NationStates Jolt Archive

@Kormanthor: If Jesus is God he's also responsible for killing off humanity in the Flood, right? Is such a figure worth worshipping?

Stop asking for proof of God. It's called faith because it can't be proven.

Because it can't be proven, it can't be used in a valid argument. Please leave God and faith out of this.

So the concept of faith is pointless?

@Kormanthor: If Jesus is God he's also responsible for killing off humanity in the Flood, right? Is such a figure worth worshipping?

Remember, that's OT, it doesn't count.

@Kormanthor: If Jesus is God he's also responsible for killing off humanity in the Flood, right? Is such a figure worth worshiping?

Certainly. Look, if you kick a dog around enough it will see you as a god and fear your wrath. Those who take the bible literally are whimpering dogs licking their master's feet in hopes they won't be kicked anymore.

Did you?
Yes, I've studied it academically.

But that's not that relevant. What I have more of a problem with is the fact you don't seem to have done any of the basic research into the basic tenents of your own religion. You're just parroting soundbites with no real ability to defend them, because you're transparently just repeating what you've been told by someone else.

Yes, I've studied it academically.

But that's not that relevant. What I have more of a problem with is the fact you don't seem to have done any of the basic research into the basic tenents of your own religion. You're just parroting soundbites with no real ability to defend them, because you're transparently just repeating what you've been told by someone else.

And even 1700 years ago they recognized birds were related to fish through evolution.

Certainly. Look, if you kick a dog around enough it will see you as a god and fear your wrath. Those who take the bible literally are whimpering dogs licking their master's feet in hopes they won't be kicked anymore.

How convenient. And how braindead.

And even 1700 years ago they recognized birds were related to fish through evolution.

WHAT ?

How convenient. And how braindead.

Thank you. *Takes a bow*

WHAT ?

Read the quote a few pages back.

Scientific validity means nothing ... the scientist of early earth cultures thought the world was flat. Did their belief of that make it true? No

Actually, no, they did not. In fact, they conclusively demonstrated that the Earth was a sphere, and even got its size correct to within a few hundred miles. You have fallen victim to one of the most infamous urban legends around.

By the way, the last major grouping of people to believe that the world was flat were the people who wrote the first few books of the Bible. In short, the world hasn't been thought to be flat for over four thousand years.

Thank you. *Takes a bow*

But in the case of kicked dogs there actually is a master while "believers" are in fact only kicking themselves... so whose feet are they licking? :eek:

kicked earth and flat dogs?

Certainly. Look, if you kick a dog around enough it will see you as a god and fear your wrath. Those who take the bible literally are whimpering dogs licking their master's feet in hopes they won't be kicked anymore.
If you kick a dog enough it'll jump up and bite you. HARD. A lot. It won't love you or fear you, it'll hate you and try to hurt or even kill you.

Prove That:rolleyes: typical-give a creationist some 1st year uni stuff and the best he can do is say "prove it". Not "I'll check that out because I have an open mind and I'm curious to learn the truth", but as I predicted total denial and a refusal to accept evidence.

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and undeniable, one needs to delusional, blind or ignorant not to see it, creationists have all 3 traits.

But in the case of kicked dogs there actually is a master while "believers" are in fact only kicking themselves... so whose feet are they licking? :eek:

Random people on the subway.

By the way, the last major grouping of people to believe that the world was flat were the people who wrote the first few books of the Bible. In short, the world hasn't been thought to be flat for over four thousand years.

But the the first few books of the Bible were not written four thousand years ago, but merely 2300 years ago.

If you kick a dog enough it'll jump up and bite you. HARD. A lot. It won't love you or fear you, it'll hate you and try to hurt or even kill you.

Depends on the dog and how hard you beat the shit out of it. Now I'm not advocating that as a method of dog training, but some dogs are wired to be more submissive and using force will drive home the point that you're the alpha in the relationship.

But the the first few books of the Bible were not written four thousand years ago, but merely 2300 years ago.
Wrote is used metaphorically, because I can't think of the proper word to use for the origins of the tales.

Depends on the dog and how hard you beat the shit out of it. Now I'm not advocating that as a method of dog training, but some dogs are wired to be more submissive and using force will drive home the point that you're the alpha in the relationship.

Oh, that sparks a thought.... is it reasonable to divide the population into categories like in Brave New World? Into Alphas, Betas, Gammas, Deltas, Epsilons? Based on their ability to leave faith behind and become intelligent?

Wrote is used metaphorically, because I can't think of the proper word to use for the origins of the tales.

:confused:

Wrote is used metaphorically, because I can't think of the proper word to use for the origins of the tales.Oral tradition?

Oh, that sparks a thought.... is it reasonable to divide the population into categories like in Brave New World? Into Alphas, Betas, Gammas, Deltas, Epsilons? Based on their ability to leave faith behind and become intelligent?

I think so, but then I've never seen a bad idea I didn't like, so don't go by me.

:confused:

The tales originated over 4,000 years ago. By the time they were transcribed, the Earth had already been demonstrated to be round.

Oral tradition?

Sumerian literature faultily cited?

But the the first few books of the Bible were not written four thousand years ago, but merely 2300 years ago.different cultures had different knowledge at different times, and sometimes knowledge was lost with the fall of various civilizations so had to be discovered again elsewhere....Eygptians were aware of the earth being round 4-5000 yrs ago....

Sumerian literature faultily cited?
Not merely Sumerian. A lot of the Bible is made up of traditional Jewish folktales. Possibly collected in Q, which both Matthew and Luke seem to have had access to. But it's been lost in history.

The tales originated over 4,000 years ago. By the time they were transcribed, the Earth had already been demonstrated to be round.

The "tales" weren't transcribed, they were completely re-fashioned. That was in 300 BCE. The idea that the Earth is spherical indeed predates this date by almost 300 years.

Not merely Sumerian. A lot of the Bible is made up of traditional Jewish folktales. Possibly collected in Q, which both Matthew and Luke seem to have had access to. But it's been lost in history.

What are traditional Jewish folktales? Jews did not exist prior to Persian rule over the Middle East, and prior to that Israelites or Hebrews had no other folktales than anyone else in the region. Why would they?
And what's Q? Trekkie? Don't tell me you mean Qumran, since that stuff is all from hasmonean times.
.

The "tales" weren't transcribed, they were completely re-fashioned. That was in 300 BCE. The idea that the Earth is spherical indeed predates this date by almost 300 years.

The idea that the Earth is spherical has been around ever since humanity settled near oceans. It just wasn't conclusively demonstrated until later.

What are traditional Jewish folktales? Jews did not exist prior to Persian rule over the Middle East, and prior to that Israelites or Hebrews had no other folktales than anyone else in the region. Why would they?
And what's Q? Trekkie? Don't tell me you mean Qumran, since that stuff is all from hasmonean times.
.

Q is the name of one of the ?four? groupings of mythos that the Bible is derived from.

Q is the name of one of the ?four? groupings of mythos that the Bible is derived from.

:confused: the Bible is derived from Mesopotamian, Levantine, and a little Egyptian legend (not necessarily myth), the events in the history of the Israelites, and a god fabricated out of numerous other deities.

What are traditional Jewish folktales? Jews did not exist prior to Persian rule over the Middle East, and prior to that Israelites or Hebrews had no other folktales than anyone else in the region. Why would they?[/qupte]
No more folk tales than anyone else, certainly. But all historical peoples have their own myths and legends, and the Jews are no different. And it's those I think were passed down orally.
And what's Q? Trekkie? Don't tell me you mean Qumran, since that stuff is all from hasmonean times.
.

Nah, he provides James Bond with all his gadgets. :p

Q is a hypothetical source document used by both Luke and Matthew. It's existence isn't universally accepted, but a lot of Biblical scholars believe in the theory's validity.

This is a reasonable good introduction to it- http://www.religioustolerance.org/gosp_q.htm

And where has Kormanthor gone?

And where has Kormanthor gone?

ITZ THE RAPTURE!

(Everyone look busy).

a hypothetical source document? :D
and what do I care for gospels?

and really, the linked site hurts

please read this instead: Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (ETCSL) (http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/)

.

And where has Kormanthor gone?where all creationists go when they have no answers-off line

a hypothetical source document? :D
and what do I care for gospels?To be fair, it's a source document who's existence is believed to be backed up by comparative text studies of Matthew and Luke.

And I think it's interesting as a concept merely from an academic standpoint. :p

and really, the linked site hurtsReally? I'd see Religious Tolerance as about as near as you can get to a non-partisan site on religious controversies.

To be fair, it's a source document who's existence is believed to be backed up by comparative text studies of Matthew and Luke.

That's ridiculous. And even so it would not contain any information about the issue here.

And I think it's interesting as a concept merely from an academic standpoint. :p
Really? I'd see Religious Tolerance as about as near as you can get to a non-partisan site on religious controversies.

Tolerance is a flawed concept.
Tolerance means to suffer those who do not deserve sufferance.

.

Buddah can't walk because he isn't real and Thor is a comic book hero.

Never heard of Norse mythology?

My FAITH is all the proof I need, you say I need to prove that God exists because without God creationism wouldn't be possible. I have experience healing by praying to Jesus. That makes him real to me. The scriptures say that Jesus healed people when he was on Earth. He still heals people here on Earth even though he is no longer here. The scripture also says that God created the Heavens and the Earth and placed Man & Woman upon it. That is all the proof I need. Think about it .... what if I am correct?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo_effect

Thor = a viking God, no less relevant than your one.

That's Norse!

You assume people are capable of listening.

This thread provides evidence that does not support that hypothesis.

None have proven Evolution

Disproof is more important.

Consider the fact that if you take the bible literally you're putting your faith in a genocidal, homophobic, bigoted creature who punishes knowledge and can't even clearly describe the beings he claims to have created. If you take the bible literally you're worshipping evil. I, however, fear no evil.

George Bush?

The "tales" weren't transcribed, they were completely re-fashioned. That was in 300 BCE. The idea that the Earth is spherical indeed predates this date by almost 300 years.

Use of BCE noted.

thas so vuage; i mean everything had to be created and the force or being that did it would be the creator and the event of being created would be creation i bet there is not one person on the planet that dosen't belive in creation even the most liberal atheistic scientist.

ok first of all you can belive what you want i'm not trying to change your mind but i will state that the reason the scripturew says that is beacuse the people that wrote the scripture wern't shure of how man came to be. so they guessed. besides you shoulden base your belifes off a system like a certen religon (that is wher the worlds problems come from) when people want you to belive the same a they do. you should decide for your self what you belive and that should be able to change this dosen't mean you shoulden't worship. my view is that is it is bad to know how the world works because you can't (see below) but it is ok to have a pretty good idea.


below: 1000 years ago everyone knew the world was flat and had 4 continents. 500 years ago everyone knew the world was flat and had 6 continents. and now everyone knows the world is round and has seven continents.think what everyone will know tomorow.

I know that somewhere an English teacher is weeping.

Scientific validity means nothing ... the scientist of early earth cultures thought the world was flat. Did their belief of that make it true? No

Actually, that claim was made by early religions mainly, and there are a large number of statements in the Bible itself that imply the Earth is flat; indeed, taking the Bible in an entirely literal fashion results in a model of the universe with the Earth stationary at its centre, with the moon and sun 'lights' that orbit it and the stars tiny 'lights' stuck to the sky that can fall to Earth. Want a list?

