NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/magazine/20WWLN.html?ex=1266642000&en=dc8de961f4e932be&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland?NYT_REG_SUCKS_ROCKS

Nice rejection of the 'theory' of Intelligent Design.

*applauds*

No one has a link to the School District mentioned in the first paragraph do they?

Hmm...
Now, if we doubt-- we are
If there is us-- there is a creator
if there is a creator-- there is an uncreated creator
if there is an uncreated creator-- there is God
If we have an independant sense of justice, and are incapable of doing anything but good or a bad perception thereof-- there is a just God
If we fear anihilation-- Our just God would give us eternal life
If we have infinite existance-- We have a soul
If we have souls-- We should not murder our young :confused:

Ergo, God is the ultimate pro-lifer-- He makes life!!!
QED

Anyone else notice this was a direct link to the NY Times and that they usually charge for access to their archives?

This site helps you get access to those articles for free!

http://nytimes.blogspace.com/genlink.html

Haha!

Roma Locuta Causa finita est.

That whole thing is bullshit.

Teach science in a science class. Intelligent design isn't scientific in the least... Well, other than being scientific theories with god attached...

Hmm...
Now, if we doubt-- we are
If there is us-- there is a creator
if there is a creator-- there is an uncreated creator
if there is an uncreated creator-- there is God
If we have an independant sense of justice, and are incapable of doing anything but good or a bad perception thereof-- there is a just God
If we fear anihilation-- Our just God would give us eternal life
If we have infinite existance-- We have a soul
If we have souls-- We should not murder our young :confused:

Ergo, God is the ultimate pro-lifer-- He makes life!!!
QED

QED?

More like WTF

Hmm...
Now, if we doubt-- we are
If there is us-- there is a creator
if there is a creator-- there is an uncreated creator
if there is an uncreated creator-- there is God
If we have an independant sense of justice, and are incapable of doing anything but good or a bad perception thereof-- there is a just God
If we fear anihilation-- Our just God would give us eternal life
If we have infinite existance-- We have a soul
If we have souls-- We should not murder our young :confused:

Ergo, God is the ultimate pro-lifer-- He makes life!!!
QED

that is a rather far-fetched theory you've got going there.

Ah yes... Such reason.

Where is it wrong?!?

Where is it wrong?!?
probably in the part where you say "is" because you have no way of knowing that anything is.

Well, if no one is going to let me rip them to shreds, I suppose I'll go to bed. :headbang:

Your second step in the proof is wrong.

EDIT: That is to say, you need to expand on it. Your third step, however, is entirely wrong.

Ah yes... Such reason.

Then please rewrite is so it makes sense.

Much of your argument rests on the assumption that God exists in the first place to give us the things we need God for.

ARGUMENT FROM ASSUMPTION
(1) God exists.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

(Finally, this link has proved useful to me)

Read Descates.
Look, if I doubt my own existance, that doubt is either true or false.
If it is true, I am a doubter, and exist.
If it is untrue, then I exist.

Your second step in the proof is wrong.

represent.

Read Descates.
Look, if I doubt my own existance, that doubt is either true or false.
If it is true, I am a doubter, and exist.
If it is untrue, then I exist.

PROOF OF GOD:

ARGUMENT FROM DESCATES

(1) Descates existed.
(2) Therefore God exists.

Everything we see has a cause.
However, even if those causes go back for infinitely long, there must have been a start sometime--the uncaused causer. For lack of a better word, let's call that God.

Read Descates.
Look, if I doubt my own existance, that doubt is either true or false.
If it is true, I am a doubter, and exist.
If it is untrue, then I exist.

and assuming you Meant DecaRtes:

ARGUMENT FROM UNTRANSLATED OLD FRENCH
(1) « Mais pourceque j'avois déjà connu en moi très clairement que la nature intelligente est distincte de la corporelle; considérant que toute composition témoigne de la dépendance, et que la dépendance est manifestement un défaut, je jugeois de là que ce ne pouvoit être une perfection en Dieu d'être composé de ces deux natures, et que par conséquent il ne l'étoit pas; mais que s'il y avoit quelques corps dans le monde, ou bien quelques intelligences ou autres natures qui ne fussent point toutes parfaites, leur être devoit dépendre de sa puissance, en telle sorte quelles ne pouvoient subsister sans lui un seul moment. » -- René Descartes, Discours de la Méthode
(2) How could you possibly refute that?
(3) Therefore, God exists.

and assuming you Meant DecaRtes:
Actually, I think he meant Descartes.

Sorry about the typo. :rolleyes:

Everything we see has a cause.
However, even if those causes go back for infinitely long, there must have been a start sometime--the uncaused causer. For lack of a better word, let's call that God.You just contradicted yourself. It can't "go back for infinitely long" and still "start sometime."

Yes, it can. In a transtemporal sense though.
However, you make a good point, and perhaps I should have said for "x long."
Btw, it's Descartes or Cartesius.

Actually, I think he meant Descartes.

Silly French and their silly silent S's :p

Hmm...
[...]
If there is us-- there is a creator
if there is a creator-- there is an uncreated creator
if there is an uncreated creator-- there is God
If we have an independant sense of justice, and are incapable of doing anything but good or a bad perception thereof-- there is a just God
If we fear anihilation-- Our just God would give us eternal life
If we have infinite existance-- We have a soul
[...]


These are the only steps that are not supported, as far as I can tell.

And how do you define a soul?

Um...
So...
What about abortion? ;)

If we exist proves we had a creator, what created the creator? If you say that God just 'existed' do you have any proof we couldn't have just 'existed'?

I think I need to create a new movement for what I believe in...

Intelligent Design has been rather hijacked by Creationists...

Intelligent Creation sounds just too much like Creationism...

I need something that says "Something started it all, but then everything else basically science".

But on to the current portion of this thread, Descartes stated "I think, therefore I am". I don't recall him stating "I think, therefore I am therefore I have been created/designed by an unknowable entity some refer to as God".

Anyway, your statement falls prey to simplification "There is us -- there is a creator" since that is not the only possible choice.

As a Catholic, my definition is rather complicated.
But, for the sake of this forum, it is our transphysical nature which "lives" eternally.

you seem to be under the impression that everything happens for a purpose.


where did you get that idea

Why does everything have a reason.
Reason cannot be proved, because a proof is reason.
The LACK of reason MAY be DISPROVED, becuase to disprove reason requires reason.
Therefore Reason is.

Yes this is somewhat simple, but I cannot right an entire book here.

k thnx

Well, it's impossible to "right" a book anywhere. I do agree with that last statement, while not completely on your views on God. We aren't all against you on everything!

Why does everything have a reason.
Reason cannot be proved, because a proof is reason.
The LACK of reason MAY be DISPROVED, becuase to disprove reason requires reason.
Therefore Reason is.

Yes this is somewhat simple, but I cannot right an entire book here.


no.


just...

no.


this falls under the category of "if i make it sound complicated, they might not realize that i'm actually an asshat" branch of defense. (along with other such debating tactics as "using fake words that sound latin, and the opponent can't admit to not knowing what they mean")

Actually, I think the worst thing anyone could do is attempt to prove or disprove God through logic.

