hurt our arguments, because of a lack of knowledge. But we do have one defense, and that is me telling you that you cannot prove there is a God with scientific proof if you think about it.

Two more things. That link you sent me doesn't look like a refutation. Looks like about 100,000+ words that I can't take the time to read. Please summarize their point and send it here.

Secondly, what about the other point I made about the lack of civilization 10,000 years ago?

Oh, and like I said before, I'm not going to argue that hard, neither should you. I am never going to change my views, ever. Ever. :P

Edit: Gotank, you had better watch it. You seem to be faltering in your beliefs. You need to speak firmly when making an argument.

Hehe, that's precisely the point, you pulled out an article that proposed one thing, I pulled out another article that refuted that point. Do we care what the article says? Perhaps, perhaps not. This is going to be the trend of which this thread is turning to if we continue to just search Google and post random articles.


As Christians, there are many things that hurt our arguments, because of a lack of knowledge. But we do have one defense, and that is me telling you that you cannot prove there is a God with scientific proof if you think about it.
I am a little confused at that statement, are you saying that we can't disprove the existence of God? Well, of course not. Your god doesn't really abide by the limitations of logic from what I can see. And if that is correct, then there is an infinitely great number of possible other gods that warrant just as much belief as the current Christian one does now.

Back to disproving evolution: Any individual that immediately turn to supernatural beliefs when their current theories are falsified is fundamentally lacking in logic. It's not a binary system that exist to explain nature, religion or evolution. That's just two of the many many possibilities that exist. So even if one is found to be false, the other one doesn't necessarily have to be true. In fact, it doesn't even improve the possibility of the other one being true, only repeated experimentation improve that probability.

Sorry, I will be off for the night I think. It was nice debating with you in such a 'flame-free' way =)

Actually, let's flip the tables and discuss other religions or something lol. The only reason I'm arguing here is to hopefully get people to question whether or not God exists and if science can really be totally true. As of right now, we could go back and forth making points and refuting them (I still say I'm one up with that lack of civilization one though :D).

And I'm also glad that you were flame-free, that makes me do this :D

Secondly, what about the other point I made about the lack of civilization 10,000 years ago?


And what about the proof of civilization 40,000 years ago? I'll get the source if you need it, but I saw it on a national geographic/history channel type video in history class the other day.

Okay. Quick question:

According to Christian documents, God made man in his image, right? Which image: mental/spiritual or physical?

If it's mental, then we are on the same plane as him. If it is physical, since a hippo can kick a human's ass, a hippo is superior to God.

What?

Lol, we can snipe a hippo from 500 yards away.

Lol, we can snipe a hippo from 500 yards away.

People make snipy things. The physical aspect of a human does not consist of hippo-snipers.

My thoughts (which are dripping with ignorance because the idea of god is too ludicrous in my mind for me to bother looking into it) are that by "God made man in his image.", they mean god looks like a human. This then raises the question of whether god is supposed to be a man or a woman. (S)he supposedly created both. Is (s)he a hermaphrodite?

Out of all the animals that are more physically fit than a human, you pick... a hippopotamus?

My thoughts (which are dripping with ignorance because the idea of god is too ludicrous in my mind for me to bother looking into it) are that by "God made man in his image.", they mean god looks like a human. This then raises the question of whether god is supposed to be a man or a woman. (S)he supposedly created both. Is (s)he a hermaphrodite?

Wow.... never thought of God in that way before.... amazing in how you think about things
But isn't God like Jesus's father, and father means "a male parent" (i actually searched that up on dictionary.com) so.... i think God is a man


Out of all the animals that are more physically fit than a human, you pick... a hippopotamus?

HAHAHA!!! XD Hippos are freakin cool... but i would've chose a lion or something

Wow.... never thought of God in that way before.... amazing in how you think about things
But isn't God like Jesus's father, and father means "a male parent" (i actually searched that up on dictionary.com) so.... i think God is a man.

But God didn't actually have sex with Mary. She was just "magically" pregnant one day. What if people are just assuming that since Mary was a woman, God has to be a man? Nobody has seen God (so you -know- (s)he's real), so who could possibly know?

But God didn't actually have sex with Mary. She was just "magically" pregnant one day. What if people are just assuming that since Mary was a woman, God has to be a man? Nobody has seen God (so you -know- (s)he's real), so who could possibly know?

Well, i guess you have a point there, if you put it in that way...
So does that mean that he is either a male and female or is he neither of them
But then.... you do realise that most people think/imagine God as a man, i mean even movies show God as a man, (you know with the deep voice and all)
Like Bruce Almighty (that was on tv in Australia recently:)), the character that was playing God was a male
So,why do most people believe that God is a man?

Out of all the animals that are more physically fit than a human, you pick... a hippopotamus?

Hippo's a fun word.

Well, i guess you have a point there, if you put it in that way...
So does that mean that he is either a male and female or is he neither of them
But then.... you do realise that most people think/imagine God as a man, i mean even movies show God as a man, (you know with the deep voice and all)
Like Bruce Almighty (that was on tv in Australia recently:)), the character that was playing God was a male
So,why do most people believe that God is a man?

Up until about 30-40 years ago, all women were allowed to do was cook, clean and get pregnant. Any guy who ran around 2000 years ago spouting nonsense about a woman being the creator of all things would have been laughted at. ...then stoned to death. These days he'd be thrown in an institution either way.

And have you ever seen Dogma? God is a woman there. :P ...at least I'm pretty sure Alanis Morissette is a woman. :\

Side note: If God or Jesus ever did show up and walked around saying "Thy lord hath returned! Worship me!", would you get on your knees and pray? Or whip out the pepper spray?

Up until about 30-40 years ago, all women were allowed to do was cook, clean and get pregnant. Any guy who ran around 2000 years ago spouting nonsense about a woman being the creator of all things would have been laughted at. ...then stoned to death. These days he'd be thrown in an institution either way.

And have you ever seen Dogma? God is a woman there. :P ...at least I'm pretty sure Alanis Morissette is a woman. :\

Side note: If God or Jesus ever did show up and walked around saying "Thy lord hath returned! Worship me!", would you get on your knees and pray? Or whip out the pepper spray?

True true... women were seen as nothing until now, but even now... in this modern society, there are some things that men still believe women cannot do...
Anyways, i havent seen Dogma yet :\
but Alanis Morissette looks pretty much like a woman to me, unless i cant tell the difference between a man and a woman :lol:
And the "Thy lord hath returned! Worship me!" thingy.... RUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Btw... i have always been wondering about this but never knew if i should ask or not
People that human worship.... do they understand all languages? :unsure:

Actually, let's flip the tables and discuss other religions or something lol.No.

Please defend your "Scientific Fact" #1.

Please, people. Stop shooting useless posts between good posts.

Religion is a lot like sport.
There is always a winner somewhere but the new season is always approaching.

And what about the proof of civilization 40,000 years ago? I'll get the source if you need it, but I saw it on a national geographic/history channel type video in history class the other day.

I will listen to it, but they probably don't really know how old it is. You know they're coming back and saying that chimpanzees might not be 99 percent like us? It might only be 90 percent. Just shows that everyone makes mistakes. But I will listen if you post the source :D

Oh, and I just remembered. This is supposed to be a discussion about religion, not evolution or all the ways God can't exist. So I'd like to ask a question for people who know about Christianity. Does anyone know how the dinosaurs fit in with major religions such as Christianity?

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/wuis-cem040207.php
There ya are, you can find the original article listed below the article. There are plenty of contacts there for you to email or message if you doubt the validness of the article. There are also the authors of the article listed if you would like to research them as well.

Of course, this isn't proof of civilization, but it is proof that there were humans that long ago. This wasn't what I was actually thinking of. The video I watched talked about an actual small village in South America, or something along those lines. They found many things because they were preserved between some rocks or another, I don't remember the exact details. If you want a source on this as well, I'll look, but I won't spend more than ten minutes on it >.>

Oh, and I just remembered. This is supposed to be a discussion about religion, not evolution or all the ways God can't exist. So I'd like to ask a question for people who know about Christianity. Does anyone know how the dinosaurs fit in with major religions such as Christianity?

I'm not sure I understand your question, but i'll try :3


The dinosuars where created like any other animal. When the flood came Noah took some of the dinosaurs (creationists believe they were young dinosuars that could easily fit in the ark) with him.
But after the flood the world was a much harsher place. Its possible many dinosuars couldn't survive and became extinct.

I find it interesting that in the book of Job it talks about a Behemoth(Is that how its spelled?), which is a type of dinosuar. That would be awesome to walk out your door one day and see some giant dinosaur eating your vineyard xD

Anyway, some people believe we still have dinosuars around. Like the Lochness monster, they think that could be some sort of dinosuar.
I've also read somewhere that some fishermen fished up a dead, partly rotted fish thing. They think that might have been a dinosuar too.

Nope, don't believe it Asuka. How did they date it?

Again, send them an e-mail and ask them. It is more than a valid source. Supported by, Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Department of Anthropology and Washington University in St. Louis. They did their research, why don't you do yours?
Further more, all three of them would get into serious trouble if they published a false article.

Lol, from what I know, there is no good way to date things. They can't be absolutely sure. I've got this rock here, and I say it's 50,000 years old.

When I have more time, I'll find the problems with dating methods.

The difference between your rock and their skeleton is that they actually tested it to a point in a 3500 year range. Though, if you disagree with their date, why don't you go and test it yourself? I'm sure you know many better ways to test fossils than what they have been using. Proving something wrong isn't just saying that they are wrong, you have to provide the right answer, otherwise your response is just as questionably wrong.

Shicoco, are you not willing or are you incapable of defending your "Scientific Fact" #1?

The difference between your rock and their skeleton is that they actually tested it to a point in a 3500 year range. Though, if you disagree with their date, why don't you go and test it yourself? I'm sure you know many better ways to test fossils than what they have been using. Proving something wrong isn't just saying that they are wrong, you have to provide the right answer, otherwise your response is just as questionably wrong.

There is no good way to test it. There are controversies about dating items. But, have to go eat, no time now.

Dark Bring, fact number 1 defends itself lol. I put up the claim, you refuted it with another claim. It's your choice which claim you want to believe from there :D

Shicoco, are you not willing or are you incapable of defending your "Scientific Fact" #1?
The answer to that question is laughably obvious.
It's the former, because of the latter. ;)

Dark Bring, fact number 1 defends itself lol. I put up the claim, you refuted it with another claim. It's your choice which claim you want to believe from there
Yes, he refuted your ridiculous assertion. Now you need to give him a valid retort, otherwise you lose the argument, and we'll all keep on laughing at the idea of God behind your back. You don't want that, do you?
Matt also wrote a very in depth post on how all of your "scientific facts" were hilariously wrong. It's incredibly disappointing that you chose to ignore it, though I'm sure your selective hearing is very convenient to you as a hardcore Christian.