Gen 1:16-18 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. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 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.

[The moon produces it's own light]

Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

[This implies that either the Earth stopped rotating, which would kill everyone on it, or that the sun is simply a light orbiting the stationary earth. It also mentions a book that isn't in the Bible.]

1 Samuel 2:8 He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them.

[The Earth rests on pillars]

2 Kings 20:11 And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the LORD: and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward, by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz.

[The sun moves backwards ten degrees, again, to do this the Earth would have to rotate backwards, or the sun would have to be a light that orbited the Earth.]

1 Chronicles 16:30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

[The Earth is stationary and does not move]

Job 9:6 Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.

[The Earth is set on pillars and only moves if God gets angry]

Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, [and] hangeth the earth upon nothing.

[The Earth is suspended over nothing, not suspended over the sun by gravity as it actually is]

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

[The Earth is set on foundations]

Psalms 18:15 Then the channels of waters were seen, and the foundations of the world were discovered at thy rebuke, O LORD, at the blast of the breath of thy nostrils.

[The Earth is set on foundations]

Psalms 19:4-6 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

[The sun orbits the Earth]

Psalms 33:14 From the place of his habitation he looketh upon all the inhabitants of the earth.

[One of several references to someone being able to see the entire Earth from one position, something only possible if the Earth is flat]

Psalms 75:3 The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved: I bear up the pillars of it. Selah.

[The Earth rests on pillars]

Psalms 82:5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

[The Earth rests on foundations]

Psalms 93:1 The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.

[The Earth does not move]

Psalms 96:10 Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.

[The Earth does not move]

Isaiah 13:10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.

[The moon produces it's own light]

Isaiah 30:26 Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days, in the day that the LORD bindeth up the breach of his people, and healeth the stroke of their wound.

[The moon produces it's own light]

Isaiah 38:8 Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down.

[Another movement of the sun backwards]

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in

[God sits above the Earth, which is a flat disc]

Isaiah 60:19 The sun shall be no more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee: but the LORD shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy God thy glory.

[The moon produces it's own light]

Jeremiah 31:37 Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.

[The Earth is set on foundations]

Ezekiel 7:2 Also, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD unto the land of Israel; An end, the end is come upon the four corners of the land.

[The Earth is a flat surface with four corners]

Ezekiel 32:7 And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light.

[The moon produces it's own light]

Daniel 2:35 Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.

[Daniel watches a stone become a mountian that covers the whole Earth. This would only be possible if the Earth was flat]

Daniel 4:10-11 Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great. The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:

[A tree can be seen 'to the end of all the Earth;' only possible if the Earth is flat]

Daniel 8:10 And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.

[The stars are tiny objects that can fall to Earth and be stamped on]

Micah 6:2 Hear ye, O mountains, the LORD's controversy, and ye strong foundations of the earth: for the LORD hath a controversy with his people, and he will plead with Israel.

[The Earth is set on foundations]

Habukkuk 3:11 The sun and moon stood still in their habitation: at the light of thine arrows they went, and at the shining of thy glittering spear.

[The sun stands still, again]

Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

[You can see the entire Earth from the top of a mountain, therefore, the Earth is obviously flat]

Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

[The moon produces it's own light, and the stars are tiny objects that can fall from the sky]

Mark 13:24-25 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.

[The moon produces it's own light, and the stars are tiny objects that can fall from the sky]

Hebrews 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

[The Earth rests on foundations]

Revelation 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

[Every eye shall see God, implying the Earth is flat]

Revelation 6:13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.

[The stars are tiny objects which can fall to Earth]

Revelation 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

[The Earth has four corners, and is therefore flat]

Revelation 8:10 And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters;

[Another star falls onto Earth. This one's a bit bigger!]

Revelation 9:1 And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.

[Another star falls onto the Earth]

Looks like the Bible has a lot of that 'early science' in it. Now, are you going to also say you believe all this rubbish, or do you admit that the model suggested by the Bible is obviously nonsense based on the understanding of the universe that science has provided you? If the latter, how do you justify making the exact opposite argument over another matter, evolution, which is equally well-proven if not more so?

Evolution has not been proven!

http://www.draaisma.net/rudi/homanus/the_missing_link.html
No, it hasn't been "proven." If it had been "proven", it would be a theorem, not a theory. Nevertheless, it is far and away the best explanation of the origin of species, and is in fact the only scientific theory which can explain our existence.

EDIT: By the way, GMC Military Arms, those Revelation passages (and others) can quite easily refer to meteorites. Certainly, there are assertions in the Bible which are utterly contradictory to modern understanding of science, but many of the "unscientific" passages you quoted are simply an issue of translation or jargon. For instance, the Psalms were poems-- do poets make it their goal to portray everything in the most literal and scientific way possible? No; in fact they do the opposite.

EDIT: By the way, GMC Military Arms, those Revelation passages (and others) can quite easily refer to meteorites. Certainly, there are assertions in the Bible which are utterly contradictory to modern understanding of science, but many of the "unscientific" passages you quoted are simply an issue of translation or jargon. For instance, the Psalms were poems-- do poets make it their goal to portray everything in the most literal and scientific way possible? No; in fact they do the opposite.

Correct. One can also take Genesis to be an allegory rather than a documentary account of an event that literally took place, in which case there is no problem with a Christian accepting both that God created the universe and that God set Evolution in motion. Indeed, the result is a far more impressive God, one who designed a complex process that, left alone, would produce immense variety and complexity by itself.

Sadly, literalism doesn't like things like that, so the best challenge for the literalist is to throw at him a large list which, especially when taken literally and together, shows a pattern that is obviously nonsensical. As with the above list, in fact.

The literalist position that denies evolution claims that existence is basically maintained by the active intervention of God. It's like claiming that the maker of a clock that requires constant adjustment, replacement of parts and other assorted tinkering is more impressive than the maker of one that keeps perfect time forever without his ever laying a finger on it after closing the case.

Oh, also, about Christianity being 'attacked much more then any other religion,' here's a diagram for Kor's benefit:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v453/GMCMA/Other%20stuff/hum251.jpg

@GMC Military Arms: about the Bible quotes: the whole idea about the Earth's setup is Mesopotamian (Sumerian), just as the whole creation story and the description of Yah's character in the Bible bears close resemblance of elements in Sumerian mythology and of Enki's character (Enki/Ea/Eyá being the benevolent deity the Jews later included into their biblical fabrication as Yahweh after they merged him with El/Enlil and later with Asherah).

It was taught to me through the use of a little known book caled ... The Holy Bible. Maybe you have heard of it.

I have a book on my desk that says God wrote it too. Called the "Holy Appendix". Fresh off the mint having just been written by divine inspiraion 10 minutes ago. Says so inside.

Could you write a story describing modern events using the understanding of men in Jesus days on Earth? I think not.
If I were an omnipotent God I could...

Still maybe we are judging to harshly, after walking into a bar who wouldnt fuck up pie?


I am defending Christianity
You are propagating idiocy, there is a difference between christianity and idiocy, despite your best attempts to prove the contrary.

One true God. Millions of false Gods.

Why would anyone pray to a false God anyway? Christ, read a Bible.

*quits reading thread and leaves*

Your an idiot

Wonderful. Add flamingly ignorant to the list of your negative qualities.

So I'm a troll because I practice free speech huh. Maybe your a troll because you refuse to hear.

No, you're a troll because you refuse to answer simple questions in lieu of insults.

People make threads about other religions here without all of you atacking them. I have the same right to make one about my beliefs.

A: We attack all beliefs. We're fucking pirahnas.
B: You have the right to be criticized when we feel like criticizing you. You do not have the right to make your belief a basis upon which people should teach science class.

Christianity is attacked much more then any other religion.

Only because there's many more Christians than there are anything else in these forums, except for maybe Athiests.

Scientific validity means nothing ... the scientist of early earth cultures thought the world was flat. Did their belief of that make it true? No

In science class, scientific validity means EVERYTHING.

I said Evolution is a lie because it has never been proven but there are some who make it sound like it is a fact.

Because it, for the most part, is. We're still working out the details, but it's mostly figured out, and you're just mad because it conflicts with your made up fairytale.

I am defending Christianity ... I believe he would

If by "he" you mean, Jesus, then no. He wouldn't defend it. He would defend the faith while condemning the religion. He hated the moneychangers of the churches and certainly wouldn't want anyone worshipping out of fear or ignorance.

Pi=3 has nothing to do with Evolution

No it has something to do with your supposedly holy book being incorrect.

I feel sorry for you, if God is like you describe ( and I don't think so ) then calling him a psychotic moron might be a mistake. Don't you think.

You're a sad, sorry little man. Those are situations from the bible he described. Obviously you've never read the friggin' bible. Go home, troll.

They may be in the old testament, but I live by the new testament.

Oh so you worship God 2.0 - I wasn't aware you could pick and choose. I figured, y'know, since it's god's holy book, ALL of it would be god's holy book, not just the part you want to live by.

Jesus' teachings is in the New Testament

The bible also condemns Jesus and everyone else for having long hair.

Wow, Szanth vs Kormanthor...

The bible also condemns Jesus and everyone else for having long hair.

Does it? Got any text passages to confirm that?

Does it? Got any text passages to confirm that?

"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" I Corinthians 11:14

Though I came upon something odd while searching for that quote: http://www.tbaptist.com/aab/jesuslonghair.htm

Thoughts? Apparently every single picture of Jesus ever made or hung in a church or in your grandma's living room was false!

What are traditional Jewish folktales? Jews did not exist prior to Persian rule over the Middle East, and prior to that Israelites or Hebrews had no other folktales than anyone else in the region. Why would they?
And what's Q? Trekkie? Don't tell me you mean Qumran, since that stuff is all from hasmonean times.
.

Q is a theoretical lost gospel that two of the accepted gospels are thought to have been based upon.

Though that passage itself is a reason the bible doesn't make any sense - their reasoning behind thinking that men shouldn't have long hair is that eventually he goes bald while women do not. What kinda logic is that? Yeah, eventually a man will usually go bald, but until then he's got GROWING hair! It gets long, NATURALLY. BY NATURE. No fucking sense to it at all -_-

Also, notice how Kormanthor has left. He ran out of ways to dodge questions, so he just dodged the entire thread. Coward bastard.

I said Evolution is a lie because it has never been proven but there are some who make it sound like it is a fact.No scientific theory has ever been proven. They have only been "not disproven". That's what scientific theories are all about.

No scientific theory has ever been proven. They have only been "not disproven". That's what scientific theories are all about.

Exactly - though he doesn't see it that way. Unless we know everything in the universe, the bible is automatically right and everything else is wrong, just by default.

He is truly, by every definition of the word, an ignorant person.

The Missing Link is still missing
No it's not!
It can be found on Nationstates general making asinine threads about non-issues, then desending into petty name-calling when confronted by intellectual superiors who prove it wrong.

Ape hands are differant from Human hands.

And...... so presumably are their pants?

No it's not!
It can be found on Nationstates general making asinine threads about non-issues, then desending into petty name-calling when confronted by intellectual superiors who prove it wrong.

Is not so Hampster breath!

Exactly - though he doesn't see it that way. Unless we know everything in the universe, the bible is automatically right and everything else is wrong, just by default.

