l33t hosting - our bandwidth pimps.  these guys r0x0rz
megatokyo - relax, we understand j00 what the hell is going on here?
who are these people?
please buy stuff or kimiko will cry...
rant and rave, tell everyone what you think.
comming soon - MT fan links and other stuff
fredart studios - the process behind the madness


Pages: (10) All « First ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... Last » ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topic

> Origions, What's your take on it?
phasmaexmachina
Posted: Jan 5 2004, 07:40 PM
Quote Post


l33t One
******

Group: -Members-
Posts: 2393
Member No.: 4576
Joined: 10-September 02



On the topic of Science automatically excluding anything that conflicts:
Scientists only laugh at crazy theories when those theories have no evidence to support them. Creationism, ESP, UFOs, Loch Ness, prayer, etc have no evidence to support them and a ton of evidence against them, so no one bothers to waste their time with them. However, the instant someone actually provides evidence supporting Creationism or discrediting evolution, then people will pay attention to these theories. No matter how biased you believe the "liberal scientific agenda" may be, you have to admit that even the strongest biases can be broken empircally. For example, Relativity was laughed at when it was originally proposed since it violated some obvious rules such as 1+1=2. It wasn't until there was evidence to support relativity that the majority of the scientific community took it seriously.

Anyone else have a better explanation other than "OMGZOR, 3v1l Atheist Conspiracy!!!"?

Darklight
QUOTE
I am were aware of Occam's Razor and all it's uses, and it does work most of the time, but not ALL of the time. Please refer to the Newtonian vs. Einsteinian physics argument . . .


Ehh?
Occam's Razor is a critical part of scientific thinking. In your argument, you forgot to mention that there is a ton of evidence supporting Relativity. If this evidence did not exist (such as when the theory was first proposed) then Newtonian physics would be more valid. However, there is no way to explain things like the orbit of Mercury without either extremely complex Newtonian physics or somewhat simple Relativistic physics.

Omni Inc.
QUOTE
On an unrelated subject I've seen a few episodes on string theory on PBS and was wondering if there are any physics majors in here that could explain it in a bit more detail. Not just for my benefit but for everyone's.

I suggest getting the book The Elegant Universe by Brian Green. It is about as simple as you can get when dealing with the most complex field in physics :P
PMEmail Poster
Top
Darklight
Posted: Jan 5 2004, 07:42 PM
Quote Post


Local
***

Group: -Members-
Posts: 209
Member No.: 12317
Joined: 15-March 03



QUOTE
well anyways I have a little post game to play. I need one answer from science and one from the bible. The question is How did both white and black skin come to be the way it is. Mind you the human race wanst always white or black. Feel Free to post more than one answer but I would like a answer from each side. BTW I know the scientific view of the answer and I would love to hear how the bible explains it. Have fun!


As far as I know (and I've read most of the Bible), the Bible DOESN'T explain it. It doesn't really mention anything significant about skin colour . . . except the ocassional rare, "Rahad something or another, son of Radah, whose skin was dark, from the country of Ethiopia, served 30 years as one of King David's 10 mighty men (loyal soldiers/champions), blah blah boring Chronological/Military enrollment listing".

I suppose it was a natural adaptation as "black" skin developed where it was more appropriate for the intense sunlight (Africa), while the "white" skin developed in people who lived in regions (say, Northern Europe) for generations where the weather inhibited the amount of sunlight . . . probably also has to do with genetic drift and certain traits being bred in isolation or something . . .

Edit:

QUOTE
On the topic of Science automatically excluding anything that conflicts:
Scientists only laugh at crazy theories when those theories have no evidence to support them. Creationism, ESP, UFOs, Loch Ness, prayer, etc have no evidence to support them and a ton of evidence against them, so no one bothers to waste their time with them. However, the instant someone actually provides evidence supporting Creationism or discrediting evolution, then people will pay attention to these theories. No matter how biased you believe the "liberal scientific agenda" may be, you have to admit that even the strongest biases can be broken empircally. For example, Relativity was laughed at when it was originally proposed since it violated some obvious rules such as 1+1=2. It wasn't until there was evidence to support relativity that the majority of the scientific community took it seriously.


