Great Bible quotes

[mancombseepgood]

Questions for the flood:

* Where was the water hiding before?
Ever heard of the axial tilt theory... ice packed on the poles?

* How many animals were on the Ark?
What relevance has this?

* Where did the water go afterwards?
Where does any water go after a flood? The sea, the air - the land that was made bare after the tilt?

* How did the food web survive?
I guess that requires a complicated answer

* Why do the polar ice caps exist?
Cos its cold and the sun doesn't get close

* Why aren't genetic bottlenecks all-pervasive?
Maybe you can simplify this for the simple among us :D

* Why do Creationist Flood theories contradict the Bible?
Be more specific


And while I obviuosly don't have all the answers, I certainly don't write off the bible for that reason. I don't feel I have to have everything proved to me as if God owes me a living. Of course, I do believe that if you want to know the truth, you will certainly find it... To imagine that we are at the top of the chain is IMO probably the most astounding thing that people claim today... of course there are those who believe that we are "not" at the top, but some faceless force or being may be out there... it kind of reeks of arrogance to say that we as humans are intelligent and capable of complex emotions while this being is all powerful uncaring thing.

It is obvious that we will be rewriting history for a long time to come as we always claim to have arrived but are finding new contradictory evidence... i.e. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=13&version=31
Knowlege is certainly not the be all and end all of our existence.

[PostmanPot]

How would a stone age tribe (with their language never being in print) have passed down the story of the tower of babel to their children over many many generations...?

you have no mental ability to assess this and find an answer other than one from your bible. the bible's explanations are very easy to be understood by people of (below) average intelligence. it suits them quite well.

let me ask you one thing, was there immediately christianity on the earth after god created it in a few days?

maybe the stone age tribes has nothing to do with christianity?

maybe the bible was made up a few thousand years after the stone age by man?

[Poppy]

because if people were stupid, we wouldn't be able to maintain the modern world we live in today. scientific knowledge is power.

for example, you hated maths. imagine if they stopped teaching maths in schools - how would we perform certain tasks that make the world go round (economy, trade, technology) that require maths? we wouldn't be able to - the world would be in a shambles!

questioning whether children should get taught biology, science and maths (note how you left science out of your list - your biggest fear ;) ) is like saying you don't mind living thousands of years ago in the dark ages without any technology, medicine etc.

get real!

Gee I didn't even realize I had left science out on purpose. I assumed those subjects I mentioned were a science on their own. Just to clear something up here. I have no problem with science, infact I think science is a good thing, because without science we wouldn't know about how a lot of things work.

What I object to in science is the theory of evolution and that is what it actually is a theory being passed of as fact.

[mancombseepgood]

Heck, this thread suddenly took off again! I missed out on an entire argument while responding to one post! :D

Yeah - it's back to work for me for a bit :D

[PostmanPot]

Does that answer your missionaries question?

no it doesn't.

but i'm sure it does in your opinion - the bible's opinion.

[Poppy]

you're wrong dumb ass.
i was an xtian for the majority of my life.

You were a christian for the mojor part of your life? Really then you must be well versed in the bible to make judgements.

It would be interesting to find out a few basic things from you since you know it well enough to call it a myth. Which king was it that was captured for being bad only for him to be released after he begged for forgiveness?

Which young man along with his friends were captured and refused to eat the kings food?

Tell me what the bible prophesyed about CYrus the great?

[PostmanPot]

What I object to in science is the theory of evolution and that is what it actually is a theory being passed of as fact.

what i object to is the theory of creationism which is accepted without questioning.

good day

[Raithlin]

Global flood article: http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp

[icyrus]

You can mock all you want but it will not change the fact that the bible's authenticity has been proved by "SCIENCE" LOL

You do go on and on about this, and yet you have yet to provide anything to backup your claims.


Gee I didn't even realize I had left science out on purpose. I assumed those subjects I mentioned were a science on their own. Just to clear something up here. I have no problem with science, infact I think science is a good thing, because without science we wouldn't know about how a lot of things work.

What I object to in science is the theory of evolution and that is what it actually is a theory being passed of as fact.

Passed off as fact how?

[fivelza]

nope, don't put words in my mouth?

ignorant because that's what religion does to you at the start of the formative years. it disallows freethinking. it decreases cognitive and objective reasoning abilities. it stops people from asking questions...

Absolute rubbish, science does exactly the same, what's objective about science? For most things proven in science someone can disprove it, where's the objectivity in this...

[Raithlin]

You do go on and on about this, and yet you have yet to provide anything to backup your claims.I did this above.

[mancombseepgood]

you have no mental ability to assess this and find an answer other than one from your bible. the bible's explanations are very easy to be understood by people of (below) average intelligence. it suits them quite well.

let me ask you one thing, was there immediately christianity on the earth after god created it in a few days?

maybe the stone age tribes has nothing to do with christianity?

maybe the bible was made up a few thousand years after the stone age by man?

Define Christianity...
I think you are referring to around 2000 years ago. Was there communication between man and God at creation - certainly I believe there was to start with... and sin brought seperation from God. While I personally believe the story of Adam was very much simplified (adam meaning man), I don't believe it was misguided. Remember that Moses - who was schooled in Egypt at the time - penned many of these stories... can you imagine him penning a story that would capture the imaginations of today's scientists back then? For starters, until recently, very few people would have been able to relate to it... but that's just one theory.

"maybe the bible was made up a few thousand years after the stone age by man?" Maybe not... but certainly much of it was recorded later.
That brings us back to how these stories (including the flood) have survived so many years outside of the western scientific world.

[mancombseepgood]

You do go on and on about this, and yet you have yet to provide anything to backup your claims.

How do you prove anything? Other than quoting others of course.

[Poppy]

what i object to is the theory of creationism which is accepted without questioning.

good day

Oh yes? Accepted without questioning? Why if you are as well versed in the bible as you make out you would have realized that the bible also actually cautions people not to believe everything they are told even if it is supposedly from the bible. The bible encourages people to question, see/read it for themselves.

[icyrus]

I did this above.

How many humans were on the ark again?

[icyrus]

How do you prove anything? Other than quoting others of course.

Her claim is that their is scientific proof of the claims of the bible. I am asking her to substantiate that.

[Poppy]

you have no mental ability to assess this and find an answer other than one from your bible. the bible's explanations are very easy to be understood by people of (below) average intelligence. it suits them quite well.



This is precisely the sort of sentiments that lead me to think that people like you are just egocentric so and so wanting to seem clever by spewing all these so-called wisdom. And seeing as how you have researched the bible well enough to know that it is a myth, I'm sure you must know what it calls people like you.

[Poppy]

How many humans were on the ark again?

8

[icyrus]

8

And how long ago was that?

[mancombseepgood]

How many here at once believed the original theories about:
Nebraska Man
Piltdown Man
Neanderthal Man
?
Sorry - maybe not everyone was around then :D

[Poppy]

Her claim is that their is scientific proof of the claims of the bible. I am asking her to substantiate that.

When was it discovered that the earth was actually round and not flat? The answer will answer your question.

[icyrus]

This back on forth is actually becoming quite tiresome.

Here is my summary:

Creation is at best a theory, The Theory of Evolution is a theory. The difference lies in what the two are based on. The TOE is based on scientific observations and creation is based on an old book. As such, and what the main point of the debate is, the TOE should be taught in school science classes along with other scientific theories (until a better theory replaces it) and creation should be taught in a religion class that also covers other religions and should be voluntary.

[Poppy]

And how long ago was that?
The point of your question? This was some +5000 yrs ago

[Poppy]

This back on forth is actually becoming quite tiresome.

Here is my summary:

Creation is at best a theory, The Theory of Evolution is a theory. The difference lies in what the two are based on. The TOE is based on scientific observations and creation is based on an old book. As such, and what the main point of the debate is, the TOE should be taught in school science classes along with other scientific theories (until a better theory replaces it) and creation should be taught in a religion class that also covers other religions and should be voluntary.

Yes an old book that science actually backs up.

[icyrus]

Yes an old book that science actually backs up.

Like I said before, you keep going on about that. Give us some links to where there is scientific proof of your claims (it would be advisable to start with which parts you are claiming science backs up) or, with all due respect, shut up.

[Poppy]

This back on forth is actually becoming quite tiresome.

Here is my summary:

Creation is at best a theory, The Theory of Evolution is a theory. The difference lies in what the two are based on. The TOE is based on scientific observations and creation is based on an old book. As such, and what the main point of the debate is, the TOE should be taught in school science classes along with other scientific theories (until a better theory replaces it) and creation should be taught in a religion class that also covers other religions and should be voluntary.

And another thing, you claim that Evolution is based on scientific observation and yet who's to say that the parameters used in the observation was not contaminated? Who's to say that 15yrs down the line another scientist is not going to come along and say that the observations made in Evolution is actually wrong?

Take the recent addition of new planets as an example. It was religiously taught at school that only a certain amount of planets existed in our solar system and yet this has been proved wrong.

[icyrus]

And another thing, you claim that Evolution is based on scientific observation and yet who's to say that the parameters used in the observation was not contaminated? Who's to say that 15yrs down the line another scientist is not going to come along and say that the observations made in Evolution is actually wrong?

Take the recent addition of new planets as an example. It was religiously taught at school that only a certain amount of planets existed in our solar system and yet this has been proved wrong.

Science is a changing thing. Do yourself a favour and look up the scientific method.

[mancombseepgood]

This back on forth is actually becoming quite tiresome.

Here is my summary:

Creation is at best a theory, The Theory of Evolution is a theory. The difference lies in what the two are based on. The TOE is based on scientific observations and creation is based on an old book. As such, and what the main point of the debate is, the TOE should be taught in school science classes along with other scientific theories (until a better theory replaces it) and creation should be taught in a religion class that also covers other religions and should be voluntary.

Is "murder is wrong" a theory?
Where did this come from?

[Raithlin]

This back on forth is actually becoming quite tiresome.

Here is my summary:

Creation is at best a theory, The Theory of Evolution is a theory. The difference lies in what the two are based on. The TOE is based on scientific observations and creation is based on an old book. As such, and what the main point of the debate is, the TOE should be taught in school science classes along with other scientific theories (until a better theory replaces it) and creation should be taught in a religion class that also covers other religions and should be voluntary.Both should be taught alongside each other, so kids actually have a choice. And I still question the Science part - Historical Science, perhaps. Not Operational. Therefore it should be taught separately (and optional).


Like I said before, you keep going on about that. Give us some links to where there is scientific proof of your claims (it would be advisable to start with which parts you are claiming science backs up) or, with all due respect, shut up.
As is with a forum like this, links have been provided. Yet 3 pages later you are all still going back and forth, asking for proof! I GAVE PROOF (http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showpost.php?p=774943&postcount=730) in the form of 3 links to different sites. Nobody seems to have bothered with this however...

I'm out. Several times I have provided a detailed post, and once I got a decent reply. So be it. I'm off to the rest of the forums.

*waves*

[mancombseepgood]

Her claim is that their is scientific proof of the claims of the bible. I am asking her to substantiate that.

How do you prove anything?

[icyrus]

Both should be taught alongside each other, so kids actually have a choice. And I still question the Science part - Historical Science, perhaps. Not Operational. Therefore it should be taught separately (and optional).

How can christian creation be taught along side science by any self-respecting school? At most there should be a mention during the course on the TOE about how some people chose to still believe in creation.


As is with a forum like this, links have been provided. Yet 3 pages later you are all still going back and forth, asking for proof! I GAVE PROOF (http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showpost.php?p=774943&postcount=730) in the form of 3 links to different sites. Nobody seems to have bothered with this however...

I'm out. Several times I have provided a detailed post, and once I got a decent reply. So be it. I'm off to the rest of the forums.

*waves*

I was asking for whatever she believes is proof, not from you. I hoped you would appreciate the difference without me making it explicitly clear.

[icyrus]

How do you prove anything?

You are of the path of science now and onto the road of philosophy.

[Poppy]

Like I said before, you keep going on about that. Give us some links to where there is scientific proof of your claims (it would be advisable to start with which parts you are claiming science backs up) or, with all due respect, shut up.

If it's not too difficult for you read Isaiah 40:22 and this was written long before the be all and know all science claimed to have discovered it to be true.

[PostmanPot]

Absolute rubbish, science does exactly the same, what's objective about science? For most things proven in science someone can disprove it, where's the objectivity in this...

no rubbish. science if questioned by scientists themselves.

and the only people disproving science are theists and they use their holy book.

who questioned the bible?

[Poppy]

Science is a changing thing. Do yourself a favour and look up the scientific method.

Yes that's right, a changing thing that blows which ever way a new theory is going. And we should put our trust in this changing thing that will probabely be chnaging again very soon when you discover your new theory :rolleyes:

[icyrus]

If it's not too difficult for you read Isaiah 40:22 and this was written long before the be all and know all science claimed to have discovered it to be true.

So one paragraph is all that has evidence?

[Poppy]

no rubbish. science if questioned by scientists themselves.

and the only people disproving science are theists and they use their holy book.

who questioned the bible?

And what of the scientists that have questioned the bible and have found it to be true? Why do you discount what they say?

[icyrus]

Yes that's right, a changing thing that blows which ever way a new theory is going. And we should put our trust in this changing thing that will probabely be chnaging again very soon when you discover your new theory :rolleyes:

Once again you post rubbish showing that you have absolutely no idea of what science is or the processes involved. Please pursue further education.

[Poppy]

So one paragraph is all that has evidence?

What more do you want? A 500 page thesis to tell you the earth is round when a simple and straight forward statement will do?

[icyrus]

And what of the scientists that have questioned the bible and have found it to be true? Why do you discount what they say?

Show us these scientists and their findings.

[icyrus]

What more do you want? A 500 page thesis to tell you the earth is round when a simple and straight forward statement will do?

Is the fact that the bible mentions that the earth is round the only part of the bible is true? That is what I meant.

[mancombseepgood]

Once again you post rubbish showing that you have absolutely no idea of what science is or the processes involved. Please pursue further education.

Is "murder is wrong" a theory?
Where did this come from?

[icyrus]

Is "murder is wrong" a theory?
Where did this come from?