He is truly, by every definition of the word, an ignorant person.Oh, contrary to evolutionary theory, creationism has been disproven.

Is not so Hampster breath!

Is too, Peep-breath!

Oh, contrary to evolutionary theory, creationism has been disproven.

Of course! It's proven because Jesus Loves You (tm) and the pope is never wrong and Father McMullen was just being friendly.

Is too, Peep-breath!

I'm quite tempted to ask how one's breath gets to smell of hamster!! But I dread the reply. Muuuwhahahhahahahhah!:D

I'm quite tempted to ask how one's breath gets to smell of hamster!! But I dread the reply. Muuuwhahahhahahahhah!:D

That question would be less offensive than to ask how their ASS smells like hamster!

That question would be less offensive than to ask how their ASS smells like hamster!
Hey, that was one time only!

I, uh...had sat on some trail mix and was trying to get rid of every last crumb...

That question would be less offensive than to ask how their ASS smells like hamster!

Ohh I don't know, I guess you could accidentaly sit on a hamster, yep even nakey, but to have a part of a hamsters ummm parts well how could you man!:confused:

Ohh I don't know, I guess you could accidentaly sit on a hamster, yep even nakey, but to have a part of a hamsters ummm parts well how could you man!:confused:

Went nuts after watching a Hamtaro marathon?

Went nuts after watching a Hamtaro marathon?

Arrghhhhh my Mum sezz I can't talk to you no more, coz you might corrupt me!

I'm quite tempted to ask how one's breath gets to smell of hamster!! But I dread the reply. Muuuwhahahhahahahhah!:D
I never knew Demented Hamsters was Peruvian...

I never knew Demented Hamsters was Peruvian...
That's Guinea Pigs.

Though they are just really fat Hamsters I suppose.

Arrghhhhh my Mum sezz I can't talk to you no more, coz you might corrupt me!

Oh don't worry about that, you've already been corrupted.

Try reading the article before you make a comment

I have ... same silly non comprehension of science as any other creationism believers

Im sorry but I have little patience for people like you making the US a laughing stock

Oh don't worry about that, you've already been corrupted.

Ohhh damnit I think you are right!

I have ... same silly non comprehension of science as any other creationism believers

Im sorry but I have little patience for people like you making the US a laughing stock

The US, Christianity, the human race... pretty much all of it.

Creationism can't exactly be proven either, there is just more (objective) evidence for evolutionism (in my opinion anyway).

That's just human evolution though, many of other species have less 'broken' evolutionary chains, and anyway, there are still many ape-like creatures that gradually became more human, we just haven't found the one with the hands yet. Just because there is one break in a sequence, doesn't automatically disprove it, Mendeleev's(?) periodic table had gaps in from where elements hadn't been found yet, but that didn't disprove periodicity.

Creationism can't exactly be proven either, there is just more (objective) evidence for evolutionism (in my opinion anyway).

That's just human evolution though, many of other species have less 'broken' evolutionary chains, and anyway, there are still many ape-like creatures that gradually became more human, we just haven't found the one with the hands yet. Just because there is one break in a sequence, doesn't automatically disprove it, Mendeleev's(?) periodic table had gaps in from where elements hadn't been found yet, but that didn't disprove periodicity.

It can't be proven at all. Creationism can be more disproven just by simple logic than by any evidence we could ever find.

It can't be proven at all. Creationism can be more disproven just by simple logic than by any evidence we could ever find.

No it can't. Creationism is a supernatural explanation. Logic doesn't apply to the supernatural. It, by definition, supersedes the laws and limitations of nature. That's why supernatural explanations are worthless. They can never be tested. Any supernatural explanation is just as valid as any other supernatural explanation. God created the world is just as good of an explanation as Santa Claus pulled the universe out of his big bag of toys just yesterday and fooled us into thinking that history extends beyond yesterday.

No it can't. Creationism is a supernatural explanation. Logic doesn't apply to the supernatural. It, by definition, supersedes the laws and limitations of nature. That's why supernatural explanations are worthless. They can never be tested. Any supernatural explanation is just as valid as any other supernatural explanation. God created the world is just as good of an explanation as Santa Claus pulled the universe out of his big bag of toys just yesterday and fooled us into thinking that history extends beyond yesterday.

Creationism is based on the bible, and the bible uses circular logic to justify itself. Therefore, creationism is bunk because it uses flawed logic on its source.

The "god" part doesn't even come into play because of its reliance on a book. It can and has just been debunked.

No, it hasn't been "proven." If it had been "proven", it would be a theorem, not a theory. Nevertheless, it is far and away the best explanation of the origin of species, and is in fact the only scientific theory which can explain our existence.

useful info..then the now classic Darwinian phrase "Theory of Evolution" which seems to be permently fixed in our language, should be changed to "Theorem of Evolution", it's well past being a theory. The use of the word theory is a straw which desperate religous types want to cling so they can justify their beliefs. The evidence for micro and macro evolution is all around us for all to see, some just don't want to see it.

From now on I will only refer to the issue as the "Theorem of Evolution".

[QUOTE=Szanth;11792746]Edit:I am an idiot I was confusing ID and Creationism

useful info..then the now classic Darwinian phrase "Theory of Evolution" which seems to be permently fixed in our language, should be changed to "Theorem of Evolution", it's well past being a theory. The use of the word theory is a straw which desperate religous types want to cling so they can justify their beliefs. The evidence for micro and macro evolution is all around us for all to see, some just don't want to see it.

From now on I will only refer to the issue as the "Theorem of Evolution".

It's technically incorrect, but good for you!

The bible also condemns Jesus and everyone else for having long hair.

On an unrelated note, there's no evidence that He had long hair. Then again, I've never read much of the Bible (just skimmed a few parts), but I'm pretty sure it says nothing regarding his hair.

No it can't. Creationism is a supernatural explanation. Logic doesn't apply to the supernatural. It, by definition, supersedes the laws and limitations of nature. That's why supernatural explanations are worthless. They can never be tested. Any supernatural explanation is just as valid as any other supernatural explanation. God created the world is just as good of an explanation as Santa Claus pulled the universe out of his big bag of toys just yesterday and fooled us into thinking that history extends beyond yesterday.


Ummm supernatural explanation is usless because it cannot be tested, in a logical way? Is that what you are saying here?

On an unrelated note, there's no evidence that He had long hair. Then again, I've never read much of the Bible (just skimmed a few parts), but I'm pretty sure it says nothing regarding his hair.

Read the link I posted :p

Also, go to your local church and ask if they have a picture of christ, or a cross with a christ molding or carving hanging from it - it's always the same look.

Evolution is bollocks. I will continue to stand by this statement until humans start sprouting wings - enough have jumped off buildings, so why can they not fly yet? Because evolution is a load of bollocks.

Read the link I posted :p

Also, go to your local church and ask if they have a picture of christ, or a cross with a christ molding or carving hanging from it - it's always the same look.

That's just how they imagine he looked.

Ummm supernatural explanation is usless because it cannot be tested, in a logical way? Is that what you are saying here?

Almost - he is saying that supernatural explanations are useless because we can never determine which supernatural explanation is the right one. "God created everything as told in Genesis" is just as valid an explanation as "Mr Hanky the Magical Talking Christmas Poo sneezed, and there we were". Any inconsistencies can be explained away by saying "superpowers" or "magic".

Evolution is bollocks. I will continue to stand by this statement until humans start sprouting wings - enough have jumped off buildings, so why can they not fly yet? Because evolution is a load of bollocks.

...
Please tell me that was irony and not a horrific lack of knowledge on what the theory says?

Evolution is bollocks. I will continue to stand by this statement until humans start sprouting wings - enough have jumped off buildings, so why can they not fly yet? Because evolution is a load of bollocks.

Bollocks or not, it should still be taught in schools as long as there's evidence in support of it. Creationism, on the other hand, has no evidence (in the scientific sense) to support it.

Evolution is bollocks. I will continue to stand by this statement until humans start sprouting wings - enough have jumped off buildings, so why can they not fly yet? Because evolution is a load of bollocks.

Once again showing a complete ignorance of the TOE and science in general.


Edit: hopefully it was sarcasm. Please say yes.

Read the link I posted :p

Also, go to your local church and ask if they have a picture of christ, or a cross with a christ molding or carving hanging from it - it's always the same look.

Hold on hold on, pictures of Christ, or other graphical reperentations of Christ, based on what historical accounts of what he looked like? They'd best be coz anything alse surly has to be idoltry!:eek:

Evolution is bollocks. I will continue to stand by this statement until humans start sprouting wings - enough have jumped off buildings, so why can they not fly yet? Because evolution is a load of bollocks.

Sarcasm, while nice in small quantities, is not desirable in quantities as large as that present in your post.

That's just how they imagine he looked.

I guess if we really want to know, we could always ask Eutrusca. :p

Almost - he is saying that supernatural explanations are useless because we can never determine which supernatural explanation is the right one. "God created everything as told in Genesis" is just as valid an explanation as "Mr Hanky the Magical Talking Christmas Poo sneezed, and there we were". Any inconsistencies can be explained away by saying "superpowers" or "magic".

Not in a logical way granted. Hands up though who thinks that logics is the only valid methoed of thought?

Evolution is bollocks. I will continue to stand by this statement until humans start sprouting wings - enough have jumped off buildings, so why can they not fly yet? Because evolution is a load of bollocks.

You simply cannot be serious. Nobody is that dumb.

Ummm supernatural explanation is usless because it cannot be tested, in a logical way? Is that what you are saying here?
Which supernatural explanation is right? You can't test them, so you have no way of knowing. Since any supernatural explanation has the same claim to truth as every other supernatural explanation their explanatory power is zero.

You simply cannot be serious. Nobody is that dumb.

You'ld be surprised. I remember one baby troll that argued evolution couldn't happen using an example of birds w/ short beaks bashing their brains in trying to get insects and their babies somehow surviving and having longer beaks.

Yes, he was serious. That's how he viewed TOE.

Not in a logical way granted. Hands up though who thinks that logics is the only valid methoed of thought?

It's more valid than blind faith, yeah.

You'ld be surprised. I remember one baby troll that argued evolution couldn't happen using an example of birds w/ short beaks bashing their brains in trying to get insects and their babies somehow surviving and having longer beaks.

Yes, he was serious. That's how he viewed TOE.

I've read worse.

Pardon my ignorance, but what is TOE?

Hold on hold on, pictures of Christ, or other graphical reperentations of Christ, based on what historical accounts of what he looked like? They'd best be coz anything alse surly has to be idoltry!:eek:

Yupyup. Though if the othe poster is right, and they just imagined him to look like that, then they purposely made Jesus have long hair, knowing it was "a shame unto him" - the hell is wrong with them?

Pardon my ignorance, but what is TOE?

Short for Theory Of Evolution.

You'ld be surprised. I remember one baby troll that argued evolution couldn't happen using an example of birds w/ short beaks bashing their brains in trying to get insects and their babies somehow surviving and having longer beaks.

Yes, he was serious. That's how he viewed TOE.
I still love the classic "Evolution says your grandfather was a monkey!" schtick.

And the typical Creationist inability to understand the difference between theories of abiogenesis and evolutionary theory.

Pardon my ignorance, but what is TOE?

Theory of Evolution.