There have been scientific studies into areas such as ESP, and Loch Ness with generally inconclusive results. There are also the commonly sited "modern day miracles" that Scientists will generally dismiss as mere chance or coincidence . . .

QUOTE
Ehh?
Occam's Razor is a critical part of scientific thinking. In your argument, you forgot to mention that there is a ton of evidence supporting Relativity. If this evidence did not exist (such as when the theory was first proposed) then Newtonian physics would be more valid. However, there is no way to explain things like the orbit of Mercury without either extremely complex Newtonian physics or somewhat simple Relativistic physics.


My point was that you could not use Occam's Razor to disprove God, because that would be a logical fallacy . . .

QUOTE
On an unrelated subject I've seen a few episodes on string theory on PBS and was wondering if there are any physics majors in here that could explain it in a bit more detail. Not just for my benefit but for everyone's.


String Theory is fun tongue.gif

No really, it provides the explanation to a variety of difficult and seemingly conflicting concepts in science. Mainly, it allows for both Gravitational Field (Macro) and Quantum Mechanical (Micro) physics to be interchangable and use the same system of equations to solve them. It does this by explaning how an atom or similar quantum object, can be both a particle, and a wave, by in fact, being a curled up cylindrical shape, kind of like a spring. If String Theory can be proven, and developed more substantially, it could become the greatly sought after "Unified Field Theory" that Einstein unsuccessfully tried to develop before he died . . .

Unified Field Theory is like the holy grail of physics. With it, one could, theoretically, be able to calculate/predict/manipulate, all of space and time . . .

At least I think that's what it is, I'm not actually a physics major . . . and I haven't really researched into Super String Theory in a while . . .

So, for good measure, here's a credible website: Super String Theory Official Site

This post has been edited by Darklight on Jan 5 2004, 08:01 PM
PMEmail Poster
Top
Mia
Posted: Jan 5 2004, 07:44 PM
Quote Post


Veteran
*****

Group: -Members-
Posts: 656
Member No.: 21316
Joined: 25-November 03



//I suggest getting the book The Elegant Universe by Brian Green. It is about as simple as you can get when dealing with the most complex field in physics tongue.gif

Physics is eligant, maybe complex to the untrained eye but has a beautiful symmetry which is unmatched.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Coerade
Posted: Jan 5 2004, 07:48 PM
Quote Post


Veteran
*****

Group: -Members-
Posts: 790
Member No.: 17289
Joined: 2-August 03



I thought that Occam's razor was the simplest explaination that worked given all data. If there is data that does not fit with Newton's theory, but does fit with Einstein's theory, your exapmle does not contradict Occam's razor.
PMEmail Poster
Top
lastbreath
Posted: Jan 5 2004, 08:04 PM
Quote Post


Tourist
*

Group: Members
Posts: 8
Member No.: 22705
Joined: 5-January 04



To the original guy with the assignment: I'm a Creationist.

I believe in God (as life doesn't make sense without Him and nobody would want to have a purpose in life if there was no such thing, etc) so basically the last option was out of the question for me.

So why creationism instead of the gap theory or some such? According to the Bible, the world was created in 6 days right? I believe they are literal days because:
1) The use of the word "days" is used many times in the Bible and has never referred to anything different than a typical day.
2) God has no reason to lie, and it would be against His character to do so.
3) It is clear that the Bible says that man brought death into the world by sinning, so nothing died before Adam, meaning either the world was created in a very short time, or there was all kinds of creatures accumulated for millions of years who didn't die before Adam.