Please start actually answering peoples arguments in an intelligent manner, citing your sources and making sure your "facts" are actual facts. If you can't do this, then stop wasting everybody's time; people are putting effort into their posts, and you're just coming back and saying things like "you'll never change my mind lol! Your logics have no effect on me!" or "dating methods are flawed! I offer no proof of this whatsoever, so just take my absurd word on it, even though I clearly have no idea what I'm talking about!"
Of course, I paraphrased at bit while quoting you. The paraphrasing was done for comedic effect, and because reading your arguments has not only lowered my faith in humanity, but in the very existence of God himself.

To be blunt, I don't think you're very good at debating with people.
I also find it alarming that you said that "you'll never change your view on these subjects," and that "you're only posting here to make people think that maybe science is wrong and that God exists."

Didn't Angelic mention something earlier in the thread about banning you if you used this forum as a place to preach your unfounded beliefs to people? I think he did; let me dig up a few quotes.
Well, what do you know!

Angelic:

People like you are the reason I hate religion threads. If I even get the idea you're trying to use these forums as a platform to convert people, you're out, gone and done for. Just keep that in mind.
You:

Umm...evolution came up, so I started to discuss it. And if modern theories are disproven, maybe some will believe in a sort of God. That's good news to me.

Actually, let's flip the tables and discuss other religions or something lol. The only reason I'm arguing here is to hopefully get people to question whether or not God exists and if science can really be totally true.

And please remember, you cannot argue against me using stuff like, "This was likely a result of non-disjunction. Yet the rat suffers no survival disadvantage." I don't believe in evolution, so I don't care how it affects its survival.

I'm not saying you should be banned. I'm just saying that I wouldn't be too surprised if you were.
Logic and Reason win again! Justice will always triumph in the end! Etc, etc. :3
I hope you don't get banned though. Just please be more reasonable when you argue.

*curses HopelessComposer for making me resurrect this account*

Okay boys and girls, a few quick things:
1) I'm Catholic.
2) I'm not one for pushing my ideas on others (I won't "try to save you" if you don't ask me to.), but I'll discuss them calmly.
3) I'll respect your beliefs/ ideas *if* (and apparently that's an enormous qualifier) you can somewhat reasonably defend them and not write off everyone else's.

Now for the reason I'm here. *sigh/ deep breath*

I would like to refer Shicoco, him being a Catholic like myself, to the writings of Popes Pius XII, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Mainly because Catholics are all about the Pope. ^_^

In 1950 Pius XII wrote the encyclical (Papal letter) Humani Generis in which he took a neutral position to evolution, but did acknowledge it as a scientific theory. Catholics could essentially decide whether or not to believe/ accept it, but he urged that they do so carefully and thoughtfully. Fast forward about 50 years to 1996. Pope John Paul II affirmed the legitimacy and acceptance of evolution by the Roman Catholic Church. Simply: evolution and Catholicism are not in conflict. Not only that, but he said that the evidence and findings from multiple scientific fields over the course of preceding decades "...lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis..." Under Pope Benedict VXI, the Church has goen to scientists on matters such as the age of the earth, the reliability of the fossil record and *dun dun dunnnnnn* evolution, the gradual appearance of life. In 2004, Benedict, then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote the following paragraph in a statement.



"According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution."

As for science and God...you're just better off not going down that road. It's a rather beaten one. You cannot prove God's (Allah, YHWH, "some kind of perfect being" work as well) existence using reason, but you also cannot disprove God's existence using reason. Saint Thomas Aquinas did a damn respectable job at reconciling the two (faith and reason) in his Summa Theologiae, but in the end it comes down to the level of one's faith. Whether you're willing to believe in something that cannot be proven to exist.

And here's some reading for those of you that are interested. They're some short articles from Scientific American.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist)

Darwin on the Right (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=darwin-on-the-right)

As for man being "made in the image of God," it doesn't mean that God (the Father) is human or human looking. It means that people have souls. At least, that's according to what I know/ have learned.

And that was Ryan, people. Let's all give him a small round of applause. He's a good guy, really. He enjoys DoD and arguing with people. He's pretty good at both of them.
Okaaaaay, onto our next scheduled speaker of the night...

That's fairly interesting actually. I think by knowing that highly religious figures are not closed to reason, I respect them a little more.

But let's step aside for a moment from the truth and validity of science and religion.
Lately I've been reading alot of Richard Dawkins, and a more important question exist for me. The effects of religion on our society.

Some things to consider:
Various studies have concluded that individuals with a strong sense of spirituality/religious beliefs tend to have a longer life expectancy, and have greater satisfaction in life.
On the other hand, many wars in the history of humanity have been fought in the name of religion.

And along with that question, also these.
If the preachings of religion are proven false, yet the existence of religion has a positive effect on humanity, should it remain a part of our society?
Of course, the opposite also applies.
Discuss.

Moved from General Chat

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJJV9tH3XJw

http://youtube.com/watch?v=SQKbHBqDwSI

Opinions?
Odd place to ask I know... but theres a few people in here bound to have rather interesting ones. (opinions/stances..w/e)

Well clearly something to do with /b/
I dunno what to say. It seems legal so far but it seems like a load of bull poop.
the first vid shows that the second vid is a pack of lies.

How does it? As far as I saw there was no violence there, the person interviewd mentioned Scientology being above the law... not taking sides here, just askin around.

They are against scientology and deny them the right to exist. Just because they arn't using violence doesn't mean they are allowing the religion to be worshiped publically. This is very much against the human rights mentioned in vid #2

100 protesters have marched from victoria square to the Scientology headquarters in (Waymark?) street.

The internet group known as anonymous wore masks and carried signs attacking Scientology's controversial views about Psychology and labeled it a cult.

They're also protesting against the Church of Scientology's (word I cant understand, bid perhaps?) to have a leaked video of Tom Cruise pushing the religion removed from the internet.

Interview:

This is also about censorship, Scientology using the law and lawsuits to constantly try to censor people from speaking out against them.

/Interview

The Church of Scientology says Anonymous is a cyber-terrorist group of religious bigots.

Erm.. as far as I can tell, they are speaking out against how the church of scientology is censoring other peoples opinions, and their legal action against them.

At no point in the video did I hear anything against the religion itself, or its right to exist, rather the way the religion's (IDK if this is the appropiate term..) administration is going about defending itself.

Well you can either go play in the religion thread or you can go to places such as 4chan to hear from anon and go to scientology forums for the counter claims.

Anon are fat, basement dwelling nerds while science people are arrogent block heads.

Nothing will change between the to teams so all we can do is sit back and wathc them slag each other off for centuries to come.

Well you can either go play in the religion thread or you can go to places such as 4chan to hear from anon and go to scientology forums for the counter claims.

Stop playing mod O_o.


Anon are fat, basement dwelling nerds while science people are arrogent block heads.

if Interview and video are any indication... yer wrong (atleast) on anons physical appearence.


Nothing will change between the to teams so all we can do is sit back and wathc them slag each other off for centuries to come.

Wow..thats just...kind of sad.

Dark Bring, fact number 1 defends itself lol. I put up the claim, you refuted it with another claim.I did not refute your claim. I am asking you to back up your claim with sources and evidence.

Can you back up your claims with sources and evidence?

Um, how many times must I say these are not my arguments? Dark Bring came back with his reply, what more do you want from me? I wasn't under the impression this was a contest, so I am done with that topic. If you want my source, type in fact #1 into google.

Dark Bring also ignored my other post. This is supposed to be a discussion. I'd like to discuss religion in this thread, like we're supposed to. Maybe everyone should look at Gotank's posts. I don't mind debating like that; Gotank is polite, but firm.

Gotank: That is true, many wars have been based on religion. I think everyone knows about the Crusades. Nasty, useless war if you ask me. If it weren't for the Crusades, Muslims wouldn't hate us today.

Also, I was going to mention that. If nothing else, religion has created nice people in the world. That's worth something even if you don't believe in religion. And learning that religious people have longer life expectancies is pretty cool, where'd you get that info?

So, if they are not your arguments, you plagiarized. You showed no sources for the arguments (if you did, please direct me to it in your post) and you also showed no source for the actual argument itself. Those are not arguments shicoco, they are just ramblings, most likely from some bored kid like yourself.

Some things to consider:
Various studies have concluded that individuals with a strong sense of spirituality/religious beliefs tend to have a longer life expectancy, and have greater satisfaction in life.
On the other hand, many wars in the history of humanity have been fought in the name of religion.

I see the point you're making, but I think I have to make a distinction for clarity's sake (or at least for my own understanding). Are we talking about "people" in the 20th & 21st centuries, or "people" in general? If it's the former, which would be easier to find data for, it might be a combination of their sense of spiritual purpose and modern medicine. For example, in the 14th century Europeans had a pretty low life expectancy regardless of whether they had a religion or not (famine, plague and the population outgrowing its food production capabilities). :heh:

As far as wars go, quite a few have been "in the name of religion." I agree with that. However, I feel more like they were land-grabs using religion as an excuse. Sort of an "I'm going to take all your stuff but I'll help you get into Heaven/ the afterlife, so it doesn't matter, right?" type of deal. If anything, the Crusades, 30-Years' War and 100-Year's War (among others :cry:) show how two religions being literally at war and how military action, using religion as some form of guidance, can go horribly, unspeakably wrong. ::coughTheChildren'sCrusadecough:: ::coughTheyAllWereSoldIntoSlaverycough::



If the preachings of religion are proven false, yet the existence of religion has a positive effect on humanity, should it remain a part of our society?

I don't really think you can prove religion false, let alone how one would do so but I'll bite. I tend to see people who are "spiritual" instead "religious" as agnostics. Thinking there is or might be God/ a higher power/ a perfect being but not at the stage to "settle down" (lol) and pick a religion. Or perhaps they just have a healthy distrust of organized religion. Regardless, those people tend to live according to a moral code the incorporates the Noahide Laws, Ten Commandments and Qur'an. Specifically what they say about one's relationships with other people: not committing murder, adultery, theft, lying etc. And besides those laws there are other principles that integrate well into society, such as donating to charity. I think we have to recognize that while one can be moral and not-religious, they generally live according to a moral code that is originally religious in nature. Therefore religion should remain part of society even though proven false. If not, it would most likely be replaced with some kind of blanket spirituality.



Of course, the opposite also applies.


This sort of confused me. :unsure: Do you mean that if one particular, or religion in general is proven to be true, it should remain part of society? Or a particular sect of an overarching religion? Baptist Christianity over Mormonism for example. Either way this would be interesting, with regards to religious tolerance. Let's say that one particular religion is proven to be true, that would necessarily mean that the others are false to an extent. Islam being proven "correct" would validate quite a lot of Jewish and Christian principles as they share the same basis in Abraham and Islam recognizes Moses and Jesus (though as a prophet, not the Son of God). It would not change the attitude of the followers of the "proven" religion, since they already believed that their religion was true. The most major shift would be by those in the "wrong" religions.