I could be wrong but I'm reasonably certain (too lazy to check) most the websites devoted to logical fallacies usually state that it can't be done.

IIRC, because you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God you can not firmly state that God does or does not exist. Hence why religion is a matter of faith.

Either you have faith that God exists or you have faith that God does not exist.

Please feel free to correct me (I'm sure people will anyway) if I'm wrong somewhere.

Why does everything have a reason.
Reason cannot be proved, because a proof is reason.
The LACK of reason MAY be DISPROVED, becuase to disprove reason requires reason.
Therefore Reason is.

Yes this is somewhat simple, but I cannot right an entire book here.

I think you don't know what 'reason' is.

A 'Reason' is something a conscious being gives something to define it in the conscious person's existance and in turn give themselves 'Reason' or 'Purpose'.

A 'proof' is a 'fact', not a 'reason'.

Reasons are derived from 'facts' which can be disproved from other 'facts'.

You have not proved anything other than you like to talk in aloof gibberish in order to keep people from arguing against you, therefore making yourself think that you've won an arguement when in fact you have not said anything of value.

The only way we could truly prove or disprove God is by creating a time machine, or reanimating the dead, or a variety of other things considered scientifically impossible. It's really whether or not a person believes. Everyone has their own version of religion, and I really don't think we should let that come between humanity. I'm polytheistic, and one of my best friends is an atheist, but it's not like we hate each other. It's almost more interesting to see other people's views on the world and how they explain them, whether with or without a God.

Well, it's impossible to "right" a book anywhere. I do agree with that last statement, while not completely on your views on God. We aren't all against you on everything!

I think we should have noticed by now that he's a troll.

http://www.mninter.net/~richard/Please%20do%20not%20feed%20the%20trolls.jpg

The only way we could truly prove or disprove God is by creating a time machine, or reanimating the dead, or a variety of other things considered scientifically impossible. It's really whether or not a person believes. Everyone has their own version of religion, and I really don't think we should let that come between humanity. I'm polytheistic, and one of my best friends is an atheist, but it's not like we hate each other. It's almost more interesting to see other people's views on the world and how they explain them, whether with or without a God.

Just so you know I'm working on the whole dead-reanimation thing.

The only way we could truly prove or disprove God is by creating a time machine, or reanimating the dead, or a variety of other things considered scientifically impossible. It's really whether or not a person believes. Everyone has their own version of religion, and I really don't think we should let that come between humanity. I'm polytheistic, and one of my best friends is an atheist, but it's not like we hate each other. It's almost more interesting to see other people's views on the world and how they explain them, whether with or without a God.

Welcome to the middle of the road (if I may be so presumptious) :D

Surely you've worked out by now that the only way to feel comfortable in life is by crushing the opposition? :p

Good Luck! Reanimating the dead would be amazingly interesting if anyone manages it...notice I said it's "considered" scientifically impossible.

Hmm...
Now, if we doubt-- we are
If there is us-- there is a creator
if there is a creator-- there is an uncreated creator
if there is an uncreated creator-- there is God
If we have an independant sense of justice, and are incapable of doing anything but good or a bad perception thereof-- there is a just God
If we fear anihilation-- Our just God would give us eternal life
If we have infinite existance-- We have a soul
If we have souls-- We should not murder our young :confused:

Ergo, God is the ultimate pro-lifer-- He makes life!!!
QED

These kind of arguements are pointless. My dad once used this tactic to prove to me that I didn't exist. :D

Welcome to The Matrix....

Everything we see has a cause.
However, even if those causes go back for infinitely long, there must have been a start sometime--the uncaused causer. For lack of a better word, let's call that God.
Does everything we see have a cause, and if it does, so what. There is much more that we dont see, does that all have a cause? I suggest that you cant verify that either way. As to calling any ultimate cause God, that makes as much sense as saying 'for want of a better word lets call it not-God', and so is no more valid. You've just 'proved' God and 'not-God', how very unproductive.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/magazine/20WWLN.html?ex=1266642000&en=dc8de961f4e932be&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland?NYT_REG_SUCKS_ROCKS

Nice rejection of the 'theory' of Intelligent Design.
Grrr great another group of idiots that think evolution = creation of life

IIRC, because you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God you can not firmly state that God does or does not exist. Hence why religion is a matter of faith.

Either you have faith that God exists or you have faith that God does not exist.

Please feel free to correct me (I'm sure people will anyway) if I'm wrong somewhere.

Actually, you need no correction -- you are absolutely on the spot, as far as I know. (this coming from a Protestant, btw)

These kind of arguements are pointless. My dad once used this tactic to prove to me that I didn't exist. :D

Good to know you picked this forum in which to not exist. :)

Actually, you need no correction -- you are absolutely on the spot, as far as I know. (this coming from a Protestant, btw)
yup though u can disprove specifics

yup though u can disprove specifics

I'm curious, by specifics do you mean things like the Bible (or other religious texts)? Or do you mean specifics as in certain aspects of God?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/magazine/20WWLN.html?ex=1266642000&en=dc8de961f4e932be&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland?NYT_REG_SUCKS_ROCKS

Nice rejection of the 'theory' of Intelligent Design.
What a bloody joke!!!!!!!!!!! Of all publications I am not
surprissed that the NY times would be the one to print such a
travesty of faulty information and supposition. Treating this as
anything but another religious rant would be stupid. The flaws
quoted as fact are too numerous and when you break it right down
Darwinism is nothing but another religion that must be taken largely
on faith because the true undeniable facts are too few and far apart
to have any likely links. The major flaw in dismissing an inteligent
designer is that you forget the intervention of random in-species
mutation, direct involvement of satanic forces, the need to keep
population down when there was no form of birth-control. Man was
created perfectly but the eventual in-breeding that occured and
continues to occure continues to create imerfections and junk DNA.
Even assuming that God created a mate for each of Adam and Eve's
children there is still the matter of the flood that has been
confirmed by acheological finds on all continents. The only ones to
survive the flood was Noah, his wife, their children and their
spouses. As we sit now we would need a minimum of 100 non-related
couples to have a viable base for the continuation of the species.
the fact that they did it with less than 20 and half of them related
shows that they human DNA was less congested with junk as it is now.
Darwinism is tragically flawed and one day I hope not too distant
mankind will realize the truth behind the saying and proverb: "The
smarter man becomes the less intelligent he becomes."

I'm curious, by specifics do you mean things like the Bible (or other religious texts)? Or do you mean specifics as in certain aspects of God?
Religous texts ... not nessisarly atrbutes but acts atributed to him/her at least in the ways depicted by belief or writing

Read Descates.
Look, if I doubt my own existance, that doubt is either true or false.
If it is true, I am a doubter, and exist.
If it is untrue, then I exist.
Descartes' ontological argument was complete and utter shit. Seriously... us second year students tore him a new one as have countless others. I suggest that you read the Meditations and tell me that that proves anything.