And I don't believe in the gap theory because:
1) The evolution theory has been made so people can either believe in God or not and still have the same theory, so the existence of God is irrelevant. It is not based on reality, but on the wish that there isn't a God that we're accountable to. Which is why I think it's strange for Christians to accept this theory, since it's underlying purpose is to destroy the need for God. Majority opinion should not sway people from God's teaching (He did say that the path would be narrow and few would follow it).
2) I believe God would make creatures right the first time instead of making small little blobs of nothing and sitting there and waiting for them to develop by themselves.
3) If evolution is true AND there is such a thing as sin (which you'd pretty much have to believe if you believe in God), then who brought it into the world? How was Adam special? Did he magically get a soul and a conscience, separating him from his more-ape-like parents?
4) There have been things like upright trees found in many many layers of ground that were thought to represent a year each. Either they survived for millions of years or there was a flood (as the Bible says) that quickly buried them.
5) No valid missing links have been found.
6) Closed clams have been found at the top of a mountain (Everest I think?), which wouldn't make sense unless they lived in water there (which is only possible with a flood).
7) The carbon 14 level was different in the pre-flood world because there was a canopy of water above the atmosphere (Genesis 1:6) that shielded UV rays better than now, which throws off the carbon-dating tests (making things appear older), since the half-life was different.
8) There is more than enough proof that dinosaurs and humans lived together (human and dino footprints found together, many many ancient drawings of people riding dinosaurs, the Bible's reference to taming a dinosaur). Mind you, this doesn't necessarily prove evolution wrong, but it throws a bit of a loop in there.
9) There's a law in physics (I forget which one) that says that if a spinning object breaks apart, all the particles will be spinning in the same direction as the original big mass. So... what kind of weird "big bang" was that? Some planets are angled or even backwards.
10) Creatures like the bombadier beetle that don't make sense to evolve piece by piece without having the function of the end result till millions of years later.

There's probably better reasons out there, but those are some of mine.

In reply to:
"And you can't see any weaknesses in this argument? Like the fact that the perception of Jesus as a deity is entirely a matter of faith, and cannot be proved certain or even close to beyond reasonable doubt?"

Actually, the evidence is overwhelming if you follow the prophecies of Jesus' coming from the Old Testament, written hundreds of years before He was born.

How did black and white skin happen? There's a few theories on this, but mine is (but I'm not dead-set on it) the Tower of Babel when God gave a different languages to people. Maybe he made the races then as well.

I hope that helps.

This post has been edited by lastbreath on Jan 5 2004, 08:28 PM
PMEmail Poster
Top
Darklight
Posted: Jan 5 2004, 08:14 PM
Quote Post


Local
***

Group: -Members-
Posts: 209
Member No.: 12317
Joined: 15-March 03



QUOTE
I thought that Occam's razor was the simplest explaination that worked given all data. If there is data that does not fit with Newton's theory, but does fit with Einstein's theory, your exapmle does not contradict Occam's razor.


Alright, bad example, I saw it used by someone else a while back . . .

Nevertheless, you cannot use Occam's razor to attempt to disprove the existence of anything. It is a logical tool, not a proof or disproof.
PMEmail Poster
Top
phasmaexmachina
Posted: Jan 5 2004, 08:47 PM
Quote Post


l33t One
******

Group: -Members-
Posts: 2393
Member No.: 4576
Joined: 10-September 02



Darklight
My point was that you could not use Occam's Razor to disprove God, because that would be a logical fallacy . . .
Not really. From a purely Emperical POV the status of God is the same as the Loch Ness monster, ghosts, or the UFOs. There is no evidence to support his existence, and there is no evidence that the universe requires a god in order to exist, and (using the popular definition), God violates certain laws of accepted physics such as the Second law of Thermodynamics. So there is no reason to believe that any sort of supernatural god exists.

The common response is to say that God exists outside of the universe and therefore doesn't have to follow the laws of physics, but this clearly goes against Occam's Razor because it discards the simple athiestic theory in favor of a more complicated thiestic theory without giving evidence to support the more complicated theory.

Although Occam's Razor doesn't disprove the supernatural by itself, the Razor coupled with modern scientific theories says that the notion of God is either wrong or, at the very least, inane.