Is your only reason for not killing other people that you are scared of the consequences in the afterlife?

[Poppy]

Once again you post rubbish showing that you have absolutely no idea of what science is or the processes involved. Please pursue further education.

As opposed to you knowing what you are talking about? As opposed to you having done enough reseach on the bible to discount what it says?

And exactly what did I say that was rubbish? The fact that so-called concret scientific results are being changed constantly or that we should not trust such constantly changing theories?

Was that statement not complex enough for you? Did you perhaps want me to have explained it in 10 pages?

[mancombseepgood]

Is your only reason for not killing other people that you are scared of the consequences in the afterlife?

Don't dodge the question icyrus... I see you ask alot of questions.
What do you think is more important for mankind - knowledge or love?

[PostmanPot]

And what of the scientists that have questioned the bible and have found it to be true? Why do you discount what they say?

those are creation "scientists" - they like to think they are scientists, but they actually aren't.

creation science:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffX9msPCwZk

[icyrus]

As opposed to you knowing what you are talking about? As opposed to you having done enough reseach on the bible to discount what it says?

And exactly what did I say that was rubbish? The fact that so-called concret scientific results are being changed constantly or that we should not trust such constantly changing theories?

Was that statement not complex enough for you? Did you perhaps want me to have explained it in 10 pages?

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

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

Your disregard for science and the scientific method can only be explained by the fact that you either have no idea what they are how they work or that you were born knowing exactly everything you know today and have never in your life learned something new.

[icyrus]

Don't dodge the question icyrus... I see you ask alot of questions.
What do you think is more important for mankind - knowledge or love?

Did I dodge the question or is it not relevant to the discussion?

What you are looking for is for me to explain where human morality comes from if not from religion and what better way of illustrating this then the question I posed to you.

I think it was Richard Dawkins who gave speech on it that you may find interesting.

A summary is that morality as we know it is a more evolved form of self-preservation.

[mancombseepgood]

Did I dodge the question or is it not relevant to the discussion?

What you are looking for is for me to explain where human morality comes from if not from religion and what better way of illustrating this then the question I posed to you.

I think it was Richard Dawkins who gave speech on it that you may find interesting.

A summary is that morality as we know it is a more evolved form of self-preservation.

It was a lot simpler than that icyrus
How about an answer from your own head - not a quote.

As for self preservation - that doesn't explain morailty...
Uh - I won't murder because the species won't survive?
If that is so, then why is it so wrong for the immoral to murder?

[Raithlin]

:D I couldn't resist. The other thread is too far back in the archives to resurrect.

http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp - Very interesting write-up on what a Theory of Creation looks like - something talk.origins goes on about quite a bit. Enjoy. I did.

k, I'm gone for now. I'll pop back in when I have another tidbit for you to read up on. ;)

[nthdimension]

If it's not too difficult for you read Isaiah 40:22
It says the earth is flat.

[Poppy]

Show us these scientists and their findings.

You asked me for proof as to which bible verse mentioned the earth being round and I gave it to you. The bible existed long before science discovered that the earth was indeed round and not flat. This alone should be proof enough that the bible has merit. Unless you would disprove how long it's been in existence?

You have bypassed this proof I gave you by asking me for proof as to which scientists back up the bible. I'm actually surprised that you have not read anything about scientists who agree with what the bible has to say with all your superior education.

I'm sure you are well aware that most of us are at work at the moment and would not have the time to get all the evidence you supposedly know (which you would refuse to believe anyway I might add). Your vast and varied knowledge should allow you to find some of these scientific researches or you will just have to wait till I find the time to do it for you.

[Raithlin]

I found this one enjoyable too.

Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution (http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp)

Enjoy.

[icyrus]

It was a lot simpler than that icyrus
How about an answer from your own head - not a quote.

I believe in evolved beneficial behaviour, understanding and self-awareness.


As for self preservation - that doesn't explain morailty...
Uh - I won't murder because the species won't survive?

If it was natural for a species to murder other members of species when and or wherever they felt like it... can you imagine that species lasting more than a generation?


If that is so, then why is it so wrong for the immoral to murder?

What are you asking here? Are you asking why murder is condemned in secular society?

[icyrus]

You asked me for proof as to which bible verse mentioned the earth being round and I gave it to you. The bible existed long before science discovered that the earth was indeed round and not flat. This alone should be proof enough that the bible has merit. Unless you would disprove how long it's been in existence?

You have bypassed this proof I gave you by asking me for proof as to which scientists back up the bible. I'm actually surprised that you have not read anything about scientists who agree with what the bible has to say with all your superior education.

I'm sure you are well aware that most of us are at work at the moment and would not have the time to get all the evidence you supposedly know (which you would refuse to believe anyway I might add). Your vast and varied knowledge should allow you to find some of these scientific researches or you will just have to wait till I find the time to do it for you.

Oh I have no interest in looking up who supports which parts of the bible. Your claim was that the bible (not just one claim in the bible) is supported by scientific evidence. I have not seen any info proving that the bible is scientific so I asked you to backup your claim. If you wish your point to be taken seriously you will need to back it up with something. Otherwise I could just as easily say the moon is made of cheese and there is scientific evidence to prove it.

[Poppy]

Is the fact that the bible mentions that the earth is round the only part of the bible is true? That is what I meant.

There are numourous other passages that prooves it's authenticity, but I get the feeling that were I to quote them for you, you would still refuse to take them seriuosly.

[icyrus]

There are numourous other passages that prooves it's authenticity, but I get the feeling that were I to quote them for you, you would still refuse to take them seriuosly.

Quote me the passages from the bible? You are right I have no interest in that. Show me the scientific research that shows that those passages are true and I will listen.

By the way, the first result out of google for Isaiah 40:22 is this: http://www.answering-christianity.com/earth_flat.htm

I thought you might appreciate it.

[Raithlin]

/opens HUGE can of worms, and dons a fireproof suit.

So, where do we stand on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? Anyone? I support it. :)

(Careful now...)

[Poppy]

Oh I have no interest in looking up who supports which parts of the bible. Your claim was that the bible (not just one claim in the bible) is supported by scientific evidence. I have not seen any info proving that the bible is scientific so I asked you to backup your claim. If you wish your point to be taken seriously you will need to back it up with something. Otherwise I could just as easily say the moon is made of cheese and there is scientific evidence to prove it.

I will look for more links for you later as I have to go on lunch at the moment, but here is a site I found from google, it's not actually the books I was looking for, but it will do for now
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml

[arf9999]

/opens HUGE can of worms, and dons a fireproof suit.

So, where do we stand on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? Anyone? I support it. :)

(Careful now...)

I support it as well (hey I'm not a Chemist or a Physicist), so I'll just accept it. You of course may be ignoring an important word in the law:

The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.

[PostmanPot]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV4_lVTVa6k&NR

[mancombseepgood]

If it was natural for a species to murder other members of species when and or wherever they felt like it... can you imagine that species lasting more than a generation? So your theory rests on the theory that morals evolved... if so, then why are we seeing more murder and child rape than ever before in SA? Cos some have not evolved or had time to evolve? Had Hitler (for example) not evolved as much as say, you or I?


What are you asking here? Are you asking why murder is condemned in secular society? Pretty much I guess - but more like why people prefer not to commit murder... with the exclusion of those who just fear the law...

Then there's the question of theft... do you not steal simply because you fear the law... or did this evolve from something?

[Raithlin]

I support it as well (hey I'm not a Chemist or a Physicist), so I'll just accept it. You of course may be ignoring an important word in the law
Go on, I'll take the bait. What's so important about the word "closed"? Is the universe not an isolated system?

Isolated defined: a system in which neither energy nor matter enter nor leave the system—often erroneously called “closed” system.

[Poppy]

By the way, the first result out of google for Isaiah 40:22 is this: http://www.answering-christianity.com/earth_flat.htm

I thought you might appreciate it.

I find it interesting that you do not read what Isaiah says, but rather what some one who is blatantly against the bible says. You are not interested in finding any passages from the bible, indeed you have not read anything from the bible yet you consider yourself an authority enough to label it a book of myth.

This is what Isaiah says:
Isaiah 40:22 (King James Version) King James Version (KJV)

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

It states that the earth is a circle, meaning the earth was and is still round as opposed to being flat. This has been proven to be true by science.

Far from it the bible is not as you claim a book of myths.

[arf9999]

The universe is an isolated system... and over time entropy is increasing in the universe. What does that have to do with evolution?

[Poppy]

those are creation "scientists" - they like to think they are scientists, but they actually aren't.

creation science:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffX9msPCwZk

So because the conclusion of their research does not match what you want to hear therefore they are fake scientists?

[Poppy]

It says the earth is flat.
Really it does? :eek:

[PostmanPot]

So because the conclusion of their research does not match what you want to hear therefore they are fake scientists?

no.

because they base their "scientific" evidence on the bible and what it teaches them. they automatically assume that the bible is correct.

it's not science.. it's just religion.

[mancombseepgood]

An interesting article that suggests that science exists as we know it because of the Christian faith... Although I stand by my suggestios that love is more important than knowlege
http://www.dtl.org/apologetics/article/voyager.htm

[arf9999]

I found this one enjoyable too.

Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution (http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp)

Enjoy.

http://www.mindspring.com/~duckster/evolution/

right back at ya...

...and please note that I found this via a link from that "trueorigins" propaganda site..

[Raithlin]

http://www.mindspring.com/~duckster/evolution/

right back at ya...

...and please note that I found this via a link from that "trueorigins" propaganda site..

:mad: Blocked. I'll have to check it out later. *mumble*

[arf9999]

:mad: Blocked. I'll have to check it out later. *mumble*

By a web blocker I hope, not by divine influence :D

[Raithlin]

The universe is an isolated system... and over time entropy is increasing in the universe. What does that have to do with evolution?

Evolution requires a decrease in entropy (i.e. build-up) to work. Yet within the universe we have a consistent increase (breakdown). It makes it difficult to create things, does it not?

(I've still got my firesuit on... :rolleyes: )

[Raithlin]

LOL. We sit behind WebSense's insane choices at which site belongs in what category.

[nthdimension]

22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth
i.e. the earth is flat.

[Poppy]

no.

because they base their "scientific" evidence on the bible and what it teaches them. they automatically assume that the bible is correct.

it's not science.. it's just religion.

So would you call this guy (link provided by Raithlin) a fake scientist? http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp

[arf9999]

what is your system? The whole universe? If so, then changes in entropy (positive or negative) in small subsystems (i.e. an organism, a species, the earth) will have no impact because they will be offset by corresponding increases or decreases in other subsystems. None of these subsystems is isolated.

The point is moot, evolution does require a decrease in entropy, but since it is not an isolated system and energy can flow into the system it doesn't violate any laws.

[Poppy]

http://www.mindspring.com/~duckster/evolution/

right back at ya...

...and please note that I found this via a link from that "trueorigins" propaganda site..

Propaganda? Not once did this guy mention the bible as his evidence so why do you call what he has to say as propaganda? What makes the article you refer to anyless of a propaganda?

And i found it interesting what he said about evolution not having been proven at all, it is just a theory. And this was so accurate I thought it funny:

"A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating, dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them. Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on their part. But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and unscientific basis. (The situation isn’t helped by poor science education generally. Even advanced college biology students often understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)"

I saw excatly that here. All the over inflated egos condescending to tell us we can't grasp the "THEORY" of evolution becuase it's far to complex for our simple minds to grasp. Something which they are able to do due to their vast and varied education and superior mental capabilities. LMHO

[Poppy]

Yes, I'm sure in your mind it is. To each their own.

[Debbie]

Kudos to Raithlin for his debating style.

[Raithlin]

thx, Debbie2.

Poppy & arf9999, talk.origins talks of being open to both sides, but they are extremely one-sided. true.origins came about as a result of that bias - only true.origins is straight out about it. They are 2 sides of one coin - no need to argue about it. :)

[arf9999]

Propaganda? Not once did this guy mention the bible as his evidence so why do you call what he has to say as propaganda? What makes the article you refer to anyless of a propaganda?Well it is a response, so I suppose it is propaganda. Do you know what propaganda means?

Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation aimed at serving an agenda. At its root, the denotation of propaganda is 'to propagate (actively spread) a philosophy or point of view'. The most common use of the term (historically) is in political contexts; in particular to refer to certain efforts sponsored by governments or political groups.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
The promotion of specific ideas or views, often political in nature.
www.motto.com/glossary.html
A way of presenting a belief that seeks to generate acceptance without regard to facts or the right of others to be heard. Propaganda often presents the same argument repeatedly, in the simplest terms and ignores all rebuttal or counter-argument. It is essentially self- interested and often associated with authoritarian regimes. ...
freespace.virgin.net/john.hewitt1/pg_gloss.htm



And i found it interesting what he said about evolution not having been proven at all, it is just a theory. And this was so accurate I thought it funny:

<snip>

I saw excatly that here. All the over inflated egos condescending to tell us we can't grasp the "THEORY" of evolution becuase it's far to complex for our simple minds to grasp. Something which they are able to do due to their vast and varied education and superior mental capabilities.
Not one of the people arguing against creationism claims that the theory of evolution is fact. It is not, it is a theory created to fit the evidence. It may not be completely correct, but will be adjusted as more evidence is produced.



LMHO
H=head? If so, I'm not sure if it will be a big loss. Get off your high horse, pick up your head and use it for once.

[Raithlin]

http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp


The debate between proponents of evolutionism and creation scientists concerning thermodynamics seems likely to continue without end. This is not because the laws of thermodynamics (and their ramifications) are subject to debate or relativistic interpretation, but because a handful of dogmatic evolutionists continue to vocally and energetically deny the truth concerning a simple matter of scientific knowledge:


The second law presents an insurmountable problem to the concept of a natural, mechanistic process: (1) by which the physical universe could have formed spontaneously from nothing, and (2) by which biological life could have arisen and diversified (also spontaneously) from a non-living, inanimate world. (Both postulates form essential planks in the platform of evolutionary theory in general.)