Welcome to the middle of the road (if I may be so presumptious) :D

Surely you've worked out by now that the only way to feel comfortable in life is by crushing the opposition? :p

Why do you think I'm trying to reanimate the dead?

To get revenge on the people that made school Hell for me.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

(Finally, this link has proved useful to me)

Cool link.

The flaws quoted as fact are too numerous and when you break it right down Darwinism is nothing but another religion that must be taken largely on faith because the true undeniable facts are too few and far apart to have any likely links.

That is uninformed opinion.

Man was created perfectly but the eventual in-breeding that occured and continues to occure continues to create imerfections and junk DNA.

No evidence for a perfect man...

Even assuming that God created a mate for each of Adam and Eve's children there is still the matter of the flood that has been confirmed by acheological finds on all continents.

No evidence whatsoever of this global flood. I want you to point me to a source that says there is a single shread of evidence so I may have a nice laugh though.

The only ones to survive the flood was Noah, his wife, their children and their spouses.

No actual basis for this assumption.

As we sit now we would need a minimum of 100 non-related couples to have a viable base for the continuation of the species.
the fact that they did it with less than 20 and half of them related
shows that they human DNA was less congested with junk as it is now.
Darwinism is tragically flawed and one day I hope not too distant
mankind will realize the truth behind the saying and proverb: "The
smarter man becomes the less intelligent he becomes."
So you're asying that a fictional story with no evidence to support it debunks a scientific theory?

Wow, than you for insulting the intelligence of the entire board or creating a fun parody nation.

Everything we see has a cause.
However, even if those causes go back for infinitely long, there must have been a start sometime--the uncaused causer. For lack of a better word, let's call that God.
Yes, so I will now do these wavy hand motions to distract you while I pretend to pull a rabbit out of my hat and convince you it's magic.

That is the extent of your arguments. I took on elogic class and well, I don't even know where to begin with the poor argument structure here...

The major flaw in dismissing an inteligent
designer is that you forget the intervention of random in-species
mutation, direct involvement of satanic forces,

I'm sorry, what? Could you please detail the "direct involvement of satanic forces" please?

What a bloody joke!!!!!!!!!!! Of all publications I am not
surprissed that the NY times would be the one to print such a
travesty of faulty information and supposition. Treating this as
anything but another religious rant would be stupid. The flaws
quoted as fact are too numerous and when you break it right down
Darwinism is nothing but another religion that must be taken largely
on faith because the true undeniable facts are too few and far apart
to have any likely links. The major flaw in dismissing an inteligent
designer is that you forget the intervention of random in-species
mutation, direct involvement of satanic forces, the need to keep
population down when there was no form of birth-control. Man was
created perfectly but the eventual in-breeding that occured and
continues to occure continues to create imerfections and junk DNA.
Even assuming that God created a mate for each of Adam and Eve's
children there is still the matter of the flood that has been
confirmed by acheological finds on all continents. The only ones to
survive the flood was Noah, his wife, their children and their
spouses. As we sit now we would need a minimum of 100 non-related
couples to have a viable base for the continuation of the species.
the fact that they did it with less than 20 and half of them related
shows that they human DNA was less congested with junk as it is now.
Darwinism is tragically flawed and one day I hope not too distant
mankind will realize the truth behind the saying and proverb: "The
smarter man becomes the less intelligent he becomes."

O...k...

I honestly don't even know where to begin with this post.

Care to point me to one decent scientific article that suggests there was "The Flood"? Would you also mind explaining where all the water went?

What a wonderfully wrong mix of science and religion. Science is supposedly spot on with its understanding of DNA but utterly wrong about evolution.

"The Flood" happened and only Noah and his family (out of the entire human population) survives... yet where exactly did the Asians, Africans and others hang out while the entire globe was under water? How exactly does a ship successfully store 2 of EVERY CREATURE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD?

Argh... I've fallen prey to flamebait.

But on to the current portion of this thread, Descartes stated "I think, therefore I am". I don't recall him stating "I think, therefore I am therefore I have been created/designed by an unknowable entity some refer to as God".
In Descartes' Meditations he does his cogito ergo sum passage that is so famous, but that only allows for him to prove that he exists to himself. He essentailly invoked god to prove that everything else exists. Which is, arguably, why the ontological argument is so weak, it was not intended to prove god, but to prove everything other than himself.

Anyone else notice this was a direct link to the NY Times and that they usually charge for access to their archives?

This site helps you get access to those articles for free!

http://nytimes.blogspace.com/genlink.html

The NY Times website is already free. It just requires registration (which is free)

Religous texts ... not nessisarly atrbutes but acts atributed to him/her at least in the ways depicted by belief or writing

Yes, I'd agree. Religious texts are often easy to disprove via logical reasoning or scientific fact.

Although you'd have to admit (at least I do) that even if you were to utterly disprove a given religious text it does not have any bearing on the existence or lack thereof of that deity.

Lets make it simple for every one in the God vs.No God theories.

Lets use a basic example, lets take a court trial. The burden of proof is on the person who says it did happen. Or therefore says there is proof. There is no onus on the person who says it didn't happen and therefore no proof.

So to put this in simple terms. The onus of the "proof" of God does not lay with the person who says there is no God. It in fact lays with the person who says there is. For without proof of God the person who says there is no God must be taken on face value , because you can't prove a negative. You can't prove some thing doesn't exist in other words, when it doesn't exist.

So until a person or group can prove that there is a God, the people who say there isn't, certainly have the higher ground in the logic department.

The NY Times website is already free. It just requires registration (which is free)

Oops your right. Okay so it just disregards the need for registration.

Yes, I'd agree. Religious texts are often easy to disprove via logical reasoning or scientific fact.

Although you'd have to admit (at least I do) that even if you were to utterly disprove a given religious text it does not have any bearing on the existence or lack thereof of that deity.
Of course (hence my being agnostic) but with religious text's being in question all the rules and dogma that comes associated with religions seems silly

Lets make it simple for every one in the God vs.No God theories.

Lets use a basic example, lets take a court trial. The burden of proof is on the person who says it did happen. Or therefore says there is proof. There is no onus on the person who says it didn't happen and therefore no proof.

So to put this in simple terms. The onus of the "proof" of God does not lay with the person who says there is no God. It in fact lays with the person who says there is. For without proof of God the person who says there is no God must be taken on face value , because you can't prove a negative. You can't prove some thing doesn't exist in other words, when it doesn't exist.

So until a person or group can prove that there is a God, the people who say there isn't, certainly have the higher ground in the logic department.
Proof or lack thereof doesn't change the truth.

Proof or lack thereof doesn't change the truth.
the truth that god does not exist?

( want to note that I was being flippant)

Proof or lack thereof doesn't change the truth.

Proof is the basis of truth.

EDIT

and vice versa I suppose...

EDIT EDIT

This still leaves us in the dark of what the truth is.

Proof or lack thereof doesn't change the truth.

So if we go by evidence, then we could safely say there is no God. By your logic at least.

Then please rewrite is so it makes sense.

Much of your argument rests on the assumption that God exists in the first place to give us the things we need God for.

