I agree, faith is what motivates a lot of people to keep on going through hard times and the like. I feel that that is one of the things that Science can't really provide, the closest we have is anti-depressents, lol.
Problem with religion (organized usually) is that it often times creates a certain narrow-mindedness, and it can be used to control people.
But there are many things that are like that. "Nationalisim", has claimed more lives than any religious wars or hate crimes.
Originally posted by NonSensi-KlownNow combine the two. Nationologyism: Crusading and Unifying since 2003.
I agree, faith is what motivates a lot of people to keep on going through hard times and the like. I feel that that is one of the things that Science can't really provide, the closest we have is anti-depressents, lol.Problem with religion (organized usually) is that it often times creates a certain narrow-mindedness, and it can be used to control people.
But there are many things that are like that. "Nationalisim", has claimed more lives than any religious wars or hate crimes.
Originally posted by NonSensi-Klown
But there are many things that are like that. "Nationalisim", has claimed more lives than any religious wars or hate crimes.
The two World Wars a great examples of this. They had nothing to do with religion; however a combined 80-90 million people were killed between the two.
The combined Mongol conquests killed close to 40 million people, nothing religious about that. To say that religious wars claimed the most lives is false.
They were violent yes, but not the sole greatest reason of death.
Originally posted by truejedi
thats the problem with this whole stupid website. Right there. No one on this website actually has ANY idea how to debate.1. An insult is not a comeback. Many don't understand that. Its truly not.
2. Debating "Logic" when it comes to fiction is a fallacy in and of itself.
There is no logical way to describe by feats, or by written accolades, or by actual fights (rematches do not always produce the same winner) who is going to actually win a fight. Not one fight in all of the star wars universe can be proven. Not one. They are hypothetical fiction.
1. I didn't need a comeback- I hadn't begun to speak with him yet. This was a way to "call him out" that by its very nature had to be confrontational. In the last debate he ran away rather than debate me, and I felt that the best way to elicit a response- to recieve a response at all- would be an insult. It may have been childish, but it worked. I got what I wanted (a response) and he got what he wanted (...actually, I'm not sure about that. I know I got what I wanted, so I don't really care.)
2. While the premises may be false (Star wars isn't real) the exercise of applying logic to the sources we have in order to reach a valid conclusion is logical. None of the debates here are relevant, or in the end (usually) even settled. The process of debating is what is important- I'd like to think that while I've been here I've improved considerably.
Originally posted by truejedi
Red, you are one of the few that i actually respect on this website. For you to make that statement above makes it pretty clear to me that this website is a waste of time. I think i've outgrown the demographic that used to be on this site.
Originally posted by truejedi
Teenage trolling, the insults, the absolute degredation of someone based on their interpretation of a fictional novel is not only ridiculous, its a waste of time. Too many arguments recently have ended with everyone agreeing to disagree anyway. I am yet to see one person change their mind once. Whats the point?
I guess the debate with Gideon a few weeks ago finally did it for me, coupled with realizing that EVERYONE does the pointless trolling.To spend that many hours discussing something, only to have him back out of what he was obviously implying on a technicality was ridiculous. If winning a fictional argument is that important to someone: Have at it.
I'm finished.
If you ever come back (and I'm still here- which isn't likely: I have less free time than I used to) I'll be up for an argument.
Honestly, I don't really know how to reply to this. If you aren't having fun, then don't post. Part of the draw of the intrawebs is the conflict inherent in anonymous communication. If you need a break then I strongly suggest you take one.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
I'm not attempting to force my view on anyone. IN fact, you brought it up I believe, with the attempt to start an argument. If I were to partake in this debate, I would be "forcing my view" upon you, and instantly I am made the bad guy.
No, you're completely misunderstand what I said.
Look, dude. I live in a supposedly 'democractic' country where the minister of education is a conservative right-winged character- in other words, I'm regularly exposed to (subtle) religious propaganda in my school. Hell, I'm even forced to learn in a class that is actually called "Inheritance".