Of course, very few people have a completely Emperical philosophy (mainly because it is a very cold and unloving view) which why there are scientists who believe in the supernatural. If you take the purely scientific view, then God doesn't exist.
PMEmail Poster
Top
omoikane
Posted: Jan 5 2004, 09:30 PM
Quote Post


♪mojimoji shite kimoi ne♪
Group Icon

Group: Super Moderators
Posts: 65225
Member No.: 14
Joined: 30-September 00



QUOTE (phasmaexmachina @ Jan 5 2004, 09:47 PM)
If you take the purely scientific view, then God doesn't exist.

... well, purely anything is less of anything else. Hardly useful or even true to the nature of reality.

But besides the fact that there are evidence to support God's existance (and UFOs and Loch Ness, for the matter)...

But still
QUOTE
Although Occam's Razor doesn't disprove the supernatural by itself

what else is there to say? The key issue (as always) lies in the evidence, in the testamonies, and in our perception thereof.
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteICQAOL
Top
Darklight
Posted: Jan 5 2004, 09:40 PM
Quote Post


Local
***

Group: -Members-
Posts: 209
Member No.: 12317
Joined: 15-March 03



QUOTE
Of course, very few people have a completely Emperical philosophy (mainly because it is a very cold and unloving view) which why there are scientists who believe in the supernatural. If you take the purely scientific view, then God doesn't exist.


Ok, I'll accept that to an extent, although it can be argued that nothing in science can be proven to a 100% certainty, as there is always the possibility of inaccuracies, or unknown information yet to be determined . . . science says that certain things appear to act the way they do according to certain repeatable principles, in a certain environment, assuming the conditions are met. However, although the probability of said process acting as predicted is high, there could always be some unknown variable that could, and often does, generate an unpredictable result. Hence we have Chaos Theory . . .

You can even go with the existential view that reality is merely a perception of the mind, and your senses, and scientific instruments, cannot be trusted to be at all accurate. In fact, everything could all just be an imagined fantasy of some etheral consciousness . . . rolleyes.gif

Edit: Typo...

This post has been edited by Darklight on Jan 5 2004, 10:09 PM
PMEmail Poster
Top
NikeYoung
Posted: Jan 5 2004, 09:47 PM
Quote Post


Senior l33t One
*******

Group: Active Members
Posts: 2970
Member No.: 7361
Joined: 20-November 02



QUOTE (lastbreath @ Jan 6 2004, 02:04 AM)
To the original guy with the assignment:  I'm a Creationist.

I believe in God (as life doesn't make sense without Him and nobody would want to have a purpose in life if there was no such thing, etc) so basically the last option was out of the question for me.
Purpose is in the eye of the beholder. The existentialist view is that there is no purpose to life until you assign it some.
QUOTE

So why creationism instead of the gap theory or some such?  According to the Bible, the world was created in 6 days right?  I believe they are literal days because:
1)  The use of the word "days" is used many times in the Bible and has never referred to anything different than a typical day.
2)  God has no reason to lie, and it would be against His character to do so.
3)  It is clear that the Bible says that man brought death into the world by sinning, so nothing died before Adam, meaning either the world was created in a very short time, or there was all kinds of creatures accumulated for millions of years who didn't die before Adam.

I won't argue these bible things. However, the rest of the post is a nightmare.