While many highly qualified scientists who number themselves in the camp of evolutionism are candid enough to acknowledge this problem, the propagandists of evolution prefer to claim the only “problem” is that creationists “misunderstand” real thermodynamics.

I have found this in the past, and it makes for highly emotional debating. The interesting thing I find throughout, is that the Creationist is willing to hear (and refute, if knowledgeable) the evolutionists' side of the story - but hardly ever is it vice versa. Evolutionists in general (present company excepted?) stick to their guns, hurling insults and accusing creationists of misunderstanding or misinterpreting.

My 2c editorial.:p

[BCO]

I don't think it's wise for creationists to use "eminent" creationist scientists as "proof" that evolution is wrong. A recent study of the felllows of the Royal Society (a collection of the greatest scientific minds in the Commonwealth) showed an overwhelming majority of respondents did not believe in god. Similar results were came from a study of the Royal Society's American counterpart, the National Academy of Sciences.

The fact is, evolution is the widely accepted scientific explanation for life as we know it. Creationist scientists may criticise the ToE, but they're not taken very seriously.

[Debbie]

Evolution requires a decrease in entropy (i.e. build-up) to work. Yet within the universe we have a consistent increase (breakdown). It makes it difficult to create things, does it not?

(I've still got my firesuit on... :rolleyes: )

A baffling argument for evolutionists ;) (Of which I am one)

Nevertheless, I submit that wider timeframes and circular patterns (build up--> break down--> build up--> break down --> build up --> break down) be considered. Such an assumption accommodates for evolution....and does not preclude the existence of God. In fact, from my point of view this reveals an intelligent design of awesome proportions.

[Poppy]

Well it is a response, so I suppose it is propaganda. Do you know what propaganda means?

My question still stands. What makes what you have to say less of a propaganda?



Not one of the people arguing against creationism claims that the theory of evolution is fact. It is not, it is a theory created to fit the evidence. It may not be completely correct, but will be adjusted as more evidence is produced.


Not one of the people arguing against creationism claims that the theory of evolution is fact? And yet by their claims of having superior mental powers to understand what we lesser beings cannot understand disproves that. We are supposedly brain washed because we refuse to accept a theory that was "created" to fit evidence, a theory that constantly evolves not because new evidence comes to light but because it is proven wrong.



H=head? If so, I'm not sure if it will be a big loss. Get off your high horse, pick up your head and use it for once.

:rolleyes:

[Raithlin]

I don't think it's wise for creationists to use "eminent" creationist scientists as "proof" that evolution is wrong. A recent study of the felllows of the Royal Society (a collection of the greatest scientific minds in the Commonwealth) showed an overwhelming majority of respondents did not believe in god. Similar results were came from a study of the Royal Society's American counterpart, the National Academy of Sciences.

The fact is, evolution is the widely accepted scientific explanation for life as we know it. Creationist scientists may criticise the ToE, but they're not taken very seriously.
Not taken seriously by whom? Evolutionary scientists? Why does that not surprise me?

As I've said before, there is a big difference between historical and operational science. You cannot mix the two. Historical science cannot be proven in the way operational science can. When you get that sorted, and understand why it cannot be so, you begin to see that the theory is exactly that. A theory, unable to be proven by its very nature.

Furthermore, when one considers evolutionism (the naturalist philosophy behind major proponents of evolution), one begins to see that it is indeed a religion that is the major factor behind the theory.

In contrast, if we had to take Creationism (the bible-based philosophy) and Creation Science (which does exist, contrary to popular belief among evolutionists. See here (http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp) for an explanation of the theory) and compare it with empirical (operational) science, we would see that this theory is supported (is not proven false). Makes one think - if one is able to think openly enough to see (i.e. not brain-washed either way).

I think I covered it all, but as always I expect rebuttals (not baseless comments please), and look forward to them.

[BCO]

Not taken seriously by whom? Evolutionary scientists? Why does that not surprise me?


Not taken seriously by the majority of the world's top scientists in all fields. One could hardly see creationism as a viable theory if one doesn't believe in the existence of a creator.

[Poppy]

I don't think it's wise for creationists to use "eminent" creationist scientists as "proof" that evolution is wrong. A recent study of the felllows of the Royal Society (a collection of the greatest scientific minds in the Commonwealth) showed an overwhelming majority of respondents did not believe in god. Similar results were came from a study of the Royal Society's American counterpart, the National Academy of Sciences.

The fact is, evolution is the widely accepted scientific explanation for life as we know it. Creationist scientists may criticise the ToE, but they're not taken very seriously.

Widely accepted it might be in the scientific world, but thankfully the majority of humans believe in God.

[arf9999]

My question still stands. What makes what you have to say less of a propaganda? I didn't, in fact I agreed. It doesn't make talkorigins or trueorigins more or less propaganda-esque (if that is a word) as Raithlin pointed out.



Not one of the people arguing against creationism claims that the theory of evolution is fact? And yet by their claims of having superior mental powers to understand what we lesser beings cannot understand disproves that. We are supposedly brain washed because we refuse to accept a theory that was "created" to fit evidence, a theory that constantly evolves not because new evidence comes to light but because it is proven wrong.
You need to research before you type. Here is some reading:
The scientific method. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_scientific_method)

[Poppy]

Not taken seriously by the majority of the world's top scientists in all fields. One could hardly see creationism as a viable theory if one doesn't believe in the existence of a creator.

Well it's fortunate for me that I don't carry the opinion of the worlds top scientists (who are fallible) as gospel.

[BCO]

Widely accepted it might be in the scientific world, but thankfully the majority of humans believe in God.

sadly the majority of humans believe in god.

[Raithlin]

A baffling argument for evolutionists ;) (Of which I am one)

Nevertheless, I submit that wider timeframes and circular patterns (build up--> break down--> build up--> break down --> build up --> break down) be considered. Such an assumption accommodates for evolution....and does not preclude the existence of God. In fact, from my point of view this reveals an intelligent design of awesome proportions.

What you don't realise (and this is the case for many theistic evolutionists) is this: if you remove the literal account from Genesis and replace it with billions of years, you remove the original sin, which removes the need for salvation, and with it the entire reason for God to become Man in the person of J3sus Christ. The base of Christianity is removed in one fell swoop. The proponents (present company excepted) for evolution know this, hence their constant pushing in the schools, etc.

Building up requires that the 2nd law be broken. Not once in all operational science experiments and observations has this happened. This is a law - not a theory. Also, I submit (nice touch) that the Sun as a source of energy to assist in decrease in entropy is not a valid approach. Quite the contrary, the sun speeds up the increase (watch your car's paint when left in the sun) of entropy.

There is more, but I need to go back to my notes first.

(Look see what you've done! I'm conversing in High English!! :eek: )

[Poppy]

sadly the majority of humans believe in god.

Yes very fortunate indeed.

[IanC]

Widely accepted it might be in the scientific world, but thankfully the majority of humans believe in God.

Shouldn't that read " ... thankfully the majority of humans believe in a god" ? Half ain't a majority.
[Reference] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion#Present_day_adherents)

[Raithlin]

Shouldn't that read " ... thankfully the majority of humans believe in a god" ? Half ain't a majority.
[Reference] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion#Present_day_adherents)

Quite true, but Christianity remains the dominant religion, does it not?

Personally, I shudder to call it a religion, because by doing so I rake in the RCC, evangelicals, etc. that I don't always agree with. Hoever, for the sake of the argument, I mean those that maintain they "believe" in the Christian/Judaic God.

[Poppy]

Quite true, but Christianity remains the dominant religion, does it not?

Personally, I shudder to call it a religion, because by doing so I rake in the RCC, evangelicals, etc. that I don't always agree with. Hoever, for the sake of the argument, I mean those that maintain they "believe" in the Christian/Judaic God.

What's RCC?

[BCO]

roman catholic church

[IanC]

Quite true, but Christianity remains the dominant religion, does it not?

Yes it does.


Personally, I shudder to call it a religion, because by doing so I rake in the RCC

I assume you mean the Roman Catholic Church ... why shun them they earn Christianity a billion (http://www.cathnews.com/news/302/45.php) adherants?

[Raithlin]

I assume you mean the Roman Catholic Church ... why shun them they earn Christianity a billion (http://www.cathnews.com/news/302/45.php) adherants?

It's a personal thing. The RCC has gone far askew of the original goal (Bible-based Christianity). That, however, is beyond the scope of this thread.

[BCO]

Raithlin, I don't think anything's beyond the scope of this thread! It's meant to be about bible quotes after all.

[arf9999]

What you don't realise (and this is the case for many theistic evolutionists) is this: if you remove the literal account from Genesis and replace it with billions of years, you remove the original sin, which removes the need for salvation, and with it the entire reason for God to become Man in the person of J3sus Christ. The base of Christianity is removed in one fell swoop. The proponents (present company excepted) for evolution know this, hence their constant pushing in the schools, etc. Theistic evolutionists?



Building up requires that the 2nd law be broken. Not once in all operational science experiments and observations has this happened. This is a law - not a theory. Also, I submit (nice touch) that the Sun as a source of energy to assist in decrease in entropy is not a valid approach. Quite the contrary, the sun speeds up the increase (watch your car's paint when left in the sun) of entropy. Your argument is flawed as I pointed out earlier. Your examples are not really relevant. Off the top of my head here is an example of how an increase in entropy in one system results in the reduction in another: Diamonds are formed by the pressure created by the eruptions of lava.

[IanC]

It's a personal thing. The RCC has gone far askew of the original goal (Bible-based Christianity). That, however, is beyond the scope of this thread.

You've nailed your colours to the mast, so I will do the same ... I was brought up an RC and am now agnostic. I won't attack any particular religion, I saw enough of that as an RC, religion in general is fair game however (that includes Bible-based Christianity).

[mancombseepgood]

sadly the majority of humans believe in god.

Actually that's not true.
There are those who claim to and those who do.

[mancombseepgood]

You've nailed your colours to the mast, so I will do the same ... I was brought up an RC and am now agnostic. I won't attack any particular religion, I saw enough of that as an RC, religion in general is fair game however (that includes Bible-based Christianity).
It's understandable that any RC could turn agnostic since it is a man made institution. Having said that, there are those in any denomination etc who simply follow a bunch of man made rules. Believing in God and obeying him is another thing all together.

[Poppy]

I found these interesting links which proves that the bible is not a book of myth as some claim.

The Genesis flood
http://pw2.netcom.com/~horse/flood.html

http://creationwiki.org/Bible_got_water_cycle_right

Cyrus the Great - the bible prophesied his appearance 200 yrs before he did.

http://www3.tky.3web.ne.jp/~jafarr/A%20Portrait%20of%20Cyrus2.html

I will look for more tomorrow. Till then cheers

[Raithlin]

Theistic evolutionists? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

Your argument is flawed as I pointed out earlier. Your examples are not really relevant. Off the top of my head here is an example of how an increase in entropy in one system results in the reduction in another: Diamonds are formed by the pressure created by the eruptions of lava.

My argument is not flawed.

What you have mentioned above is quite true - it is maintaining the status quo (Law 1 of thermodynamics) - energy is transferred to create order from disorder.

Let's not confuse that with what evolutionists tell us - that energy is added to the system every time. (I'm on thin ice here - still unsure about what I'm saying, but I'm willing to give it a go). My point being that where in your example energy is simply transferred, the [pick a point in the process] requires that energy be added. Where did all the energy come from to create the sun, for example?

You also introduce a second problem to the equation. You speak of diamonds being created. I wish to know how that translates into a complex entity (I'm talking of the simplest lifeform here). lifeless to lifeless I accept, but lifeless to living I need some serious help with.

[Raithlin]

You've nailed your colours to the mast, so I will do the same ... I was brought up an RC and am now agnostic. I won't attack any particular religion, I saw enough of that as an RC, religion in general is fair game however (that includes Bible-based Christianity).

Not to worry - I have nothing against the followers - it's the institution I have a bone to pick with.

[mancombseepgood]

You've nailed your colours to the mast, so I will do the same ... I was brought up an RC and am now agnostic. I won't attack any particular religion, I saw enough of that as an RC, religion in general is fair game however (that includes Bible-based Christianity).

Bible based Christianity - it's kind of like living your relationship with your wife by a book. Personally I believe in Christ based Christianity (Christianity is used reluctantly as this is often misused IMO). Thinking of the believers in Christ that lived prior to Johann Gutenberg and had to put up with being burned at the stake by the RC church as an example... and those who wrote the bible...
That's where the helper, or holy spirit comes in.

[mancombseepgood]

Yes it does.
I assume you mean the Roman Catholic Church ... why shun them they earn Christianity a billion (http://www.cathnews.com/news/302/45.php) adherants?

Numbers mean nothing... many are called but few are chosen. Matt 22:14
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=MATT%2022:14&version=31;9;

[Poppy]

Wrong. For instance can you tell me where the jews were when they wondered around the desert for 40 years? There are MASSIVE flaws in the bible that archeologists inform us about. Such as no physical proof outside of the gospels that ***** even existed. So this was a thumbsuck.


"It was under 60*miles to Beer-sheba, cited as a southern edge of the Promised Land. (Gen.24:62; 25:11; 2*Sam. 3:10) They traveled from Egypt to Mount Sinai and then 170*miles to Kadesh.

"the Israelites left Kadesh-barnea and walked about in the wilderness for 38 years. (De 2:1, 14) It seems that during these years they spent time at some 18 different places, this being the number of camp stages listed after the Israelites left Hazeroth. (Compare Nu 12:16-13:3, 25, 26; 33:16-36.) Although Israel encamped at Kadesh after departing from Hazeroth, Numbers 33:18 does not mention Kadesh after Hazeroth. This may have been an intentional omission or perhaps, as some have suggested in the past, Kadesh may be the same as Rithmah.