Yupyup. Though if the othe poster is right, and they just imagined him to look like that, then they purposely made Jesus have long hair, knowing it was "a shame unto him" - the hell is wrong with them?

Guess the old artists didn't read the Bible either.

Theory of Evolution.

Thanks. Sorry if it was a dumb question. I need to brush up on my science acronyms. :(

Not in a logical way granted. Hands up though who thinks that logics is the only valid methoed of thought?

It isn't.
So, how do you propose to determine which supernatural story is right ?

I still love the classic "Evolution says your grandfather was a monkey!" schtick.

And the typical Creationist inability to understand the difference between theories of abiogenesis and evolutionary theory.

And Geology, Cosmology, Biology, etc.

IIRC, it's generally called "shotgun debating". A tactic that is used often. Bouncing around w/ random theories and absurd statements to keep the TOE proponents off guard and on the defensive.

Thanks. Sorry if it was a dumb question. I need to brush up on my science acronyms. :(

Not a dumb question at all. Questioning things (and not assuming) is how we learn. Hence why ID and YEC (Intelligent Design, Young Earth Creationism) are not science. They do not question thier conclusion, assume it is true, and try and fit the facts (or mental wanderings) around it.

Not a dumb question at all. Questioning things (and not assuming) is how we learn. Hence why ID and YEC (Intelligent Design, Young Earth Creationism) are not science. They do not question thier conclusion, assume it is true, and try and fit the facts (or mental wanderings) around it.

I fully agree. I myself am a Creationist, but I don't consider evolution "bollocks," and I'm 150% opposed to teaching ID and YEC in schools. In churches, fine, but in schools? Not on your life.

Here is an example of blind belief and ignorance.

My oldest just started her 1st year in Uni working towards a degree in archeology, one Prof told that despite doing a rib count of male and female human skeletons (both sexes having 12 pairs) one third of his graduates after seeing this for themselves still cling to the belief that men have fewer ribs than women because god created woman from the rib of Adam.

Not a dumb question at all. Questioning things (and not assuming) is how we learn. Hence why ID and YEC (Intelligent Design, Young Earth Creationism) are not science. They do not question thier conclusion, assume it is true, and try and fit the facts (or mental wanderings) around it.

Precisely. In science, you start out with observation and move toward finding truths to create a set of larger truths that compliment eachother and rely on eachother and seem very stable after a lengthy set of tests and trials. The conclusion will never be known because we are always learning new things about the universe.

In religion, you start with dogma that comes from a book. You obey the dogma, regardless of fact or truths found through science. The dogma will never change, and will never adapt to new knowledge learned.

That's the difference, and that's exactly why ID and Creationism don't belong in science class.

Here is an example of blind belief and ignorance.

My oldest just started her 1st year in Uni working towards a degree in archeology, one Prof told that despite doing a rib count of male and female human skeletons (both sexes having 12 pairs) one third of his graduates after seeing this for themselves still cling to the belief that men have fewer ribs than women because god created woman from the rib of Adam.

Isn't willful ignorance wonderful?

I fully agree. I myself am a Creationist, but I don't consider evolution "bollocks," and I'm 150% opposed to teaching ID and YEC in schools. In churches, fine, but in schools? Not on your life.

I'd like to add that I do not take everything in the Bible literally. And much of what I do take, I take with a grain of salt.

Which supernatural explanation is right? You can't test them, so you have no way of knowing. Since any supernatural explanation has the same claim to truth as every other supernatural explanation their explanatory power is zero.


Logical yes, but if you want to find out which branch of metaphysics is better, then you have to use the tools of metaphysics not them of logic.

It makes no sense to talk of electricity in measurements of BAR, as the amps and BAR are two differant things.

I'm too lazy to read 25 pages, so I apologize if someone has already brought this up, but if evolution is "bollocks", how do you explain poodles? And drug-resistant bacteria?

Here is an example of blind belief and ignorance.

My oldest just started her 1st year in Uni working towards a degree in archeology, one Prof told that despite doing a rib count of male and female human skeletons (both sexes having 12 pairs) one third of his graduates after seeing this for themselves still cling to the belief that men have fewer ribs than women because god created woman from the rib of Adam.

Are those one third sterilized to limit the transmission of the stupid gene to the next generation?

Are those one third sterilized to limit the transmission of the stupid gene to the next generation?

Statistically, they're the ones that breed the most.

Isn't willful ignorance wonderful?

Ignorance is bliss, they say...

It's more valid than blind faith, yeah.

Is it? Can you objectivly prove that to me?

I'm too lazy to read 25 pages, so I apologize if someone has already brought this up, but if evolution is "bollocks", how do you explain poodles? And drug-resistant bacteria?

[ID proponent] Well, you see those are examples of microevolution. The poodle is still a dog, and the bacteria is still the same species of bacteria. Nobody's disagreeing that microevolution happens. It's just that you can't have enough microevolution take place to end up turning an organism into a new species for some reason that I conveniently will not explain. If such a thing did happen it would be macroevolution which is simply impossible because it would mean I'm wrong.[/ID proponent]

It isn't.
So, how do you propose to determine which supernatural story is right ?


I'm not talking of stories. Have you ever meditated? Have you ever danced yourself into a near trance, have you had an LSD trip that changed the way you think for ever. The tools of metaphysics are plenty. Do you think that there is any logic in how and what art we like? How then can this be mesured?

Are those one third sterilized to limit the transmission of the stupid gene to the next generation?amazing how strong someone's religious belief can be isn't it...it defies belief that a person seeing the evidence infront of them can dismiss it so easily as if it wasn't there.....so why do we bother to debate evolution with these people no matter how strong the evidence they will deny it.

[ID proponent] Well, you see those are examples of microevolution. The poodle is still a dog, and the bacteria is still the same species of bacteria. Nobody's disagreeing that microevolution happens. It's just that you can't have enough microevolution take place to end up turning an organism into a new species for some reason that I conveniently will not explain. If such a thing did happen it would be macroevolution which is simply impossible because it would mean I'm wrong.[/ID proponent]

I got that one recently. The person I "debated" w/ however, then went on to disprove elements of MicroEvolution.

amazing how strong someone's religious belief can be isn't it...it defies belief that a person seeing the evidence infront of them can dismiss it so easily as if it wasn't there.....so why do we bother to debate evolution with these people no matter how strong the evidence they will deny it.

Because if we don't they keep presenting their "science" as legitimate and keep trying to get it entered into the curriculum.

It's just that you can't have enough microevolution take place to end up turning an organism into a new species for some reason that I conveniently will not explain.

That is unfair. Many creationists have an excellent explanation for that in saying the earth is only 6000 years old. Which is indeed way too little time for poodles.

I'm not talking of stories. Have you ever meditated? Have you ever danced yourself into a near trance, have you had an LSD trip that changed the way you think for ever. The tools of metaphysics are plenty. Do you think that there is any logic in how and what art we like? How then can this be mesured?

Theoretically could be measured through accurate brain activity … just because it is hard to measure, maybe even impossible NOW to measure, does not mean that it can NOT be measured.

All the things you listed are just Reponses to stimuli of various forms … as such they should be able to be measured or predicted

Because if we don't they keep presenting their "science" as legitimate and keep trying to get it entered into the curriculum.but as my example shows that one third of the population will never accept the proof.....debate should be for the open minded portion of the poulation that can be swayed with reason and logic.

Is it? Can you objectivly prove that to me?

Well.

I blindly believe god will save me from all harm because I'm a good christian. I believe that I can do anything with just the power of my faith. I'm going to walk on water and recreate the miracle of Jesus with my poweful faith.
I died. (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51760)

vs

I logically believe that walking on water is bullshit, because I weigh more than the density of water can hold me up above my ankles. Using this logic, I can assume that I will fall -into- the water, rather than be able to stand on top of it, so I'll go into the water prepared to use my arms and legs to stay afloat, in a swimming motion. This will propel the water below me as I push my arms down, and my head will remain above water level, therefore I will not die.




See what I mean?

but as my example shows that one third of the population will never accept the proof.....debate should be for the open minded portion of the poulation that can be swayed with reason and logic.

I understand that. Now suppose that that 1/3 managed to teach their ignorance as fact to the other 2/3rds w/o a counter arguement. How many do you think would take the time to research the opposing view on their own? It's the wedge strategy.

That is unfair. Many creationists have an excellent explanation for that in saying the earth is only 6000 years old. Which is indeed way too little time for poodles.

I wasn't arguing as a creationist, but rather as an ID guy. Intelligent Design is a little different from young earth creationism, but it's still not science. And I've seen the best evidence for young earth, polonium rings, debunked soundly.

Theoretically could be measured through accurate brain activity … just because it is hard to measure, maybe even impossible NOW to measure, does not mean that it can NOT be measured.

All the things you listed are just Reponses to stimuli of various forms … as such they should be able to be measured or predicted

Agreed yes all of this could be measured as brain activity. And you may be correct when you say that all the things I have listed are responses to stimuli, but that does nowt still for the point I was making. That to understand the metaphysical you need to use the correct tools.

Does the sentance how many furlongs in a cheese sandwhich make any sense to you?

Well.

I blindly believe god will save me from all harm because I'm a good christian. I believe that I can do anything with just the power of my faith. I'm going to walk on water and recreate the miracle of Jesus with my poweful faith.
I died. (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51760)

vs

I logically believe that walking on water is bullshit, because I weigh more than the density of water can hold me up above my ankles. Using this logic, I can assume that I will fall -into- the water, rather than be able to stand on top of it, so I'll go into the water prepared to use my arms and legs to stay afloat, in a swimming motion. This will propel the water below me as I push my arms down, and my head will remain above water level, therefore I will not die.




See what I mean?

I do see what you mean, but you have not objectivly proved to me. Taking your example, the second part of which seems good and logical, and is incedently the choice I would have made. The first part though is pure subersition, until you find me a man of pure faith and get him to try to walk on water then I can only conclude that your conclusion is pure subjective belife on your part.

I do see what you mean, but you have not objectivly proved to me. Taking your example, the second part of which seems good and logical, and is incedently the choice I would have made. The first part though is pure subersition, until you find me a man of pure faith and get him to try to walk on water then I can only conclude that your conclusion is pure subjective belife on your part.

Kind sir, I do so suggest you click the link I provided in the "I died" text.

Agreed yes all of this could be measured as brain activity. And you may be correct when you say that all the things I have listed are responses to stimuli, but that does nowt still for the point I was making. That to understand the metaphysical you need to use the correct tools.

Does the sentance how many furlongs in a cheese sandwhich make any sense to you?

But none of those things you listed were metaphysical. They were mental. If they correspond to actions of the brain and can be tested as such, then they're mental activities.

Kind sir, I do so suggest you click the link I provided in the "I died" text.

Heyup, yeah I read about this the other day so I don't really need to re-read it.

However in the lab would we be happy with the one positive result or would we re-test over and over and over? Also I think I said a man of pure faith? According to Christain scripture a man with even a grain of faith can move mountians. If I was Cristian I could then make an argument that this mad bloke did not have much faith, instead he had a lot of madness. Indeed the whole question of having faith is possibly the hardest thing for any religous person. We can all say yeah i belive in God, and yeah my faith is strong, yet in that case why do you pray so much? Faith in God is not easy to hold nor maintian, it being an irrational delusional belief, i'm sure you can understand why that is.


