My job.

Hippies piss me off[/cartman]

------------------
Debating politics on the internet is about as useful and productive as shoving a broomstick up your *** .

Well speaking of Holier than thou...

...What?

------------------
WAITER: Here’s your green salad, sir.
ANAKIN: What? You fool, I told you NO CROUTONS! Aaaaaaargh!

<3

This is what I was trying to say about evolution in my other post(s)
, and quite frankly, Katt put it beautifully.

Man, its really comforting to know that that I am not the only one to see Evolution like that.

------------------
Kill Your Idols!

Explaining things to people is just so much more condescending than just going with the crowd and pissing on them, isn't?

------------------
Debating politics on the internet is about as useful and productive as shoving a broomstick up your *** .

[This message has been edited by Kieran Horn (edited August 20, 2004).]

Yea also, my friend said something about the word for day in the language genesis was written in also means a period of time. So it could be interpreted as 7 periods of times not 7 days. This could explain the time needed for evolution to take place. Not sure if thats true or not.

------------------
/fluffle

Okay, so through the process of natural selection, the best adapted animals survive, such as the cheetahs that can run the fastests, the lions with the biggest teeth, or the neanderthals with the largest brain. This process results in humans. 'God' is not necessary.

That's nice, but what happens if you try and apply that same line of thinking to, well, everything else?

The Earth was 'created' by the remnants of the Sun, as well as all the inner planets. 'God' is not necessary.
Life on Earth is 'created' as bacteria, the result of chemical reactions under the right conditions. 'God' is not necessary.
Chemical reactions result in a monotonous pattern resulting in the long DNA molecule. 'God' is not necessary.
All the matter and/or energy in the Universe resulted from an explosive singularity some 20 billion years ago. 'God' is not necessary.

'God' is only necessary for creating that singularity, the Big Bang. After that, God is no longer necessary.

There is conflict between science and religion, and this is exactly it. 'God' has no place in science. If you try to mix 'God' and 'science', you're either a bad theologian or you're a bad scientist, or both. After all, the Bible does claim that the Universe is 5700 years old, heh. Science is about understanding and explaining the Universe. Now, some scientists would say that they are studying "God's work" or "God's creation". But the more you study, the less necessary the concept of 'God' is.
'God' does not cause the Earth to go around the Sun, gravity (or the Higgs boson) does. 'God' does not cause trees to grow, photosynthesis does. 'God' does not induce an electric current, a flow of charged particles does.
When you study the Universe in terms of fundemental particles, the interactions of quarks and mesons and electrons and nutrinos, 'God' has no place. There is no room for divine intervention.

Really, the only two places where 'God' might be necessary is at the black hole singularity and for the Big Bang singularity. I do know that quantum physicists are trying to explain the Big Bang in so far that events that occur in the future can have an effect on events that occur in the past. Yes, this makes little sense, I think it's a theory-in-progress and I haven't seen mathmatical proofs of it. As for black holes, a companion of Stephen Hawking made a recent breakthrough, and the two of them are reviewing the mathmatics of it now.


Religion makes much more sense when you see it as a product of history and a result of scientific ignorance.

Really I haven't seen any thing but a condescending attitude toward me in this thread.

*cheer*!

------------------
WOOSH|-----@%

God is laughing at some of the people in this thread. >.>

------------------
Map-Review | My Portfolio | The Matrix: Unplugged

Banks and banks of humming machinery! I've never seen so many knobs. We're going to have to do something, Charlie! Try pushing that button there. No? How about that one? No, not that one either. I know! I'll try pushing this one. Hold my hat will you? Good fellow.

Theories are not fact. Therefor, the creation of the universe is up for anyone's speculation. Just because it's "theorized" that it was created by a big explosion thingy, doesn't mean it was. There's no way to know for certain short of seeing it yourself.

You can't prove theories about the big bang and evolution. Likewise, you can't prove religion. They're both based as much on blind faith as the other.

------------------
Moo.

No, they're not.

Scientific theories are certainly not 'faith'.

They are theories based on observation, logic and mathmatics.

The Universe is expanding, so in the past the Universe was 'smaller' (in that everything was closer together). So, at some time in the past, the Universe was at an infinitely small size. There's more to it than that, but that's more or less the logic behind it.

It's only "faith" if you don't understand the science. This seems to be the case with an awful lot of religious folk.

Basic understanding of genetics will make the theory of evolution make complete sense.

[This message has been edited by Mort-Hog (edited August 21, 2004).]