Does this mean that everyone should/ must convert to the now certifiably true religion? No. If for no other reason than one's religion is seen as a personal choice in liberal (read: freedom securing) countries. Forcing someone to convert to a religion is completely different from converting to the religion on one's own. Maybe that's why people so dislike being preached to. <_<

Shicoco, you can back up your claims with evidence, or you can withdraw them. It is as simple as that.


Gotank: That is true, many wars have been based on religion. I think everyone knows about the Crusades. Nasty, useless war if you ask me. If it weren't for the Crusades, Muslims wouldn't hate us today.

Also, I was going to mention that. If nothing else, religion has created nice people in the world.
With or without religion you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

Gotank: That is true, many wars have been based on religion. I think everyone knows about the Crusades. Nasty, useless war if you ask me. If it weren't for the Crusades, Muslims wouldn't hate us today.

:frusty:

Actually, the Crusades were useful. They brought Europe out of the Dark Ages. When the Crusaders returned, the brought with them the Greek mathematics, science and philosophy (Plato) the Muslims had been developing while Europe was intellectually backsliding as a whole from the fall of the Roman Empire. If not for the Crusades, the Renaissance would have occurred much later. I don't want to say it wouldn't have happened at all if not for the Crusades, so I'll stick with much, much later.

As for "Muslims hating us today" I think you need to qualify this. All Muslims, or the religiously extreme ones (Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda )? I think you also need to develop what you mean by "us." Christians? America? Europe? Western society? The entire non-Muslim world? It's also much deeper than blaming the Crusades for the "hate". Those extreme groups, in addition to a...rather substantial...disagreement, shall we say, with United States foreign policy see Western culture (especially American culture) as corrupt and morally bankrupt. In their own perverse and violent way, they are attempting to prevent the Muslim world from becoming the same. While it's hard to argue for isolation with effects such as globalization, technology advancements and economics integrating more of the world together, one might ask if the goal of keeping a culture pure of the rest of the world is even possible if not hopelessly naive.

Dark Bring: As much as I dislike that quote there is some truth to it. If I could rephrase it, I would say that those good people doing evil things would need a rather substantial amount of arrogance in addition to not following their religion correctly.

Well, we don't have a national religion, but most know that America was founded by Christians, and many in American do label themselves as Christians.

The Crusades might have been useful in those respects, but we also murdered. Not all muslims hate us (America), but many of the extreme groups do, and this is partly as a result from the Crusades.

Oh, and everyone, there is no way I can win an argument. Science is backed up by solid earthly evidence, the kind humans readily accept. Christianity is not backed up by solid evidence, so this makes it much harder for me to debate :(

And no Asuka, that is not plagiarism lol. I am not claiming the work to be my own, nor am I publishing someone else's work. Nor was the work I used copyrighted, or from a published work.

:kfloat:

:frusty:

Actually, the Crusades were useful. They brought Europe out of the Dark Ages. When the Crusaders returned, the brought with them the Greek mathematics, science and philosophy (Plato) the Muslims had been developing while Europe was intellectually backsliding as a whole from the fall of the Roman Empire. If not for the Crusades, the Renaissance would have occurred much later. I don't want to say it wouldn't have happened at all if not for the Crusades, so I'll stick with much, much later.

If the Church didn't decide to stop the progression to technology through censorship, we wouldn't have needed the renaissance.

I was just attempting to make the point that the Crusades, while indeed horrific and misguided, were not entirely useless. Your point is a valid one though. The Church had the financing and political power to prevent such progress, one of the issues of giving a religion "state-sponsored" status as the Roman Empire did. Just for reference purposes, and for other people who may not be as familiar with that time period, could you give a few short examples? I wouldn't want other people to be entirely clueless as to what we're going on about. :)

Well, we don't have a national religion, but most know that America was founded by Christians, and many in American do label themselves as Christians.

The founding fathers were deists, although most of the original population were Puritans escaping the British oppression of their religion.


Oh, and everyone, there is no way I can win an argument. Science is backed up by solid earthly evidence, the kind humans readily accept. Christianity is not backed up by solid evidence, so this makes it much harder for me to debate :(

If you can't win the argument, I think that means you're wrong.

Prove it :D

Moved from General Chat

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJJV9tH3XJw

http://youtube.com/watch?v=SQKbHBqDwSI

Opinions?
Odd place to ask I know... but theres a few people in here bound to have rather interesting ones. (opinions/stances..w/e)

Chaser's War on Everything -- Free Gullibility Test (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBDDOMfcx8I) ;)


The founding fathers were deists, although most of the original population were Puritans escaping the British oppression of their religion.Indeed, some of the founding fathers even disliked organised Christian religion (Thomas Jefferson comes to mind).


Prove it :DProve what? That most of the founding fathers were deists or that your arguments are wrong? The former I can prove to you by quoting them, the latter I already did.

"Here it is that the religion of Deism is superior to the Christian Religion. It is free from all those invented and torturing articles that shock our reason or injure our humanity, and with which the Christian religion abounds. Its creed is pure, and sublimely simple. It believes in God, and there it rests." ---Thomas Paine, "Of The Religion Of Deism Compared With The Christian Religion"

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" --- John Adams, letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816

"The truth is, that the greatest enemies of the doctrine of Jesus are those, calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them to the structure of a system of fancy, absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come, when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." --- Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, Apr. 11, 1823

"It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet that the one is not three, and the three are not one. But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests." --- Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1803

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." --- James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785

"Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." --- James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785

Ok, that looks like everyone that has something to say to me.

Now, what was it Gotank was talking about?

Wispy, where are you? It's like 10 against one here.

I wouldn't mind taking on 10 theists :3 Of course many people will disagree with you when you make "hit and run"-arguments. Copying arguments from random websites, which you:

1) did not write
2) haven't thought about
and 3) can't defend (because of point 1 and 2)

Not to mention that you have failed to provide your sources.

You also didn't respond to any of our rebuttals. Not a single: "Oh, I may be wrong on this issue." for things that are obviously wrong, like your interpretation of evolution (you did not respond to my comment, that evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang and Abiogenesis and for heaven's sake, the formation of granite!)

It's a very senseless way of arguing. Or rather, it isn't arguing at all. Normally you argue because you want to further your own knowledge, practise your argumentation-skills and your logical reasoning. You have to research your own position and the position of your opponent to make informed arguments. Hit-and-runs defeat this whole purpose.


Edit: We don't mean to gang up on your or anything. We are just trying to make a factual point about your way of "arguing" and in no way mean to attack your person.

Source = type it into google, and the site will come up :D
I never have time to write, plus I have dialup, so finding info is slow. That will change though in two weeks.

Now, are you done? This thread is on religion, a discussion. I really don't want to hear more from you. But ten bucks says you'll come back and say something like, "You don't want hear any more because you know you're wrong."

Now, bring up another argument based on religion, and I will discuss this with you.

So what you've just said is you didn't look up any information and made personal claims about the subject.

So we've clarified you've just posted opinions about how you feel and that this information holds true to only your authority.

Forgot about you M. Ok, maybe you're the last one who hasn't ragged on me yet. No, none of the things I posted are my opinions.

If they are not your opinions, then they are someone elses opinions. Clearly, there was no fact in any of your "10 arguments". If there was a fact, it was not a valid fact because there was no source, thus not making it a fact at all, but another opinion.

Forgot about you M. Ok, maybe you're the last one who hasn't ragged on me yet. No, none of the things I posted are my opinions.
... we don't "rag" on you. I'd call it constructive criticism.

PS: back to topic?

Ok. I call it ragging. It doesn't matter. This thread is not about criticizing or ragging on anyone, so can we please get back to discussing religion?


If they are not your opinions, then they are someone elses opinions. Clearly, there was no fact in any of your "10 arguments". If there was a fact, it was not a valid fact because there was no source, thus not making it a fact at all, but another opinion.

Asuka, you can do better than this. I think others will agree that this doesn't make much sense.

Then there isn't any fact in your arguments either, as there isn't any source. You don't need a source for it to be valid. If Wikipedia posts something that says the sky is green, it doesn't mean it's true.

There also is no fact in evolution by natural selection then; as it is just a theory, as there isn't any in the science facts I listed.

Actually, they are both facts. Those science facts I posted are facts. And you seem to not know the definition of Fact and Opinion.

Facts: Things that can be proven true or false.
Opinions: Someone's thoughts on something; subjective.

"The moon is bigger than the sun," is a FACT.
"The moon is a pretty shade of white," is an OPINION.

What you posted makes little sense and holds little truth. Try again.

Ok everyone, I posted these ten facts for discussion. Let's discuss them :D
I've heard some refutes, some good ones too :D, let's discuss those too.

And no Asuka, that is not plagiarism lol. I am not claiming the work to be my own, nor am I publishing someone else's work. Nor was the work I used copyrighted, or from a published work.

:kfloat:

(Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarize)

Main Entry:pla·gia·rize
Pronunciation: \ˈplā-jə-ˌrīz also -jē-ə-\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): pla·gia·rized; pla·gia·riz·ing
Etymology: plagiary
Date: 1716

transitive verb : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source

It counts as plagiarizing unless you specifically cite the source within your argument. You can't just give information and tell the reader to look for it on google, its "disrespecting" the source and that also constitutes as plagiarism.

removed

Shicoco, could you post the website where you found those "10 Scientific Facts." Just for my own perusal?

As for the facts themselves, I would like to refer you to this (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist&page=1) webpage. It's an article that contains 15 points, and it addresses all ten of those facts to some extent. The 2006 book Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design by Michael Shermer also addresses those 10 facts (although to a larger and more in-depth extent).

Whatever side of the evolution-creation issue someone falls on they might enjoy, at the very least, the chapter entitled "Why Science Cannot Contradict Religion."


Since the scientific revolution, however, science has taken over the job of explaining the natural world, making obsolete ancient religious sagas of origin and creation. Yet religion thrives in the modern age because it still serves a useful purpose as in institution for social cohesiveness and as a guide for finding personal meaning and spirituality, a function that science has left largely untouched.

Also in the chapter, Shermer offers up the "A is A" principle, that "reality is real." If you were to use science (nature) to explain religion (supernatural) you would be violating that principle.


Believers can have both religion and science as long as there is no attempt to make A non-A, to make reality unreal, to turn naturalism into supernaturalism. Thus, the most logically coherent argument for theists is that God is outside time and space; that is, God is beyond nature-super nature, or supernatural-and therefore cannot be explained by natural causes. God is beyond the domain of science, and science is outside the realm of God.

Or if you want, you can look at science and religion as being two ways of examining the same reality, which is a mainstream way of saying "they're both right" or "they're both not wrong." The Dalai Lama and Pope John Paul II apparently thought you could use both science and religion in order to get a better understanding of the universe. ^_^ So I don't think it's so much a matter of "people ragging on religion" as it is them preferring to use science to explain the origins of the world over religion and myth.