The point being though knowledge is subject to what we know via the evidance of our senses, or what we belive via the evidance of others sense(those experts that have defined and clarified their fields of knowledge)

So it is my belife that all that we know id subjective, and no objective knowldge exists. In which case what you belive is as valid as what the next man belives. Anyhoo it's home time, I'll seez you chaps, and chapesses tomorrow.

But none of those things you listed were metaphysical. They were mental. If they correspond to actions of the brain and can be tested as such, then they're mental activities.


Heh and ultimatly isn't that true of everything? What we percive to be reality is no more than what our brains compose for us based on the evidance of our senses, and what our experiances tells our brains what must be there. It is all mental isn't it?

The whole of who you are, is in your head, isn't it? The way in which you interact with others around you, that's all in your head as well isn't it? Your logic, is in your head, my metaphysics is in my head, the Christains God, that's in their head as well, isn't it?

Heyup, yeah I read about this the other day so I don't really need to re-read it.

However in the lab would we be happy with the one positive result or would we re-test over and over and over? Also I think I said a man of pure faith? According to Christain scripture a man with even a grain of faith can move mountians. If I was Cristian I could then make an argument that this mad bloke did not have much faith, instead he had a lot of madness. Indeed the whole question of having faith is possibly the hardest thing for any religous person. We can all say yeah i belive in God, and yeah my faith is strong, yet in that case why do you pray so much? Faith in God is not easy to hold nor maintian, it being an irrational delusional belief, i'm sure you can understand why that is.


The point being though knowledge is subject to what we know via the evidance of our senses, or what we belive via the evidance of others sense(those experts that have defined and clarified their fields of knowledge)

So it is my belife that all that we know id subjective, and no objective knowldge exists. In which case what you belive is as valid as what the next man belives. Anyhoo it's home time, I'll seez you chaps, and chapesses tomorrow.

I'd say he was about as faithful as it gets - he obviously believed whole-heartedly that the invisible man in the clouds would keep him afloat in the water.

Though how can you say faith is not just a symptom of madness? It's the delusion that everything except what you believe is wrong, no matter how much evidence is to the contrary.

I think we have/don't need a missing link.
Modern Human>Hairier Homonid>Hairier sort of homonid>achimps or whatever.

Heh and ultimatly isn't that true of everything? What we percive to be reality is no more than what our brains compose for us based on the evidance of our senses, and what our experiances tells our brains what must be there. It is all mental isn't it?

The whole of who you are, is in your head, isn't it? The way in which you interact with others around you, that's all in your head as well isn't it? Your logic, is in your head, my metaphysics is in my head, the Christains God, that's in their head as well, isn't it?

Technically, yes, but tripping on LSD isn't anything BUT mental. You don't burst a beam of light out of your orifices with the holy grace of god when you're in church, you just feel good. My point is that it's mental and nothing else.

http://i9.tinypic.com/4bokkeb.jpg Upright posture, wears clothes, still kind of hairy and apeish.

I think we have/don't need a missing link.
Modern Human>Hairier Homonid>Hairier sort of homonid>achimps or whatever.


It you want your THEORY to be Fact, you need the missing link.

It you want your THEORY to be Fact, you need the missing link.

If you want your superstition to be fact you need to show me god. I'll wait.

It you want your THEORY to be Fact, you need the missing link.

Why don't you know what a scientific theory is yet? I mean, this is your own thread. Have you read any of it?

It you want your THEORY to be Fact, you need the missing link.I told of one link(there are many links) and you denied it with doing any research to verify it... so why should anyone bother to supply you with evidence to convince you when you have no intention of logically examing the evidence that supports the "Theorem of Evolution"....you're only here to flame the forum not to debate honestly.

It you want your THEORY to be Fact, you need the missing link.

Indeed, DCD has you cornered, as do the rest of us. You have no facts, whereas we MIGHT be missing one - who seems to be more correct?

It you want your THEORY to be Fact, you need the missing link.

Please define what you mean with "the missing link".

Suppose for instance someone would find an intermediate form between species A and B - which we will call AB. Would you then demand intermediate forms between A and AB and form AB and B ?
Because in that case we can continue forever...

Whoa! Kormanthor gets a quintuple quote! Never seen in competition! Let's go to the video tape.

Please define what you mean with "the missing link".

Suppose for instance someone would find an intermediate form between species A and B - which we will call AB. Would you then demand intermediate forms between A and AB and form AB and B ?
Because in that case we can continue forever...

I knew this old Greek feller years ago, Zeno Something-opoulos, he used to talk like that, too. Too much retsina and rakhi. ;)

Whoa! Kormanthor gets a quintuple quote! Never seen in competition! Let's go to the video tape.

Well Farn we had to tagteam him so he couldn't get back on his feet too quick - soon either me or DCD is gonna have to pull a Triplehelix Forumbuster and take him out for good. Back to you, Farn.

It you want your THEORY to be Fact, you need the missing link.

There is no missing link. It's a myth made up by Christians who either don't really understand evolution or do but want to trick their followers into not believing it. The fact is that the only way we could fill in every gap in the fossil record is to have at least one fossilized example of every sinlge generation of every single secies of plant, fungus or animal that has ever lived. You seem to think that the theory of evolution is that some monkey in a tree gave birth to an ape and that later some ape gave birth to a human. This is not how evolution works. You are how evolution works. You are not exactly like your mom. You are not exactly like your dad. You have slight variations and even some mutations. If those variations and mutations are an evoltionary advantage like, say, they make you more attractive to females and, thus, probably more reproductively successful, then your slight variations and mutations will be passed on to offspring - who will not be exactly like you or exactly like the mother of your offspring. They will have slight variations and probably some mutations of their own. If those variations are advantageous like, say, they are more resistant to prevailing disease and thus probably more reproductively successful (see a patern?) then those traits will be passed on to their children who will not be exactly like them. When you magnify these slight variations and slight mutations through hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of generations they turn into very large differences. When you magnify them through millions of generations you end up with an entirely different world. When you superheat those differences with an environmental catastrophy, like, say a meteor crashing into the Earth or a supervolcano blowing up or runaway global warming you end up with massive changes in just a few dozen generations.

Please define what you mean with "the missing link".

Suppose for instance someone would find an intermediate form between species A and B - which we will call AB. Would you then demand intermediate forms between A and AB and form AB and B ?
Because in that case we can continue forever...and some of those links the intermediate form maybe so subtle that it may not be recognized as yet as an intermediate species...he doesn't understand the complexities of evolution nor does he/she want to, so how do you debate with him/her

There is no missing link. It's a myth made up by Christians who either don't really understand evolution or do but want to trick their followers into not believing it. The fact is that the only way we could fill in every gap in the fossil record is to have at least one fossilized example of every sinlge generation of every single secies of plant, fungus or animal that has ever lived. You seem to think that the theory of evolution is that some monkey in a tree gave birth to an ape and that later some ape gave birth to a human. This is not how evolution works. You are how evolution works. You are not exactly like your mom. You are not exactly like your dad. You have slight variations and even some mutations. If those variations and mutations are an evoltionary advantage like, say, they make you more attractive to females and, thus, probably more reproductively successful, then your slight variations and mutations will be passed on to offspring - who will not be exactly like you or exactly like the mother of your offspring. They will have slight variations and probably some mutations of their own. If those variations are advantageous like, say, they are more resistant to prevailing disease and thus probably more reproductively successful (see a patern?) then those traits will be passed on to their children who will not be exactly like them. When you magnify these slight variations and slight mutations through hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of generations they turn into very large differences. When you magnify them through millions of generations you end up with an entirely different world. When you superheat those differences with an environmental catastrophy, like, say a meteor crashing into the Earth or a supervolcano blowing up or runaway global warming you end up with massive changes in just a few dozen generations.

And PD with the assist, coming in with a Monkeywrench Nippletwister!

It you want your THEORY to be Fact, you need the missing link.

You didn't do well in school, did you?

Evidence for TOE= tens of thousands of papers, fossils, etc
Evidence for K's beliefs= still waiting.

And PD with the assist, coming in with a Monkeywrench Nippletwister!

And the crowd goes wild! (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Sections/Newsweek/NWProjects/NW_CurrentMag/Winter2004/Images/Current_p8_UNC.standard.jpg)

It you want your THEORY to be Fact, you need the missing link.Actually, no. There's no better one out there, so we just have to stick with evolution ;)

And the crowd goes wild! (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Sections/Newsweek/NWProjects/NW_CurrentMag/Winter2004/Images/Current_p8_UNC.standard.jpg)

http://decker.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/bryant_sv.jpg

And the crowd goes wild! (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Sections/Newsweek/NWProjects/NW_CurrentMag/Winter2004/Images/Current_p8_UNC.standard.jpg)

I love you.

Damnit. :mad: Where'd he go? :mad: I never get to have any fun. :(

I love you.
Gosh ... :p

Damnit. :mad: Where'd he go? :mad: I never get to have any fun. :(

We could draw straws and have one of us play the part.

I'll try.

You guys haven't provided the missing link that shows how monkeys started using their hands like humans!

(How did that sound? Was it too specific? I tried to tie it into the OP. Was that a good idea? I'm not good at these faith-based things...)

the missing link's on nsg, name's kor- someething i think.

I'll try.

You guys haven't provided the missing link that shows how monkeys started using their hands like humans!

(How did that sound? Was it too specific? I tried to tie it into the OP. Was that a good idea? I'm not good at these faith-based things...)

No, that's no good because I already posted this:

http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/sharemed/targets/images/pho/t304/T304870A.jpg

and this:


http://www.wildchimps.org/wcf/images/chimp_ameisen.jpg

Gosh ... :p



We could draw straws and have one of us play the part.

It's not the same. Like playing basketball against someone who doesn't want to win. :(

It's not the same. Like playing basketball against someone who doesn't want to win. :(

Yeah, true. Well, as long as we're just talking, I read The First Chimpanzee last year and the authors (I think there were two) had an interesting idea. You know there are three kinds of Australopithicenes, robustus, gracile and the "regular" ones. They existed around the time of the posited split between humans and great apes. The idea is that the robustus and gracile Australopithicenes became gorillas and chimps and the "regular" ones became us. Food for thought.

Yeah, true. Well, as long as we're just talking, I read The First Chimpanzee last year and the authors (I think there were two) had an interesting idea. You know there are three kinds of Australopithicenes, robustus, gracile and the "regular" ones. They existed around the time of the posited split between humans and great apes. The idea is that the robustus and gracile Australopithicenes became gorillas and chimps and the "regular" ones became us. Food for thought.

Yes. We probably also drove Cromagnon to extinction. These were practically people. They painted, used complex tools for hunting, they used fire and there is evidence that they even used agriculture to a limited extent. Then homo sapien sapien comes along and either f*cks them or hunts them out of existence.

Just one thing. Please stop calling evolution a "theorem" it's bad language.

Theorem's are things arrived at through deductive reasoning from the general to the specific. They are common in pure math and very rare in science, due to the unavailability of Axioms.

Science uses inductive reasoning from MANY specific cases to the general case. THat's where evolutionary biology comes from. In pure math induction is not "allowed*"


*Mathematical induction doesn't count since it is a test of every possible case.