QUOTE
1)  The evolution theory has been made so people can either believe in God or not and still have the same theory, so the existence of God is irrelevant.  It is not based on reality, but on the wish that there isn't a God that we're accountable to.  Which is why I think it's strange for Christians to accept this theory, since it's underlying purpose is to destroy the need for God.  Majority opinion should not sway people from God's teaching (He did say that the path would be narrow and few would follow it).
*buzzer noise*
Evolution doesn't have any purpose other than what it's intended. Do you fire your plumber because he does shoddy electrical work?
QUOTE
2)  I believe God would make creatures right the first time instead of making small little blobs of nothing and sitting there and waiting for them to develop by themselves.
Yeah, but those creations have [URLflaws that a creator making them directly wouldn't make. However, if he started with blobs and maybe helped them along the way, coupled with a god that doesn't want to make it obvious to believe in him, then you end up with a result that makes much more sense.
QUOTE
3)  If evolution is true AND there is such a thing as sin (which you'd pretty much have to believe if you believe in God), then who brought it into the world?  How was Adam special?  Did he magically get a soul and a conscience, separating him from his more-ape-like parents?
I believe Whistler said in the past that the part about "In his own image" was in reference to the soul.
Also, there are those that refer to Adam and Eve as metaphor.
QUOTE
4)  There have been things like upright trees found in many many layers of ground that were thought to represent a year each.  Either they survived for millions of years or there was a flood (as the Bible says) that quickly buried them.
QUOTE
5)  No valid missing links have been found.
QUOTE
6)  Closed clams have been found at the top of a mountain (Everest I think?), which wouldn't make sense unless they lived in water there (which is only possible with a flood).
Plate tectonics. One underwater plate pushed against another plate. The underwater plate was forced upward.
QUOTE
7)  The carbon 14 level was different in the pre-flood world because there was a canopy of water above the atmosphere (Genesis 1:6) that shielded UV rays better than now, which throws off the carbon-dating tests (making things appear older), since the half-life was different.
I don't know why you would just bring up C14 dating, since that's only good for a few thousand years. Also, a canopy of water would increase temperature and air pressure to dangerous levels. For more, check here.
QUOTE
8)  There is more than enough proof that dinosaurs and humans lived together (human and dino footprints found together, many many ancient drawings of people riding dinosaurs, the Bible's reference to taming a dinosaur).  Mind you, this doesn't necessarily prove evolution wrong, but it throws a bit of a loop in there.
Most of those are HOAXES.
QUOTE
9)  There's a law in physics (I forget which one) that says that if a spinning object breaks apart, all the particles will be spinning in the same direction as the original big mass.  So... what kind of weird "big bang" was that?  Some planets are angled or even backwards.
QUOTE
In the first place, the Big Bang is not a disordered explosion, but the smooth expansion of spacetime and almost perfectly uniform distribution of matter. In fact, the distribution of matter in the early universe was so uniform that until the results came in from the COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer), cosmologists were hard-pressed to explain how this matter could eventually clump up into galaxies. COBE revealed very tiny irregularities that became the "seeds" around which galaxies formed by gravitation (Gribbin 1993). And herein lies the second problem with the creationist claim: systems like galaxies form by dissipating gravitational energy, thereby increasing the entropy of the universe. There is thus no contradiction with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

QUOTE
10)  Creatures like the bombadier beetle that don't make sense to evolve piece by piece without having the function of the end result till millions of years later.
Darwin's turning in his grave right now.
1. Any spray is effective at deterring predators. Heck, even water sprayed in a predator's eyes reduces vision long enough for an escape.
2. The BB evolved the ability to spray one of its chemicals, then the other. It wasn't trying to make the superheat effect in the first place, but had one ingredient, then "what if I add this?" *FOOM!* "Coool!".
QUOTE
There's probably better reasons out there, but those are some of mine.

In reply to:
"And you can't see any weaknesses in this argument? Like the fact that the perception of Jesus as a deity is entirely a matter of faith, and cannot be proved certain or even close to beyond reasonable doubt?"

Actually, the evidence is overwhelming if you follow the prophecies of Jesus' coming from the Old Testament, written hundreds of years before He was born.
The same can be said of Napoleon

This post has been edited by NikeYoung on Jan 5 2004, 09:51 PM
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
phasmaexmachina
Posted: Jan 5 2004, 09:53 PM
Quote Post


l33t One
******

Group: -Members-
Posts: 2393
Member No.: 4576
Joined: 10-September 02



omoikane
QUOTE
Hardly useful or even true to the nature of reality.

By definition, pure Empiricism is the perfect representation of reality.
QUOTE
But besides the fact that there are evidence to support God's existance (and UFOs and Loch Ness, for the matter)...

No there isn't; that is why it is called Faith. If there was evidence, then science would include fields such as Applied Theology.

Darklight
QUOTE
Ok, I'll accept that to an extent, although it can be argued that nothing in science can be proven to a 100% certainty...