Finally the Israelites appear to have returned to Kadesh in the first month of the 40th year after the Exodus. (Nu 20:1; 33:36-39) Moses' sister Miriam died there. Later, Moses and Aaron lost the privilege of entering the Promised Land for failing to sanctify Jehovah in connection with the miraculous provision of water for the Israelites encamped at Kadesh. From there Moses subsequently asked Edom's permission to pass through its territory. (Nu 20:1-17) This request was denied, and seemingly the Israelites remained a while longer at Kadesh (Nu 20:18; Jg 11:16, 17) before moving on toward the Promised Land by way of Mount Hor. (Nu 20:22; 33:37) When they reached the Plains of Moab, E of the Jordan, Jehovah designated Kadesh-barnea as a part of the southern border of the Promised Land. (Nu 33:50; 34:4) Later, the Israelites under Joshua conquered the area extending from Kadesh-barnea to Gaza (Jos 10:41), and Kadesh-barnea came to be on the southern boundary of Judah.-Jos 15:1-4."

Will be back tomorrow to discuss this some more, but must really dash now.

[Raithlin]

Bible base Christianity - it's kind of like living your relationship with your wife by a book. Personally I believe in Christ based Christianity (Christianity is used reluctantly as this is often misused IMO). Thinking of the believers in Christ that lived prior to Johann Gutenberg and had to put up with being burned at the stake by the RC church as an example... and those who wrote the bible...
That's where the helper, or holy spirit comes in.



John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[d] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. Seems to me that we're on about the same thing. The Bible is God's letter to us, our user manual, if you will. I agree that Christ /The Holy Spirit is our guide, but we should live our lives as the Bible tells us (the Holy Spirit interprets for us on a moment to moment basis, of course). You can't tell me to ignore the Bible and live only in the Spirit. The two are inseparable, in my experience. Leave the one out, and the other fades with time. As David says in the Psalms, "I will write your word on my heart, that I might not forget it (Paraphrased).

[IanC]

Not to worry - I have nothing against the followers - it's the institution I have a bone to pick with.

Why would I worry, the RC Church is the most powerful force within world Christendom, over half of all Christians are Catholic?

Btw I have a few bones to pick as well. :rolleyes:

[IanC]

Numbers mean nothing... many are called but few are chosen. Matt 22:14
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=MATT%2022:14&version=31;9;

See you in hell ... which is pretty much what you're telling me.

[Raithlin]

Such as no physical proof outside of the gospels that ***** even existed. So this was a thumbsuck.

In 115 AD, P. Cornelius Tacitus wrote the following passage that refers to ***** (called “Christus,” which means “The Messiah”) in book 15, chapter 44 of The Annals:

“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.”

That's just one, but you get the drift. No evidence? Think again.

[Raithlin]

Btw I have a few bones to pick as well. :rolleyes:Really? We should get together sometime... :cool:

[mancombseepgood]

Such as no physical proof outside of the gospels that ***** even existed. So this was a thumbsuck.
What about Cornelius Tacitus?

Tacitus lived from A.D. 55 to A.D. 120. He was a Roman historian and has been described as the greatest historian of Rome, noted for his integrity and moral uprightness. His most famous works are the Annals and the Histories. The Annals relate the historical narrative from Augustus’ death in A.D.14 to Nero’s death in A.D. 68. The Histories begin their narrative after Nero’s death and finish with Domitian’s death in A.D. 96. In his section describing Nero’s decision to blame the fire of Rome on the Christians, Tacitus affirms that the founder of Christianity, a man he calls Chrestus (a common misspelling of Christ, which was *****’ surname), was executed by Pilate, the procurator of Judea during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberias. Tacitus was hostile to Christianity because in the same paragraph he describes Christus’ or Christ’s death, he describes Christianity as a pernicious superstition. It would have therefore been in his interests to declare that ***** had never existed, but he did not, and perhaps he did not because he could not without betraying the historical record.
Or Thallus and Phlegon

Both were ancient historians and both confirmed the fact that the land went dark when ***** was crucified. This parallels what the Bible said happened when ***** died.
or Mara Bar-Serapion

Some time after 70 A.D., Mara Bar-Sarapion, who was probably a Stoic philosopher, wrote a letter to his son in which he describes how the Jews executed their King. Claiming to be a king was one of the charges the religious authorities used to scare Pontius Pilate into agreeing to execute *****.
or Josephus

Josephus was a Jewish historian who was born in either 37 or 38 AD and died some time after 100 AD. He wrote the Jewish Antiquites and in one famous passage described ***** as a wise man, a doer of wonderful works and calls him the Christ. He also affirmed that ***** was executed by Pilate and actually rose from the dead.

[mancombseepgood]

Seems to me that we're on about the same thing. The Bible is God's letter to us, our user manual, if you will. I agree that Christ /The Holy Spirit is our guide, but we should live our lives as the Bible tells us (the Holy Spirit interprets for us on a moment to moment basis, of course). You can't tell me to ignore the Bible and live only in the Spirit. The two are inseparable, in my experience. Leave the one out, and the other fades with time. As David says in the Psalms, "I will write your word on my heart, that I might not forget it (Paraphrased).
If we live by the spirit, we fulfill the letter of the law. One cannot live by the spirit and miss the boat... as I said - those who lived prior to printed manuscripts often had to do just this...
Certainly you cannot claim to live by the spirit, yet contradict the written word. And of course all scripture is inspired by God...

[IanC]

Thinking of the believers in Christ that lived prior to Johann Gutenberg and had to put up with being burned at the stake by the RC church as an example... and those who wrote the bible...
That's where the helper, or holy spirit comes in.

Ahh so according to you the religion of +1billion people is crap because a few people got burned at the stake? What price the USA, UK , SA, etc, etc???
Herr Gutenberg had a point but I think it's pretty much moot today, don't you??

[IanC]

Really? We should get together sometime... :cool:

Beer or whisky? :D

[mancombseepgood]

Ahh so according to you the religion of +1billion people is crap because a few people got burned at the stake? What price the USA, UK , SA, etc, etc???
Herr Gutenberg had a point but I think it's pretty much moot today, don't you??

Define the religion of +1 billion people.... If you can do this, I may be able to comment.
and a few people burned at the stake?...
Seems like it's all in a box for you.

[arf9999]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution


My argument is not flawed.

What you have mentioned above is quite true - it is maintaining the status quo (Law 1 of thermodynamics) - energy is transferred to create order from disorder.

Let's not confuse that with what evolutionists tell us - that energy is added to the system every time. (I'm on thin ice here - still unsure about what I'm saying, but I'm willing to give it a go). My point being that where in your example energy is simply transferred, the [pick a point in the process] requires that energy be added. Where did all the energy come from to create the sun, for example? OK... help me out here, what are we debating? Evolution, or the big bang? My point is that the second law of thermodynamics is not broken by the process of evolution. (Which was the very poorly argued point of the trueorigins article, as it ignored the state of the system in question).

Now we're discussing the creation of the Sun from a thermodynamic standpoint evidently. I'm not a cosmologist or a physicist, so my understanding is definitely not complete. I need to do some reading, but I'm fairly sure that the current theories do not violate any of the physical laws..


You also introduce a second problem to the equation. You speak of diamonds being created. I wish to know how that translates into a complex entity (I'm talking of the simplest lifeform here). lifeless to lifeless I accept, but lifeless to living I need some serious help with.I didn't introduce it as a problem, it was just a simple example of systems that are not isolated and thus can move away from entropy despite the second law.

But now you have introduced it, so I'll need to do some reading about the creation of amino acids etc... This is beginning to remind me of varsity...

As the Governator would say: I'll be back. :)

[Raithlin]

OK... help me out here, what are we debating? Evolution, or the big bang?Evolution.


My point is that the second law of thermodynamics is not broken by the process of evolution. (Which was the very poorly argued point of the trueorigins article, as it ignored the state of the system in question). The article in question was simply a rebuttal to another article onthe talk.origins site. A poor example of a complete discussion, I admit.


Now we're discussing the creation of the Sun from a thermodynamic standpoint evidently. I'm not a cosmologist or a physicist, so my understanding is definitely not complete. I need to do some reading, but I'm fairly sure that the current theories do not violate any of the physical laws.. I'll do the same.


I didn't introduce it as a problem, it was just a simple example of systems that are not isolated and thus can move away from entropy despite the second law.

But now you have introduced it, so I'll need to do some reading about the creation of amino acids etc...Bad wording on my part to say you introduced it.

I understand your example, but they are two different things entirely, as I attempted to point out.
This is beginning to remind me of varsity...Ditto. :)

[icyrus]

I find it interesting that you do not read what Isaiah says, but rather what some one who is blatantly against the bible says. You are not interested in finding any passages from the bible, indeed you have not read anything from the bible yet you consider yourself an authority enough to label it a book of myth.

This is what Isaiah says:
Isaiah 40:22 (King James Version) King James Version (KJV)

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

It states that the earth is a circle, meaning the earth was and is still round as opposed to being flat. This has been proven to be true by science.

Far from it the bible is not as you claim a book of myths.

I have read it before but it doesn't impress me much. Earth is not a circle.


You need to research before you type. Here is some reading:
The scientific method. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_scientific_method)

That link has been posted many times. By now we can only assume she chooses to remain ignorant.

[IanC]

Define the religion of +1 billion people.... If you can do this, I may be able to comment.
I stated what I was, an agnostic (brought up in the RCC). If I needed to state what I was taught and "understood" I'd need a wee bit more than this forum.


and a few people burned at the stake?...
Seems like it's all in a box for you.
This was flippant of me, however I regard modern day Christians who quote the burning of the Protestants as grist for their mill the same way I regard rich black Americans who cite slavery as the cause for their ills.

Maybe I should cite the Normans for attacking England, no wait ... maybe I can blame the French ... for goodness sake grow up.

[nthdimension]

you remove the original sin, which removes the need for salvation, and with it the entire reason for God to become Man in the person of J3sus Christ. The base of Christianity is removed in one fell swoop. The proponents (present company excepted) for evolution know this, hence their constant pushing in the schools, etc.
But the whole J3sus thing - "dying" for our sins - was a fairly silly dog and pony show. Looking back I still find it hard to believe I actually once thought that story made sense. We don't need evolution. That story is its own worst enemy.

[Nick333]

Over a bit of time? LOL That's one of the things I find very funny. People like you assume you have all the answers and yet none of you have actually read the bible. You make your judgements based on you bias and mock the rest of us for believing.

You can mock all you want but it will not change the fact that the bible's authenticity has been proved by "SCIENCE" LOL

I've read the bible. Recently. Its a load of ****. It has not been authentically proven by science. It has been "proven" by pseudo science at "universities" and "research institutes" which were created for this specific purpose. The FACT is that the majority of scientists, make that the VAST majority of scientists, accept evolution as fact and Darwins theory of evolution through the process of natural selection also as proven fact.
If the evil bastards were trying to forward a theory that Evolution was guided by God rather than natural selection there may actually be grounds for scientific debate, but theyre not. They are trying to deny the ESTABLISHED FACT that evolution did take place over millions of years.
The real aim of Creationism is to weaken the laws that uphold the seperation of church and state in the US. Their ultimate goal is to make the US officially Christian. Not just Christian but fundamentalist Christian. Make no mistake creationists are fundamentalists through and through.
Here are some quotes by fundamentalist christian leaders, remember these are the people who support the propagation of creationist science, they fund the "universities" and "research institutes" that come up with this science. .

http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/fundienazis/fundie_quotes.htm

Even if we're not likely to have any religion forced down childrens throats in South African schools, christians should still be aware of whats behind this so called science.

[mancombseepgood]

I've read the bible. Recently. Its a load of ****.
Naah - I don't believe you Nick - you are far to fascinated by it to believe that. You have to admit that.

[Nick333]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution


My argument is not flawed.

What you have mentioned above is quite true - it is maintaining the status quo (Law 1 of thermodynamics) - energy is transferred to create order from disorder.

Let's not confuse that with what evolutionists tell us - that energy is added to the system every time. (I'm on thin ice here - still unsure about what I'm saying, but I'm willing to give it a go). My point being that where in your example energy is simply transferred, the [pick a point in the process] requires that energy be added. Where did all the energy come from to create the sun, for example?

You also introduce a second problem to the equation. You speak of diamonds being created. I wish to know how that translates into a complex entity (I'm talking of the simplest lifeform here). lifeless to lifeless I accept, but lifeless to living I need some serious help with.

Your argument is flawed Raith. Evolution occurs through a process which transfers genetic information, not energy.

[Paul_S]

Evolution ... bleh!

If you are a product of chance, your brain is also a product of chance.
Therefore, the thought patterns that determine your logic are also products of chance.
If your logic is the result of chance processes, you can’t be sure it evolved properly.
You can’t be sure you’re even asking the right question because you can’t trust your own
logic.

[Nick333]

Naah - I don't believe you Nick - you are far to fascinated by it to believe that. You have to admit that.

Fascinated? Try terrified of a return to the dark ages.
Christians like to think that atheists involve themselves in the debate because they feel drawn to religion when in fact its out of a desire to combat the spread of religious fascism.
I do believe it because its true. Do you think those quotes are fabrications?

[Nick333]

Evolution ... bleh!

If you are a product of chance, your brain is also a product of chance.
Therefore, the thought patterns that determine your logic are also products of chance.
If your logic is the result of chance processes, you can’t be sure it evolved properly.
You can’t be sure you’re even asking the right question because you can’t trust your own
logic.

Try following the thread genius. This is the third time this little gem of an argument has come up.

1. Evolution is not a random process. Saying that it is betrays a profound ignorance of the subject.

2.The argument is non-sensical.

[Paul_S]

1. Evolution is not a random process. Saying that it is betrays a profound ignorance of the subject.

If it's not random then it must be predictable.
So tell me - what are humans going to evolve into in 1 million years time?

[Nick333]

If it's not random then it must be predictable.
So tell me - what are humans going to evolve into in 1 million years time?

A sports match is hardly a random event. Would you say the outcome of a sports match is predictable?

[Nod]

A sports match is hardly a random event. Would you say the outcome of a sports match is predictable?

For some, yes.

[Syndyre]

A sports match is hardly a random event. Would you say the outcome of a sports match is predictable?

To a certain extent yes, assuming you have stats on the team's previous performances etc. Obviously not totally predictable though.

[Nick333]

To a certain extent yes, assuming you have stats on the team's previous performances etc. Obviously not totally predictable though.

OK well lets say a game between to hypothetical, well matched teams, neither playing on their home grounds. That'll do as an example of how a non-random process can have an unpredictable outcome.