All that aside, failing to accept evolutionary biology is to accept that God IS A DECIEVER!!!!!! :gundge:

IF evolution is wrong and creationsim is right, than God created the universe so that evolution would be the best possible explanation for the diversity of life present! He means that anyone who uses their brains that he created us with will be led astray!

I refuse to believe in a Maltheistic God.

Yes. We probably also drove Cromagnon to extinction. These were practically people. They painted, used complex tools for hunting, they used fire and there is evidence that they even used agriculture to a limited extent. Then homo sapien sapien comes along and either f*cks them or hunts them out of existence.

Weren't Cro Magnon H. sapiens sapiens? Maybe just the one "sapiens"? That certainly happened to the Neanderthals, who do seem to have been a side-branch of Homo. There was something recently about Neanderthals not having been able to cross-breed with more "modern" humans, so that sort of hulking guy next to you on the subway really isn't a Neanderthal.

Weren't Cro Magnon H. sapiens sapiens? Maybe just the one "sapiens"? That certainly happened to the Neanderthals, who do seem to have been a side-branch of Homo. There was something recently about Neanderthals not having been able to cross-breed with more "modern" humans, so that sort of hulking guy next to you on the subway really isn't a Neanderthal.

He smells like one.

Weren't Cro Magnon H. sapiens sapiens? Maybe just the one "sapiens"? That certainly happened to the Neanderthals, who do seem to have been a side-branch of Homo. There was something recently about Neanderthals not having been able to cross-breed with more "modern" humans, so that sort of hulking guy next to you on the subway really isn't a Neanderthal.

One sapien.

The Missing Link is still missing


Kool he can keep his name .

Weren't Cro Magnon H. sapiens sapiens? Maybe just the one "sapiens"? That certainly happened to the Neanderthals, who do seem to have been a side-branch of Homo. There was something recently about Neanderthals not having been able to cross-breed with more "modern" humans, so that sort of hulking guy next to you on the subway really isn't a Neanderthal.

Actually, yeah. I think I was thinking of Neanderthal. Whatever. Chimps still have hands that can use tools.

Kool he can keep his name .

Actually he just changed his name!

http://www.tvparty.com/bgifs8/lancebanner.jpg

Lack of evidence does not mean falsehood.

Look at it this way - evolution requires two things. First you need species to change from generation to generation (mutation). Then you need some sort of limiting factor on that population, which will favour some members of the species more than others. The first has been scientifically proven - mutation happens - and I think that we can agree that a random change that improves speed, strength, health, whatever, will improve a creatures chances of surviving to breed.

So evolution CAN happen - fact. We have proved that it does happen in the short term. And if it can - why shouldn't it? Creatures millions of years ago almost certainly also had mutation, and certainly had limiting factors.

Now as for this missing link rubbish - please note that very few remains from the period actually remain. Assuming that humanity did not evolve all over the world at once, but came from one place, we have a comparitively small area and time for the missing link to exist, and thus a small number of them to find.

Also, one of if not the major advance in humans was increased intelligence. Skull casts are of limited use, and evidence of tools is not easily found (gorillas use long thin sticks to 'fish' for termites, but anyone who found a twig in a forest would not immedietly think "Aha, a primative tool!"). It is therefore almost impossible to create an accurate map of how our intelligence changed over the 'missing link' period.

Look at the dinosaurs - with some species only one or two incomplete specimens have been found, let alone all the dozens of 'interspecies' between it and its ancesttors

In other words, whether or not the missing link existed, evidence of it will likely never be found. But evolution happens. Period.

So, as is typical of "missing link" "debates", it's degenerated by the YEC's from "there's no missing link" then , after being shown dozens, "well there's nothing in between those", etc. and so on ad nauseum.

Typical "God of the Gaps".

*snip* Look at the dinosaurs - with some species only one or two incomplete specimens have been found, let alone all the dozens of 'interspecies' between it and its ancestors. *snip*

Absolutely. There are species of dinosaurs named solely on the basis of footprints, let alone fragmentary skeletons. And there is a continual ... dare I say it? ... evolution in the naming of dinosaur species as more evidence comes to light, with some species being renamed or combined with others because they've been found to be the same. Indeed, if you want a less grueling job as a paleontologist, you could probably make a career of going through the thousands of specimens tucked away in storage at the great museums.

So, as is typical of "missing link" "debates", it's degenerated by the YEC's from "there's no missing link" then , after being shown dozens, "well there's nothing in between those", etc. and so on ad nauseum.

Typical "God of the Gaps".

Such an impolite way to treat one's Supreme Being, isn't it? Squishing him into ever-smaller gaps.

Evolution has not been proven!

http://www.draaisma.net/rudi/homanus/the_missing_link.html

Well, I guess we'd better throw out the Theory of Gravity, and the Theory of Relativity while we are at it. Because that's what these rediculous anti-scientific attacks push us to. If evolution is "not valid" by their standards, then no scientific theory is.

It isn't a theory, God is it's Author, he doesn't lie. All the theories were written by men ... Point made.

Uhm,..no,...sorry. The point you think you're making, you're not making. You are illustrating something else entirely.

There is no missing link. It's a myth made up by Christians who either don't really understand evolution or do but want to trick their followers into not believing it. The fact is that the only way we could fill in every gap in the fossil record is to have at least one fossilized example of every sinlge generation of every single secies of plant, fungus or animal that has ever lived. You seem to think that the theory of evolution is that some monkey in a tree gave birth to an ape and that later some ape gave birth to a human. This is not how evolution works. You are how evolution works. You are not exactly like your mom. You are not exactly like your dad. You have slight variations and even some mutations. If those variations and mutations are an evoltionary advantage like, say, they make you more attractive to females and, thus, probably more reproductively successful, then your slight variations and mutations will be passed on to offspring - who will not be exactly like you or exactly like the mother of your offspring. They will have slight variations and probably some mutations of their own. If those variations are advantageous like, say, they are more resistant to prevailing disease and thus probably more reproductively successful (see a patern?) then those traits will be passed on to their children who will not be exactly like them. When you magnify these slight variations and slight mutations through hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of generations they turn into very large differences. When you magnify them through millions of generations you end up with an entirely different world. When you superheat those differences with an environmental catastrophy, like, say a meteor crashing into the Earth or a supervolcano blowing up or runaway global warming you end up with massive changes in just a few dozen generations.

Mutations indvertently convey either disadvantage, nothing or advantage.

How that plays out, then, depends on the myriad circumstances at the time---You know, like when the moon is in the seventh house and Jupiter aligns with Mars.......

Mutations indvertently convey either disadvantage, nothing or advantage.

How that plays out, then, depends on the myriad circumstances at the time---You know, like when the moon is in the seventh house and Jupiter aligns with Mars.......

Of course. I thought that's what I said. :confused:

I do see what you mean, but you have not objectivly proved to me. Taking your example, the second part of which seems good and logical, and is incedently the choice I would have made. The first part though is pure subersition, until you find me a man of pure faith and get him to try to walk on water then I can only conclude that your conclusion is pure subjective belife on your part.

But, one ONLY needs as much faith as is contained in a mustard seed to move mountains right? The Bible says this too. So which is it, "perfect" faith to perform miracles, or only a mustard seed-full? Perhaps this is a "quality", not "quantity" issue?

Of course. I thought that's what I said. :confused:

You didn't read the title to my post?
I wanted to clarify. Many harbor a prevailing notion that in the interaction between mutation and evolution that mutations are ONLY good.

You didn't read the title to my post?
I wanted to clarify. Many harbor a prevailing notion that in the interaction between mutation and evolution that mutations are ONLY good.

Oh. Sorry.

But since you brought it up...

A theory on sickle cell anemia is that it is an adaptaion. Sure, it kills you usually by your thirties or even younger if not treated, but it also makes you immune to maleria which will kill a child much faster. One disease, genetic in nature, lets you get old enough to have children more often than the other which is environmental. Don't know how valid that is, but it's interesting.

Oh. Sorry.

But since you brought it up...

A theory on sickle cell anemia is that it is an adaptaion. Sure, it kills you usually by your thirties or even younger if not treated, but it also makes you immune to maleria which will kill a child much faster. One disease, genetic in nature, lets you get old enough to have children more often than the other which is environmental. Don't know how valid that is, but it's interesting.it is evolution is micro or macro-if a natural disaster(flood) of some sort isolated an entire population in a maleria infested area for genereations then the entire population would likely all have sickle cell anemia very quickly-evolution by adaptation-probably macro-ot could reverse itself if conditions reversed.

Oh. Sorry.

But since you brought it up...

A theory on sickle cell anemia is that it is an adaptaion. Sure, it kills you usually by your thirties or even younger if not treated, but it also makes you immune to maleria which will kill a child much faster. One disease, genetic in nature, lets you get old enough to have children more often than the other which is environmental. Don't know how valid that is, but it's interesting.

A bit of gentic nitpicking on my part here. The gene for sickle-cell anemia is recessive, meaning will result in the disease only if an offspring gets two recessive alleles. However, if the offspring is heterozygous for sickle-cell anemia, then he/she will not become anemic and gain a resistance to malaria. So, in populations that are hit with malaria a lot, the heterozygous pairs will be more likely to survive, but their offspring will have a chance to get sickle-cell anemia. Since the chance of heterozygotic parents producing a child with a recessive pair is about 25%, then the trait is more conducive to survival in an enviroment with malaria outbreaks even though it could produce a lethal disease in some offspring.

I'll try.

You guys haven't provided the missing link that shows how monkeys started using their hands like humans!

(How did that sound? Was it too specific? I tried to tie it into the OP. Was that a good idea? I'm not good at these faith-based things...)because you are not smart enough to understand or don't want to understand...there is no "single" missing link there likely many...and I did supply 2 non homo sapiens that human hands, 1-Homo Erectus our direct ancestor and 2-Neanderthal a failed branch that died out 10-30,000 yrs ago. these are recent relatives finding more distant relatives obviously becomes more difficult the further back you go as the evidence is more likely to have been destroyed over time due to geological and other reasons

A bit of gentic nitpicking on my part here. The gene for sickle-cell anemia is recessive, meaning will result in the disease only if an offspring gets two recessive alleles. However, if the offspring is heterozygous for sickle-cell anemia, then he/she will not become anemic and gain a resistance to malaria. So, in populations that are hit with malaria a lot, the heterozygous pairs will be more likely to survive, but their offspring will have a chance to get sickle-cell anemia. Since the chance of heterozygotic parents producing a child with a recessive pair is about 25%, then the trait is more conducive to survival in an enviroment with malaria outbreaks even though it could produce a lethal disease in some offspring.it may be lethal but at a time in history where average lifespan was 30-35 and people started reproducing at 13-15, dying at 30-35 was sufficient time to raise another generation...

Just one thing. Please stop calling evolution a "theorem" it's bad language.I looked it up...it is usually a math term but the dictionary def......theorem-general propostion that is not self-evident but is proved by reasoning.

So if evolution has been proved through reasoning without a doubt, it must now be a theorem. Just because math people use it doesn't give them exclusive ownership of a word.

it may be lethal but at a time in history where average lifespan was 30-35 and people started reproducing at 13-15, dying at 30-35 was sufficient time to raise another generation...