ARGUMENT FROM ASSUMPTION
(1) God exists.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

(Finally, this link has proved useful to me)

"DORE'S ARGUMENT
(1) I forgot to take my meds.
(2) Therefore, I AM CHRIST!!
(3) Therefore, God exists"


:D :D :D

ARGUMENT FROM ASSUMPTION
(1) God exists.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

(Finally, this link has proved useful to me)

Man, that site rocks. I especially like:

ARGUMENT FROM CREATION
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable
(3) Therefore, God exists.

It's used ever so often, and the wording on that page amuses me. I want to turn those into t-shirts and wear them around. I could mock idiots without even having to speak to them!

Lets make it simple for every one in the God vs.No God theories.

Lets use a basic example, lets take a court trial. The burden of proof is on the person who says it did happen. Or therefore says there is proof. There is no onus on the person who says it didn't happen and therefore no proof.

So to put this in simple terms. The onus of the "proof" of God does not lay with the person who says there is no God. It in fact lays with the person who says there is. For without proof of God the person who says there is no God must be taken on face value , because you can't prove a negative. You can't prove some thing doesn't exist in other words, when it doesn't exist.

So until a person or group can prove that there is a God, the people who say there isn't, certainly have the higher ground in the logic department.

Yes, the burden of proof does lie with those that claim God exists when they seek to prove it to others. Again, which is why religion is a matter of faith - you are asked to believe without proof.

Regardless, not being able to prove the existence of God doesn't inherently deny the existence of God. It (for the most part anyway) simply suggests that trying to argue the matter is a waste of time :D

This is from a while ago. Emperor Salamander, I believe the belief system you're looking for is Deism, also referred to as the "Watchmaker God" theory. He made it, he wound it up, and he let it loose. It now runs by itself. (note: not my belief)

Man, that site rocks. I especially like:

ARGUMENT FROM CREATION
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable
(3) Therefore, God exists.

It's used ever so often, and the wording on that page amuses me. I want to turn those into t-shirts and wear them around. I could mock idiots without even having to speak to them!
That is also one of my favoites :)

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/magazine/20WWLN.html?ex=1266642000&en=dc8de961f4e932be&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland?NYT_REG_SUCKS_ROCKS

Nice rejection of the 'theory' of Intelligent Design.
/me sighs.
Honestly, I'm just going to post an answer to the ridiculous ignorance shown by whomever wrote that rather unsatisfactory article.

First, he states that "old-fashioned biblical creationism at least risked making some hard factual claims -- that the earth was created before the sun, for example." Now, if he knew exactly WHAT he was talking about, he would have read Genesis and seen that God created light (ergo the Sun) before the earth. Thus, he shows that he has absolutely no knowledge of his subject material. Since this is a fairly common trait among those numerous individuals whose supposedly "open" minds are hopelessly prejudiced against religion from the start, I can already see that this fellow is going to be rather hard to logically argue against, seeing as how he has chosen to abandon logic entirely in favor of just saying whatever fits his purpose. Not to mention that he specifically uses Catholicism for all of his examples, which I, as a Christian, can tell you is pretty weak. Catholicism is so steeped in Secularism as to be indistinguishable from any government, full of corruption and unnecessary dogma.

Now, as far as his comments toward animals go, he is shooting blanks. God did not give animals souls. He put them here for our use, again as Genesis states. Not to mention that when the writer of the article mentioned how odd the physiology of Giraffes were, he failed to mention how amazing their coping mechanisms were. Consider, for example, the first true Giraffe, but without a large enought heart to pump blood all the way up its long neck. It would die. Of course, this is overlooked. This article is obviously biased, and the writer cares little for the facts and more for being an arrogant fool.

Original sin is a Catholic ideal, and I believe it is wrong, and thus I don't care what he says about it.

Now, the writer speaks of pain. Of course, what he fails to realize is that, until we were cast out of the Garden of Eden, life was perfect. It was only afterwards that words such as pain, etc. came into being. Thus, we feel pain noe only because we do not live in a perfect world where everything is absolutely great. If that's what you want, then go to Heaven. We exist on Earth to show that we are willing to follow God even when things DON'T go our way.

All in all, that New York Time article was terrible. It's just another example of Ratheresk journalism, marred by personal opinions, and ruined by terrible ignorance. The author has obviously not studied his subject matter. Thus, his opinions are of miniscule consequence.

Of course (hence my being agnostic) but with religious text's being in question all the rules and dogma that comes associated with religions seems silly

Which is why I'm largely content to "live and let live", people can fill their lives with as much dogma as they please unless/until it affects the lives of other people.

I guess that sums up my general opinion on everything "Do as you please, unless it adversely affects someone else".

Which is why I'm largely content to "live and let live", people can fill their lives with as much dogma as they please unless/until it affects the lives of other people.

I guess that sums up my general opinion on everything "Do as you please, unless it adversely affects someone else".
:) fair enough (btw you sound very deist mind if I ask what your denom/faith is?)

/me sighs.
Honestly, I'm just going to post an answer to the ridiculous ignorance shown by whomever wrote that rather unsatisfactory article.

First, he states that "old-fashioned biblical creationism at least risked making some hard factual claims -- that the earth was created before the sun, for example." Now, if he knew exactly WHAT he was talking about, he would have read Genesis and seen that God created light (ergo the Sun) before the earth. Thus, he shows that he has absolutely no knowledge of his subject material. Since this is a fairly common trait among those numerous individuals whose supposedly "open" minds are hopelessly prejudiced against religion from the start, I can already see that this fellow is going to be rather hard to logically argue against, seeing as how he has chosen to abandon logic entirely in favor of just saying whatever fits his purpose. Not to mention that he specifically uses Catholicism for all of his examples, which I, as a Christian, can tell you is pretty weak. Catholicism is so steeped in Secularism as to be indistinguishable from any government, full of corruption and unnecessary dogma.

Now, as far as his comments toward animals go, he is shooting blanks. God did not give animals souls. He put them here for our use, again as Genesis states. Not to mention that when the writer of the article mentioned how odd the physiology of Giraffes were, he failed to mention how amazing their coping mechanisms were. Consider, for example, the first true Giraffe, but without a large enought heart to pump blood all the way up its long neck. It would die. Of course, this is overlooked. This article is obviously biased, and the writer cares little for the facts and more for being an arrogant fool.

Original sin is a Catholic ideal, and I believe it is wrong, and thus I don't care what he says about it.

Now, the writer speaks of pain. Of course, what he fails to realize is that, until we were cast out of the Garden of Eden, life was perfect. It was only afterwards that words such as pain, etc. came into being. Thus, we feel pain noe only because we do not live in a perfect world where everything is absolutely great. If that's what you want, then go to Heaven. We exist on Earth to show that we are willing to follow God even when things DON'T go our way.

All in all, that New York Time article was terrible. It's just another example of Ratheresk journalism, marred by personal opinions, and ruined by terrible ignorance. The author has obviously not studied his subject matter. Thus, his opinions are of miniscule consequence.