As far as theories go though, evolution by natural selection is more scientifically plausible than Creationsism/ Intelligent Design is.

Ok, I was specifically asked for the source. I really didn't know that people actually wanted the source. Dark Bring said "Cite your sources", I'm sorry, I just thought he liked things cited.

http://www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm

Edit: I'm sorry, I can't read this article. "Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy. "

This article is biased, and not written in an objective manner, therefore I can't tell if anything in it will be true.

HOWEVER, before you get mad, I WILL (and have) read others if they are more objective.

You really do have to read the entire article to determine if it is biased. I could make the same argument about the biblelife website...


Anyone that says he accepts the Theory of Evolution, and also claims he believes in God, is a liar.

...but I'm reading it because I want to better understand the viewpoint and the arguments the site is making.

As far as the quote you pulled out of the article goes, I'll respond with one I found on the link you provided.


Life did not start with a bolt of lightning striking a pond of water as claimed by evolutionists. That is pure childish fantasy. Evolution is simply a myth.

If anything, just skip the first 4 paragraphs of the article because they're an editorial introduction. I've never really been one to care what editors think. ^^;

Ok, but I have gone through a lot of the article, and it has not answered any of the ten questions.

But here, I will show you a way they are biased. Here is a quote from the article: The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young.

They didn't make a point. They didn't state facts, they just stated what they think could have caused the origin of life. They are stepping around a main point. If they were objective, they might have included the fact that scientists have never, ever witnessed the creation of life. Instead, they keep saying stuff like biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry.

The biblelife article presents facts, that one can easily read and either qualify or refute.


Anyone that says he accepts the Theory of Evolution, and also claims he believes in God, is a liar. This isn't biased towards one view. If I said that this quote came from a pro-evolution website, that would be believable.

They didn't make a point. They didn't state facts, they just stated what they think could have caused the origin of life. They are stepping around a main point. If they were objective, they might have included the fact that scientists have never, ever witnessed the creation of life.


In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.

Edit: I'm sorry, I can't read this article. "Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy. "

This article is biased, and not written in an objective manner, therefore I can't tell if anything in it will be true.

HOWEVER, before you get mad, I WILL (and have) read others if they are more objective.
To be honest, I'm disappointed (not mad). If you are so timid as to refuse to read criticism (or only that criticism that you find appropriate), it's what you call close mindedness. Have you read the actual arguments that they make on the website? How then, can you judge whether they are biased or objective? The Scientific American is a popular science journal. It is science that you criticise and yet you refuse to read the points they make, because they are biased against your opinion? The scientific community is, of course, biased. What do you expect? But the points they make here are based on objective evidence. Science isn't a democratic system as I said before (and to which, of course, you haven't responded), but a meritocracy. You don't vote for your favourite theory, but for the one that has merit. Creationists, however, instead of doing peer-review research to support their view and gain respect in the scientific community, they decided to by-pass the scientific consensus and try to inject their teachings directly into the curriculum and politics.

EDIT: I wrote this before you wrote the second post. Apparently, you've read some of it now.

This thread is very depressing. = \
I applaud your continued efforts, Matt and Ryan. ;)
Your patience is amazing.

The fossil records and other abundant evidence does not truly show that organisms have evolved through time.

Someone mentioned earlier that people with religios affiliations have longer, happier lives. That is good evidence, so does that prove that God exists?

Here is another reason why you can't believe that article.

Here is a statement found in the article:
Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.

And here is how they refute it:
Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities. Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving "desirable" (adaptive) features and eliminating "undesirable" (nonadaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times.

Lol, they didn't refute it at all! They two-stepped around the whole thing!

So now I ask the audience to refute it themselves, or with another source.

Matt, Hopeless, Knight: I am sorry if it seems that I am close-minded. Give me an objective source, and I will read their point of view, and discuss that:D

Edit: I wrote this before I read your post up there, Matt.

Edit2: Thank you for being more understanding, Matt:D:D

Edit3: Would you believe a source like this?

You have to go to the next page to get the rest of the explanation...


As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE." Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days.

That's an example of how chance, over a period of time, could "accidentally" create something as complex as a protein.

"The moon is bigger than the sun," is a FACT.

LOL, THEY DIDN'T REFUTE IT AT ALL! They two-stepped around the whole thing!

So now I ask the audience to refute it themselves, or with another source.
/facepalm.
Creationists are the last people on this planet who should accuse others of "two-stepping" arguments. Especially you. You haven't answered one god damned argument in this whole thread. You just keep on saying random shit, and ignoring any answers people give you. I'm amazed that the people debating with you have enough resilience to keep this stupid game going.
Edit: lol @ DB. I'm pretty sure that's far from his most ridiculous statement. You picked a decent one though, at least. XD

This is an ancient sign, but I think it sums up this thread quite well at the moment...
http://www.acorscadden.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/science_vs_faith.jpg
I can't even count how many times I've posted this in this thread. I think it's around five.
Shicoco's already said two things, guys. He's said that the only reason he's arguing here is to make people believe in God, and he's said that we won't change his mind about what he believes. I don't really see what the point of arguing with him is anymore. = \

lol DarkBring. XD

Here is another reason why you can't believe that article.

Here is a statement found in the article:
Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.
And here is how they refute it:

Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities. Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving "desirable" (adaptive) features and eliminating "undesirable" (nonadaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times.
Lol, they didn't refute it at all! They two-stepped around the whole thing!
What part about that explanation do you fail to understand? Seriously, it's OBVIOUS. It's LOGICAL. Please, try to think about it.

mutation = random -> sometimes good / sometimes bad / most often neutral
natural selection = SELECTIVE -> NOT RANDOM -> the non-random survival of random mutations -> overall the good changes survive, the bad ones don't. So how the hell is evolution random??? Seriously, Hopeless complimented me for my patience, but it's running out.

EDIT: It's late (at least here in Germany), and the discussion almost turned into a chat. I'll be back for comments later.

HopelessComposer:

You can't just "make someone believe in God" though. I can make you believe an atom bomb can level a city, kill thousands of people, and kill more people later via radiation and cancer. I can't prove that God exists using the same tactic of providing objective, falsifiable evidence though.

You can't just "make someone believe in God" though. I can make you believe an atom bomb can level a city, kill thousands of people, and kill more people later via radiation and cancer. I can't prove that God exists using objective, falsifiable evidence though.
Of course you can prove to me that atom bombs kill people - my pathetic brain is prone to falling for logic and evidence! It sucks to be this way, but I can't help it!
And of course, you can't prove that God exists. You can pretend that you can though, and some people love to do so.

Dark Bring, it is a fact, a false fact, but still a fact.

Um, hopeless, I can probably find a diagram like that that is from the religious extremist point of view.

If you want me to answer something, ask it here. I'm sorry, when I have ten people going at this, I can't answer everyone.

Oh, and Hopeless, you are two-stepping too. You completely ignored the fact that that article two-stepped, and as a diversion, you attacked me.

Lol, Hopeless, that diagram is totally false. We aren't the only ones who ignore things. I believe Darwin ignored the much older belief in God when he stated his beliefs.

Oh, and Hopeless, you are two-stepping too. You completely ignored the fact that that article two-stepped, and as a diversion, you attacked me.
The article didn't two-step anything, though. The fact that you somehow can't/refuse to see that disappoints me. = \
Ah well, I'm done in this thread. Good luck to everybody else, include Shicoco I guess. =D

Dark Bring, it is a fact, a false fact, but still a fact.I am repeating what you said, word for word.


Oh, and Hopeless, you are two-stepping too. You completely ignored the fact that that article two-stepped, and as a diversion, you attacked me.
The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment.

There was a wing stub? Source?


The wing was much too small for the bird to fly.
I must have your source for this.


This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment.
LHow is the bird with a half-size wing at a disadvantage?

The rest of your first "scientific fact" hinges on this assertion. Please explain how you arrive to the conclusion that the bird with a half-size wing is at a disadvantage its environment.


Lol, Hopeless, that diagram is totally false. We aren't the only ones who ignore things. I believe Darwin ignored the much older belief in God when he stated his beliefs.Since when is belief in God contradicting evidence?

You forget that we have evidence too. Jesus and his miracles were the big ones.

Hopeless, you totally ignored Knight's point, which was you can't prove stuff in science and faith the same way.

Sorry, I didn't see the other part of the article. I will hold more belief in it now, but it doesn't answer the ten questions.

EDIT: Dark Bring, I provided the source to those 10 facts above.

You forget that we have evidence too. Jesus and his miracles were the big ones.Shicoco, you outdo yourself.


EDIT: Dark Bring, I provided the source to those 10 facts above.The "source" you provided is the article you copy and pasted from. The evidence to back up those claims do not exist on the website.

Where are the evidence that backs up your claims?


I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. (http://cam2009.googlepages.com/atheistsvschristians.jpg) (click on link for evidence!)

I've posted this once before but...
http://www.creationism.org/topbar/EmptyBoxLittleBang.jpg

Speaking of boxes...


http://www.bustedtees.com/bt/images/BT-dickinabox-gallery-1637.jpg
http://blogs.pitch.com/plog/dick%20in%20a%20box2.jpg

Someone mentioned earlier that people with religios affiliations have longer, happier lives. That is good evidence, so does that prove that God exists?

Wait a second there. I'm in no way arguing for or against the existence of a god with that point. I'm merely approaching the question of religion from a different perspective, mostly because I feel that pressing on the matter at hand will really accomplish nothing more. Any objective observer will likely see that we were just 'rubbing it in', so to speak, after a certain point.

The question I contended with is basically a philosophical one. Is a good lie better than an evil truth? Aside from the validity of religion, does our society benefit from it?

From a few posts back, someone wasn't clear of what I meant when I asked if the opposite can be applied; I meant that IF the claims of religion are true, yet its effects are negative, should we abandon it?

My first claim was one from my memory of reading a health text book from school some years back.
A source that possibly supports my claim.
http://www.okicent.org/news/newsday.html

Again, I'm not saying anything regarding the actual benefits and consequences of religion

Blah, Laggy internet -> double post

Ignore pls =(

I've posted this once before but...
Wait, what's the point of that picture exactly?

Wait, what's the point of that picture exactly?

Maybe it's some sort of crack on the Big Bang Theory?

Maybe it's some sort of crack on the Big Bang Theory?
I thought it might be that, except that'd be totally retarded. You could put any other theory inside of box (including the theory that God exists) and make the same exact comic.
So...a pretty stupid picture.
Hey guise, how long do we have to wait for a god to spawn in our shoebox lol?
How long do we have to wait until God decides to show his face?

Ya, actually I was a little confused by that box picture myself. Perhaps it's a reference to metal gear solid 0.0

If you want me to answer something, ask it here. I'm sorry, when I have ten people going at this, I can't answer everyone.
Why don't you respond to this (http://forums.ichigos.com/showpost.php?p=394650&postcount=1073) post in which I addressed your so called "facts". You've completely ignored me (because I'm right, maybe? I'm not reluctant to use the argument from silence :P) I'd like to know what your response will be like.