My point was that the offspring who had the lethal trait weren't the ones with the malaria resistance. People with this trait have it expressed three ways: non-malaria resistant and non-anemic, malaria resistant and non-anemic, or anemic. Barring accidents, a resistant, non-anemic couple could live a full lifespan, just with an increased chance of having children with a lethal disease. An odd tradeoff gentically, but in an enviroment where malaria is rampant, an advantageous one.

My point was that the offspring who had the lethal trait weren't the ones with the malaria resistance. People with this trait have it expressed three ways: non-malaria resistant and non-anemic, malaria resistant and non-anemic, or anemic. Barring accidents, a resistant, non-anemic couple could live a full lifespan, just with an increased chance of having children with a lethal disease. An odd tradeoff gentically, but in an enviroment where malaria is rampant, an advantageous one.ok, I did not know that...what about Tay Saks? does that work the same way?

It you want your THEORY to be Fact, you need the missing link.
Consider an analogy:
- Let's say person A is born and the very next week both of his parents die causing him to be raised in a foster home.
- 20 years later A is fully grown and decides to find out whether his parents are alive but for a reason or another can't find any conclusive information about them, perhaps because of a fire that burned any records of their death or whatever myriad reasons.

Does he:
a) accept that his parents must have existed but for reason or another not much information about their fate, life, how they behaved or what they looked like can be found or
b) deny that such missing links exist and conclude that God created him out of thin air against overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

edit:
Though, in all honesty it has to be said that there is, no, there can be *no* evidence against divine creation.

...which is exactly why Giant Melon Head created the Earth in 1970s and caused a massive flood with all the life floating in rubber dhingies across the world before flood receded. Unfortunately He also had a sense of humour and thus He planted confusing evidence about the age of universe and Earth, created many convincing false religions and wrote an outright absurd history for mankind.

I demand you prove Giant Melon Head wrong!

ok, I did not know that...what about Tay Saks? does that work the same way?
No resistance has been discovered, or at least I haven't heard of any such thing. I do know that the difference between a red-blood cell of a hetero-carrier for sickle-cell and a normal person is enough to inhibit a malaria parasite from reproducing in the blood (a hemoglobin change, IIRC). Tay-Sachs may or may not confer a similar advantage in some kind of nerve cell modification in hetero-carriers as well, but if it does no one has discovered it yet.

No resistance has been discovered, or at least I haven't heard of any such thing. I do know that the difference between a red-blood cell of a hetero-carrier for sickle-cell and a normal person is enough to inhibit a malaria parasite from reproducing in the blood (a hemoglobin change, IIRC). Tay-Sachs may or may not confer a similar advantage in some kind of nerve cell modification in hetero-carriers as well, but if it does no one has discovered it yet.I don't know if I mislead you but Tay Sachs suffers apparently have a resistance to T.B. not malaria, it's not clear from your answer.

Well, I guess we'd better throw out the Theory of Gravity, and the Theory of Relativity while we are at it. Because that's what these rediculous anti-scientific attacks push us to. If evolution is "not valid" by their standards, then no scientific theory is.

Gravity: can safely say something is holding us to the ground, or we'd be floating. As for other scientific thories, the qualifications of scientists (in my opinion) are not worth the paper they're written on

Bollocks or not, it should still be taught in schools as long as there's evidence in support of it. Creationism, on the other hand, has no evidence (in the scientific sense) to support it.

Why should it? There's plenty of other things that have evidence for them (such as the fact that umbrellas don't work as parachutes), so why should evolution be singled out to be taught? Because people want to know where they came from? Well there's apparent evidence of evolution, but there's also evidence of God, even if not "strictly scientific", so people should be given both possibilities and allowed to make their own choice, not be coerced into one belief or another.

there's also evidence of God
I'd say there's no evidence against God as there really can't be any evidence for God.

I think the Bible proves the evolution theory.

Adam and Eve were not the first. Who built the Sphynx?

If that really was God that helped Moses and Noah. How could he not get off his arse for 5 mintues during the Spanish inqisition? Or do something about century after century of holy wars? (people killing other people for religious reasons) I mean I know the bible says we get to make our own decisions but shouldn't a real God, at the very least, want to shed the tiniest bit of light on the subject?

God would not make 10 commandments and then ask you to break 3 of them by worshiping Jesus or Mohamad (men that walked the earth)

New life arives on earth every day from ice particles, comet and astroid fragments. Just like we did. We might have once been apes or dolphins, but before that we were SPACE GOO!:gundge:

New life arives on earth every day from ice particles, comet and astroid fragments.
New life surives the cold of space and the heat of entry friction? Well I for one welcome our new invincible space goo overlords.
Just like we did. We might have once been apes or dolphins, but before that we were SPACE GOO!:gundge:

And you know this how?

New life surives the cold of space and the heat of entry friction? Well I for one welcome our new invincible space goo overlords.


And you know this how?

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99834.htm

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast05apr_1.htm

Look up in the sky and wave to your cousin. He's had a long journey!

Why should it? There's plenty of other things that have evidence for them (such as the fact that umbrellas don't work as parachutes), so why should evolution be singled out to be taught? Because people want to know where they came from?

No, because it's the cornerstone of modern biology. Trying to teach biology without evolution is like trying to teach maths without addition, subtraction or division, or physics without the laws of thermodynamics. It's idiotic.

Well there's apparent evidence of evolution, but there's also evidence of God, even if not "strictly scientific", so people should be given both possibilities and allowed to make their own choice, not be coerced into one belief or another.

Yes, and people should also be able to decide if there is a highest prime number or whether 1+1 is 2 or not, because all that pesky reality can't be allowed to intrude on people's beliefs regardless of how ludicrous they are. Evolution isn't a belief system, it's a scientific theory based on repeated experimental proofs and huge volumes of data. There is no religious explaination with an equal standing in terms of proof, accuracy, or predictive capability. If there ever is, then we can talk about its validity as an alternative.

There is also no evidence of God that is not either extremely dubious or anecdotal. You can't test God in a science lab, therefore God does not belong in a science lesson. Also, why do you think there are only two possibilities? There's an awful lot of religions out there with an awful lot of origin myths to teach, after all. And why do you assume belief in God excludes evolution? There's a massive number of mainstream Christians who have no problem with both being true and God creating evolution and then sitting back and letting it do its thing.

we have been engineered by aliens called gods back then and we have a mixture of ape and alien dna.

we have been engineered by aliens called gods back then and we have a mixture of ape and alien dna.

I thought the resident Scientologist had left NS.

Evolution has not been proven!

http://www.draaisma.net/rudi/homanus/the_missing_link.html

I assume then that the poster knows where each of his ancestors back to Noah is buried. Unless there has been interbreeding in the poster's family there must be 1,000s of his ancestors buried across the world, and since he expects evolutionists to know the whereabouts of every example of every fossil from 100s of thousands of years ago, it shouldn't be too much to ask for him to show us his ancestors going back just a few thousand years, after all, we have had written history during that time.

If the poster cannot provide the bones of each of his ancestors back to Noah (who we are all of course descended from) then I cannot in good faith believe that the poster exists.

Why should it? There's plenty of other things that have evidence for them (such as the fact that umbrellas don't work as parachutes), so why should evolution be singled out to be taught? Because people want to know where they came from? Well there's apparent evidence of evolution, but there's also evidence of God, even if not "strictly scientific", so people should be given both possibilities and allowed to make their own choice, not be coerced into one belief or another.

Your absolutely right, we should teach our schoolchildren about the magnifisense of the Flying Spaghetti Monster in our schools every day, they can't be alowed to go through their live without being touched by His noodly appendage.

I don't know if I mislead you but Tay Sachs suffers apparently have a resistance to T.B. not malaria, it's not clear from your answer.

You didn't mislead me. I was trying to hypothesize an effect of Tay-Sachs that might lead to a similar resistant effect as malaria, but I was also studying for a midterm at the same time and so my reply was somewhat garbled. The T.B. resistance is new to me, but I normally don't keep up with medical and biological news. Good to know.

Technically, yes, but tripping on LSD isn't anything BUT mental. You don't burst a beam of light out of your orifices with the holy grace of god when you're in church, you just feel good. My point is that it's mental and nothing else.


A good point, but can you attest to the truthfullness of that statement?

Do you say that because something is in the head it is not real?

If you have a drugged up LSD type experiance, it is a real experiance, you did not just imagine it. When you say mental, do you discount then that all experiance is in the head, how can you experiacne anything without the brain, you say mental and nothing else like you mean mental isn't the whole of your being.

What you see, and what you belive to be true, thats mental too.

I'd say he was about as faithful as it gets - he obviously believed whole-heartedly that the invisible man in the clouds would keep him afloat in the water.

Though how can you say faith is not just a symptom of madness? It's the delusion that everything except what you believe is wrong, no matter how much evidence is to the contrary.


I could agrue that you are wrong and that he obviously did not belive whole-heartedly. The truth on that is we cannot know what was runnign through his head.

But, one ONLY needs as much faith as is contained in a mustard seed to move mountains right? The Bible says this too. So which is it, "perfect" faith to perform miracles, or only a mustard seed-full? Perhaps this is a "quality", not "quantity" issue?

I don't know much about the Bible so I can't attest to the mustard seed bit.

Yet even I a non Christian can read as much faith as contianed in a mustard seed to mean, perfect faith. Mankind is the only creature born with a chance to choose or reject God, everything else is God personified, so even a mustard seed inherntly has more faith in God than any human. So perhaps it means when you have as much faith as mustard seed then you can move mountians, perhaps.

A good point, but can you attest to the truthfullness of that statement?

Do you say that because something is in the head it is not real?

If you have a drugged up LSD type experiance, it is a real experiance, you did not just imagine it. When you say mental, do you discount then that all experiance is in the head, how can you experiacne anything without the brain, you say mental and nothing else like you mean mental isn't the whole of your being.

What you see, and what you belive to be true, thats mental too.

We could get technical and throw out various The Matrix theories about how reality is all in our heads and we're really just sitting in vats of pink goo, but realistically, unless you do something that affects something around you (be it your arm, or your chair, or a vase) then it's just mental.

It would be physical if you moved your arm and hit a vase - it would be paranormal if you thought about hitting the vase and the vase crashed to the floor without you touching it. It'd be mental if you thought about hitting the vase and nothing happened. It'd also be mental if you thought about it, and you THOUGHT you saw it happen, but the vase was really still sitting there unaffected without you knowing it.

We could get technical and throw out various The Matrix theories about how reality is all in our heads and we're really just sitting in vats of pink goo, but realistically, unless you do something that affects something around you (be it your arm, or your chair, or a vase) then it's just mental.

It would be physical if you moved your arm and hit a vase - it would be paranormal if you thought about hitting the vase and the vase crashed to the floor without you touching it. It'd be mental if you thought about hitting the vase and nothing happened. It'd also be mental if you thought about it, and you THOUGHT you saw it happen, but the vase was really still sitting there unaffected without you knowing it.

I make you right, the problem though is I cannot tell you how all of this 'paranormal' stuff works, yet if everything is is ultimatly mental, it sort of makes sense for it to be also.

I make you right, the problem though is I cannot tell you how all of this 'paranormal' stuff works, yet if everything is is ultimatly mental, it sort of makes sense for it to be also.