But you have not provided a single answer on why creationism should be considered as a scientific theory. You have only ranted over some errors in the authors interpretation of the bible. :rolleyes:

ARGUMENT FROM HIDDEN LOGIC (I)
(1) Intellectually, I know that the existence of God is impossible, or vastly improbable.
(2) But I must put on the appearance of being cool and intellectual in front of my Christian apologist peers.
(3) Therefore, I must pretend that (1) is false.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

I like this one. It was kinda me for a while. I figured myself out, though.

If most of the beliefs of christianity are false (the bible is probably 99% disprovable stories, but i dont have a stat), then it seems foolish to believe in christianity. There may very well be a god/governing being/celestial presence in some form of reality in some dimension, but it's not worth arguing about.

aye, i forgot what i was about to say. damn cookies.

ARGUMENT FROM SINS I LIKE, aka PERCHANCE'S SISTER'S ARGUMENT (IV)
(1) I don't like abortion.
(2) But this is just my opinion.
(3) I want my opinion backed up with facts.
(4) But in the absence of facts, morals will do.
(5) Christians say abortion is a sin! Yeah! I have allies!
(6) But for a sin to exist and Christians to be right, God must exist.
(7) Therefore, God exists.

this is tight too

:) fair enough (btw you sound very deist mind if I ask what your denom/faith is?)

Basically, yes. I have no issues with being considered a Deist. Although I'm perhaps a little less critical of moderate revealed religions (Buddhism for example) than a "true" Deist might be...

It'd be nice if everybody just got along, neh?
Like Christ said...

But WAIT! don't lots of christians not get along with people?

I'll shut up now.

ARGUMENT FROM WHAT MAKES SENSE
(1) Doesn't it just make more sense that an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good deity created the world out of nothingness, from magic, essentially, and then punished us for eating a piece of fruit, and then incarnated himself in human flesh and came down to shed his own blood so he could break his own rules, and then went through hell on a temporary basis and then went back into the sky and promised to come back and take everyone who believed in him to this heaven no one has ever seen?
(2) Well, doesn't it?
(3) Therefore, God exists.

The NY Times website is already free. It just requires registration (which is free)

cpunks2/cpunks2 worked, last time I checked.

/me sighs.
Honestly, I'm just going to post an answer to the ridiculous ignorance shown by whomever wrote that rather unsatisfactory article.

And I'm very glad you did. Gave me a chance to use the link provided earlier to amuse myself with.

First, he states that "old-fashioned biblical creationism at least risked making some hard factual claims -- that the earth was created before the sun, for example." Now, if he knew exactly WHAT he was talking about, he would have read Genesis and seen that God created light (ergo the Sun) before the earth. Thus, he shows that he has absolutely no knowledge of his subject material. Since this is a fairly common trait among those numerous individuals whose supposedly "open" minds are hopelessly prejudiced against religion from the start, I can already see that this fellow is going to be rather hard to logically argue against, seeing as how he has chosen to abandon logic entirely in favor of just saying whatever fits his purpose. Not to mention that he specifically uses Catholicism for all of his examples, which I, as a Christian, can tell you is pretty weak. Catholicism is so steeped in Secularism as to be indistinguishable from any government, full of corruption and unnecessary dogma.

ARGUMENT FROM INEVITABILITY
(1) I have proof that God exists.
(2) I won't bother to tell you what it is because, being Atheists, you would be hostile to the conclusion anyway.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM SEVERABILITY
(1) Lots of ridiculous statements are made by people who only claim to be Real Christians.
(2) They just give Real Christians a bad name.
(3) Real Christians don't believe <insert Biblical reference> is literally true.
(4) But that doesn't mean the Bible isn't still mostly true.
(5) And the Bible is the Word of God.
(6) Therefore, God exists.

Now, as far as his comments toward animals go, he is shooting blanks. God did not give animals souls. He put them here for our use, again as Genesis states. Not to mention that when the writer of the article mentioned how odd the physiology of Giraffes were, he failed to mention how amazing their coping mechanisms were. Consider, for example, the first true Giraffe, but without a large enought heart to pump blood all the way up its long neck. It would die. Of course, this is overlooked. This article is obviously biased, and the writer cares little for the facts and more for being an arrogant fool.

ARGUMENT FROM SADISM (I)
(1) I enjoy hurting animals/eating meat/using animals as slaves.
(2) I find some justification for it in the Bible.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) Check out the world/universe/giraffe. Isn't it complex?
(2) Only God could have made them so complex.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM INEVITABILITY
(1) I have proof that God exists.
(2) I won't bother to tell you what it is because, being Atheists, you would be hostile to the conclusion anyway.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

Original sin is a Catholic ideal, and I believe it is wrong, and thus I don't care what he says about it.

ARGUMENT FROM SEVERABILITY
(1) Lots of ridiculous statements are made by people who only claim to be Real Christians.
(2) They just give Real Christians a bad name.
(3) Real Christians don't believe <insert Biblical reference> is literally true.
(4) But that doesn't mean the Bible isn't still mostly true.
(5) And the Bible is the Word of God.
(6) Therefore, God exists.

Now, the writer speaks of pain. Of course, what he fails to realize is that, until we were cast out of the Garden of Eden, life was perfect. It was only afterwards that words such as pain, etc. came into being. Thus, we feel pain not only because we do not live in a perfect world where everything is absolutely great. If that's what you want, then go to Heaven. We exist on Earth to show that we are willing to follow God even when things DON'T go our way.

ARGUMENT FROM THINGS HURT (I)
(1) Things hurt.
(2) Atheists think that things aren't supposed to hurt.
(3) They really are whiney, aren't they?
(4) Christians are stronger than that.
(5) Therefore, God exists.

All in all, that New York Time article was terrible. It's just another example of Ratheresk journalism, marred by personal opinions, and ruined by terrible ignorance. The author has obviously not studied his subject matter. Thus, his opinions are of miniscule consequence.

I quite liked the article. But then, I'm a dirty communist heathen, so I would, wouldn't I?

well good goddam. i do believe Shaed just set a new record for single-post PWNERSHIP.

my hat is off to you, my good fellow poster.

I'd email it to the president, but that might surrender my IP and I don't know when it will change. Also, it's probably to technical for him to read. president@whitehouse.gov if anyone cares.

First, he states that "old-fashioned biblical creationism at least risked making some hard factual claims -- that the earth was created before the sun, for example." Now, if he knew exactly WHAT he was talking about, he would have read Genesis and seen that God created light (ergo the Sun) before the earth. Thus, he shows that he has absolutely no knowledge of his subject material.