You see, that's forcing your beliefs upon someone. And I also believe that calling for the complete ban of abortions is also that- it's forcing a certain view of the world upon others, who do not necessarily endorse of believe in it.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Maybe the hypothesis of evolutio n is based on a fear of death? Maybe it is based upon scientists who want everyone to have the same afterlife regardless of their actions. perhaps, but this assumes that the religion is false. Indeed. You can count me out of that kind of thing. As your beliefs are unique, so are my own. I believe in Jesus, but not in religion, if you can fathom such a thing.
Jesus is a Christian thing. You are therefore Christian.
And no, you make no sense. Evolution is about how species adapt, evolve, and how new species come into being- it has absolutely nothing to do with 'life past death'. Science doesn't attempt to explain what is beyond death.
I'm sorry, I understand it's difficult to accept, but ultimately, science, logic, and facts basically say you cease to exist when you die. That's hard to comprehend, and it's scary. If believing in heaven or hell makes you feel better, go for it. But shunning reality in favor of superstition is not something I agree with.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Catholicism is a RELIGION created by SOCIETY to control people.
Correct.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
You have it wrong. If you don't accept Jesus, you burn in hell.
You see, that's the little thing I have a problem with. Or not so little. What you just said was absolutely revolting, no offense. You're basically saying that anyone who isn't Christian will burn in hell. Yes, that's control and domination right there. Attempting to scare people into becoming Christians, for fear of 'divine retribution'. You'll be surprised at the power they have.
And, WTF? Is that truly your almighty God's will? If you don't adhere to a strict, narrow set of principles and beliefs, you will burn in hell, regardless of your other actions? Some of the greatest people in history- the ones that helped mankind the most- were not religious. Are you saying they're gonna burn in hell because they don't think like you do?
Plus, I'm going to ask you go to past the text of the bible- and its interpretation by 'Christian authorities'- and tell me why you think Jesus existed. The moment you start asking for proof and logical substantiation, religion starts to fail.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
And why you think there is a hell.Most evangelical Christians don't follow someone who controls them. Hell, if my pastor wore robes and started telling me what to do it'd be "so long and farewell" to him.
You're evangelical?
Please, please, please tell me you're not evangelical.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Sure. But it all depends on what those morals are. Modern day Christians follow the new testament and then pick through the old testament, the one that teaches things like "animal sacrifice" as they believe that god sent his son so we don't have to follow many of the older rules.
What makes the new testament better than the old one, huh? In fact, what makes it true?
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
that is where you are wrong. There are principals that must be followed to an absolute for evident reasons, such as their detrimental effects on society and that if you don't draw a line in the sand and live with some measure of self controll, what is the point? read the ten commandments, and the only one you can really have any sort of problem with, even from a secular standpoint, are the first few that refer to god and other gods.
I'm aware of the ten commandments, thank you very much.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
traditions such as.... ?
Well, I'm actually not sure 'traditions' are the correct word. More like a certain set of beliefs. Like believing the homosexuality is 'wrong', for instance.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Muslims.
There's nothing in the ordinary Muslim practice that encourages them to commit genocide. Christians are not better than Muslims, which is what you're implying now.
Wait a second... WHAT THE ****?! Do you have any clue what you're talking about? The Crusades were waged against Muslims and other religions by Christians. The Crusaders resulted in the mass-murder of millions of people, and were waged specifically by Christians for political, religious, social, and 'domination-inspired' reasons.
The Muslims never conducted the Crusades.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
radical catholic people who believed that the church and god were just a method to attain earthly power.
Really? Prove it. Being a major religious figure is power. Power corrupts. Whatever it is, those 'radical Catholics' commited mass-genocide in the name of god.
And don't pretend Christians never killed anyone.
Witch-burning, perhaps? And Christians often murdered or threatened individuals who weren't Christian when they invaded their homeland and took control of their country directly against their will.
So, yes. 'Faith in god' can, as history has proven, end in murder.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
I don't get this one. While hitler may have said he was a christian, his motives were genetic perfection.
Bullshit, as Nemesis had demonstrated. The primary identity of Hitler's targets are 'Jews'. 'Jews' are part of a religion called 'Judaism'. And they were hunted and down and murdered specifically because of that.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
all muslim
Once again, implications that muslims are lesser than Christians. This goes nicely with you set of beliefs that somehow anyone who isn't Christian will go to hell.
And did I mention the KKK?
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
really what it is is best described by what you said Its not god, its his followers.