Thats the most ridiculous thing. Something as concrete and faith based as religion has no place in a world where people will "modify it to fit their needs". That's just ridiculous.

------------------
"If there's one thing I've learned it's this - you just can't shake hands with a fist" - David Allen Coe

You've pretty much just described my beliefs as well.

------------------
"Why aren't I'm using at these pictures?" - Cloud, 4/14/02

That made me laugh so much.

Just because they're theories does not mean they aren't true. In science a theory is defined as "the highest form of scientific understanding." to become a theory it has to pass test after test and still be the best available explantion. Creation is not a theory so it can't be compared to Evolution at all. Creation can be best described as a fairy tale.

Straying from the subject of creation vs evolution. I'll tell you why I don't want to believe in god. Simply put, the idea of god contradicts the idea of free will. An omnipotent god is 'all-knowing' meaning it knows the future and if "god is everywhere" god is also in the future. God. existing outside time and space also means that god can already see the future since he cannot exists only in the present. However you look at it, god knows the future, If god knows the future then the future has already been decided. Meaning there is no such thing as free will. Taking this idea further, if god knows the future then god created the future. This means that people are bad because god wants them to be.

[Edit: Oh and don't feed me the "But god can choose not to know" line. He can't the christian god can't have free will either.]

(Sorry, that last paragraph wasn't very well written.)



[This message has been edited by TheJkWhoSaysNi (edited August 21, 2004).]

Now, I had made up my mind not to respond to this thread, because it seemed little more than a gathering of all the most obnoxious members of every major belief system (yes, that includes you too, atheists), but...


No it doesn't. The Young Earth Theory was put forth first by a Bishop James Ussher. Ussher tried to calculate the age of the earth by using the geneology lists in the old testament. However, those lists are designed to show decendency, not a complete forebearer's list. Most theologians dismiss Ussher's chronology the same way scientists do.



No, the more YOU study science the less necessary God is. The problem is your prospective. You're like someone who claims that a hammer built a house and thus the carpenter is unnecessary. The existence of photosynthesis does not disprove that God makes plants grow anymore than the existence of the hammer means that the carpenter didn't build the house.

Christian scientists (...that's scientists who are Christian, not the religious group) realize that science and theology answer completely different questions and thus aren't in conflict with each other. You're right, God doesn't have a place in science. That doesn't mean that science contradicts God, it just means that science is concerned only with the emperical and the question of "How?" But there's nothing in science that prevents the question from being "How did God set this system up?"

And for the Christian nutjobs who think that science is synonymous with evil or anti-Christian, then I refer you to St. Thomas Aquinas (...oh, I'm sorry, he's Catholic and I forgot Catholics aren't Christian they're evil and conspiring against the world and killed Lincoln *eyeroll*) who said that, to a Christian, there should be no truth apart from God's truth. God is truth, and thus nothing that we discover to be true contradicts God. Some of our previous perceptions or beliefs about God may have been wrong, but God Himself remains true and we should be grateful that He has helped bring us out of our false beliefs so that we may better know Him. So stop acting like science is the boogyman waiting in the closet to eat your Bible and quote Nietsche to you.

Well that's my rant for the day. I'll be happy if this can continue to be a discussion and not a debate or an argument. Religious debates are pointless. Mort-Hog ain't gonna make me an atheist, and I doubt I'm going to make him a Christian. However, I am always interested in hearing the perspective of someone with differing beliefs from my own, as long as they are presented in a calm manner without resorting to insults, word games, or nitpicking.

------------------
I live in the weak, and the wounded.

It's not even so much that the one commandment (Love one another) replaced the Ten Commandments, it's more that it sums them all up.



Me neither. Churches of Christ vary on subjects like this (what with there being no no central authority to decide Church of Christ doctrine, as there is with the Catholic Church) and frequently they'll perpetuate the "no dancing" rule or the "no co-ed swimming" rule just for the sake of the traditionalists in the congregation. There's absolutely no Biblical basis for it.

Ok, now for the third thing. The whole non-evolution thing. Otherwise known as creationism. I asked him how, if there has never been evolution, did Noah go around and gather up billions and billions of animals. Two each. And how did he fit them all on the boat. He told me there were not that many. He said back then there were only a few hundred. And we have more now because of "cross breeding." Now correct me if I'm wrong, but "cross breeding" is a form of evolution is it not? I understand that man did not evolve from apes by the ape a shagging ape b when there was a full moon or something, but I think mankind did evolve from apes. It's just a little hard to believe that we have never evolved at all, and everything else has. Already, in only a few hundred years, we have evolved mentally. We now have the capacity for more knowledge and critical thinking than hundreds of years ago. So why is it so insane to the Christians to think that we evolved from apes?[/b][/quote]

Beats me. I for one have chosen not to believe completely in evolution until it's proven, or disbelieve completely in it until it's disproven.