Sorry, but the author was quite correct. It is true Genesis starts with seperating light and darkness - but the sun, moon and stars were not created until day 4. Well *after* the creation of the earth (and vegetation for that matter). The source of light before the sun is not specified.
Check your bible if you don't believe me, here is a link:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=1&version=49

Not to mention that when the writer of the article mentioned how odd the physiology of Giraffes were, he failed to mention how amazing their coping mechanisms were.
Because that doesn't matter. He points out what he considers design flaws in an otherwise quite remarkable animal. His point is that if such flaws exist God is not perfect either, no matter how brilliant the rest of his creations

well good goddam. i do believe Shaed just set a new record for single-post PWNERSHIP.

my hat is off to you, my good fellow poster.
Agreed :) and used that wonderfull site (they make one where someone coppyed it and changed it to why god does exist but it just is not as funny ... but maybe that is the author they really were not origional ... essentialy did a find and replace and swaped a few verbs around)

The worst one is the idea someone espoused that God created humans perfect, and then our DNA became full of junk through inbreeding. However, that isn't the way that inbreeding usually works. Assuming that the Bible is correct and humanity is 6,000 years old, and at a generation every 20 years, that's 300 generations. If every single human descended from two humans, the vast majority of humans should have severe physiological problems. For example, look at pure bred dogs. Their reproductive cycle is faster, so they have gone through more generations. For a dog to be pure bred, both its parents must be registered pure breds, so inbreeding is par for the course. Many of these pure bred dogs suffer from glaucoma, malformed pelvises, and other physical ailments attributed to too much inbreeding. With a new generation every five years (I know that this is too long, but just for the math) they would run through 300 generations in 1500 years. However, most pure bred dogs haven't been around for 1500 years. Most have been around for less than 500. Inbreeding is fast to show damage.

And I'm very glad you did. Gave me a chance to use the link provided earlier to amuse myself with.

[/COLOR]

ARGUMENT FROM INEVITABILITY
(1) I have proof that God exists.
(2) I won't bother to tell you what it is because, being Atheists, you would be hostile to the conclusion anyway.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM SEVERABILITY
(1) Lots of ridiculous statements are made by people who only claim to be Real Christians.
(2) They just give Real Christians a bad name.
(3) Real Christians don't believe <insert Biblical reference> is literally true.
(4) But that doesn't mean the Bible isn't still mostly true.
(5) And the Bible is the Word of God.
(6) Therefore, God exists.



ARGUMENT FROM SADISM (I)
(1) I enjoy hurting animals/eating meat/using animals as slaves.
(2) I find some justification for it in the Bible.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) Check out the world/universe/giraffe. Isn't it complex?
(2) Only God could have made them so complex.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM INEVITABILITY
(1) I have proof that God exists.
(2) I won't bother to tell you what it is because, being Atheists, you would be hostile to the conclusion anyway.
(3) Therefore, God exists.



ARGUMENT FROM SEVERABILITY
(1) Lots of ridiculous statements are made by people who only claim to be Real Christians.
(2) They just give Real Christians a bad name.
(3) Real Christians don't believe <insert Biblical reference> is literally true.
(4) But that doesn't mean the Bible isn't still mostly true.
(5) And the Bible is the Word of God.
(6) Therefore, God exists.



ARGUMENT FROM THINGS HURT (I)
(1) Things hurt.
(2) Atheists think that things aren't supposed to hurt.
(3) They really are whiney, aren't they?
(4) Christians are stronger than that.
(5) Therefore, God exists.



I quite liked the article. But then, I'm a dirty communist heathen, so I would, wouldn't I?

that had completely no logic in it at all. on that last one, i am atheist, yet i hunt, hurting is only caused by nerve endings leading to the brain and helps animals and other organisms survive by allowing them to know when something is potentially harming them. on your theological argument, everything is so complex because it is chaotic, not cause it's ordered that way. and you said animals don't have souls? well, neither do humans or any other living thing for that matter. i could tell you things against all that stuff, but i'm not going too cause it's pretty obvious what's wronge with it.

that had completely no logic in it at all.

That's actually pretty much the entire point of the site Shaed is quoting - to point out the flaws in several hundred "logical" arguments that god exists.

Here: http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

is a good place to apply those "arguments for god".

First, he states that "old-fashioned biblical creationism at least risked making some hard factual claims -- that the earth was created before the sun, for example." Now, if he knew exactly WHAT he was talking about, he would have read Genesis and seen that God created light (ergo the Sun) before the earth.

Me thinks perhaps it would be good for you to reread The Text (http://www.bibleontheweb.com/Bible.asp). Though, to be convenient, I will quote it for you here.

"
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. 6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. 9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day. 14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. "

Which states quite clearly, that G-d created the earth "In the beginning", it existed before light, before land, and yes, before the sun which wasn't created until the 4th day.

Thus, he shows that he has absolutely no knowledge of his subject material.

Pot meet kettle, thy name is, "black".

Since this is a fairly common trait among those numerous individuals whose supposedly "open" minds are hopelessly prejudiced against religion from the start, I can already see that this fellow is going to be rather hard to logically argue against, seeing as how he has chosen to abandon logic entirely in favor of just saying whatever fits his purpose. Not to mention that he specifically uses Catholicism for all of his examples, which I, as a Christian, can tell you is pretty weak. Catholicism is so steeped in Secularism as to be indistinguishable from any government, full of corruption and unnecessary dogma.

See above, regarding "black".

Now, as far as his comments toward animals go, he is shooting blanks. God did not give animals souls. He put them here for our use, again as Genesis states. Not to mention that when the writer of the article mentioned how odd the physiology of Giraffes were, he failed to mention how amazing their coping mechanisms were. Consider, for example, the first true Giraffe, but without a large enought heart to pump blood all the way up its long neck. It would die. Of course, this is overlooked. This article is obviously biased, and the writer cares little for the facts and more for being an arrogant fool.

It's coping mechanisms do not suggest intelligent design (or at least, not that of a perfect designer), as they are as often as not coping with flaws inside the design. The first, 'true' giraffe would have a heart capable of pumping the blood up it's neck. It would not be a single gene change that would result in the neck size jumping from 6 inches to 20 feet. Your argument from ignorance is lacking in material.

Original sin is a Catholic ideal, and I believe it is wrong, and thus I don't care what he says about it.

Doesn't change the statement about how flawed the 'design' is that results in 2/3ds of all humans conceived not being born. If conception is the start of 'life' and the beginning of the 'soul' why would a just and loving god whom is perfect kill off 2/3ds before they ever get a chance to experience his creation?

Now, the writer speaks of pain. Of course, what he fails to realize is that, until we were cast out of the Garden of Eden, life was perfect. It was only afterwards that words such as pain, etc. came into being. Thus, we feel pain noe only because we do not live in a perfect world where everything is absolutely great. If that's what you want, then go to Heaven. We exist on Earth to show that we are willing to follow God even when things DON'T go our way.

Objection, assumptions based on facts not found in evidence. The garden of eden has no evidence beyond that of a metaphor. Human beings show no genetic evidence of ever being 'perfect' or lacking the ability to feel pain. The world shows no evidence of ever existing in a 'perfect' state either.

All in all, that New York Time article was terrible. It's just another example of Ratheresk journalism, marred by personal opinions, and ruined by terrible ignorance. The author has obviously not studied his subject matter. Thus, his opinions are of miniscule consequence.

All in all, this post was terrible. It was just another example of argument sans information or reason, marred by personal opinion, and ruined by terrible ignorance. The author has obviously not studied his subject matter. Thus, his opinions are of miniscule consequence.