Would god let his followers commit atrocious acts of cruelty and sadism in his name? He's either incompetent or does not give a flying ****. Or he doesn't exist.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
would you like god more if he came down and forced homosexuals to be straight, forced everyone to love each other, stopped all wars, and made everyone follow in his will?
I cannot believe you just said that.
Wait, yes I can...
With the exception of 'stop all wars' and 'force everyone to love each other', what you are not describing is a 'forced' ideal world.
In a classic demonstration of religious bigotry and discrimination, you're directly implying that somehow homosexuality is 'wrong', 'unnatural', and 'against god'. They're people, just like you and me. They don't need 'fixing'.
This is also one of the many faults of religion- the desperate attempts to 'fix' people who have done absolutely nothing wrong, but apparently are against the principles of the religion.
In addition, god should prevent his own followers from commiting murder and massacre in his name. Yes, he should stop war and genocide. Why? Because he has omniscent power over, well, everything, and if he truly loved life, he would not allow such acts of violence to come into play in his world.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
I'm not attempting to force my view on anyone. IN fact, you brought it up I believe, with the attempt to start an argument. If I were to partake in this debate, I would be "forcing my view" upon you, and instantly I am made the bad guy.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Once again, god doesn't require worship, but he wants it, and he doesn't want anyone to die, but his followers took things too far.
Okay, let's take your ridiculous little statement and rip it apart.
You're associating god with mortal traits- namely, the requirement of worship. And it's apparently to a selfish end, because he wants to be glorified and thanked by mortals- these are all flawed, human traits.
And if he didn't 'want' worship, he could have made his existence unknown to mankind- therefore, there would be no such thing as 'religion', which would remove a GIGANTIC amount of the discrimination and religion-driven crimes of the world. Basically, we'd have a happier existence if there was no concept of 'god' or 'religion'- billions of lives would have been spared, actually.
Not only that, we'd have more concept of truly free choice outside of a book of rules and traditions that everyone must, supposedly, follow because God says so (aren't we given full range of choice?). We would make decisions not based on what a big invisible man thinks about them.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
no, because we are given a choice.
The bible's stories, philosophies, and God's supposed omnipotence suggest that God's principle is 'The plan is set but the choice is given'. That's a load of crap. If we're all part of a divine plan, we never have true choice- because God knows everything that has been, is going on, and will be, and so he already has a definitive plan for percisely what we're going to do. So, no, we don't truly have a choice. If you believe in religion.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
And our fathers were given a choice. If adam and eve hadn't sinned (yes i know) then none of this would have happened, but we are in darkness, and the source of our problems is from men, not god. If god came down and made everyone be perfect and forced everyone to be good, we would be royaly and absolutely SCREWED.
1. Prove Adam and Eve existed. Or at least substantiate why you believe that, outside of what is written in a fictional book.
2. God's omnipotence means he can do every single thing in existence- and because God lets men (particularly his followers) commit atrocities, he lets thousands of lives get lost. According to Biblical stories, punishment was inflicted upon severe sinners like that- I don't see any punishment coming to the mass, fanatic murderers. Isn't it all part of the plan, anyway? Is it part of the plan that we suffer and die? God knows everything. Never forget that. Why does he let such people come into being? Does he not love life?
I don't care about 'choice' in these cases- if that certain choice is to cause the endless destruction of the world, then I'd rather have god stop all of these evil, sadistic choices.
And clearly, he doesn't. Why does he let so many people get killed? Is that justice? Why does he not do a a single goddamn thing about it?
That's not to mention that this entire thing contradicts your view on abortion. If god believes in 'choice', then shouldn't he believe in 'choice' for women to do what they want to do?
Apparently, he simply does not give a **** about the millions of deaths happening because of the (selfish, according to you) belief in him. Yeah, great. And he doesn't have to make absolute revisions- but, like at the moment, things get overboard and he doesn't do a single goddamn thing.