I can somewhat see where you're coming from, based on what I've observed growing up in the Church of Christ (a.k.a. "The Only Ones Going To Heaven). Some of us, however, are reasonable people.

------------------
"Why aren't I'm using at these pictures?" - Cloud, 4/14/02

It's not so much God chooses not to know but that God limits himself for the sake of our free will. God COULD step in and make us all believe in and love Him, but that's not what He desires. He desires for us to love Him freely, and, as you said, that can't happen if he's got us running like robots. The unfortunate side effect to giving us freewill is that a great number of us choose not to believe in Him, and some choose to stray so far from Him (...some even while proclaiming to believe in Him) that they become...as you so eloquently put "bad."

And of course this leads to the question of well, would you rather have free will or no bad people, which is a whole other debate, but kind of a pointless one.

------------------
I live in the weak, and the wounded.

Then you have a long wait. It's a theory and will never be proven. Do you believe in Pythagoras' Theory? It will remain a theory until someone tests it and it does not work.

------------------
╔═════════════╦══════════════════╗
║ TheJkWhoSaysNi║ -----@% (Snail racing. ) .║
╠═════════════╩══════════════════╣
║Warning: This post may contain traces of nut║
╚════════════════════════════════╝

Gods main attributes prevent him from having free will. He cannot limit himself since limiting himself would be a choice.

Lemme try to explain this. God must choose to limit himself at some point. He already knows the future. It is part of his knowledge. He already knows whether he will limit his power or not, and by knowing this already the choice has been made that he doesnt (Because he already knows the future). It would just creat a loop of these events.

If god could limit his powers then he would no longer be god. It's basically the old unmovable box question. If god creats a box which cant be moved, can he move it?

[This message has been edited by TheJkWhoSaysNi (edited August 21, 2004).]

You've still not proven why God doesn't have free will. And you're getting into the question of how God relates to time. Most theologians agree that time doesn't exist for God. It's not that God sees the future in a crystal ball, it's that past present and future are the same thing for God. Of course this is mainly speculative theology as the Bible says little about it. But I still don't see why that would prevent God from having free will. This isn't the "you build a time machine to go back and kill hitler, but once you do that then there's no hitler in the future so you wouldn't build a time machine to go back and kill him, so...*continue*" scenario. If there is a God, God is the being who wrote the rules. God doesn't have to conform to anything, everything else conforms to God.

------------------
I live in the weak, and the wounded.

I should have been clearer. What I meant was proven or disproven beyond a reasonable doubt.

------------------
"Why aren't I'm using at these pictures?" - Cloud, 4/14/02

It does annoy me when people say "it's just a theory it's not been proven".

What exactly is that supposed to mean? What 'proof' exactly are you looking for?

Darwinnian theory of natural selection (Darwin himself said that "evolution" is a poor word to use to describe it, in that it confuses the effect) simply makes sense.
In androgynous reproduction, there is always random genetic variation. Personally, this is the element of the theory that I dislike the most, as I don't really like the concept of "random", but I accept that it does happen, for a variety of reasons, involving radioactivity. This has been observed. But anyway, the vast majority of mutations are not useful and result in the offspring either as stillbirth or impotent.
But once in a while, those random mutations may result in properties that allow it to survive better.
Let's say it's a horse, and the random mutation is that it has abnormally long legs.
A horse with long legs, and a horse with short legs. The ones with short legs would not be able to run as fast, and would be more likely to be killed by predators, and would not spread their genes. The ones with long legs could run away faster and would be more likely to survive and spread their genes. They reproduce, and the result is more horses with long legs. In time, all the short-legged horses are killed and those genes are no longer in the gene pool. So the average leg length of horses in general is increased.

Makes sense, doesn't it?

You just need to think about it, and it makes perfect sense.

Yes, fossil studies have reinforced this, showing skeletons of horses with legs considerably shorter than those of today. Darwin did his research on birds. But is that 'proof' really necessary?

What 'proof' do you want? Just use logic.

I agree entirely with the 'theory' thing. What people who attack "theories" don't understand is that leaving something a theory is a STRENGTH, not a weakness. That leaves room for the theory to be adapted when new information becomes available.

------------------
I live in the weak, and the wounded.