Pot meet kettle, thy name is, "black".
:D
That was the funniest way of saying that I've heard.

Here: http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

is a good place to apply those "arguments for god".

Obviously, you "oppose even the possibility of there being a God".

Or possibly you just want a set of arguments with fewer holes than that one. As far as I could tell, the story of the site is "writer finds religion. Writer proselytizes about it because it's just so obvious that this is the One True Way (tm). Reader leaves, unconvinced of anything beyond fervent wish that author is not embarking on a logic degree at uni."

Since you asked so nicely.

Now, if we doubt-- we are
I'll let that stand, even if people incapable of doubt still exist. Doubt does not equal existance.

If there is us-- there is a creator
Jumping to conclusions here. There is no proof for that.

if there is a creator-- there is an uncreated creator
Thats taking the first jump a step higher. I can create things without being created if we indeed are the product of chance, right? This is only true if the aforementioned jump towards a creator is true.

if there is an uncreated creator-- there is God
No. This is what you believe. Who are you to say that, if we, for sake of argument, assume a supernatural influence took place, it wasnt a pantheon of gods? Or a being that doesnt in a way fit your description of God?

If we have an independant sense of justice, and are incapable of doing anything but good or a bad perception thereof-- there is a just GodOr we are just that, independent? A/o able to do evil. Or good/evil just dont fit, because you, once again, assume that your moral system is universal.

If we fear anihilation-- Our just God would give us eternal life
Then why do we die? Or, if you believe in a immortal soul, why are we born into the flesh in the first place? Besides, "just" isnt the same as "loving" or "present-giving". It means fair judgement, not giving away freebies.

If we have infinite existance-- We have a soul
You didnt even prove infinite existance yet, but why does it have to be a "soul" instead of say our mental and emotional capacity? Is what you perceive as real everyday not enough and must a non-perceivable spiritual attribute be added?

If we have souls-- We should not murder our young :confused:
If God gives the innocent eternal bliss in heaven, murdering is the best we could do for them. Look at it this way, i am willing (assuming your theological construct is right) to suffer for all eternity so that my offspring may surely go to heaven, something that isnt a certainity once he lives among us and matures enough to take bad choices. The more babies i kill or abort, the more souls i save from the clutches of Satan. Sounds evil? It is pure, cold logic.

Ergo, God is the ultimate pro-lifer-- He makes life!!!
QED
How shall i put it? :rolleyes:
Muahahaha, maybe?

Or possibly you just want a set of arguments with fewer holes than that one. As far as I could tell, the story of the site is "writer finds religion. Writer proselytizes about it because it's just so obvious that this is the One True Way (tm). Reader leaves, unconvinced of anything beyond fervent wish that author is not embarking on a logic degree at uni."

Exactement mon ami! :D :D :D

:D
That was the funniest way of saying that I've heard.


Thanks, I (try to) make a living off of finding funny ways of mocking people.

<very colorful SNIP>

Shaed you are awesome.

Here: http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

is a good place to apply those "arguments for god".
Wow, this person is an idiot.

Has someone already done a point by point tearing apart of the article? It seems oh so easy.

Has someone already done a point by point tearing apart of the article? It seems oh so easy.

"The rebuttal has been left as an exercise for the student."

point by point of the second article: http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html because i'm bored.

Now, the fact that so many people believe something certainly doesn't make it true. But when so many people through the ages are so personally convinced that God exists, can one say with absolute confidence that they are all mistaken?

Many cultures also believed that the earth was on the back of a gian turtle or that someone was holding up the earth. Does this mean that they were right because they had independant corroboration of their myths? Certainly not.

The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.4 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.
This one will be more in depth because I have a greater understanding of the science here...

1. First off, comparing the largest and the smallest planets (smallest meaning smallest whose planet status is not questioned here) and saying that if earth were either of these two extremes, we'd be screwed is stupid. For one thing, if not for Jupiter's influence, Mars would have been large enough to retain its atmosphere and thus have liquid water. Veuns is the right size for having an atmosphere, hell, it has an atmosphere.
2. Oxygen gases were not present in such abundance before plant life really got going on this planet. It is life on earth that made the conditions suitable for life as we know it.
3. If earth were larger, the atmosphere would not have more hydrogen necessarily. For one thing, hydrogen is really reactive, if anything we'd have more water and methane and ammonia.
4. Humans are animals, putting us in a separate category while exculding say bacteria and fungi which are in their own kindgoms is just stupid.

The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.
1. Not true. If mars had greater gravity, then it would be capable of sustaining life. It is only the low pressure of the atmosphere that keeps it from having liquid water.
2. The earth moves further and closer from the sun throughout its orbit. It's an elliptical orbit and the eccentricity of the ellipse changes over time. So at times, the earth is much further away from the sun and much closer on the other side. This is the big reason why we end up with ice ages.
3. Most planets rotate on their axis in a reasonable amount of time with the exception of those like mercury which are in a 2:3 rotation:orbit resonance due to the sun's influence or venus which seems to have suffered a cataclysmic event similar to what broke off our moon except that this comet would have been going the other way and thus robbed it of most of its spin.
4. The moon has more to do with the stability of earth's average temperature than anything.

And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet it restrains our massive oceans from spilling over across the continents.
The moon was closer in the past and will continue to move further and further away until it is in a tidal lock with the earth at which point, the moon will only be visible from one side of the earth. The moon also has nothing to do with keeping the water from moving accross the continents, that's just sheer stupidity.

It has an unusually high boiling point and freezing point. Water allows us to live in an environment of fluctuating temperature changes, while keeping our bodies a steady 98.6 degrees.
No it doesn't. Copper has a much higher boiling and frezing point than water. Also, different animals have different body temperatures... water has relatively little to do with this in mamals unless you consider soaking in water and sweat. Repiles have nothing to do with it.

Then the rest of the water section is right... but has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

The human brain...simultaneously processes an amazing amount of information. Your brain takes in all the colors and objects you see, the temperature around you, the pressure of your feet against the floor, the sounds around you, the dryness of your mouth, even the texture of this article in your hand. Your brain registers emotional responses, thoughts and memories. At the same time your brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of your body like your breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands.
1. Colour blind peopel can't see colours or at least have limited ability to do so..
2. It's sensory perception, most animals have it to some degree. Why this is limited to the human brain, I don't know.

and finally the point og the brain section:
Only a mind more intelligent and knowledgeable than humanity could have created the human brain.
Unbased assumption.

Imagine looking at Mount Rushmore, in which the likenesses of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt are carved. Could you ever believe that it came about by chance?
Irrelevant

The distinguished astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle showed how amino acids randomly coming together in a human cell is mathematically absurd. Sir Hoyle illustrated the weakness of "chance" with the following analogy. "What are the chances that a tornado might blow through a junkyard containing all the parts of a 747, accidentally assemble them into a plane, and leave it ready for take-off? The possibilities are so small as to be negligible even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole universe!"9
Considering the number of chamical reactions that could have been taking place in seas all over the world for thousands of years... Even a minute chance is a good one. Not to mention that this guy failed to take into account the fact that certain molecules fit together in certain ways... Plus he's an astronomer. And as much as I would like to say that astronomers are perfect and know everything, they don't.