Lol, Hopeless, that diagram is totally false. We aren't the only ones who ignore things. I believe Darwin ignored the much older belief in God when he stated his beliefs.
The argument from antiquity? What twisted logic does one have to use to justify the belief, that something is better when it is old. Anyway... please note that Darwin studied theology alongside physics, mathematics and classical studies. He thought that believe in a god and the theory of evolution are not mutually exclusive (a god who thinks of a mechanism by which species can improve over time is, one might argue, smarter than one who doesn't). He also anticipated the critique his ideas would cause. Even though he had developed the basis of his hypothesis (evolution by natural selection) in his twenties, he spend another 20 years anticipating possible counterarguments / critique and piling up evidence, before he finally released his book.

Maybe it's some sort of crack on the Big Bang Theory?It looks like it, though I don't get it...

@Gotank: The topic you brought up (christians -> longer lifes/happier) is very interesting, I'll write something about it later, probably tomorrow.

Just so we're back to some modicum of religion...

"Did you know" that one can be a Catholic and not believe that Jesus actually performed the miracles? (Well, except for the self-resurrection, that's sort of key to the whole religion.) For example, the healing of the sick, healing of paralytics, etc?

Just so we're back to some modicum of religion...

"Did you know" that one can be a Catholic and not believe that Jesus actually performed the miracles? (Well, except for the self-resurrection, that's sort of key to the whole religion.) For example, the healing of the sick, healing of paralytics, etc?

Those are not sub-sects of Christianity. There are several derivatives of Christianity that exists out there that follow the bible (such as Morman, Bah'ai, Judaism, ...). Catholicism is the belief of Christ THROUGH the saints. If you don't believe in Christ you are not a Christian.

I said this earlier here. I swear no one ever reads my post ._.

Those are not sub-sects of Christianity. There are several derivatives of Christianity that exists out there that follow the bible (such as Morman, Bah'ai, Judaism, ...). Catholicism is the belief of Christ THROUGH the saints. If you don't believe in Christ you are not a Christian.

I said this earlier here. I swear no one ever reads my post ._.

I hope I'm not repeating myself. What I'm saying is, that one Catholicism does not require you believe Christ performed *all* of the various miracles in the Gospels, only the Resurrection. Also, I'm unclear on the wording of your first sentence. It makes it sound like you're saying the Bah'ai and Judaism are derivatives of Christianity (to me at least). So if you could elaborate on your comment to accommodate my limited understanding, it would be greatly appreciated. XD

Sorry, I saw your post as "There are Christians that don't believe in Christ." which is obviously incorrect as you were more clear on your objective in the latter post.

OH! Ok, lol. That's totally understandable. I re-read what I put. >_>

I just want to *attempt* to steer us away from ridiculous statements if at all possible. We'll see how that goes. I wouldn't want there to be a misunderstanding that garners 5 pages of crazy responses to it, with us all going "what the hell!" and breaking our heads on our desks when we realize it was a misunderstanding. ^^;

We keep attacking each other over stupid things, me included.

For example, when I made the statement that was later found out to be false that an article two-stepped, people immediately attacked me, when they could have
1) Refuted what I said or
2) Inform me of my mistake.

I'm not innocent myself, so I won't criticize people for not doing one of those two things. But, I think I will agree with HopelessComposer when he says no one is getting anywhere.

I think part of the problem is that I'm a Creationist, so I am prone to attack by non-believers, as I am prone to attack non believers.

So, I think I am finished posting things that people can refute/deabte over, as this leads to arguments as we have all seen, and I hate not getting along with people. Many would be surprised if I said there isn't a person that I know in real life that I don't get along with. From this point on, ignore all of my previous posts, and I will start over, and hopefully we can turn this into a peaceful discussion :D

Ok, I'd like to ask about thermodynamics (I believe it is thermodynamics) and how it supports/doesn't support the Theory of Creation and the Theory of Evolution.

I will ask questions, and answer some in this discussion, and hopefully this will turn into a discussion :D:D:D

If you cannot support your claims, withdraw them.

You want to start over?

Edit your previous posts with the following message: "I withdraw my claims".

The Theory of Evolution is biological, not just chemical, as thermodynamics is a topic in chemistry.

I'm a biology major at uni, I did first year chem and have covered the theory of evolution many times. Thermodynamics doesn't really have much to do with evolution from what I've learnt ._. Then again, I was never good at thermodynamics. Unless we're talking about Gibbs free energy, but that was used in enzyme kinetics soooo.....

Dark Bring: This seems more for your satisfaction. No. They are fine left there. (And please don't let your next post be full of arguments against this one, PM me if you really want to talk about this.)

So anyway, I am curious, so I reiterate, hoping somebody else wishes to quit pointless arguing.


Ok, I'd like to ask about thermodynamics (I believe it is thermodynamics) and how it supports/doesn't support the Theory of Creation and the Theory of Evolution.

Well Inu-Chan, let me restate; I have heard people discussing the creation of the world/universe and thermodynamics together (I think it was thermodynamics). I'd like to know more about it, how it supports and refutes current beliefs.

I just replied to you. Two minutes before your last post, in fact.

EDIT: Theory of the cration of the world/universe, yes, that's probable. As to thermodynamics and evolution itself? I don't think so. After all, conventional theory is the big bang. Things go boom and make planets.

I edited my last post. I've heard about a law somewhere that states order cannot come from chaos, and would like to know how this goes against/supports beliefs of today.

Dark Bring: This seems more for your satisfaction. No. They are fine left there. (And please don't let your next post be full of arguments against this one, PM me if you really want to talk about this.)Of course it is to my satisfaction to attack your claims. Sadly, claims not backed by evidence aren't much of a challenge.

Let those posts stay as evidence that you cannot defend your claims with evidence, haha.

Well the Chaos Theory states that without order, there is no chaos and vice versa, or something like that. You need one to have the other.

I think it was a part of chaos theory actually.

Source (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist&page=4)


9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.

This argument derives from a misunderstanding of the Second Law. If it were valid, mineral crystals and snowflakes would also be impossible, because they, too, are complex structures that form spontaneously from disordered parts.

The Second Law actually states that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word.

More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials.

I have asked politely to end a pointless argument, one that wasn't helping anyone in learning new information about the world, yet you continue your posts that are unrelated to the thread.Is the argument pointless because you cannot defend your claims? It most certainly was helping people learn that Creationist arguments are not supported by evidence! How can my posts be unrelated to the thread, if your posts are claims from your faith against science?


You keep ruining the Religion thread....If it is your belief that I can't defend myself, don't attack me, that is not what the thread is about.I'm the one ruining the Religion thread by posting baseless claims, right? If you can defend your claims with evidence, show us.

I don't care about you as a person, Shicoco, but I am hellbent on shredding your flimsy claims. It's nothing personal, just that you had the misfortune of posting a bait that I am more than willing to take.


Instead, use it to your advantage when making your argument. If I say, "Here is my argument!" then instead of saying, "You can't even back your argument up with evidence," try saying, "Here is my argument, with better evidence."Why don't you exercise some critical thinking and evaluate whether a claim is sufficiently supported by evidence before deciding if it is worthwhile to share?


In summary, don't attack me, counter me, but stay on topic. SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIMS. HOW DOES THIS SOUND LIKE A PERSONAL ATTACK?


If you wish to outright attack me, use another thread, or PM me.If I wish to outright attack you, I will be at your doorstep.


Every time I am attacked, we get off topic, and start a long argument, that, if you stand back and look at it, is too silly for the maturity of the people taking part in it.Please do not appeal to my sense of maturity, it has nothing to do whatsoever with the fact that you are refusing to supply evidence for your claims.


I am trying to start a peaceful discussion. If you do want to continue that bit about evolution, politely state what you think, and we can discuss evolution, it's flaws, and strengths. If you want to debate, that's cool, but let's do it like this:

There is good evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection

Hmm...interesting...I found some info online that goes against evolution by saying that birds wouldn't have evolved wings if they were useless

Well, useless wings are totally useless, they can still be used to glide and such.

Good point

And so on and so forth. How does this sound?It sounds perfect!

Except that it still isn't relevant to the claims that you have posted.

Do you have the evidence to support your previous claims or not?

Hmm, that was from that article Knight. Yeah, Wikipedia didn't define the second law like that either.

Hehe Dark Bring, I'm sure he didn't accidentally overlook all your demands for evidence, so there's only the other obvious reason. However with that said, I think any self respecting individual with a strong belief would have trouble responding in the way you want.
These unmet demands certainly reflect the strength of your points, but repeating them over and over again is just 'beating on a dead horse', and may only result in hurt feelings -> bitter comments -> flame wars, which is something this thread could be without.

This was kind of why I wanted to steer the discussion towards another direction a few pages back, atleast until someone new joins the fray to take up on the religion side.

Okay people, enough of the hazing, regardless if you are right or wrong, or I'll have to lock this thread --- which won't do any of us good.

DarkBring: stop insisting Shicoco take down his posts. Just allow it to pass as he provided a source. Albit it was a bad source, but a source none-the-less. Not to mention that if he edits his posts as you've said, it'll make many users confused as to what all this arguing is about. You did the work, drink a beer and blow it off.
Shicoco: stop reacting towards this in such manor. I'm quite confidant that DarkBring is trying to pressure you (and doing so successfully) to break your mind. In the future, do as I recommend to you in private: If you don't have an absolute standing on a point where you can cover almost all known issues with data supporting your claim, then I wouldn't recommend posting them as though it was factual data, or posting them at all for that fact.
To both of you: Do take this to PM. If you ever do find a resolution, we would like to see the PM, but until a final resolution is met between the two of you, this subject is closed to be posted in this thread. By not taking this to PM will result in stronger actions to be taken.

As for everyone else, ignore the petty debate these two are having amongst themselves.



NOTICE: This is mark two against this thread. One more will result in the banishment of all religion based threads globally in this forum. It's a pity, really. It was going nicely until just recently.

Dark Bring, I'm sorry that I don't have evidence. I posted those ten facts, and you refuted them. End of story. I didn't feel like continuing on. I likely could have found evidence, but I went on with other arguments. Apologies.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH
{CriMsoN_DraGoN}
Asuka
Gotank
HopelessComposer
KnightxJustice88
M
Matt
Shicoco

NOTICE: This is mark two against this thread. One more will result in the banishment of all religion based threads globally in this forum. It's a pity, really. It was going nicely until just recently.
This is page 80 of the religion thread. You just said it was going well until recently (which is about ten pages ago?) I think it'd be silly to banish religion threads forever just because people get a little...heated once in awhile. Like you said, 7/8ths of this thread is good, right? :3

Dark Bring, I'm sorry that I don't have evidence. I posted those ten facts, and you refuted them. End of story. I didn't feel like continuing on. I likely could have found evidence, but I went on with other arguments. Apologies.
I think your popularity in this forum just went up like fifty points. I never had anything against you personally; the way you were arguing just annoys a lot of people, as I'm sure you've noticed. Anyway, I'll be happy to discuss things with you again. :)

THANK YOU VERY MUCH
{CriMsoN_DraGoN}
Asuka
Gotank
HopelessComposer
KnightxJustice88
M
Matt
Shicoco
I laughed. X3
And this thread is pretty popular right now. What's up with all the hidden members? Sneaky bastards. ;P

The religion thread was put back up under that condition: Three strikes, it's gone.