[IanC]

If it's not random then it must be predictable.
So tell me - what are humans going to evolve into in 1 million years time?

If you'd said a 1000 or 10,000 I might have taken you seriously ... a million years?? I couldn't care less, Homo Sapiens can barely remember seven thousand years of history ...

[IanC]

A sports match is hardly a random event. Would you say the outcome of a sports match is predictable?

Hey ... keep quiet ... this guy sounds like just the man to have next to you, when you next place a bet :D

[Paul_S]

A sports match is hardly a random event. Would you say the outcome of a sports match is predictable?

Sport matches typically aren't random events - they're normally planned well ahead of time. :p

[ghoti]

evolution is science, creationism is pseudoscience.

[Debbie]

You are of the path of science now and onto the road of philosophy.

Philosophy has often been ahead of science.

Doubtless, philosophy has been wrong.
However, science too.

[Highflyer_GP]

Philosophy has often been ahead of science.

Doubtless, philosophy has been wrong.
However, science too.

The important thing though is that science and philosophy are both open to criticism and correction. Organized religion is not.

[Debbie]

The important thing though is that science and philosophy are both open to criticism and correction. Organized religion is not.

Organised religion may not be.

However, their texts are still worthy contributions to philosophy.

And philosophy has often gotten it 'right' before...as well as horribly wrong.

[mancombseepgood]

Fascinated? Try terrified of a return to the dark ages.
Christians like to think that atheists involve themselves in the debate because they feel drawn to religion when in fact its out of a desire to combat the spread of religious fascism.
I do believe it because its true. Do you think those quotes are fabrications?

I think you are kinda like Saul - who persecuted the church and then became one of the most outspoken believers.

[Nod]

Fascinated? Try terrified of a return to the dark ages.


Don't you think the world needs a bit of the dark ages, even if it just to get all the BS out of the "system"?

[Highflyer_GP]

Don't you think the world needs a bit of the dark ages, even if it just to get all the BS out of the "system"?
No that would just be silly. Sort of like saying that we need a return to apartheid to correct some of the flaws in democracy. We don't need another dark ages to hamper our progress thank you very much.

[Debbie]

Don't you think the world needs a bit of the dark ages, even if it just to get all the BS out of the "system"?

Difficult question.

[Alan]

No that would just be silly. Sort of like saying that we need a return to apartheid to correct some of the flaws in democracy. We don't need another dark ages to hamper our progress thank you very much.

Oops blooper alert. :eek:

No doubt you meant regress. :o

:p

[Nod]

Personally I think the world "needs" to reset in order for balance to be restored. The force had been unbalanced for a long time.

[mancombseepgood]

Who likes podcasts?
The Age Of The Earth (Part 1) (http://server.firefighters.org/catalog/2001/13024.mp3)
The Age Of The Earth (Part 2) (http://server.firefighters.org/catalog/2001/13025.mp3)
The Garden of Eden (http://server.firefighters.org/catalog/2001/13026.mp3)
Dinosaurs and the Bible (Part 1) (http://server.firefighters.org/catalog/2001/13027.mp3)
Dinosaurs and the Bible (Part 2) (http://server.firefighters.org/catalog/2001/13028.mp3)
What is in the Textbooks? (Part 1) (http://server.firefighters.org/catalog/2001/13029.mp3)
What is in the Textbooks? (Part 2) (http://server.firefighters.org/catalog/2001/13030.mp3)
Evolution: The Foundation for Communism… (Part 1) (http://server.firefighters.org/catalog/2001/13031.mp3)
Evolution: The Foundation for Communism… (Part 2) (http://server.firefighters.org/catalog/2001/13032.mp3)
The Hovind Theory (Part 1) (http://server.firefighters.org/catalog/2001/13033.mp3)
The Hovind Theory (Part 2) (http://server.firefighters.org/catalog/2001/13034.mp3)
Questions and Answers Session (Part 1) (http://server.firefighters.org/catalog/2001/13035.mp3)
Questions and Answers Session (Part 2) (http://server.firefighters.org/catalog/2001/13036.mp3)

Scientific facts in the Bible (http://server.firefighters.org/catalog/2002/14136.mp3)
What Happened to the Dinosaurs? (http://server.firefighters.org/catalog/2002/14148.mp3)
Stem Cells & the Nephilim (http://server.firefighters.org/catalog/2002/14153.mp3)
DNA: Understanding Evolution's Death Knell (http://server.firefighters.org/catalog/2002/14155.mp3)
Are the Bible and 'Pure Science' Compatible? (http://server.firefighters.org/catalog/2006/19680.mp3)
I thought I'd post these ahead of having listened to them in case anyone is interested.

[Highflyer_GP]

Oops blooper alert. :eek:

No doubt you meant regress. :o

:p
Science? regress? Surely you have it confused with religion.

If not then feel free to progress your way back to the stone age :p

[mancombseepgood]

Science? regress? Surely you have it confused with religion.

If not then feel free to progress your way back to the stone age :p

Progress...
In this thread we have concentrated mainly on science and gauged mankinds progress in scientific terms... what about the moral side... how have we progressed. Think SA or the rest of the world... Are we clearly moving forward? Or do we have alot of empty theoretical ideals... Are we possibly no different moraly than we have been historically. Are we seeing better relationships - husbands/wives/children/parents/siblings. Are we seing actual progress, or good intentions only.

[Alan]

Science? regress? Surely you have it confused with religion.

If not then feel free to progress your way back to the stone age :p

Coming from the guy who wants a society of dead animal shaggers. Even our oldest ancestors would think that savagery below them. :p

[Highflyer_GP]

Coming from the guy who wants a society of dead animal shaggers. Even our oldest ancestors would think that savagery below them. :p
It's not my fault if you have a knack of misinterpreting people as I said no such thing.

Anyway let's discuss the topic at hand, take that discussion to the other thread if you wish ;)

[Alan]

It's not my fault if you have a knack of misinterpreting people as I said no such thing.
Anyway let's discuss the topic at hand, take that discussion to the other thread if you wish ;)

Oh really. ;)

I can see why it's a bit embarrassing bringing it up in this thread. :o

Anyway, back to topic.

[icyrus]

If it's not random then it must be predictable.
So tell me - what are humans going to evolve into in 1 million years time?

I suggest you do some reading up on chaos and complexity theory. I hope you like maths...

[Highflyer_GP]

Oh really. ;)

I can see why it's a bit embarrassing bringing it up in this thread. :o

Anyway, back to topic.
Ermm no it's just another one of your futile attempts to derail a thread because of your inability to argue the topic at hand ;)

[Alan]

Ermm no it's just another one of your futile attempts to derail a thread because of your inability to argue the topic at hand ;)

Well if that's the case you've fallen for it ;)

Unfortunatly for you it is relevant to this thread.

As I said before back to topic.

[Nick333]

Progress...
In this thread we have concentrated mainly on science and gauged mankinds progress in scientific terms... what about the moral side... how have we progressed. Think SA or the rest of the world... Are we clearly moving forward? Or do we have alot of empty theoretical ideals... Are we possibly no different moraly than we have been historically. Are we seeing better relationships - husbands/wives/children/parents/siblings. Are we seing actual progress, or good intentions only.

Show me an example of a great Christian nation, ruled along purely Christian ideals. That has a large middle class, low divorce rate and low crime. Bare in mind I mean a society who teaches Christianity in schools, were homosexuality is illigal, were teenage pregnancy is almost non-existent. One that enforces a Christian morality.

White society in South Africa was like that during apartheid. Where else can you think of that this was the case? Honestly now show me an example of this ideal Christian society that we are straying from.

[Syndyre]

Show me an example of a great Christian nation, ruled along purely Christian ideals. That has a large middle class, low divorce rate and low crime. Bare in mind I mean a society who teaches Christianity in schools, were homosexuality is illigal, were teenage pregnancy is almost non-existent. One that enforces a Christian morality.

The Amish? :D

Edit:

When they're not dealing in coke!

http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/14/14News.html

[Nick333]

The Amish? :D

:D Read about the drug problems in the Amish community lately? Not just using, but dealing to support their unsustainable community. I kid you not.

[Highflyer_GP]

Progress...
In this thread we have concentrated mainly on science and gauged mankinds progress in scientific terms... what about the moral side... how have we progressed. Think SA or the rest of the world... Are we clearly moving forward? Or do we have alot of empty theoretical ideals... Are we possibly no different moraly than we have been historically?
Well allow me to ask you who said that anyone needs religion to be moral? It's the matter of upbringing that determines one's morals. Would you consider the crusades to be moral?

I think the following piece of info might give you a little clue regarding morals:

Myth 2 : "Atheists have no morals, since they don't believe in God"


What a sad world it is when people can seriously say that humans need to fear eternal damnation in order to do good. It is the one statement which at the same time stirs both anger and pity in most atheists; anger because it is a bigoted, prejudicial statement which serves no purpose except to promote intolerance, and pity because it highlights the speaker's ignorance and willingness to accept such crap without question.

At the risk of validating the question, a reply needs to be made in order to expose the speaker to the idea that what they've heard is wrong on so many dimensions. It must not be answered with anger, but with compassion.

Humans have the idea of right and wrong imbedded in them by their own brains, as well as their upbringing and society. Atheists do good, not out of fear of reprisal, but because it's the right thing to do. We value family, society, culture, and, of course, freedom. Many of us will - and have - defend these values with our lives. Examples:

1) Many Catholics make judgement calls on moral decisions against their church. For example, some use birth control or have abortions, despite what their church preaches. If these people can make moral decisions despite what their church preaches, then atheists can make similar choices without a church altogether.

2) Slavery was not only acceptable 200 years ago, it was considered a good deed by many, and defended using the bible. The bible was also used to justify the Holocaust, the Crusades, and the Spanish Inquisition.

Why is this relevant? Because it shows that the bible can be used to defend even the most immoral and unethical ideals, and is therefore not an adequate yardstick to measure moral or ethical behavior.

3) Finally, mention bad religious people. Remember that Hitler was a religious Catholic, and that Jeffrey Dahmer said grace before he ate his victims. Mention also that one need only open a newspaper to find yet another story about allegations against priests for sexual misconduct, often with children. Don't forget our good friends Jim Baker (who swindled millions from his flock) and Jimmy Swaggart (asked for forgiveness only after being caught using prostitutes).

4) Always couple these statements with the fact that, while atheists make up 8-10% of the population at large, we only make up 1% of the population in prison. I mean, think of it, what if 8-10% of the population (on top of all the religious criminals) decided it was OK to steal, rape, and murder? We'd have chaos! These will serve to prove that religion and ethical behavior are not even slightly related.

Expect these statements to piss off the theists, and this is where you must mention that what you said is verifiable and that their statement is openly prejudicial against 25 million people. This is the opportunity to open their eyes to the fact that just because we're different from them doesn't make us inherently bad.

Taken from The Top 10 Atheist Myths (http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/08/16/common-myths-about-atheists/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwayofthemind.dehumanizer.com%2F2 006%2F08%2F15%2F16-common-myths-about-atheists%2F&frame=true)

Pay particular attention to point number 4 regarding prisoners belief systems - how many of them are religious versus how many who are not. While the stats regarding prisoners refer to the stats of the USA, it would probably hold in SA too where the dominant belief system is Christianity.


Well if that's the case you've fallen for it ;)

Unfortunatly for you it is relevant to this thread.

As I said before back to topic.
No point saying back to topic if you have nothing constructive to add to the topic at hand. If you have nothing further to add then kindly take this crap elsewhere as you even admit to trolling when you say "if this is the case then you've fallen for it".

[Alan]

No point saying back to topic if you have nothing constructive to add to the topic at hand. If you have nothing further to add hen kindly take this crap elsewhere as you even admit to trolling when you say "if this is the case then you've fallen for it".

I have add to this topic. You may not think it "constructive" but that's your opinion.

Getting desperate are we.

For the third time back to topic


@Nick333

Amish doing and dealing drugs :eek: .

Where did you get that from?

[Highflyer_GP]

Amish doing and dealing drugs :eek: .

Where did you get that from?
http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/14/14News.html

4th story from the top.

[mancombseepgood]

Show me an example of a great Christian nation, ruled along purely Christian ideals.

Sorry - don't know any.

[mancombseepgood]

Well allow me to ask you who said that anyone needs religion to be moral? It's the matter of upbringing that determines one's morals. Would you consider the crusades to be moral?
I think I have asked that question for the third time - and each time, everyone has avoided answering it.
Crusades? What has a band of fools got to do with this?


Why is this relevant? Because it shows that the bible can be used to defend even the most immoral and unethical ideals, and is therefore not an adequate yardstick to measure moral or ethical behavior.
Of course - history has taught us that anything can be used to justify anything. Things are usually right in the mind of a perpetrator of crime. Misinterpretations are not as uncommon as you think.

All that aside... let me try again... have we made progress moraly?
Where did the idea of "murder is wrong" come from? Who's to say it is wrong? What about theft?

As for atheists not having morals - I didn't even hint at that now did I. What I want to know is... where do Athiests get to agreeing with the Bible on some of the 10 commandments.

[Nick333]

Sorry - don't know any.

So what makes you think Christianity is the answer to the moral decay?

[mancombseepgood]

4) Always couple these statements with the fact that, while atheists make up 8-10% of the population at large, we only make up 1% of the population in prison. I mean, think of it, what if 8-10% of the population (on top of all the religious criminals) decided it was OK to steal, rape, and murder? We'd have chaos! These will serve to prove that religion and ethical behavior are not even slightly related.

Maybe you can qualify that lot. Anyhow - don't argue with me about religion - thats kinda in the same corner as atheism. That term is far too broad and ambiguous. It's a term atheists use to label anyone who claims not to be atheist... i.e. you have atiesm and "the rest"

[Nick333]

All that aside... let me try again... have we made progress moraly?
Where did the idea of "murder is wrong" come from? Who's to say it is wrong? What about theft?

As for atheists not having morals - I didn't even hint at that now did I. What I want to know is... where do Athiests get to agreeing with the Bible on some of the 10 commandments.