And, at this point, you degenerated into ridiculous insults (including "Insolent Bastard", which sounds like it came out of a Monty Python comedy), all the while whining about me insulting you (when I merely called you a 'fanatic'- you told me I was going to go to hell, called Blax a ****ing idiot, made death threats against Nemesis, and called me a little ****). So, yeah, don't act saintly. You're a hypocrite, actually, considering you started the insulting, the baiting. And I didn't cop-out of anything- I posted a decimation of your ridiculous points regarding abortion, and then you ran away and attempted to make a joke about abortion in Star Wars. And then I posted a rant and you told me I going to go to hell and didn't give a rat's ass about what I thought (after which you posted a heated- but, of course, ridiculous- 'rebuttal'😉.
So much for intelligent debate. And, fundamentally, prove the following:
1. God exists.
2. Jesus exists.
3. Heaven and hell are the afterlife.
4. Your beliefs about God are the 'correct' beliefs.
5. Evolution is a load of crap. CREATIONISM FTW!!1!!!
6. All of the scientific experimentation, tests, analysis, and deductions that prove both evolution and that the world is WAY older than 6,000 are nothing next to the word of a fallible book written by a control-obsessed dude.
Originally posted by Red NemesisDon't cry about insults and then say "I'm willing to have an insult fight" in the same post. It is embarrassing.
The fact that you believe in something does not make that fact. Evolution has by no means been established, and in many cases, creationism seems far more plausible.
You are being fanatical in that you are ignoring facts (evolution)
and threatening those who disagree with you with the specter of Hell (moderately intimidating)excuse me. I did not mean to threaten anyone. I said "I didn't care what they believed and I would see them in hell", which is somewhat different. I was not hoping to change views or create a debate with this statement, but to end one and be left alone.
or a "internet flame war" with you (not intimidating in the least).I agree that it is not intimidating in the least, but I am not so high and mighty that I will not partake in offensive mudslinging with another. If that's what he wants to do for an argument, I can do that as well as present my facts and interpret them.
You haven't yet had an unbeatable point, and if you come up with one, I'll eat my hat. ([/folksy humor]fine. How was the eye developed according to evolution? how were two developed? How did the primitive animals "know" about light enough to develop an instrument that uses the reflections and the emition of light to sense three dimensional objects in real time?
I heard that it works on republicans and Christians alike)
I am not trying to force anything upon anyone. I simply don't believe that the hypothesis of evolution consists of enough fact to be taught as a conflicting belief in a government school, something that children are forced by the government to attend. If I believe that creationism is fact, which I do, I don't want to send my children to an institution that will brainwash them until they think otherwise. My alternative? teach neither, and allow the parents to teach the origin of the universe, as this is irrelevant to the student's lives and there is not enough scientific and documented proof to teach either as fact in a school of education.
Since the dawn of human history. Religion makes unverifiable claims (which is cool- I guess that's what the 1st amendment is for) that they then try to pass of as scientific fact (which is also cool- if they want to hamstring their children in today's world then it's their prerogative) and try to teach in the science classroom (which is not cool because freedom of religion is also freedom from religion- no one sect can force its teachings onto those of another creed.)
Religion is inherently illogical- at least, faith, the cornerstone of religion is. Their starting premise is flawed, any logical deductions they make from then are are therefore incorrect. [/B]This is really why I have to classify evolution as religion as well. Light snake said that because scientists follow evolution, and they are smarter than him, that he should blindly follow evolution, and that is what I mean. This blind faith that is generated because the schools teach a very debatable belief as fact.
Originally posted by Red NemesisExactly what I speak of. Instead of making a case, you decide to dismiss it.If you notice, I was the one to initiate the insults, and that is because your "views" are completely Batshit insane. Again, I think you should at least acknowledge that your opinions are not based in reality- they are based upon 2000+ year old fiction.
Indeed, so if there is no afterlife, then there is no punishment for your actions. Its really where I see alot of the blind following of evolution coming from when looking at many scientists.
This is your first (in this thread) blatant misrepresentation of the theory of evolution. Count them with me.Evolution does not imply any afterlife or lack thereof- it is based in empirical evidence, not in conjecture about what happens to consciousness after death. The afterlife is not a scientific issue- because it can't be tested or verified empirically- there is no substantiating proof to suggest an afterlife at all. It is, scientifically speaking, both irrelevant and fictional.
This was (in my analysis) a pared down and necessarily cursory examination of the roots of religion, with a veiled reference to Pascal's Wager. One must not believe the in the delusions of the religion to examine its origins.