When one considers the intricacies of our life and universe, it is reasonable to think that an intelligent, loving Creator provided for everything we need for life. The Bible describes God as the author and sustainer of life.
Reasonable, perhaps... Any reason to? No.

4. Does God exist? Humankind's inherent sense of right and wrong cannot be biologically explained.
We live in a society. There are some things you can't do if you live in a society or else you end up with a bunch of paranoid fucks who don't do their work because they're too busy worrying that their next door neighbour is going to come by and steal their shit or kill them in their sleep.

5. Does God exist? God not only has revealed Himself in what can be observed in nature, and in human life, but He has even more specifically shown Himself in the Bible.
Yes, let's invoke a book that has no proof! I've had enough of this point already.

6. Does God exist? Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God.
Same as above.

"The rebuttal has been left as an exercise for the student."
Where was that?

Where was that?

Sorry, I was misquoting mathematics textbooks, which use similar language when they think the proof is too easy to bother providing in the book.

Essentially, too easy to bother with unless you're fairly bored.

This entire thread just makes me laugh. You people surely have better things to do with your time... right? Half of you should be out having a good time and the other half should be reading your Bible or something productive. Neither of you are going to change anyone's mind, just quit wasting your time.

If you're a christian go pray, read or like give money to people or something. If you're not a christian then go work out, study or clean up a park. Just do SOMETHING productive... geez.

(just to pre-cover myself from people saying "why aren't you doing that"; I'm at work, so I waste time on the internet while I'm here) (I also understand that's not a good excuse so I have a double standard) (... so what)

Well, I recently returned from work and am waiting for my food. so foad.

Sorry, I was misquoting mathematics textbooks, which use similar language when they think the proof is too easy to bother providing in the book.

Essentially, too easy to bother with unless you're fairly bored.
My textbook does that, but it's not usually with easy proofs. They leave it as problems at the end of the chapter.

I'll add my 2 cents...


The distinguished astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle showed how amino acids randomly coming together in a human cell is mathematically absurd. Sir Hoyle illustrated the weakness of "chance" with the following analogy. "What are the chances that a tornado might blow through a junkyard containing all the parts of a 747, accidentally assemble them into a plane, and leave it ready for take-off? The possibilities are so small as to be negligible even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole universe!

However there's a crucial difference there - purpose. Each part in a 747 is designed to do its role and only its role. If you switched a wheel with an engine turbine rotor, it wouldn't work.

Amino acids, on the other hand, are often interchangeable. Proteins interact in myriads of ways. The parts don't need to be just right for it to work - for any given biological "part," there are probably a bunch of different ways amino acids can be assembled for it to achieve the same function. Not so with a 747.

The next issue with that argument is the fact that he's using the probability of a SPECIFIC instance occurring to claim that the GENERAL case could not happen. That's like saying that because the probability of any given person winning the lottery is ludicrously low, then NOBODY can win the lottery (without divine intervention). The argument only holds water if you claim that humans are a "goal" of the biological assembly.

And, of course, he's neglecting the fact that a human cell formed through the influence of NONRANDOM processes - evolution and NATURAL SELECTION over three-some billion years. Only the first cell formed through anything near random processes - though it too was affected by the laws of physics which would constrain many possibilities.

Here is something that bothers me.
Please explain if you can.
(Sorry about the spelling)

The sceintific theory is the most genraly accepted way to prove something scientificly

People claim you can prove evolution, the big bang, etc. scientificly

The sceintific theory uses the repetition of a situation to prove how something works/happens

Yet you cannot repeat events like the big bang or humans evolving (at the time of this post anyway :P )

So how do you "scientificly" prove evolution,big bang, etc?



Side note: Isn't an example of an mutation (the focus of evoulution) cancer?

My textbook does that, but it's not usually with easy proofs. They leave it as problems at the end of the chapter.

Given that context, my comment was nonsensical as well as cryptic. Oh well - you get the idea anyway...

Here is something that bothers me.
Please explain if you can.
(Sorry about the spelling)

The sceintific theory is the most genraly accepted way to prove something scientificly

People claim you can prove evolution, the big bang, etc. scientificly

The sceintific theory uses the repetition of a situation to prove how something works/happens

Yet you cannot repeat events like the big bang or humans evolving (at the time of this post anyway :P )

So how do you "scientificly" prove evolution,big bang, etc?

in the scientific method, you construct a hypothesis that generates certain predictions, and then attempt to find out if those predictions are accurate. you can "predict" backwards in time, by predicting what the fossil record should show if your theory is correct, or by predicting a variety of biological features that should exist if life developed according to your theory.


Side note: Isn't an example of an mutation (the focus of evoulution) cancer?
the whole POINT of the theory of natural selection is that not all mutations are successful or beneficial. that's the core of evolutionary theory.

Here is something that bothers me.
Please explain if you can.
(Sorry about the spelling)

The sceintific theory is the most genraly accepted way to prove something scientificly

People claim you can prove evolution, the big bang, etc. scientificly

The sceintific theory uses the repetition of a situation to prove how something works/happens

Yet you cannot repeat events like the big bang or humans evolving (at the time of this post anyway :P )

So how do you "scientificly" prove evolution,big bang, etc?


Yet the big bang and evolution theories make predictions. If this happened then we should see this. They look for whatever it is that the theory suggests, find it, see it as a confirmation of the theory, look for another thing the theory predicts. When something that doesn't fit the theory is found, the theory must be modified (or if the new discovery is contradictory enough, abandoned) to fit with the new discovery.

Side note: Isn't an example of an mutation (the focus of evoulution) cancer?
Cancer occurs in an organism that already exists, the mutations that concern evolution are those that occur during the formation of an organism...

Here is something that bothers me.
Please explain if you can.
(Sorry about the spelling)

The sceintific theory is the most genraly accepted way to prove something scientificly

People claim you can prove evolution, the big bang, etc. scientificly

The sceintific theory uses the repetition of a situation to prove how something works/happens

Yet you cannot repeat events like the big bang or humans evolving (at the time of this post anyway :P )

So how do you "scientificly" prove evolution,big bang, etc?



Side note: Isn't an example of an mutation (the focus of evoulution) cancer?

the big bang has already been repeated thousands of times, ever hear of the multiuniverse theory?

The key thing to remember with evolution is that it is not towards anything. Evolution is away from something. Look at birds and dinosaurs. Most paleontologists agree that birds evolved from dinosaurs, and look at the differences. Birds are smaller, consuming less food, making survival in a resource scarce area easier (i.e. after the earth's oxygen ratio, average temperature, and such went down). Yet, you see the hold over traits--laying clutches of eggs, for example. Oh, and don't confuse evolution with "survival of the fittest." That is Social Darwinism (not that Darwin created or even agreed with this theory) and it is entirely different.