Oh I see you're trying to imply that the Judeo/Christian religions gave us morality.

We seem to have evolved altruistic tendencies as a survival trait. Murder was considered immoral and illegal long before the Jews were a nation and in places that had never heard of the ten commandments. You can't seriously be suggesting that all humanity derives its morality from Christianity.

[mancombseepgood]

So what makes you think Christianity is the answer to the moral decay?

I asked a question Nick - I wan't making a statement.

[mancombseepgood]

Oh I see you're trying to imply that the Judeo/Christian religions gave us morality.

We seem to have evolved altruistic tendencies as a survival trait. Murder was considered immoral and illegal long before the Jews were a nation and in places that had never heard of the ten commandments. You can't seriously be suggesting that all humanity derives its morality from Christianity.

But you have no idea where it came from right?

[Nick333]

I asked a question Nick - I wan't making a statement.

The answer if you can't see how it follows logically from my last post is that the imperative against murder predates The Ten Commandments and is instinctual in human beings and only requires a little reasoning to expand on and make into law. In fact it would seem that "Thou shalt not kill" is a less broad commandment than other similar laws that developed elsewhere. In the Judaic context it only refers to the killing of other Jews. All other nations were fair game as can be seen from Gods Genocidal commands through out Genesis.

But I've got a feeling I'm going to have to explain this at length.

[mancombseepgood]

In the Judaic context it only refers to the killing of other Jews. All other nations were fair game as can be seen from Gods Genocidal commands through out Genesis.

But I've got a feeling I'm going to have to explain this at length.
Why do you say that? Have you considered the Hebrew word used here for Thou shall not "kill"

Where do you stand on the death penalty? What is your opinion of those who killed others during WWII?

The word "kill" in English is an all-encompassing verb that covers the taking of life in all forms and for all classes of victims. That kind of generalization is expressed in Hebrew through the verb "harag." However, the verb that appears in the Torah's prohibition is a completely different one, "ratsah" which, it would seem, should be rendered "murder." This root refers only to criminal acts of killing.

i.e. Illegal killing out of hate - hence this scripture:
Matthew 5

21"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[b]will be subject to judgment.

[Nick333]

But you have no idea where it came from right?

Um...I have a very good idea.

Social animals rely on their social group for survival. Killing a member of your social group weakens said social group, which in turn lessons your chance of survival. As we evolved as a species and we developed trade this instinct was expanded to include all members of our species unless another individual was trying to harm us. Of course we've always being willing to bend the rule when it suited us. Not least of the reasons that suited us, on more than one occasion, was if an individual was of a different religion.

[mancombseepgood]

Um...I have a very good idea.

Social animals rely on their social group for survival. Killing a member of your social group weakens said social group, which in turn lessons your chance of survival. As we evolved as a species and we developed trade this instinct was expanded to include all members of our species unless another individual was trying to harm us. Of course we've always being willing to bend the rule when it suited us. Not least of the reasons that suited us, on more than one occasion, was if an individual was of a different religion.

So by that theory... the greatest nations on earth in terms of numbers are those who have evolved this part of their social makeup? Chinese, Indian, African...
I'm just trying to follow this logic... Or is that nothing to do with what you just said?

But actually my question is about the moral side - not the "scientific" side... I mean... when you abstain from murder - why do you actually do it? Out of fear of extinction?

What about theft?

[Nick333]

Why do you say that? Have you considered the Hebrew word used here for Thou shall not "kill"

Where do you stand on the death penalty? What is your opinion of those who killed others during WWII?

The word "kill" in English is an all-encompassing verb that covers the taking of life in all forms and for all classes of victims. That kind of generalization is expressed in Hebrew through the verb "harag." However, the verb that appears in the Torah's prohibition is a completely different one, "ratsah" which, it would seem, should be rendered "murder." This root refers only to criminal acts of killing.

See I knew I would have to explain. My issue is not with the word kill. Kill. Murder. Who cares I get what was meant.

My point is that very soon after giving this commandment God became angry at the Israelites for showing mercy to vanquished foes and exorted them to kill all males including boys, all married woman and keep the virgins for themselves. Obviously the commandment not to murder is highly qualified.

I don't think it would take me long before I find contempory or even earlier society that included all humanity in there laws against murder. I'm thinking Indian society? Possibly ancient china?

[mancombseepgood]

See I knew I would have to explain. My issue is not with the word kill. Kill. Murder. Who cares I get what was meant.

My point is that very soon after giving this commandment God became angry at the Israelites for showing mercy to vanquished foes and exorted them to kill all males including boys, all married woman and keep the virgins for themselves. Obviously the commandment not to murder is highly qualified.

I don't think it would take me long before I find contempory or even earlier society that included all humanity in there laws against murder. I'm thinking Indian society? Possibly ancient china?

So what are your views on corporal punishment - and where do you think this left Hitler's foes during WW2. What was the alternative or are you OK with his ideals.

[Nick333]

So by that theory... the greatest nations on earth in terms of numbers are those who have evolved this part of their social makeup? Chinese, Indian, African...
I'm just trying to follow this logic... Or is that nothing to do with what you just said?

But actually my question is about the moral side - not the "scientific" side... I mean... when you abstain from murder - why do you actually do it? Out of fear of extinction?

What about theft?

Oh so you're not implying that morality comes from God?

Who if he is your God would be the God of Israel who chose them and them alone as keepers of his law before he decided to send J3sus to give us a new law and couldn't possibly have given the Chinese better and more inclusive laws before JC came to save us from sin.

Perhaps on a instinctual level we refrain from murder out of an unconcious fear of extinction yes. As a member of an intelligent species I can further justify my reluctance to kill a member of my species or any species for that matter because I view life as a precious thing.

[Highflyer_GP]

All that aside... let me try again... have we made progress moraly?
Where did the idea of "murder is wrong" come from? Who's to say it is wrong? What about theft?

It seems as though you're implying that religion (or more specifically Christianity - correct me if I'm wrong) is directly responsible for morality. Perhaps this might be of assistance:

What do we mean by the term “morals”. Morals are a code of values meant to guide man’s choices and actions. In order to function successfully, man must be able to make choices that consistently render positive consequences. This cannot be accomplished without a standard of value, or else there would be no way to determine a positive or negative outcome. Morals act as a point of reference for our actions. They allow us to organize our personal hierarchies of value into a code of ethics. In this way, we can successfully determine what is desirable from what is undesirable, good from evil. Without morals, rational man is doomed to wander the Earth in a stupor of inner conflict and uncertainty.

So what are the kinds of morals man should be finding in objective reality? Good morals support his existence, and equally important, his right to exist. Good morals center on individuality and liberty. Good morals hold the individual’s life as the standard of value for rational beings. Good morals hold men as equals, each with the right to treat the other as having something to offer, not as a slave or master. Good morals raise man up from the primordial muck to a pedestal of philosophical and technological achievement found nowhere else in nature. Good morals allow man to manipulate his environment (which would otherwise kill him), in order to live a life of comfort, enjoyment, and efficacious satisfaction.
Source: http://www.newintellectual.org/new_page_4.htm

As you can see it effectively comes down to the nature of man and the will to survive. In no way is morals a result of religion. Morality in any age is a set of socially-accepted desires and values in that age. Basically society creates morality based on a set of communal values and individual meanings.



As for atheists not having morals - I didn't even hint at that now did I. What I want to know is... where do Athiests get to agreeing with the Bible on some of the 10 commandments.

Nobody said that Atheists don't agree with the 10 commandments, however what most of them (including myself) do have a problem with is when people claim the bible to be the original source of morality (i.e. before the bible there was no moral value system). Anybody with half a brain in any given era can figure out what is morally acceptable - treat others as you would have them treat you. I wouldn't kill anyone because I wouldn't appreciate it if somebody killed me.

[mancombseepgood]

It seems as though you're implying that religion (or more specifically Christianity - correct me if I'm wrong) is directly responsible for morality. Perhaps this might be of assistance:

Source: http://www.newintellectual.org/new_page_4.htm

As you can see it effectively comes down to the nature of man and the will to survive. In no way is morals a result of religion. Morality in any age is a set of socially-accepted desires and values in that age. Basically society creates morality based on a set of communal values and individual meanings.


Nobody said that Atheists don't agree with the 10 commandments, however what most of them (including myself) do have a problem with is when people claim the bible to be the original source of morality (i.e. before the bible there was no moral value system). Anybody with half a brain in any given era can figure out what is morally acceptable - treat others as you would have them treat you. I wouldn't kill anyone because I wouldn't appreciate it if somebody killed me.

I don't claim the Bible to be the source of morality - especially since it was written after Cain was punished for killing Abel (for example). What I do argue is that everyone has that part of them that somehow knows God's law - irrespective of whether you practice it or not.

Anybody with half a brain in any given era can figure out what is morally acceptable - treat others as you would have them treat you. I wouldn't kill anyone because I wouldn't appreciate it if somebody killed me.
I find it hard in the light of current moral trends (murder, theft, etc.) that this is something that is as straight forward as you make out. It has nothing to do with brain cells - some of the most intelligent people choose immorality and greed as a lifestyle. We hear enough about that on this board now don't we ;) If we are still evolving, Im not sure it's in the right direction... personally I think that human nature is inherently evil and morality must be nurtured (it doesn't come naturally - greed however does).

[Nick333]

So what are your views on corporal punishment - and where do you think this left Hitler's foes during WW2. What was the alternative or are you OK with his ideals.

Capital punishment is what I think you mean. I think capital punishment is immoral.
As I said the basic instinct is to refrain from killing unless we ourselves are in danger of being killed. As we evolved we extended this to include protecting our friends and loved ones. Hitlers foes were ostensibly protecting their friends who Hitler had harmed.

[mancombseepgood]

Oh so you're not implying that morality comes from God?

Who if he is your God would be the God of Israel who chose them and them alone as keepers of his law before he decided to send J3sus to give us a new law and couldn't possibly have given the Chinese better and more inclusive laws before JC came to save us from sin.

You'll have to ask him one day... If he is indeed knows everything, then he will know this. Maybe he knew something you don't ;)


Perhaps on a instinctual level we refrain from murder out of an unconcious fear of extinction yes. As a member of an intelligent species I can further justify my reluctance to kill a member of my species or any species for that matter because I view life as a precious thing.
Are murders not members of the same species?

[Highflyer_GP]

I find it hard in the light of current moral trends (murder, theft, etc.) that this is something that is as straight forward as you make out.
And I'm sure that these same people wouldn't like people murdering them or stealing from them? Therefore in my opinion they are immoral because they inflict on society what they would never dream of inflicting on themselves.



It has nothing to do with brain cells - some of the most intelligent people choose immorality and greed as a lifestyle. We hear enough about that on this board now don't we ;) If we are still evolving, Im not sure it's in the right direction... personally I think that human nature is inherently evil and morality must be nurtured (it doesn't come naturally - greed however does).

Precisely why anyone with half a brain can figure it out ;) These intelligent people you mention who choose immorality - they obviously know that their actions are immoral yet continue with it anyway because it will benefit themselves. You will always get a few odd one's out - we don't live in a perfect society after all.

[mancombseepgood]

Capital punishment is what I think you mean. I think capital punishment is immoral.
Capital punishment, yes, sorry.

What is your moral standpoint on this though:

As I said the basic instinct is to refrain from killing unless we ourselves are in danger of being killed. As we evolved we extended this to include protecting our friends and loved ones. Hitlers foes were ostensibly protecting their friends who Hitler had harmed.
That is just your logical explaination... how do you feel morally in this scenario.
I.e. if someone tried to murder your friend and you shot them, killing them - would that be OK, but had they got away, you would oppose having them hang for their crime. You don't believe that this deterrent could save someone (innocent) else's life?

[mancombseepgood]

And I'm sure that these same people wouldn't like people murdering them or stealing from them? Therefore in my opinion they are immoral because they inflict on society what they would never dream on inflicting on themselves.

Precisely why anyone with half a brain can figure it out ;) These intelligent people you mention who choose immorality - they obviously know that their actions are immoral yet continue with it anyway because it will benefit themselves. You will always get a few odd one's out - we don't live in a perfect society after all.

Yes it's immoral. I think we agree on that. But the difference is that they don't follow that bit that tells them what's right or wrong. Did something go wrong with their evolution process somewhere down the line.
No! Morality is obviously not human nature and needs to be nurtured. Those few odd ones out are growing in number for some reason. If it was all about evolving, then we wouldn't need laws, would we.

[Nick333]

I find it hard in the light of current moral trends (murder, theft, etc.) that this is something that is as straight forward as you make out. It has nothing to do with brain cells - some of the most intelligent people choose immorality and greed as a lifestyle. We hear enough about that on this board now don't we ;) If we are still evolving, Im not sure it's in the right direction... personally I think that human nature is inherently evil and morality must be nurtured (it doesn't come naturally - greed however does).

"current moral trends (murder, theft, etc.)" lol are you serious? Current? Again I must ask were is this ideal society you believe we have strayed from. We murdered from each other and and stolen from each other from time immemorial in every society ever.

We have some very selfish instincts as well as altruistic ones all evolved for there abillity to help us survive. Our selfish instincts evolved for those situations when things just aren't going our way and we need to be mean to survive. The incidences from which the majority of crime arises, e.g poverty, support this.
Some of us may be inherently predisposed to more selfish behaviour, but some are definitly predisposed to altruistic behaviour. It may just be genetic tendency in individuals. Actually make that probably.

I agree morality should be nurtured. I just think religion has fallen short in its attempts to many times for us to believe that it is the right tool for this purposes. I believe a decent secular education is the best way to instill and nurture morality and ethics.

[Nick333]

Capital punishment, yes, sorry.

What is your moral standpoint on this though:

That is just your logical explaination... how do you feel morally in this scenario.
I.e. if someone tried to murder your friend and you shot them, killing them - would that be OK, but had they got away, you would oppose having them hang for their crime.

I would only shoot him if he were an immidiate threat to my friend. I would only be trying to kill him to stop him from killing.