Can't speak for anyone else, but personally I'm waiting for someone to actually explain evolution to me in a way that makes sense. Having gone to a Christian school since fourth grade (I just graduated), I haven't had that opportunity yet. I am in no way trying to use the played-out "it's just a theory" argument to discredit evolution. I just want to wait until I have all the facts before I decide what to believe. Surely that's reasonable.

------------------
"Why aren't I'm using at these pictures?" - Cloud, 4/14/02

That's a wise choice, actually. You shouldn't believe something you don't understand.

I've tried to explain the concept of evolution in that other post. It isn't really that complicated.


And anyway, what 'facts'?

Copernicus first observed that when a ship is sailing towards you over the horizon, you see the top of the ship's mast first before you see the rest of the ship. This was the observation he used to conclude that the Earth is not flat, but rather round. That is just using logic, using rational thinking. There aren't really any "facts" involved here. Would you still believe the Earth is flat? Would you still believe that until man went into space and took a picture of the Earth, showing it to be spherical?

You don't need "facts" when you have logic.

[This message has been edited by Mort-Hog (edited August 21, 2004).]

Ok, I'll explain why god can't have free will existing outside time is just a part of it..

if you're an omniscient being you're 'all-knowing' You know your future actions, you know what choices you are going to take. If you change this choice then your knowlege is wrong and you're no longer all knowing. Consider this: God is creating a llama, he can either create it or not create it but seeing as god knows the future he knows what he's going to do. If he uses free will and does the opposite of what he already knows he is going to do then he must already know that he chooses to do the opposite of what he knows he is going to do.. etc etc..

A benovolant god cannot make choices either. He must always choose the most moral choice meaning the choice has already been made.

The final problem is that god exists outside of time. Decisions rely on thoughts and thoughts change over time, however since god is outside time he either never thinks or comes to all his conclusions instantly. He makes his choices the instant he comes into existance.

God has no free will. If the whole thing was a chess game god would be in stalemate.

------------------
╔═════════════╦══════════λ ; 2;═══════╗
║ TheJkWhoSaysNi║ -----@% (Snail racing. ) .║
╠═════════════╩══════════λ ; 2;═══════╣
║Warning: This post may contain traces of nut║
╚════════════════════════λ ; 2;═══════╝


[This message has been edited by TheJkWhoSaysNi (edited August 21, 2004).]

Me ---> baptised by my own father and to be a Roman Catholic Christian, but I am not really religious, my father isn't also any kind of christian or any religious person.


------------------
I'm the first MASSaSSiAN from Estonia!!:)

The problem, or so I've heard, comes with trying to apply the model you just gave (which, I agree, is simply intuitive when it comes to evolution within a species) to the creation of new species through evolution. I wish I could be more specific, but it's been a long time since I last had any sort of biology class.

------------------
"Why aren't I'm using at these pictures?" - Cloud, 4/14/02

??? Mort-Hog just explained it a few posts above...I don't see how what Mort-Hog explained doesn't make sense...Genetic mutation causes a horse with longer legs, thus allowing him to run faster to avoid predators which allows him to survive better then the short-legged horses! Which means short-legged horses = die and long legged horse = survive and mate

------------------
"If there's one thing I've learned it's this - you just can't shake hands with a fist" - David Allen Coe

Hmmm.

Well.. This probably needs more thought, but the immediate answer I can think of is there isn't always one "best" attribute.
Let's take the horse again. Long legs are better than short legs. But now imagine a random mutation resulting in... sharper teeth. The sharp teeth will be better than blunt teeth in that the horse can bite the opponent, and kill them, and then run away. That has nothing to do with legs. So you'll have one branch of horses with sharp teeth, and another branch of horses with long legs. Assuming they don't have to compete for food, they should both survive quite adequately.

Hmm..

Actually, horses probably aren't the best example here. Basically, where one creature has mutated to produce one property that allows it to survive better, another creature can mutate another different property that allows it to survive equally well, but differently.
Like, say, a creature either evolving the ability to swim, or the ability to fly.
I don't see why there should be a "wham different species" anyplace. Everything is a continuous spectrum of change. That change depends on the circumstances.


I'd be interested if you could outline the problem of species, I haven't heard of that before.

STOP LAUGHING AT ME!!!!!


Simply put, to TheJK's discussion about God in the future and such, God is far too complex for us to understand. He has not limited himself to the capacity of our small, feeble minds. (I use "He" and such out of tradition, not because I believe He's a guy).