Exactly. The difference between Inductivism and Rationalism is key to understanding the proper application of scientific thinking.
QUOTE
You can even go with the existential view that reality is merely a perception of the mind, and your senses, and scientific instruments, cannon be trusted to be at all accurate. In fact, everything could all just be an imagined fantasy of some etheral consciousness . . .

Of course. You can believe anything if ignore Occam's Razor. biggrin.gif This includes the dragon in my garage.

[edit]
NikeYoung
QUOTE
Pascal's Wager: Believe in Unicorns, or one might impale you in the nads!

blink.gif
/me falls over laughing.

This post has been edited by phasmaexmachina on Jan 5 2004, 09:57 PM
PMEmail Poster
Top
Omni Inc.
Posted: Jan 5 2004, 10:05 PM
Quote Post


l33t One
******

Group: -Members-
Posts: 1052
Member No.: 22620
Joined: 3-January 04



Your answers were very well done for the scientific view point on white and black skin colors. Yes, in Africa the sun is on you all the time. It's a well known fact that the darker the color of your skin the less chance you have of developing skin cancer. Its a bit of the opposite for white skin where they traveled to Europe during the ice age. To prevent freezing and getting rickets your body synthesizes vitamin D and the whiter your skin the more your body makes. Skin simply became whiter or darker based on the fact that the people whos bodies didn't adapt died out and the superior, or perhaps just lucky, lived on and breed more to create a whole race of people. Although Im a touch surprised that there is to biblical explanation for skin color, but thanks anyways.

on the other note thanks for the info on string theory. Im currently attending New College Florida for a bachelor's in Computer Information Technology *no im not a hacker, not anymore anyways. I don't really dig the whole treason through hacking so I quit while I was ahead* I finished two years in this field at a local community college to get my associates. Sadly I've only obtained 1 of 3 certifications I wish to earn, not including ciscyo *yet*, so all I have is a sad little associates degree and a A+ Hardware certification. So where in Florida would I work with such a degree and cert? sad.gif a simple museum to earn spending money. I don't know if anyone has ever heard of it. It's the John and Mable Ringling Museum of Art. I've been bored with computers and anthropology so I looking into physics and a new source of entertainment, enlightenment, and just good fun. When I heard of this whole Idea of string theory I decided this might be worth looking into before then all I knew was just quantum physics and energy=mass times the speed of light squared just the high school basics. Who knows I might become bored and switch my major again.

so enough blabbing thanks for the tips phasmaexmachina, darklight, and madam Mia *odd to specify, but I believe we are around the same age group, forgive my intrusion of your profile*
PMEmail PosterAOL
Top
NikeYoung
Posted: Jan 5 2004, 10:06 PM
Quote Post


Senior l33t One
*******

Group: Active Members
Posts: 2970
Member No.: 7361
Joined: 20-November 02



QUOTE (Darklight @ Jan 6 2004, 03:40 AM)
You can even go with the existential view that reality is merely a perception of the mind, and your senses, and scientific instruments, cannon be trusted to be at all accurate.  In fact, everything could all just be an imagined fantasy of some etheral consciousness . . .  rolleyes.gif

I thought that was solipsism.

<edit>
QUOTE
/me falls over laughing.

I aim to please.</edit>

This post has been edited by NikeYoung on Jan 5 2004, 10:08 PM
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Darklight
Posted: Jan 5 2004, 10:14 PM
Quote Post


Local
***

Group: -Members-
Posts: 209
Member No.: 12317
Joined: 15-March 03



QUOTE
I thought that was solipsism.


*Googles 'solipsism'*

Well I'll be a . . .

Er, I was using the term existentialism very loosely . . . you know, in the whole, questioning if you even exist kinda way . . .

The whole postmodernist/existential nihilistic view of no absolute truth/reality . . .

Forget it, I'm bad at explaining vague philosophical concepts . . .
PMEmail Poster
Top
Xellos
Posted: Jan 5 2004, 11:24 PM
Quote Post


Adachi Powaaaaah
Group Icon

Group: Fake Mods
Posts: 6148
Member No.: 22151
Joined: 19-December 03



New arguments: Zero. Been here way too long, seen 'em all about six times each. At least.