[quote]
That you can't see that you're being controlled- that you glory in it, is perhaps more disturbing than the control itself. Even if you are not being controlled by a living, breathing human being, you are being influenced (and therefore controlled) by a long dead human (Jesus Christ). His teachings, interpreted by the clergy, have control over your life. By focusing on the important facts, we can see that the clergy do have a large impact on your life- that they do so in someone else's name doesn't change a thing.
I don't think so. Actually, its the new testament that decides what rules are still important. Also you mistake what I believe with what religious people believe.
Who decides what rules are still important? That's right- the clergy. Hey look, we've found another instance where you're wrong!
Yes, because to follow your own guidelines is humanistic. The instant I see Jesus christ's teachings as false, I will stop following them.
You are so blind to their influence that you can use it as a point in your debates, and still not see that your actions are determined by someone else's guidelines.
um... actually, they did. George Washington, for instance, was a christian, as was Thomas Jefferson, who wrote that 'all men are created equal.
I don't know what your point is. Are you saying that religion should be followed because its rules are beneficial to society? That may have been true once, but people don't get their morality from the bible now, if they ever did.
That your edicts happen to coincide with civilized behavior is only a recent occurence- Lott was willing to allow his two daughters to be gang raped rather than let his guests be harmed, and he was a devout man (the only one worth saving in Gammorah) Christianity has some messed up Sh*t.um.... your point? Lot was far from the most stellar example of human decency, and is probably one of the best examples for the fact that even christians can sink pretty damn far.
These people all acted out of a sincere and earnest desire to serve God. They believed that God wanted them to torture and kill their enemies, so they did so. It is that simple.
Not so. From Mein Kampf:
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."He was pretty definitely a Christian.
The muslims are the only ones who believe that Yahwe and allah are the same person.
I thought I'd save some room on the one liner- Muslims believe in god too. Yahwe=Allah. Omnipotence+Omniscience+Omnibenevolence=Yahwe AND Allah.
yes, but that is your own personal preference, and what is a game without challenge and a reward? And there is only one measure of criteria by which they measure your worth for heaven, and that is whether or not you've accepted Jesus as your savior. following the archdeacon of the holy church of people who wipe their asses with Clorox wipes doesn't matter. ever.
As for the other point, about the dictatorship- it would be better to have a dictatorship for 70-80 years rather than live in a manner (apparently) against God's will and get damned to hell for all eternity. Being Damned (technical term-I'm note even swearing) for eternity due to a finite amount of sins is automatically and inherently unfair.
??? No duh something has gone wrong. And its not my interpretation that is imperfect, although I have no doubt in my head that they are, its the people who would commit such atrocities.
You just admitted that your/christian interpretations of the bible are imperfect. If the bible is god's will, and it is against god's will to murder in the name of religion, yet murder has occured b/c of religion, then something has gone wrong. As my dad would say: "You must've messed up somewhere."
I never said that. Once again, a parody of my voice with a misquote proves your bias.1. You never responded to my last post regarding creationism- you cried about how you'd "beated LS so CREATON IS TEH ROX!" but weren't willing to debate with someone who knows what the hell they're talking about. (no offense to LS meant.)
No more flawed than yours.
2. I insulted you because you have proved reluctant to debate with me in the past, in my experience people are more likely to respond if you call them an idiot, or question their worldview- Which you are, and is flawed, respectively.
No insults please, you are already a step away from being put on ignore as a child with no knowledge of how to debate correctly.
3. I hadn't begun to debate, and so really, I haven't thrown any insults during the debate, which is all that you're crying about anyway.
No hypocrisy. My post states that If he wants to debate, I will debate, if he wants to be a little bastard and have a flame war, I can do that as well. But having a flame war and calling it debating is childish.