[Highflyer_GP]

Yes it's immoral. I think we agree on that. But the difference is that they don't follow that bit that tells them what's right or wrong. Did something go wrong with their evolution process somewhere down the line.
No! Morality is obviously not human nature and needs to be nurtured. Those few odd ones out are growing in number for some reason. If it was all about evolving, then we wouldn't need laws, would we.
Ok so we agree on the issue of what moral values should be socially acceptable given the current era we live in. I'm not religious, you are - yet I never learn about morals from religion. I agree that people need to be nurtured more when it comes to this, however I don't think that religion is the way to go about it.

What's the point in nurturing a persons morality while at the same time teaching them about how their God ordered the slaying of thousands of people (including women and children)? Again I refer you to the prison system to prove that this is fairly ineffective.

In my opinion a persons upbringing plays a far more vital role in nurturing them as to what is morally right and wrong. Remember that an intelligent, successful person with no morals does not necessarily mean that they were brought up in the correct manner.

[Syndyre]

:D Read about the drug problems in the Amish community lately? Not just using, but dealing to support their unsustainable community. I kid you not.

That was the second part of my post! Quite funny actually. :D

[Nick333]

No! Morality is obviously not human nature and needs to be nurtured. Those few odd ones out are growing in number for some reason. If it was all about evolving, then we wouldn't need laws, would we.

Its a bit sad that you feel this way.

Many species display altruistic instincts, humans not least among them. The fact that virtually every society has developed some form of morality proves that in the long run altruistic instincts prevail.
There is really no reason to believe that we are acting more selfish as a species now than at any other time in our history. You couldn't think of a time when it did. Admit it.
Religion has failed consistently to make the world a more moral place. In fact the places were christianity is strongest are far more immoral than were christianitys influence is waining. The US has the highest incedence of teen age pregnancy and murder than any other first world country. It is also the most christian first world country in the world.
Modern athiests really do appear less inclined to (im)morality than christians do. Possibly because they are better educated admitidly, but surely that just makes a better case for secular education.

Edited bit is in ()

[Nick333]

That was the second part of my post! Quite funny actually. :D

Ja I saw your edit :D

[Syndyre]

Ja I saw your edit :D

Remembered seeing it a while ago, just had to Google for a link before I added it. ;)

[mancombseepgood]

Religion has failed consistently to make the world a more moral place. In fact the places were christianity is strongest are far more immoral than were christianitys influence is waining. The US has the highest incedence of teen age pregnancy and murder than any other first world country. It is also the most christian first world country in the world.
Modern athiests really do appear less inclined to morality than christians do. Possibly because they are better educated admitidly, but surely that just makes a better case for secular education.
Just saw this about China and capital punishment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_C hina

It is claimed that China currently executes more people each year than the rest of the world put together. According to Amnesty International, at least 3,400 people were executed in 2004. This is 90% of the reported world total. A senior Chinese legislator suggested in March 2004 that China executes "nearly 10,000" people each year
How do you think morality is here in this atheistic country for example. How are their stats as well?


In fact the places were christianity is strongest are far more immoral than were christianitys influence is waining.I think we can safely say that America is one of the places that true Christianity has been waning for some time. Despite many outspoken people there, the reality is that it is no more "Christian" than any other country. Most modern western atheistic teaching originates from it's learning institutions after all.

[Nick333]

Just saw this about China and capital punishment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_C hina

How do you think morality is here in this atheistic country for example. How are their stats as well?

I think we can safely say that America is one of the places that true Christianity has been waning for some time. Despite many outspoken people there, the reality is that it is no more "Christian" than any other country. Most modern western atheistic teaching originates from it's learning institutions after all.

Thats really very weak Onepost.
1. I used china as an example of were a form of morality evolved before your form of morality. I didn't hold the ancient chinese up as an example of the ideal moral society.

2. The US certainly allows christian morality to influence the media more than any european country. I'm sorry but fundamentalist christians are a large percentage of the population in america than any other first world country. This is fact.

[Nick333]

How do you think morality is here in this atheistic country for example. How are their stats as well?


We were having an almost decent debate until you started losing now you are clutching at straws.

South Africa is a secular state just like America(It always has been constitutionally). We also have a very large and very devout Christian population.

[ghoti]

I think we can safely say that America is one of the places that true Christianity has been waning for some time.

That's whats funny about all the different forms of the Christian cults. They all claim that the "other" Christianity is not the right one, and that none of the others are true religions/weak support/immoral... whatever seems the most appropriate at the time.

I spent this last weekend fishing with an Afrikaans Jehovah`s witness, and it was a very interesting experience for me. What I liked most about him, is he is probably the least hypocritical christian I have ever met.

[raoul]

See you in hell ... which is pretty much what you're telling me.

Hell - a different perspective

Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs
heat)?

Answer:

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need
to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which
they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets
to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving.

As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different
religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state that
if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there
is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more
than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell.

With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls
in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of
the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the
temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has
to expand proportionately as souls are added.

This gives two possibilities: 1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than
the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in
Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.

2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in
Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

So which is it?

If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year
that, "It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you," and take
into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two
must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already
frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen
over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore,
extinct......leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine
being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting "Oh my God."

:p

[mancombseepgood]

That's whats funny about all the different forms of the Christian cults. They all claim that the "other" Christianity is not the right one, and that none of the others are true religions/weak support/immoral... whatever seems the most appropriate at the time.

I spent this last weekend fishing with an Afrikaans Jehovah`s witness, and it was a very interesting experience for me. What I liked most about him, is he is probably the least hypocritical christian I have ever met.

Actually, that's what's funny about Atheists... you only get two flavours - religious and atheist.
As for your Jehova's Witness friend... maybe he just doesn't really believe in anything.

[mancombseepgood]

We were having an almost decent debate until you started losing now you are clutching at straws.

South Africa is a secular state just like America(It always has been constitutionally). We also have a very large and very devout Christian population.

Slow down Nick - this isn't about losing or winning now is it? If it is, let me leave the sandpit for you guys to have to yourself ;)
As before - I was simply asking your opinion. It seems from all the roundabout answers I have been getting that you don't actually have an opinion other than the bible is a load of ...

You spend alot of time telling us why what others believe is twak while you don't have much to offer about what you believe.

[Poppy]

I have read it before but it doesn't impress me much. Earth is not a circle.
That link has been posted many times. By now we can only assume she chooses to remain ignorant.

Actually I have read the link you posted and I found this to be very interesting:

"The scientific method includes the following steps:

'observe' a phenomenon,
'Hypothesize' an explanation for the phenomenon,
'predict' a logical consequence of the guess,
'Test' the prediction, and
'review' for any mistakes.
Observation plays a role in the first and fourth steps in the above list. Reliance is placed upon the five physical senses: visual perception, hearing (sense), taste, feeling, and olfaction, and upon measurement techniques. It is therefore understood that there are always certain limitations in making observations."

So basically science makes a supposition about something, makes a prediction about that supposition and tests or observes to see if the predictions made about the supposition will come true by using "the five physical senses: visual perception, hearing (sense), taste, feeling, and olfaction, and upon measurement techniques."

The result is then passed of as fact (that is until it is proved wrong).

How did scientists come to the conclusion that evolution is a fact without having been able to duplicate this phenomenon in a controlled environment?

[BCO]

How did scientists come to the conclusion that evolution is a fact without having been able to duplicate this phenomenon in a controlled environment?

I love the double standard here. The evolutionist must duplicate evolution in a controlled environment whereas the creationist can simply say "god did it". I would like a creationist "scientist" to duplicate intelligent design in a controlled environment, kthx.

[mancombseepgood]

So basically science makes a supposition about something, makes a prediction about that supposition and tests or observes to see if the predictions made about the supposition will come true by using "the five physical senses: visual perception, hearing (sense), taste, feeling, and olfaction, and upon measurement techniques."
Reminds me of two comrades (one more equal than the other :D) walking through the forest in Siberia when they came across a steaming brown pile...
The officer says to the junior: "Look comrade! Looks like dog poop."
Junior: "Yes comrade, looks like dog poop"
Officer: "Smell it!"
Junior bends down to smell (pulling a face): "Yes comrade, smells like dog poop"
Officer: "Feel - feel it!"
Junior puts his finger into it reluctantly: "Yes, comrade, feels like dog poop"
Officer: "Taste - taste it!"
Junior can't believe his superior, but recuctantly obeys (almost retching): "Yes comrade... taste like dog poop"
Officer: "That was close! Thank goodness we didn't step in it!"
:D

[mancombseepgood]

I love the double standard here. The evolutionist must duplicate evolution in a controlled environment whereas the creationist can simply say "god did it". I would like a creationist "scientist" to duplicate intelligent design in a controlled environment, kthx.

That's not a double standard - it is from the scientific point of view that these things must be duplicated in a controlled environment.

[PostmanPot]

So basically science makes a supposition about something, makes a prediction about that supposition and tests or observes to see if the predictions made about the supposition will come true by using "the five physical senses: visual perception, hearing (sense), taste, feeling, and olfaction, and upon measurement techniques."

The result is then passed of as fact (that is until it is proved wrong).

basically, your idea of science is way too basic.

[Poppy]

I've read the bible. Recently. Its a load of ****.

You have read the bible in it's entirety yes? Therefore you are able to draw the conclusion that it is crap or a book of myths? In one fell swoop you are saying that all these historians and archeologists are all lying?

Read this and tell me if it is crap
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabonidus_Chronicle


It has not been authentically proven by science. It has been "proven" by pseudo science at "universities" and "research institutes" which were created for this specific purpose. The FACT is that the majority of scientists, make that the VAST majority of scientists, accept evolution as fact and Darwins theory of evolution through the process of natural selection also as proven fact.

So what you are basically saying is that we should take the words of the majority of scientiests who seem to be accepting suppositions and theories as fact when they have not to date been able to prove that it is indeed FACT!

How can a theory be fact?


If the evil bastards were trying to forward a theory that Evolution was guided by God rather than natural selection there may actually be grounds for scientific debate, but theyre not. They are trying to deny the ESTABLISHED FACT that evolution did take place over millions of years.

So anyone that questions the theory of evolution is evil? :rolleyes:


The real aim of Creationism is to weaken the laws that uphold the seperation of church and state in the US. Their ultimate goal is to make the US officially Christian. Not just Christian but fundamentalist Christian. Make no mistake creationists are fundamentalists through and through.

Is that a conclusion you came to by your unbiased observation? It would interest you to know that I am not in fact a creationist although I do believe in a Creator. My ultimate goal I might add is not to "to weaken the laws that uphold the seperation of church and state in the US. Their ultimate goal is to make the US officially Christian." My ultimate goal is to point out the flaws in the evolution "theory".

[Poppy]

Try following the thread genius. This is the third time this little gem of an argument has come up.

1. Evolution is not a random process. Saying that it is betrays a profound ignorance of the subject.
2.The argument is non-sensical.

http://dexview.com/archive/2004_12_01_archive.html

If something is not random then it must be selective. If evolution is selective then there must be something or someone who set the selection criteria.

Michael Behe who is a molecular biochemist admits that: "Over the past four decades modern biochemistry has uncovered the sercrets of the cell...The results of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell - to investigate life at the molecular level - is a loud, clear and piercing cry of design"

In recent years scientists and engineers have studied and mimicked the design features of various creatures (biomimetics) in an effort to create or improve products. Examples are the flippers of whales, seagull wings and even the gecko's feet (Synthetic materials) as an alternative to Velcro (based on the design found in the seeds of the burdock plant).

Is it logical that highly trained researchers who crudely mimic systems in nature to solve difficult engineering problems attribute the genius of devising the original idea to unintelligent evolution. If the copies require an intelligent designer, then what about the original?

[Poppy]

basically, your idea of science is way too basic.

Right! Please explain it in simple terms for me since my simple brain unlike your superior one cannot grasp it.

[Poppy]

evolution is science, creationism is pseudoscience.

And how did you come to that conclusion?

[Poppy]

Personally I think the world "needs" to reset in order for balance to be restored. The force had been unbalanced for a long time.

Yes we are in dire need of another random or "selective" accident to balance the universe.

[BCO]

http://dexview.com/archive/2004_12_01_archive.html

If something is not random then it must be selective.


Yes, it's called natural selection, aka survival of the fittest.

[icyrus]

And how did you come to that conclusion?

If you can't see the difference I suggest that you get a dictionary. That should clear it up for you.

[Poppy]

I love the double standard here. The evolutionist must duplicate evolution in a controlled environment whereas the creationist can simply say "god did it". I would like a creationist "scientist" to duplicate intelligent design in a controlled environment, kthx.

Please look to my above post on the way scientists and engineers have mimicked nature. That in itself tells you there must be someone who created the orinal.

[Poppy]

If you can't see the difference I suggest that you get a dictionary. That should clear it up for you.

A dictionary will not tell me which scientists are valid or invalid, so your answer does not make sense.

[Poppy]

Yes, it's called natural selection, aka survival of the fittest.

How does survival of the fittest fit into the human DNA? Or the begining of life?

[BCO]

Please look to my above post on the way scientists and engineers have mimicked nature. That in itself tells you there must be someone who created the orinal.

Why?

Evolution is an extremely elegant system which generates some wonderfully beautiful and complex results - results that engineers etc. would like to mimick in their designs. There is simply no need to postulate a creator. I suggest you take some time to understand evolution through natural selection, rather than just making misinformed statements the whole time.

[Poppy]

Actually I have read the link you posted and I found this to be very interesting:

"The scientific method includes the following steps:

'observe' a phenomenon,
'Hypothesize' an explanation for the phenomenon,
'predict' a logical consequence of the guess,
'Test' the prediction, and
'review' for any mistakes.
Observation plays a role in the first and fourth steps in the above list. Reliance is placed upon the five physical senses: visual perception, hearing (sense), taste, feeling, and olfaction, and upon measurement techniques. It is therefore understood that there are always certain limitations in making observations."

So basically science makes a supposition about something, makes a prediction about that supposition and tests or observes to see if the predictions made about the supposition will come true by using "the five physical senses: visual perception, hearing (sense), taste, feeling, and olfaction, and upon measurement techniques."

The result is then passed of as fact (that is until it is proved wrong).