Evolution for me. Outspoken, I think the basic premise of your paper is horribly flawed if you're presenting it as "those who believe in evolution are brainwashed".

As for the rest, I have neither the energy nor inclination to argue myself, so I'll point back to talkorigins one more time and join the Evil Atheist Conspiracy.
PMEmail Poster
Top
Hy-san
Posted: Jan 6 2004, 01:58 AM
Quote Post


Addict
****

Group: -Members-
Posts: 460
Member No.: 20143
Joined: 22-October 03



ok wow finally finished reading that whole thread, man I miss these forums, I think I've been away from here too long *sniff*

so far I think the arguements seem pretty much balanced on each side and my thought on this can't add much since it's more of a question. being an atheist, I've found that there are about three choices I can pick, evolution, space aliens put us here for some reason or another, or none of the above. Much like Cymbaline, I think evolution is correct but much like a ton of other theories or models science has thought up of, it's not perfect. Instead it is the best thing to fit the evidence. My question is that other than those three choices, what can an atheist really pick? I mean although saying just because I'm an atheist I HAVE to pick evolution does prematurely discount the others as possibilities, is there really any alternative other than making something else up yourself? (which is quite tough)

Second, I found the mention of the whole evolution/creationism thing in academic areas (school, colleges, universities) interesting. Some have said colleges/univ, are dominated by atheists who refute creationism while others mention the existance of churches in some colleges. My experience is that there are far fewer atheists where I'm going than religious people who believe in creationism. Heck, out of everyone on my floor in college, I'm the only atheist and I have been told flat out by some really religious people that what I think to be the truth (there is no god and consequently none of that religous stuff is true) is wrong. Even in high school I was the only atheist (with the next closest thing being the few agnostics in the school) there. I have found it very hard to debate on the side of pure evolution everywhere I've been. Perhaps this will change as I go through college, but so far I'm surprised to actually see the number of people argueing for evolution. My second question is, how are everyone else's experience with this? Are the numbers this lopsided where you come from or maybe cause I haven't given college enough time (I am only a freshman)?
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteIntegrity Messenger IMAOLYahooMSN
Top
Omni Inc.
Posted: Jan 6 2004, 06:29 AM
Quote Post


l33t One
******

Group: -Members-
Posts: 1052
Member No.: 22620
Joined: 3-January 04



At one point I did believe that the Christians were fooling themselves and there was and or is no god. However I did have a good amount of respect for them. I did have respect for their religion until I learned about the acts of the crusades. At that point Christianity in my opinion became the enemy of all life that seeks only to dominate the world with their so called holy ways. Also the Spanish inquisition didn't help my opinion much either, or the conquering of the native people in central and south America based on the fact that the pope condoned conquering of savage people. Well that's my little rant. enjoy, call me a jerk, call me a fool, but most of all think.
PMEmail PosterAOL
Top
Whistler
Posted: Jan 6 2004, 07:15 AM
Quote Post


Fueled by Hate, Powered by Anger
********

Group: Active Members
Posts: 21397
Member No.: 681
Joined: 8-January 02



QUOTE (Xellos @ Jan 6 2004, 01:24 AM)
New arguments: Zero. Been here way too long, seen 'em all about six times each. At least.

This thread is typical of all such threads; it is an ancient scabarous dog chasing its own rotting tail.

God's existence is not relevant to an exploration of the universe. Whether it spontaneously came into being, was created by God or was spawned by another universe or process is a sideline to what it is and how it works. Just as what it is and how it works is a sideline to the metaphysical questions; both can add a bit of value to the questions the other asks, but like a spice, it enhances the existent flavor and helps us perceive it in new ways, and is not meant to be a substitute for the inherent flavors found within the material it is complementing.

This arguing is just foolish. No one will be converted, religiously or to a new scientific view; not all, but some members of both sides of the issue are acting more like burlesques of their position and not advocates.

No one will find God or lose faith in Him due to anything here, and when all is said and done, nothing will have been done or said.