Not if you judge what things are by how they affect the world around you. If you just focus on what allows you to do something then of course your brain is always the one doing it, you -are- your brain - it makes your arm move, it controls whatever telepathy you have, and it gives you hallucinations. But that's redundant - to correctly judge what actions truly are, we must look at how they affect the world, i.e. does the vase crash or does it stay there unaffected?

Not if you judge what things are by how they affect the world around you. If you just focus on what allows you to do something then of course your brain is always the one doing it, you -are- your brain - it makes your arm move, it controls whatever telepathy you have, and it gives you hallucinations. But that's redundant - to correctly judge what actions truly are, we must look at how they affect the world, i.e. does the vase crash or does it stay there unaffected?

Again I agree, but even this is in the head. The question of wether the vase crashed to the floor or did not, is a process of the brain processing senseory data. Our whole perception of the world is not much more than a model in our heads.

Again I agree, but even this is in the head. The question of wether the vase crashed to the floor or did not, is a process of the brain processing senseory data. Our whole perception of the world is not much more than a model in our heads.

Right, but we're getting back into The Matrix here - if someone ELSE says "No, dude, the vase is fine. You didn't smash it with your telekenesis, you're just tripping." then it was all in your mind. Nothing metaphysical about it, nothing paranormal (unless you didn't take any drugs in which case you might have accidentally inhaled hallucinagenic fumes causing you to trip, which would still be mental, or a ghost is controlling your mind, which WOULD be paranormal).

Right, but we're getting back into The Matrix here - if someone ELSE says "No, dude, the vase is fine. You didn't smash it with your telekenesis, you're just tripping." then it was all in your mind. Nothing metaphysical about it, nothing paranormal (unless you didn't take any drugs in which case you might have accidentally inhaled hallucinagenic fumes causing you to trip, which would still be mental, or a ghost is controlling your mind, which WOULD be paranormal).

Heh yeah perhaps........

Or perhaps it is they who's sensory data or inturpertation of such has let them down. The point I'm making is that by it's very definition, we cannot treat the paranormal, or mathaphysical in a logical way.

Again I agree, but even this is in the head. The question of wether the vase crashed to the floor or did not, is a process of the brain processing senseory data. Our whole perception of the world is not much more than a model in our heads.

But from experience we know about the correlations between the sensory input and the circumstances causing it. Experience is the collection of confirmations for previous sensory input, from which we build the models in our heads.
Belief on the other side is a lack of input and the replacement of information by speculation and the fabrication of models without any correlation to the real world.


inturpertation ??

But from experience we know about the correlations between the sensory input and the circumstances causing it. Experience is the collection of confirmations for previous sensory input, from which we build the models in our heads.
Belief on the other side is a lack of input and the replacement of information by speculation and the fabrication of models without any correlation to the real world.


inturpertation ??

The point being what is the real world? Our sensory input is determined by our senses, and so are subjective to us as a speices. The sensory input for a fly is differant; It, in reality percives the world differantly than us, can you be sure that our perception of realality is the actual real one?

I'm dyslexic and so sometimes I have to speil words phoneticaly, if you read them the same way you'll find that Inturpertation is a misspieling of inturpretation.;)

Oh. Sorry.

But since you brought it up...

A theory on sickle cell anemia is that it is an adaptaion. Sure, it kills you usually by your thirties or even younger if not treated, but it also makes you immune to maleria which will kill a child much faster. One disease, genetic in nature, lets you get old enough to have children more often than the other which is environmental. Don't know how valid that is, but it's interesting.

I'm not sure on this, but I thought even having only one of the recessive genes for sickle cell is enough to protect the carrier, but he won't get sick from sickle cell unless he has two of the genes for it. This means about half of the offspring of two parents who each have one of the recessive genes will be protected, one quarter will get sick, and one quarter will be normal. Those are pretty good odds if malaria is widespread in your habitat.

Heh yeah perhaps........

Or perhaps it is they who's sensory data or inturpertation of such has let them down. The point I'm making is that by it's very definition, we cannot treat the paranormal, or mathaphysical in a logical way.

Meh. If you look at it that way, then we never know what's going on, and we just blindly walk through life assuming that the door in front of us is in fact not a giant gaping maw of a dragon - we can only trust what we experience, and when we bring objective parties into the situation, such as a second or third person to tell you that the vase isn't broken, then we can use logical assumption to assume that they're probably right, especially if you are on drugs.

Meh. If you look at it that way, then we never know what's going on, and we just blindly walk through life assuming that the door in front of us is in fact not a giant gaping maw of a dragon - we can only trust what we experience, and when we bring objective parties into the situation, such as a second or third person to tell you that the vase isn't broken, then we can use logical assumption to assume that they're probably right, especially if you are on drugs.


Yeah I agree, but you do see that our experiances are only the sum part of our sensory input over a period of time? So of course I would have to ask is there any such thing as an objective party? Heh interesting, but have we now gone beyond the bounds of the OP, shall we take it to another thread?

The point being what is the real world? Our sensory input is determined by our senses, and so are subjective to us as a speices. The sensory input for a fly is differant; It, in reality percives the world differantly than us, can you be sure that our perception of realality is the actual real one?

The perception might be different but not the input. And the quality of our senses is so good that they allow us a retro-calculation of our respecive environment's properties. This is how we learn what the things of the world are and how we best interact with them. Otherwise you could never even ride a bicycle.


I'm dyslexic and so sometimes I have to speil words phoneticaly, if you read them the same way you'll find that Inturpertation is a misspieling of inturpretation.;)

dyslexic? you mean improperly or insufficiently educated.
.

The perception might be different but not the input. And the quality of our senses is so good that they allow us a retro-calculation of our respecive environment's properties. This is how we learn what the things of the world are and how we best interact with them. Otherwise you could never even ride a bicycle.

You are of course quite right.

dyslexic? you mean improperly or insufficiently educated.

Why you cheeky fucker, no I mean that I suffer from a condition which means(funnily enough given the context of the thread) that there are problems with the way my senses, sense and the way in which my brain inturprets the sensory data. This has of course meant that my schooling was harder than it need to be, and that indeed I had to work harder than most to get any benifit out of my education. So then are you one of these ignorant little pricks that says there is no such thing as dyslexicia?

Why you cheeky fucker, no I mean that I suffer from a condition which means(funnily enough given the context of the thread) that there are problems with the way my senses, sense and the way in which my brain inturprets the sensory data. This has of course meant that my schooling was harder than it need to be, and that indeed I had to work harder than most to get any benifit out of my education. So then are you one of these ignorant little pricks that says there is no such thing as dyslexicia?

Oh please. Are you US-American? It seems there is a correlation between certain countries and the percentage of "dyslexic" people in the respective populace.

Oh please. Are you US-American? It seems there is a correlation between certain countries and the percentage of "dyslexic" people in the respective populace.



Naaa I'm British, in my late 30's and have suffered from this condition for the whole of my life.

I founf it, I found the link (www.losethegame.com).

With all that "prove this" "prove that" flying around, i had to think about a criminal court.
While Evolution isnt actually caught redhanded, there is enough circumstantial evidence to reconstruct the story more or less and find it guilty. No, the case isnt cristall-clear, there are some anwers the jury will not get, the case is still in work, police and prosecutor are still adding small things here and there, but no one in his right mind would doubt Evolution did it.
Creationism on the other hand confesses it was his doing, and it involved invisible forces from outer space and that you just had to believe him and would see the truth. Of course there are no traces of any aliens. But he has a book with him, written by the aliens, which says: Yes, we are aliens, even if this is written in plain old aramaic or, even better a translation into greek, and we did it and made some dinosaur bones just for fun. Look, its written in this book that we are aliens and this book is the truth because it was written by us.
How should the jury decide? :p

I founf it, I found the link (www.losethegame.com).

Why does it want to install active x controls in my computer? That's not nice.

Naaa I'm British, in my late 30's and have suffered from this condition for the whole of my life.

People who cannot spell (and I do not mean making typing mistakes) are just mentally lazy. Even though English is not exactly a very friendly language when it comes to spelling there is no reason to not learn it. Even I learned it and I am not natively speaking or writing this language.


...
How should the jury decide? :p

The verdict should be to remove all devout believers from the face of the planet for the benefit of the remaining more intelligent folks. This may seem hard, but after all, how long should mankind be restrained by the unteachables?

People who cannot spell (and I do not mean making typing mistakes) are just mentally lazy. Even though English is not exactly a very friendly language when it comes to spelling there is no reason to not learn it. Even I learned it and I am not natively speaking or writing this language.

So in other words the answer to this:

'So then are you one of these ignorant little pricks that says there is no such thing as dyslexicia?'

Is emphaticaly yes?

I'd rather be dyslexic than an insensitive ass

i still don't see how evolution and creationism are at odds with another. I don't believe the bible should really be taken literally, I believe in a creator and i accept the theory of evolution.

It's like were still stuck in the age of "enlightenment" undreds of years ago when science and religion couldn't be in the same room together. you would think we would have evolved from that sort of thinking by now.

i still don't see how evolution and creationism are at odds with another. I don't believe the bible should really be taken literally, I believe in a creator and i accept the theory of evolution.

It's like were still stuck in the age of "enlightenment" undreds of years ago when science and religion couldn't be in the same room together. you would think we would have evolved from that sort of thinking by now.

Unfortunately there are some people who insist on taking 2000 year old literature literally rather than modern literature that takes into account all the knowledge accumulated in the time since certain publications were compiled

i still don't see how evolution and creationism are at odds with another. I don't believe the bible should really be taken literally, I believe in a creator and i accept the theory of evolution.

It's like were still stuck in the age of "enlightenment" undreds of years ago when science and religion couldn't be in the same room together. you would think we would have evolved from that sort of thinking by now.

Nicely put, "evolved" from that. :D

This thread was originally a response to the "Irreducible Complexity is Utter Bunk" thread which went after Intelligent Design's claim to be a scientific theory on a par with evolution. There are numbers of scientists who feel the same way, that they can be believers and scientists both. What ID does is try to introduce Christian Creationism into school curricula in the guise of science. ID has presented no scientific evidence for its claim that there are certain structures in nature that are so complex that they could not have evolved over time, and so must have been designed. ID proponents will say they are not Christian Creationists but if you look closely enough, they are (and this is not an attack on Christianity). Anyway, take a stroll through the other thread.

I'd rather be dyslexic than an insensitive ass

Why? At least insensitive asses can read and write properly. I'm proud to be an asshole.

As much as its not usually a good argument for any idea just to talk about who supports that idea but...

There are many scientists who are christian and support evolution. Ken Miller springs to mind.

Find me an ID proponent who does not have an overly religious agenda or outlook.

Why? At least insensitive asses can read and write properly. I'm proud to be an asshole.

Touche. Amend 'insensitive' to 'ignorant'

Why? At least insensitive asses can read and write properly. I'm proud to be an asshole.

Shit man not all of them.

Shit man not all of them.

True dat. You've got me there.

Silly, misguided creationists. I poop in your coffee.

There are species of dinosaurs named solely on the basis of footprints,

Actually, that's false. The name refers not to the animal that made it, but only to the footprints, as a method of distinguishing them. Footprints only get a generic name, not a specific name. As an example, the Grallator footprints almost certainly belong to Coelophysis bauri, but they are still referred to as Grallator. This is because it is impossible to demonstrate that the footprints were made by C. bauri and not by a similar animal.