The religion thread was put back up under that condition: Three strikes, it's gone.
Ah, not as arbitrary as I thought then. I still think it's bad condition, considering how well the religion thread goes, for the most part.
Everyone calms down as soon as a mod comes in and yells at us anyway, hahah. ;)

Ok, I'd like to ask about thermodynamics (I believe it is thermodynamics) and how it supports/doesn't support the Theory of Creation and the Theory of Evolution.
The laws of thermodynamic don't support creationism, neither are they important to understand evolution. Only if creationists misrepresent them in order to make a point it's important to understand them (the 9th commandment apparently seems to make an exception when it comes to creationism), .

On a side note: applying the term theory to the idea of creationism isn't appropriate, because it isn't a scientific theory, but rather the subject of theology or mythology.


"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."

This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.

Actually, while some might think I'm an extremist, I'm not. I don't like biased sites, and that includes ones that are biased in a religious manner. I don't like it when a site says "Answers to that Creationist non-sense" but I also don't like it when a site says "Answers to that Evolution non-sense". Evolution, while I don't fully believe in it, makes much sense out of things, and I respect it. I don't like it when religious sites misinterpret things to gain an advantage...this is deceitful, and personally, irks me.

If it weren't for science, I wouldn't be sitting here right now typing in this forum while listening to Milli Vanilli. I respect science fully; it has improved our everyday lives, and saved many more. The thing that bugs me though is when people worship it, that's all.

So, with that said, what would everyone like to discuss? That thermodynamics question has been resolved it seems.

Wait, what about that one story I found, about the polonium trapped in the granite...I'd like to hear scientific explanations as to how it got there :D I could probably find info myself, but I'd like to see what others find. Besides, I hate searching for info, and ending up at a very anti-creationist site...I always get a bad feeling in my gut when I go to those sites....

Also, I had another argument about the lack of civilization 10,000 years ago...someone came up with evidence of 40,000 year old humans, and I'm waiting to hear more :D

:kfloat: Kirby is proof that not everything evolved.
:vader: Vader is proof that science can be used to obliterate proof like Kirby

I don't mean to burst a bubble, but this is a thread about religion. Evolution is almost the opposite of religion. From what I see, the two don't mix very well, so why don't we all move on and flame each other about religion?

...so why don't we all move on and flame each other about religion?

You mean something like "my God could totally whoop your God's ass in a fight?"

:think:

Ahh, but we all worship the same God - just some of us give Her different names ;)

Ahh, but we all worship the same God - just some of us give Her different names
That's not really true, you know. :heh:
Otherwise this thread would never have people flaming each other in it...

That's not really true, you know. :heh:
Otherwise this thread would never have people flaming each other in it...

I was gonna go with God being a specific gender, but I suppose you're right with regards to the Semitic religions. Not really sure how polytheistic religions would fit in (let alone something like Buddhism) but I understand the meaning behind what tangent is saying.

I think people would still flame each other even if everyone worshipped the same god.

Something along the lines of; "Yo, my devotion to the Big Guy/Gal totally trumps yours."

*going off track now* There's a quote (I don't remember the source sorry, my lectuer spurted it out randomly one day) about racism - basic summary is, even if we all looked alike we'd find something to differentiate ourselves, and we would discriminate against those who are different. It's not something I particularly want to believe. But I think maybe that can also be applied to religion.

*waits to get smacked in the face*

No starmouth, I agree. *grabs Federalist Papers*

From The Federalist Paper No.10 (Madison):

So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts.

So when there's nothing "serious" for people to disagree/ fight/ argue about, they'll find or create something new to disagree/ fight/ argue about.

Edit:

For example, in the eyes on a non-muslim, the distinction between Sunni and Shi'a Islam could seem rather trivial. To oversimplify: after Muhammad's death, leadership was given to Muhammad's father-in-law. So from what little I know about the history of the succession, it's a matter of recognizing the father-in-law's leadership as legitimate. Sunni does, Shi'a doesn't. Though I'm sure that if I were a Muslim, that difference would be *very* important to me.

*going off track now* There's a quote (I don't remember the source sorry, my lectuer spurted it out randomly one day) about racism - basic summary is, even if we all looked alike we'd find something to differentiate ourselves, and we would discriminate against those who are different. It's not something I particularly want to believe. But I think maybe that can also be applied to religion.

Someday, the world will witness the true power of the Aryan race! Bwahahahahahahah!~!
Just kidding, I'm a Yank. =D
And of course we already discriminate against people of our own race. Ugly/fat/short/stupid people will be made fun of till the end of time.
Self worth is relative; there has to be a bottom to be a top. :3
Edit: Hi, Ryan. You Japire. X3

That's not really true, you know. :heh:
Otherwise this thread would never have people flaming each other in it...

I'll supply a better explanation, lol.

That was something close to a quote from, well, I can't remember - but it was a book on Wicca. As I have stated before, I am Pagan, if made to pick a specific path of Paganism, I would say I lean towards Wiccan, for the mere reason that that is the path that I have the most knowledge of, and which most closely matches my personal beliefs.

But anyway, I digress. This book points out that every religion places worship on someone or many someones. So, who are we to say that all these different religions are not merely worshipping different aspects of the one Being? Think of it as the GSD - global standard deity (thankyou, Jasper Fforde - brilliant comedy with somewhat of a logic and message behind it XD).

I thought it was a cool idea, anyway ^_^ That all us stupid little humans are arguing about what God says and means to each of us - and She's up there having a good old laugh at how silly we are for not realising that whatever we call Her, She is the same Being, and it's all in how we (the piddly little humans) interpret things.

And yes, I'm aware that most of you will probably not agree at all - but at least it's a change of subject path :heh:

I'll supply a better explanation, lol.

That was something close to a quote from, well, I can't remember - but it was a book on Wicca. As I have stated before, I am Pagan, if made to pick a specific path of Paganism, I would say I lean towards Wiccan, for the mere reason that that is the path that I have the most knowledge of, and which most closely matches my personal beliefs.

But anyway, I digress. This book points out that every religion places worship on someone or many someones. So, who are we to say that all these different religions are not merely worshipping different aspects of the one Being? Think of it as the GSD - global standard deity (thankyou, Jasper Fforde - brilliant comedy with somewhat of a logic and message behind it ).

I thought it was a cool idea, anyway That all us stupid little humans are arguing about what God says and means to each of us - and She's up there having a good old laugh at how silly we are for not realising that whatever we call Her, She is the same Being, and it's all in how we (the piddly little humans) interpret things.

And yes, I'm aware that most of you will probably not agree at all - but at least it's a change of subject path
Ah, that is a nifty idea, and I thought that's what you were probably saying in your first post. The reason I disagreed is that I'm an Agnostic...in my eyes, there's not just a good chance that we silly humans are all worshiping the same god and fighting about it, there's an even greater chance that we're all worshiping nothing at all and fighting about it. And if gods really do rest solely in the imaginations of intelligent creatures (which again, is a strong possibility to me), then all of our gods really are different - they're exactly as we as individuals imagine them to be.

Which would mean that not only is the Christian god different from the Islamic god, but that even in the same religion, the gods are different depending on the person imagining (and worshiping) them.

But yes, if gods do exist, then your point is very valid.

The reason I disagreed is that I'm an Agnostic...in my eyes, there's not just a good chance that we silly humans are all worshiping the same god and fighting about it, there's an even greater chance that we're all worshiping nothing at all and fighting about it. And if gods really do rest solely in the imaginations of intelligent creatures (which again, is a strong possibility to me), then all of our gods really are different - they're exactly as we as individuals imagine them to be.
Agnosticism. <3 A good choice Hopeless (agnosticism is nice, it's like being Swiss, though I still prefer atheism). You bring up an important point. I think it was the philosopher Feuerbach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Andreas_Feuerbach) who talked about this topic. The idea is that no one believes in the same god, because we project our thoughts of what "god" is onto the concept of god. Such a projection is necessarily flawed, since god is a being that is inconceivable for humans. It becomes apparent when we look at the nature of god, that Thomas Aquinas wrote about in his Summa Theologica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summa_Theologica) :


1. God is simple, without composition of parts, such as body and soul, or matter and form.
2. God is perfect, lacking nothing. That is, God is distinguished from other beings on account of God's complete actuality.
3. God is infinite. That is, God is not finite in the ways that created beings are physically, intellectually, and emotionally limited. This infinity is to be distinguished from infinity of size and infinity of number.
4. God is immutable, incapable of change on the levels of God's essence and character.
5. God is one, without diversification within God's self. The unity of God is such that God's essence is the same as God's existence.

So I side with HopelessComposer and David Hume on this one ;)

"If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number?No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."

Agnosticism. <3 A good choice Hopeless (agnosticism is nice, it's like being Swiss, though I still prefer atheism).
Aye, they're both fine by me. I'm Agnostic instead of Atheist just because it's as impossible to disprove god as it is to prove him. Of course, I'm a very doubtful Agnostic - I just think it's nice to leave a small "well, it's possible, I guess" in regards to gods existing, instead of flat-out denying the possibility.
But I can't blame Atheists for being Atheist. Atheism makes the most sense, considering the evidence, after all. :3

And why is it that the things I write look cooler to me when they're being quoted by somebody else? Hahah. X3

Because a quote is automotically infinitely cooler XD

Atheism makes the most sense, considering the evidence, after all. :3

And that is...?

I'm only asking because from the standpoint of Leo Strauss one would need complete knowledge of the whole to refute the existence of God. Being able to do so would legitimize atheism. While modern philosophy cannot refute theology, the reverse is also true. ^^;

And that is...?

I'm only asking because from the standpoint of Leo Strauss one would need complete knowledge of the whole to refute the existence of God. Being able to do so would legitimize atheism. While modern philosophy cannot refute theology, the reverse is also true. ^^;
Ugh, and here's Ryan, come to give me crap. Thanks for making me type. I'm supposed to be drawing right now. First of all, thanks for repeating what I said in my last post. I of course agree with your point, since I just made the same one ten seconds ago. So, let's get down to business, I guess.
First of all, there is no evidence to support a god existing. You might point to the universe as being evidence, which is stupid, of course. But I don't think you'd do that, so I'll assume that you'll agree that there is no evidence of god or gods existing.
Now, onto the evidence of the non-existence of gods:
Rape.
AIDs.
Ugly girls.
Genocide.
Etc, etc.
Basically, if gods exist, then why is the world in such a crappy state? Shouldn't perfect gods make perfect universes? It's also a little odd that nobody ever sees god anymore; I wonder what happened to him? Is he sleeping? Maybe the door to his bathroom got jammed, and he's been waiting for a repairman to let him out these past two thousand years? Maybe he just forgot about us?
So, there's no evidence supporting the existence of gods, and a bunch of things going on that one would assume wouldn't be going on if we had an omnipotent Father watching over us.