God is timeless (as Darko has said); thus, He has no beginning, no end. He simply is. Thus, He is in the future... the past... the present... (your bathroom... ) but that's from our ('our' as in human-time, human-perception, etc) perspective, not His. Again, God is not limited to exist in our time like we do (i.e. 'then' was five minutes ago and 'this' is now). So anything in the future that He knows that we are going to do, we have already done. For God, 'now' could be 'then' and 'soon' could be 'before then'. He just does not exist like humans.

Yeah, I'm horrible at explaining stuff

------------------
nytfyre m0d || f33l t3h p0w3r || t3h l0st c0gz || OMF > *

You just agreed with me.. you say god is in the present, past and future. This means he can see what is happening in all these times. That was the whole basis of my first post...

------------------
╔═════════════╦══════════════════╗
║ TheJkWhoSaysNi║ -----@% (Snail racing. ) .║
╠═════════════╩══════════════════╣
║Warning: This post may contain traces of nut║
╚════════════════════════════════╝

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!

*Covers ears, and cries in a drunken corner*

------------------
If at first you don't succeed, lower your standards.

I think most Pagans would disagree. Paganism is both a complex and simple religion. They believe that there is one god (and sometimes a godess) and that he/they reveal themselves to mankind in different forms, which makes it appear that Pagans believe in multitudes of different gods. Same god (and/or godess), different appearance.

I think you might've been thinking of the word heathen, not Pagan.

~

Oh, and Katt... I love you!!

------------------
For a healty meal, eat mashed potatoes, peas, and catloaf.
Massassi's cuttin' into my free time, man.
Valuable Life Lesson: Frog + Potato Gun = Blindness
Worship Examples - Christians' love for God should be seen and heard, not merely talked about. It is through actions that one is determined to be Christian, not through words. Words (and thoughts, as well) deceive even one's own self, but the heart speaks truth.

[This message has been edited by DogSRoOL (edited August 21, 2004).]

And how exactly did you arrive at the conclusion that free will requires time? When was the last time you studied how non-existance of time affects things?

Some constructive criticism: Don't make arguments based on assumptions.
[unless of course you've settled on common ground with you opponent(s).]


------------------
For a healty meal, eat mashed potatoes, peas, and catloaf.
Massassi's cuttin' into my free time, man.
Valuable Life Lesson: Frog + Potato Gun = Blindness
Worship Examples - Christians' love for God should be seen and heard, not merely talked about. It is through actions that one is determined to be Christian, not through words. Words (and thoughts, as well) deceive even one's own self, but the heart speaks truth.

[This message has been edited by DogSRoOL (edited August 21, 2004).]

Unless God is a physical being, he can't think anyway.

------------------
WOOSH|-----@%

Another assumption.

------------------
For a healty meal, eat mashed potatoes, peas, and catloaf.
Massassi's cuttin' into my free time, man.
Valuable Life Lesson: Frog + Potato Gun = Blindness
Worship Examples - Christians' love for God should be seen and heard, not merely talked about. It is through actions that one is determined to be Christian, not through words. Words (and thoughts, as well) deceive even one's own self, but the heart speaks truth.

No, "Pagan" is certainly not a religion.

I'd be amused to find someone that says that they follow "Paganism". The term is used to lump together a very broad set of not necessarily compatable beliefs that are usually characterised by polytheism and sometimes animism. It bundles together all the non-Christian cults that existed in about 400 AD, and a few hundred years thence.
Often, "pagan" is used to refer to those that worship nature. This is referring to the Wiccan religion that was common throughout Britain before Christianity. In the US, it is sometimes used to refer to Asatru.

The point is, "pagan" has never been one 'religion', it was classically used to refer to anything that wasn't Christianity, which was usually one of a few large cults, primarily Wiccans. It was used as a label. That seems to have stuck.

"was." Allow me to (against my better judgement) direct you to another forum.
[In reviewing, I was wrong.]

(Please... nobody start posting in that forum if you can't debate maturely. I don't want it to end up looking like Massassi's religious flame-wars. We already have one guy that's making it generally unpleasant for all, and makes us look bad and turn into people we weren't before he came. And the boards are uncensored, so he's never going to get banned.)

------------------
For a healty meal, eat mashed potatoes, peas, and catloaf.
Massassi's cuttin' into my free time, man.
Valuable Life Lesson: Frog + Potato Gun = Blindness
Worship Examples - Christians' love for God should be seen and heard, not merely talked about. It is through actions that one is determined to be Christian, not through words. Words (and thoughts, as well) deceive even one's own self, but the heart speaks truth.

[This message has been edited by DogSRoOL (edited August 21, 2004).]