How did scientists come to the conclusion that evolution is a fact without having been able to duplicate this phenomenon in a controlled environment?

I noticed that other than to disparage the above you simply ignored it?

[BCO]

How does survival of the fittest fit into the human DNA? Or the begining of life?

As I said in my previous post, take a few minutes to read up on evolution and you'll see exactly how survival of the fittest relates to DNA.

It's actually kind of pathetic how creationists are desparately trying to find god in the few remaining gaps that science hasn't yet explained.

The origins of life? Well considering there's over a billion billion planets out there, I think it's not unreasonable to conclude that on one of those planets, the right conditions arose for life to arise out of the primordeal soup.

[Poppy]

Why?

Evolution is an extremely elegant system which generates some wonderfully beautiful and complex results - results that engineers etc. would like to mimick in their designs. There is simply no need to postulate a creator. I suggest you take some time to understand evolution through natural selection, rather than just making misinformed statements the whole time.

Why do you have to all but call me a simpleton just because I call into question the theory of evolution? Are the questions I asked not valid?

[BCO]

Actually I have read the link you posted and I found this to be very interesting:

"The scientific method includes the following steps:

'observe' a phenomenon,
'Hypothesize' an explanation for the phenomenon,
'predict' a logical consequence of the guess,
'Test' the prediction, and
'review' for any mistakes.
Observation plays a role in the first and fourth steps in the above list. Reliance is placed upon the five physical senses: visual perception, hearing (sense), taste, feeling, and olfaction, and upon measurement techniques. It is therefore understood that there are always certain limitations in making observations."

So basically science makes a supposition about something, makes a prediction about that supposition and tests or observes to see if the predictions made about the supposition will come true by using "the five physical senses: visual perception, hearing (sense), taste, feeling, and olfaction, and upon measurement techniques."

The result is then passed of as fact (that is until it is proved wrong).

How did scientists come to the conclusion that evolution is a fact without having been able to duplicate this phenomenon in a controlled environment?

So you believe that simply saying "God did it" is a more thorough approach than the scientific method described above?

[BCO]

Why do you have to all but call me a simpleton just because I call into question the theory of evolution? Are the questions I asked not valid?

The questions you ask show a clear lack of understanding of the theory of evolution.

I'm not calling you a simpleton, I'm saying that you haven't even bothered trying to understand the theory.

[Poppy]

As I said in my previous post, take a few minutes to read up on evolution and you'll see exactly how survival of the fittest relates to DNA.

It's actually kind of pathetic how creationists are desparately trying to find god in the few remaining gaps that science hasn't yet explained.

The origins of life? Well considering there's over a billion billion planets out there, I think it's not unreasonable to conclude that on one of those planets, the right conditions arose for life to arise out of the primordeal soup.

Ok lets use your theory. You say that there are billions of planets which I agree with, but the vital question which science is unable to answer is how those planets came about. How did the right conditions come about (which by the way is a theory and not fact) who created those right conditions? Who created the soup?

[BCO]

Ok lets use your theory. You say that there are billions of planets which I agree with, but the vital question which science is unable to answer is how those planets came about. How did the right conditions come about (which by the way is a theory and not fact) who created those right conditions? Who created the soup?

Who created the creator?

Adding an extra step in at the beginning doesn't address the problem.

[Poppy]

The questions you ask show a clear lack of understanding of the theory of evolution.

I'm not calling you a simpleton, I'm saying that you haven't even bothered trying to understand the theory.

Ok correct me if I'm wrong:

Evolution: A process of change in a certain direction, such as the big changes in inanimate things- the development of the universe, small changes in living things (the way plants and animals adapt to their environment. Evolution is however most commonly used to describe the theory that life arose from inanimate chemicals, formed into self-replicating cells and slowly developed into more and more complex creatures, with man being the most intelligent of it's productions.

I hope I have satisfied you on my understanding of the theory of evolution? Now can we get back to debating without you constantly using that as a deflector?

[Poppy]

Who created the creator?

Adding an extra step in at the beginning doesn't address the problem.

The Creator is God who was never created, but has always been in existance.

[BCO]

Why is it ok for god to always have existed, but not for the universe to always have existed? Another logical inconsistency.

[icyrus]

A dictionary will not tell me which scientists are valid or invalid, so your answer does not make sense.

You asked how he came to the conclusion that evolution is science and that creation is pseudoscience, to which I responded that you should look both words up in a dictionary and how he came to that conclusion will be clear. So you either don't actually know what you asked or are changing it now.


Ok lets use your theory. You say that there are billions of planets which I agree with, but the vital question which science is unable to answer is how those planets came about. How did the right conditions come about (which by the way is a theory and not fact) who created those right conditions? Who created the soup?

The key point you left out is "which science is unable to answer [at the moment]".

You premise is wrong, you see everything as needing to be created by a higher-being.

[icyrus]

The Creator is God who was never created, but has always been in existance.

So the explanation of life is god, but there explanation of god is what?

How convenient...

[Poppy]

The small changes are refered to as microevolution and the big changes macroevolution.

The teachings of macroevolution rests on three assumption:
1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species.
2. Natural selection leads to the production of new species and
3. The fossil record documents macroevolutionary changes in plants and animals.

But the big questions are:

1. Is there anyway to test the bold claims made? Do a bit of research yourself on the results of over a 100 years of genetic research.
2. Is the evidence for macroevolution so strong that it should be considered fact?

[mancombseepgood]

Lol - yes - it's the universe's right to have existed...
I guess if the universe is a creation, then well... Do I need say more?

[ShaunSA]

Who created the soup?

By your own reasoning poppy... The soup has always been in existence. :D

[mancombseepgood]

You premise is wrong,

That is your opinion, not fact

[BCO]

2. Is the evidence for macroevolution so strong that it should be considered fact?

It should certainly be considered above purely unsubstatiated claims that "god did it".

[mancombseepgood]

By your own reasoning poppy... The soup has always been in existence. :D

I think you misunderstood? The creator has always been there (since you believe the physical realm has always been there, this should be easy to comprehend). The soup is the creation.

[Poppy]

You asked how he came to the conclusion that evolution is science and that creation is pseudoscience, to which I responded that you should look both words up in a dictionary and how he came to that conclusion will be clear. So you either don't actually know what you asked or are changing it now.

The key point you left out is "which science is unable to answer [at the moment]".

Infact what has science actually answered? Besides giving a supposition as to how life came about? Science has answered the how things function, but has only offered unsubstantiated theories about how life came about.


You premise is wrong, you see everything as needing to be created by a higher-being.

I won't agrue with that point, becuase life itself gives evidence of there being a creator. The bible then gives us more insight about that Creator.

[mancombseepgood]

It should certainly be considered above purely unsubstatiated claims that "god did it".

I think we're back to the whole thing of who actually thinks for themselves and who accepts what is given them as fact. My concience confirms that there is a Creator and that ***** is the Christ... that, I can assure you, was not shovelled down my throat (since I went to church for the first time a year after deciding to follow Christ).

The problem is that as Science produces new evidence, your understanding of the meaning of life will change with it. You are in the dark ages, as much as people were hundreds or thousands of years ago... relatively speaking.

[Poppy]

It should certainly be considered above purely unsubstatiated claims that "god did it".

And what evidence is that? Has there been an observation of macroevolution at work?

[BCO]

I think we're back to the whole thing of who actually thinks for themselves and who accepts what is given them as fact. My concience confirms that there is a Creator and that ***** is the Christ... that, I can assure you, was not shovelled down my throat (since I went to church for the first time a year after deciding to follow Christ).

The problem is that as Science produces new evidence, your understanding of the meaning of life will change with it. You are in the dark ages, as much as people were hundreds or thousands of years ago... relatively speaking.

Shoddy reasoning. You believe there's a god, so therefore there must be a god?

Doesn't work for me.

[ShaunSA]

I think you misunderstood? The creator has always been there (since you believe the physical realm has always been there, this should be easy to comprehend). The soup is the creation.

Maybe I did misunderstand poppy. I apologise poppy. It is prefectly obvious that my soup cannot just exist but your god can. I have no idea how logic like this escapes me. I am slow even on the best of days. Once again my apologies. :D

[BCO]

And what evidence is that? Has there been an observation of macroevolution at work?

has there been an observation of god?

Don't use an argument if you're unwilling to apply it to your own beliefs.

[teraside]

has there been an observation of god?

Don't use an argument if you're unwilling to apply it to your own beliefs.

Jesus

[icyrus]

That is your opinion, not fact

Not at all. How can you look at any alternate theories if in your own mind you can't get past the need for a creator?


Infact what has science actually answered? Besides giving a supposition as to how life came about? Science has answered the how things function, but has only offered unsubstantiated theories about how life came about.

Unsubstantiated? I believe the theories are backed by evidence, accepted by the vast vast majority of people educated in the respected fields.


I won't agrue with that point, becuase life itself gives evidence of there being a creator. The bible then gives us more insight about that Creator.

Life does not give evidence of a creator, that is how you interpret the evidence, that is a very big difference.

[BCO]

J-esus has not been an observation of god in the scientific sense.

[mancombseepgood]

has there been an observation of god?

Don't use an argument if you're unwilling to apply it to your own beliefs.



1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen....
3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.
It would not be called faith if it were based on seen evidence now would it. "Without faith it is impossible to please God". Your world revolves only around visible evidence, etc. etc. Christ said "Blessed are those who have not seen, but believed". It's not about visible evidence - that is the requirements of your domain, not the believer in Christ.

And going back to the source of faith - it all comes from hearing God's word...
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom%2010:17;&version=9;
The greek word used for "word" above is rhema - http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?strongs=4487

[Poppy]

Please read an excerpt taken from an "“Awake!”, September 2006, pp. 14,15 concerning mutation experiments:

“”In spite of an enormous financial expenditure,” says researcher Peter von Sengbusch, “the attempt to cultivate increasingly productive varieties by irradiation, widely proved to be a failure.” Lonnig said: “By the 1980’s the hopes and euphoria among scientists had ended in worldwide failure. Mutation breeding as a separate branch of research was abandoned in Western countries. Almost all the mutant exhibited ‘negative selection values,’ that is, they died or were weaker than wild varieties.””

Footnote: “Mutation experiments repeatedly found that the number of new mutants steadily declined, while the same type of mutants regularly appeared. Lonnig deduced from this phenomenon the “law of recurrent variation.”

“Even so, the data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lonnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability. Thus the law of recurrent variation implies that genetically properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.” End of Except from Awake

"This is the same thing found, btw, by evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky in his research on mutations and genetics – he observed equilibrium – variation about a mean – and when you examine his voluminous data you will see what Lonnig was talking about – e.g.: the law of recurrent variation.

Adding a longer period of time will not change the results – it simply enforces them due to the law of large numbers in probability and statistics.

The barrier between micro-evolution has been observed for some 100 years by many scientists researching this field; in contrast – macroevolution has never been observed.

In reference, for example, to Gould’s model of evolution called punctuated equilibrium: the equilibrium is observed, the punctuated part has never been observed – the latter is simply a human hypothesis (commonly called theory) postulated because the fossil record shows various kinds appearing suddenly in the record of the rocks with no apparent links to another kind. [Note, as in fruit fly experiments, dog breeding, and your example of the coelacanth, size does vary within genetic boundaries.]"

[mancombseepgood]

Life does not give evidence of a creator, that is how you interpret the evidence, that is a very big difference.

Not by your man invented yardstick it doesn't - but everyone has a concience and it's up to the individual to decide what to do with it... if you have been trained in the scientific way of proving everything before you believe it, well, that's all that will make sense to you.

[Poppy]

has there been an observation of god?

Don't use an argument if you're unwilling to apply it to your own beliefs.

:eek: Ofcourse! Creation gives evidence of a Creator.

[mancombseepgood]

I apologise poppy. It is prefectly obvious that my soup cannot just exist but your god can. I have no idea how logic like this escapes me. I am slow even on the best of days. Once again my apologies. :D

Just in case you didn't get it... creation comes from a creator. That's how God can exist in the first place... before the creation.
However, I never said it is easy to comprehend the creator, so don't worry - but indeed if there is a creator, he is able to show himself to you if you are really interested to know him... that much makes sense?
And indeed, don't expect him to make himself known to you if you don't really want to know him in the first place... (that's not to say that he won't do it anyway - read Saul -> Paul)

[Poppy]

An Except from a forum

"The Pleiotropy and Pleiotropic phenomena!

Pleiotropic genes are a powerful argument against the theory of macro-evolution.

Molecular biology has shown that homologous (similar) traits are often from non-homologous genes. Worse for evolution than that is the fact that many genes are pleiotropic, ie. - they code for very variant traits all in one gene. One trait will be similar to that of another kind, but another trait in the SAME gene will be for a totally different trait not shared by the two species which are being claimed to be related by descent.

In short, similarity does not prove descent.

most genes are pleiotropic (one gene coding for more than one trait - often highly unrelated from outward appearances), and that therefore macroevolution makes no sense

There are many obstacles to macro-evolution models, such as the origin of new organs or members which come from pleiotropic (coding for many traits) genes.

The pattern of genetic similarities, such as the phenomenon of equidistance, is considered, along with pleiotropy and other molecular and genetic evidence in the book "Evolution, a Theory in Crisis," by Michael Denton.

One of the questions that should be asked is whether homologous (similar) structures or organs come from homologous (same) genes - especially in view of the pleiotropy (one gene for dissimilar [not related] traits) common in many genes - i.e. the evidence of molecular biology.

The problem of homologous structures from non-homolygous genes, and also the problem of pleiotropy - genes controling divergent traits rather than just one trait makes nonsense of classical Darwinian models of macro-evolution, such as evolution of the wing."

[icyrus]

Not by your man invented yardstick it doesn't - but everyone has a concience and it's up to the individual to decide what to do with it... if you have been trained in the scientific way of proving everything before you believe it, well, that's all that will make sense to you.


:eek: Ofcourse! Creation gives evidence of a Creator.

Well the debate is not about whether you are entitled to believe whatever stories you want. By all means believe whatever you want. Put your faith wherever you like, but as soon as you suggest that your beliefs and faith should be taught in schools we have a problem.