If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
Then He is not omnipotent.

If He is able, but not willing
Then He is malevolent.

If He is both able and willing
Then whence cometh evil?

If He is neither able nor willing
Then why call Him God?

Epicurus is way cooler than Strauss, btw.
And don't forget; you haven't given us any reason why Theism is any more plausible than Atheism, either. :3

LOL JIMMY!

Free Will

Edit: but seriously, I'll get to what you said when i can.

LOL JIMMY!

Free Will
LOL RYAN!
I can't wait to see you on the news someday.
"TODDLER KILLED IN OVEN! FATHER IN JAIL FOR NEGLIGENCE!"

Sir, why would you let your son wander into an oven?!
-I couldn't infringe upon his free will! It was my duty as a kind and loving father to let him burn to death!

But surely, he wanted to get out of the oven when he found out what being in an oven meant!
-It didn't matter! He got into the oven by his own choice! I couldn't help him out again! Free will lol!

Sir, you're getting the electric chair and going to Hell.
-Noes, I did what was rite! D':

So yeah. Go tell all the children who are born with AIDs in Africa that they needed to die before they reached ten years of age because our almighty father was kind enough to grant us all free will. Go tell the girl who was just raped that it had to happen because the guy was given free will. Go tell the old man who just stepped on a land mine in Vietnam that it was because of free will.
GO TELL YOUR IDIOT FACE THAT YOU'RE AN IDIOT FACE BECAUSE OF FREE WILL.

So, answer me this question:
If you saw someone about to be murdered, what's the correct thing to do?
Do you:
a.)Save the person.
or
b.)Let the person die. You wouldn't want to impose on the murderer's free will right?! lolol!!~!

Of course, it's fine for us to impose on each other's will all the time. We wouldn't want god to step in and make this world a shit-free place though, right? It would suck if god saved little kids from being brutally murdered - what kind of loving god would do that?! He'd be taking work away from police officers!

Also, I'd like you to explain heaven to me, Ryan. How exactly is Heaven such a perfect place that everyone wants to get into? Wouldn't a lack of any sadness imply the lack of free will? I SURE WOULDN'T WANT HEAVEN ON EARTH LOL! GOD SURE IS NICE TO LET US ALL SUFFER FOR A HUNDRED ODD YEARS BEFORE ETERNAL HAPPINESS!

Edit: It seems you're writing me a small book, judging by the time it's taking you to respond. I'll come back tomorrow to check it out and answer your arguments.

The defense also makes one final request:
Your argument against the defense's last argument was "Free Will!"
The defense would like you to define what free will is, in your own words, so that it will be perfectly clear to the court exactly what your argument is.
Feel free to listen to this midi, to help the mood.
http://www.vgmusic.com/music/console/nintendo/ds/VGAllegro.mid
The defense eagerly awaits the moment where we can use the "Cornered" theme on you. ;)

Aye, they're both fine by me. I'm Agnostic instead of Atheist just because it's as impossible to disprove god as it is to prove him. Of course, I'm a very doubtful Agnostic - I just think it's nice to leave a small "well, it's possible, I guess" in regards to gods existing, instead of flat-out denying the possibility.
But I can't blame Atheists for being Atheist. Atheism makes the most sense, considering the evidence, after all. :3Just for clarification:
Very often atheism is defined in two different ways: strong (positive) atheism and weak (negative) atheism. There's a good explanation on wikipedia: here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Strong_vs._weak) It's worth reading it. :) I consider myself a strong atheist in respect to the Christian/Islamic/Jewish belief, that is, I consider the proposition: "(the abrahamic) God does not exist" to be true, but a weak atheist towards the deistic concept of god (and some other concepts).
I like how they describe the relationship of agnosticism and atheism:

While agnosticism can be seen as a form of weak atheism, most agnostics see their view as distinct from atheism, which they may consider no more justified than theism, or requires an equal conviction. The supposed unattainability of knowledge for or against the existence of gods is sometimes seen as indication that atheism requires a leap of faith. Common atheist responses to this argument include that unproven religious propositions deserve as much disbelief as all other unproven propositions, and that the unprovability of a god's existence does not imply equal probability of either possibility.

^Hummmmm....I suppose I'm strong atheist against the same gods you are, and agnostic when it comes to any most other higher beings.
Edit: I think Ryan gave up on the argument, so I'm going to go ahead and declare myself the winner.

^Hummmmm....I suppose I'm strong atheist against the same gods you are, and agnostic when it comes to any most other higher beings.
Edit: I think Ryan gave up on the argument, so I'm going to go ahead and declare myself the winner.
Agreed. I thought we might have killed the thread with our awesome posts. :<

Agreed. I thought we might have killed the thread with our awesome posts. :<
It's a risk we're forced to take, considering how great we are. D:

I'm catholic

I'm an atheist, pleased to meet you MyThiNg. :3

I may have missed the deeper meaning of your post though :think:

Agreed. I thought we might have killed the thread with our awesome posts. :<

I had awesome posts too :cry:

And I also want to meet my thing!

I may have missed the deeper meaning of your post though
I don't think it had one, actually. X3

what? :/ I was expecting anagrams and acronyms...

Wow, I didn't know mything existed anywhere except the IRC.

I think religion makes sense to those who are religious...as atheism makes sense to those who are atheist...I guess it's a matter of wait-and-find out things. Soon enough, we'll all know.

I worship my piano, my best friend

Does this pagan god have a name? Perhaps some other attributes you wish to describe?

Do pagan gods have names? >_>

This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdCA5xAsw8I).... is the best metaphor for religion ever :heh:

Do pagan gods have names? >_>
Of course. You don't know Thor and Odin?? Blasphemy! :\ Unlike the Christian god they aren't called "Lord" all the time.

Of course. You don't know Thor and Odin?? Blasphemy! :\ Unlike the Christian god they aren't called "Lord" all the time.

Ohhhh! Ok. Those didn't register as Pagan for me. I've got all them filed under Norse. :P

Funfact:

Tuesday - Wednesday - Thursday - Friday

Tyr's day - Odin's day - Thor's day - Freya's day

(the other three are sun, moon and saturn, but those arent norse, so... yeah.)

Uhh, Matt, that link you provided sent me to an wikipedia page on HTTP. Is there some deep meaning I'm not understanding here?

-fixed-

thanks M :3

Hahaha brilliant =D

This.... is the best metaphor for religion ever
It's...perfect actually. "I'll kiss Hank's ass for you." was the best line. So true! X3

First of all, a lot of people have pointed out what God has handed out for punishment. Did you stop to think about what the people did to deserve this? If you say "Well it wasn't that bad," but if he didn't do it then absolutely nobody would've believed in Him. But you have to count in the customs and laws of that time period. Death and war was an ongoing situation during the time. Parents discipline there kids because they LOVE them, because a right upbringing demands it, and He is our Father. Those Israelites were adults and He punished them like adults, and He knew and THEY knew better. Those ADULTS were warned several times, they should have learned from their predecessors, and they were given rules and guidlines to follow. The Israelites were basically asking for it, and during that time it was justly deserved. (Don't miss quote me and say that I agree with genocide and all that dung, I said DURING THAT TIME.) Are thinking is totally different from that time and we all need to consider that when reading about His punishments.

Free will? I am sorry that common sense has left the minds of people who murder and rape people, but that is not the work of God but of Satan. If we had no free will then we really wouldn't be talking like this, now would we? To many over exaggerate the whole concept of free will, like watching someone die because you wouldn't want to interupt the expression of free will by the murderer. That is a paradox. So you couldn't express you free will by saving that person? The things we do effect everyone around us, sometimes you just can't see the after-effect. And most of the time lessons need to be learned, and you most likely would not have truly learned it if the punishment hadn't been what it was. Muder and rape are not punishments that God hands out but the product of a person walking of the road and falling into the Devil's Lair. Everbody thinks that every single thing, whether good or bad, is from God, but sometimes it is from satan. Yes, good things can come from satan to make you forget or get you addictded. Bad things can come from good, and good from bad, it all depends on who you are, where you are, or whether or not you accept it.

Quote:
LOL JIMMY!

Free Will
LOL RYAN!
I can't wait to see you on the news someday.
"TODDLER KILLED IN OVEN! FATHER IN JAIL FOR NEGLIGENCE!"

Sir, why would you let your son wander into an oven?!
-I couldn't infringe upon his free will! It was my duty as a kind and loving father to let him burn to death!

But surely, he wanted to get out of the oven when he found out what being in an oven meant!
-It didn't matter! He got into the oven by his own choice! I couldn't help him out again! Free will lol!

Sir, you're getting the electric chair and going to Hell.
-Noes, I did what was rite! D':

So yeah. Go tell all the children who are born with AIDs in Africa that they needed to die before they reached ten years of age because our almighty father was kind enough to grant us all free will. Go tell the girl who was just raped that it had to happen because the guy was given free will. Go tell the old man who just stepped on a land mine in Vietnam that it was because of free will.
GO TELL YOUR IDIOT FACE THAT YOU'RE AN IDIOT FACE BECAUSE OF FREE WILL.

So, answer me this question:
If you saw someone about to be murdered, what's the correct thing to do?
Do you:
a.)Save the person.
or
b.)Let the person die. You wouldn't want to impose on the murderer's free will right?! lolol!!~!

Of course, it's fine for us to impose on each other's will all the time. We wouldn't want god to step in and make this world a shit-free place though, right? It would suck if god saved little kids from being brutally murdered - what kind of loving god would do that?! He'd be taking work away from police officers!

Also, I'd like you to explain heaven to me, Ryan. How exactly is Heaven such a perfect place that everyone wants to get into? Wouldn't a lack of any sadness imply the lack of free will? I SURE WOULDN'T WANT HEAVEN ON EARTH LOL! GOD SURE IS NICE TO LET US ALL SUFFER FOR A HUNDRED ODD YEARS BEFORE ETERNAL HAPPINESS!

Edit: It seems you're writing me a small book, judging by the time it's taking you to respond. I'll come back tomorrow to check it out and answer your arguments.

The defense also makes one final request:
Your argument against the defense's last argument was "Free Will!"
The defense would like you to define what free will is, in your own words, so that it will be perfectly clear to the court exactly what your argument is.
Feel free to listen to this midi, to help the mood.
http://www.vgmusic.com/music/console.../VGAllegro.mid
The defense eagerly awaits the moment where we can use the "Cornered" theme on you.
You can take over for Ryan, since he left.