This post has been edited by Whistler on Jan 6 2004, 07:16 AM
PM
Top
Initial B
Posted: Jan 6 2004, 07:34 AM
Quote Post


Senior l33t One
*******

Group: Active Members
Posts: 2566
Member No.: 16323
Joined: 7-July 03



QUOTE (Whistler @ Jan 6 2004, 08:15 AM)
God's existence is not relevant to an exploration of the universe. Whether it spontaneously came into being, was created by God or was spawned by another universe or process is a sideline to what it is and how it works.

Wasn't it Einstein that said, "God is in the details?" I see too much evidence of something having a hand in the fabrication of the universe. That being said, this thread makes for pretty good case to keep church and state seperate.

And I have to say that I think GenCon is probably better than Origins. happy.gif

And Omni Inc., don't base your opinion on how falible humans have interpreted the Bible. Rather, read it yourself and apply your own opinions and interpretations to the words transcribed therein. Remember that the crusades began almost 1000 years ago - much as changed in theology since that time. Don't hold it against them. I'm sure that many Moslems will wince when the 21st century is reviewed in history class 1000 years from now.
PMEmail PosterYahoo
Top
Whistler
Posted: Jan 6 2004, 07:40 AM
Quote Post


Fueled by Hate, Powered by Anger
********

Group: Active Members
Posts: 21397
Member No.: 681
Joined: 8-January 02



QUOTE (Initial B @ Jan 6 2004, 09:34 AM)
Remember that the crusades began almost 1000 years ago -

And that they were not really a religious endeavor but at heart were a cynical manipulation of religious feelings in an attempt to capture the Near East which was the nexus of trade between East and West and a terrific source of cash. Also, the Spanish Inquisition was so named because it was an institution of the secular Spanish monarchy who had its housebroken fanatics hunt down the state's enemies and show how pious the royals were by torturing and purging all those horrible "heretics". The problem is not religion, the problem is the abuse and exploitation of people's deep seated religious feelings and playing on their doubts and uncertainties.

This post has been edited by Whistler on Jan 6 2004, 07:41 AM
PM
Top
Omni Inc.
Posted: Jan 6 2004, 08:13 AM
Quote Post


l33t One
******

Group: -Members-
Posts: 1052
Member No.: 22620
Joined: 3-January 04



I can see your points and respect them. However, when it all comes down to in I still feel that relgion is simply a form of control not indefferint from the many forms of control these days.
PMEmail PosterAOL
Top
NikeYoung
Posted: Jan 6 2004, 11:36 AM
Quote Post


Senior l33t One
*******

Group: Active Members
Posts: 2970
Member No.: 7361
Joined: 20-November 02



I just have to link to this while I still have it on my clipboard:
Captain Darwin
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Omni Inc.
Posted: Jan 6 2004, 11:42 AM
Quote Post


l33t One
******

Group: -Members-
Posts: 1052
Member No.: 22620
Joined: 3-January 04



YESSSS THIS COMIC RULES!!!! KILL ALL THE GENTIC INFERIORS KILL THEM!!!!

thanks for the post Nike. Made my day.
PMEmail PosterAOL
Top
Admiral Valdemar
Posted: Jan 6 2004, 12:00 PM
Quote Post


Senior l33t One
*******

Group: -Members-
Posts: 2996
Member No.: 14170
Joined: 6-May 03



QUOTE (NikeYoung @ Jan 6 2004, 05:36 PM)
I just have to link to this while I still have it on my clipboard:
Captain Darwin

Chainsaw of Natural Selection > *
PMEmail PosterICQAOLMSN
Top
Blah
Posted: Jan 6 2004, 12:41 PM
Quote Post


Addict
****

Group: -Members-
Posts: 455
Member No.: 3989
Joined: 26-August 02



> I have found it very hard to debate on the side of pure evolution everywhere
> I've been.

Why, Hy-san? What is the argument that, in your opinion, casts doubt on evolution?
PMEmail Poster
Top
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic OptionsPages: (10) All « First ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... Last » Reply to this topicStart new topic