Free will? I am sorry that common sense has left the minds of people who murder and rape people, but that is not the work of God but of Satan.
Uhm...

If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
Then He is not omnipotent.

If He is able, but not willing
Then He is malevolent.

If He is both able and willing
Then whence cometh evil?

If He is neither able nor willing
Then why call Him God?
Why doesn't God just stop Satan then?

I'm putting in a bid to turn this thread into a discussion on religion in general rather than a 'Catholics/Christians vs. everyone else' argument.

So who likes Buddhism? Hinduism is kinda neat too. Discuss!

Nate, people tried to pull away from those topic before. Alas the very little knowledge of those religion, aside from wikipedia, make it difficult for many people to discuss that. Some people might say "Yeah, I know the whole concept of recairnation, Nirvana, etc." but I doubt most of them really are Buddhist or Hindu.

I don't like Buddhism. The Buddhists have so many chants, the heart chant, etc. If everything is so preceptively empty in their eyes then why do they even chant. The chant with the repetitive music gives me a big headache and those stupid words stick in your head. Also, Buddhism doesn't advocate a particular God then why do those devouts pray to the Buddha statue? And also how does burning joss stick help you to the way of attaining peace. My grandmother was a Buddhist, she said she wants to convert to being a Christian (doubt.). Seriously, I don't see Buddhism as very cool or zen thing that will bring inner peace. After you hear those head pounding chants...

Hinduism is cool in the way you see them walkfire during some festival and also they carry this pokey thing on their body. It happens every year.. so.. other than that... There is Deepavali.

See Nate, let's talk about those religion when you have no idea what Gods are in the Hindu temple and how many figures are there on top of the Hindu temple? Also let's talk about how Buddhists have to offer food to Whoever (since there is no 'God') and then eat it later. Almost everyone knows the cross and ohh Jesus.

I haven't really been through this entire thread, but here's my question; Has anyone discussed the links between Islam, Christianity and Judaism? Not debating whether or not their God "exists", just how they're alike~ This pretty much goes for any religion...*star has no strong feelings; I'm just getting annoyed because this thread is getting a wee bit repetitive*

I haven't really been through this entire thread, but here's my question; Has anyone discussed the links between Islam, Christianity and Judaism? Not debating whether or not their God "exists", just how they're alike~ This pretty much goes for any religion...*star has no strong feelings; I'm just getting annoyed because this thread is getting a wee bit repetitive*
This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anXp5TOUb5w&feature=related) will answer all your questions! ;D And it's damn funny... The history of monotheistic religion in 3 minutes ;)

Nate, people tried to pull away from those topic before. Alas the very little knowledge of those religion, aside from wikipedia, make it difficult for many people to discuss that. Some people might say "Yeah, I know the whole concept of recairnation, Nirvana, etc." but I doubt most of them really are Buddhist or Hindu.

I don't like Buddhism. The Buddhists have so many chants, the heart chant, etc. If everything is so preceptively empty in their eyes then why do they even chant. The chant with the repetitive music gives me a big headache and those stupid words stick in your head. Also, Buddhism doesn't advocate a particular God then why do those devouts pray to the Buddha statue? And also how does burning joss stick help you to the way of attaining peace. My grandmother was a Buddhist, she said she wants to convert to being a Christian (doubt.). Seriously, I don't see Buddhism as very cool or zen thing that will bring inner peace. After you hear those head pounding chants...

Hinduism is cool in the way you see them walkfire during some festival and also they carry this pokey thing on their body. It happens every year.. so.. other than that... There is Deepavali.

See Nate, let's talk about those religion when you have no idea what Gods are in the Hindu temple and how many figures are there on top of the Hindu temple? Also let's talk about how Buddhists have to offer food to Whoever (since there is no 'God') and then eat it later. Almost everyone knows the cross and ohh Jesus.

Please don't make me go through this whole thread and quote the people talking about christianity and all that who don't know a damn thing aside from "follow the bible or go to hell". Cause that would take forEVER. >.<

I just want to see an actual DISCUSSION on ALL religions. That way I could take part too. But if you guys would rather argue about "god", I guess there are other threads I can troll.

I just want to see an actual DISCUSSION on ALL religions. That way I could take part too. But if you guys would rather argue about "god", I guess there are other threads I can troll.What prevents you from taking part in our discussion about "god"? It's actually a good exercise (and fun). :3

If you want to see a discussion about religion in general, how about suggesting a topic? Or asking a question? Or you could tell us your opinion and ask what we think? "Do a discussion on ALL religions!" won't do it. However, Starmouth's question would be a good and interesting starting point.

(I'm looking forward to Galadriel's defence of the Free Will argument though)

PS:
Those Israelites were adults and He punished them like adults, and He knew and THEY knew better. Those ADULTS were warned several times, they should have learned from their predecessors, and they were given rules and guidlines to follow. The Israelites were basically asking for it, and during that time it was justly deserved. (Don't miss quote me and say that I agree with genocide and all that dung, I said DURING THAT TIME.) Are thinking is totally different from that time and we all need to consider that when reading about His punishments.There's no need to misquote you, it's pretty obvious from your writing that you justify the genocide.

Because the whole concept of "god" is retarded. There. I said it. That horse died in 1AD and has been beaten vigorously and non-stop for over 2000 years. I'd rather talk about what my cat puked up today. At least I can prove it happened with more than a story book. Even if there -is- a god-like entity, it doesn't give a rat's ass what we do in life or where we go after death, so there's no point wasting energy arguing about it.

All I'm really trying to do is bring attention to the fact that the thread is called "Religion". Not "God vs. Science".

And Star's question is a great starting point. Let's go with that.

Similarities between Chrisianity, Judaism and Islam... Let's see...

They all have a holy book and one god. Christianity also formed from Judaism so there are a ton of similarities between those two. And all three have tried to wipe out the other two at some point in history for no good reason other than they believed something different. :P

This will answer all your questions! ;D And it's damn funny... The history of monotheistic religion in 3 minutes
Bleh, that one seemed pretty weak to me compared to some of Zimmerman's other awesome songs. The melody wasn't much of anything, and his performance seemed nervous and off-balance, and the lyrics weren't as bitingly clever as I was expecting. :(
But that doesn't have much to do with this thread, I guess...

I just want to see an actual DISCUSSION on ALL religions. That way I could take part too.

Would this be a good time to introduce my religion? I belong to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. :worship:

:P

Well throwing this opinion out there...We all worship the same "God" / "Higher power" we just have different ways of interpreting him and different names for her.

Would this be a good time to introduce my religion? I belong to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. :worship:

:P

Well throwing this opinion out there...We all worship the same "God" / "Higher power" we just have different ways of interpreting him and different names for her.

Exactly! I want to see more compare and contrast and less "my god could beat up your god". Flying spaghetti monster is interesting. I don't really understand it aside from it was a religion some guy came up with a while back...

Also, I'll even throw in my perception of the whole "god" dilemma. My god is basically myself. I don't mean that in a narcissistic way at all. Just that rather than hope some big invisible magician from space will make my life work, I hope -I- will make my life work. Because when it all comes down to it, it's up to me. Not god. I'll live my life in a way that's comfortable for me as long as it's not hurting anyone.

The FSM is basicly a parody of the Christian God. They change a few words here and there to make it ridiculous but its setup is pretty much the same. It was setup because something happened in Kansas...Something like they had to teach Creationism in SCIENCE. Oh found the quote.

"I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence."

I read this stuff during my tech class at school...Haha take that crappy tech teacher.

Would this be a good time to introduce my religion? I belong to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. :worship:

:P

Well throwing this opinion out there...We all worship the same "God" / "Higher power" we just have different ways of interpreting him and different names for her.

Wow!!! That's sooo cool!!!
Does the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster give you free spaghetti?
With extra cheese???? Haha...I love my cheese!!! :D

Umm, anyways.... i think every religion has its own meaning and makes sense in a way because i mean if it didnt make sense and there wasnt anything to it , why would so many people follow that religion? But again, i guess religion is more of people's opinion, thoughts and beliefs

Well throwing this opinion out there...We all worship the same "God" / "Higher power" we just have different ways of interpreting him and different names for her.

Well, this opinion coincide with some Hindu and Sikh believers, they are more tolerant towards other religions in that way. There is no way this interpretion will work. Basically, many religions have multiple God/ goddess or deities, not all religion believe in just ONE SINGLE ENTITY. Therefore, there is no way, 'we' could be worshipping the same God. Furthermore, how would you explain Atheism? I know their way of interpreting God/ Higher power is not none of it/them exist, just a product of Mass Self-delusion. Yes, very thoughtful indeed.

Scientology make sense, oh yeah.*sacarsm* If you want to talk about difference in the three, Judaism, Islam and Christianity, I guess thier practices are very different though you can draw parallel between the contents. Islam and Judaism are stricter about conversion. If you want to convert from Islam to another religion, you do have to get approval through their religious court. Also conversion will mean that you might be seperated from your community, to the extent that your relatives might not even associate with you. I think this is true for Sikhs too. Christianity, unless the SUPER HARDCORE TYPE, gives you more freedom. But if you spiral into a evangelist church....

I don't like Buddhism. The Buddhists have so many chants, the heart chant, etc. If everything is so preceptively empty in their eyes then why do they even chant. The chant with the repetitive music gives me a big headache and those stupid words stick in your head. Also, Buddhism doesn't advocate a particular God then why do those devouts pray to the Buddha statue? And also how does burning joss stick help you to the way of attaining peace. My grandmother was a Buddhist, she said she wants to convert to being a Christian (doubt.). Seriously, I don't see Buddhism as very cool or zen thing that will bring inner peace. After you hear those head pounding chants...



There are different types of buddhism. Some types worship a buddha, some don't. I understand where you are coming from though, because my grandmother practices the same type of buddhism your experiencing. I have no idea what it is called, but I do know that it has different views than traditional buddhism, where traditional buddhism states that you must give up desire to reach nirvana, but in this one it states that you should follow your dreams and good desires to find peace.

Oh, and you can't eat meat in this type of buddhism either. It would be great if someone has the name of this sect of buddhism.

I do not follow my grandmother's belief, but I do believe in its philosophy. Call me agonistic.


Exactly! I want to see more compare and contrast and less "my god could beat up your god". Flying spaghetti monster is interesting. I don't really understand it aside from it was a religion some guy came up with a while back...

I believe in Odin. My god kicks your god's ass. /punandsarcasm.

Yeah, Odin was pretty badass... We had a tiff a few thousand years ago. I poked him in the eye. XD

Ohh hiei, I do believe your grandma worship Guan Yin.. for those that don't know it is bascially this woman Buddha on a Lotus flower. Usually those that are of this type, don't eat beef or are totally vegetarian. Monks and nuns no matter what are vegetarian..of course.

And you were stabbed by Gungnir too, in the ass. :D Kidding!