4. Way to simultaneously by a pompous ass, condescend to MC about using insults, and fill your post with enough sophomoric insults to fill a highschool. When someone feels threatened on a KMC debate they don't resort to insults, they resort to hypocrisy, which is what you have done here. Knock it off.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
my point is that he should keep them seperate. If he wants to have an insult fight, I am perfectly willing. If he wants to debate, I am certainly willing to do that as well. What I can't stand is that every time I start a debate, it ends with the other side starting a flame war, with very few exceptions.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
The fact that you believe in something does not make that fact. Evolution has by no means been established, and in many cases, creationism seems far more plausible.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
excuse me. I did not mean to threaten anyone.
if you still feel that this is appropriate to be doing to someone that could very well be a human being, come talk to me again and I will kill you for your psychopathic insanity.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
I said "I didn't care what they believed and I would see them in hell", which is somewhat different. I was not hoping to change views or create a debate with this statement, but to end one and be left alone. I agree that it is not intimidating in the least, but I am not so high and mighty that I will not partake in offensive mudslinging with another.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
If that's what he wants to do for an argument, I can do that as well as present my facts and interpret them. fine.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
How was the eye developed according to evolution? how were two developed?
And viola! - the evolution of a camera-type eye is complete after a series of Darwin's "insensible gradations".
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
How did the primitive animals "know" about light enough to develop an instrument that uses the reflections and the emition of light to sense three dimensional objects in real time?
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
an attempt at humor? how quaint.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
I am not trying to force anything upon anyone. I simply don't believe that the hypothesis of evolution consists of enough fact to be taught as a conflicting belief in a government school, something that children are forced by the government to attend. If I believe that creationism is fact, which I do, I don't want to send my children to an institution that will brainwash them until they think otherwise. My alternative? teach neither, and allow the parents to teach the origin of the universe, as this is irrelevant to the student's lives and there is not enough scientific and documented proof to teach either as fact in a school of education.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
This is really why I have to classify evolution as religion as well. Light snake said that because scientists follow evolution, and they are smarter than him, that he should blindly follow evolution, and that is what I mean. This blind faith that is generated because the schools teach a very debatable belief as fact.
Also, that LS was convinced by someone smarter than him is of no surprise- the evidence for evolution is compelling and complete. Reluctance to accept the truth occurs solely in situations where religion interferes.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Exactly what I speak of. Instead of making a case, you decide to dismiss it.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Indeed, so if there is no afterlife, then there is no punishment for your actions. Its really where I see alot of the blind following of evolution coming from when looking at many scientists.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
No, its not being controlled. Its about the line in the sand, choosing to live your life according to something bigger than yourself. Jesus's teachings are what I chose to follow, and choose to find proof for and argue for because I believe that they are right, and it is my personal choice.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
I don't think so. Actually, its the new testament that decides what rules are still important. Also you mistake what I believe with what religious people believe.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Yes, because to follow your own guidelines is humanistic. The instant I see Jesus christ's teachings as false, I will stop following them.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
um... actually, they did. George Washington, for instance, was a christian, as was Thomas Jefferson, who wrote that 'all men are [b]created equal.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
um.... your point? Lot was far from the most stellar example of human decency, and is probably one of the best examples for the fact that even christians can sink pretty damn far.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Actually, many of the people who joined the catholic church joined it for protection from the catholic church, and when power came to them later on, they weren't going to say no.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
and a psychopath, who's beliefs were that the Aryans were a master race, who must be the only ones left to propagate so that they would evolve better.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
The muslims are the only ones who believe that Yahwe and allah are the same person.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
yes, but that is your own personal preference, and what is a game without challenge and a reward? And there is only one measure of criteria by which they measure your worth for heaven, and that is whether or not you've accepted Jesus as your savior. following the archdeacon of the holy church of people who wipe their asses with Clorox wipes doesn't matter. ever.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
??? No duh something has gone wrong. And its not my interpretation that is imperfect, although I have no doubt in my head that they are, its the people who would commit such atrocities. I never said that. Once again, a parody of my voice with a misquote proves your bias.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
No more flawed than yours.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
No insults please, you are already a step away from being put on ignore as a child with no knowledge of how to debate correctly. No hypocrisy.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
My post states that If he wants to debate, I will debate, if he wants to be a little bastard and have a flame war, I can do that as well. But having a flame war and calling it debating is childish.
I'm not gonna flame you, so go ahead and say what you want to without worrying about one-upping me: I'm trying to stay away from ad homenim attacks. I will call you on them from now on. (assuming, of course, that you make any. I trust you are able to resist.)
Originally posted by Red Nemesisthat is because I got tired of LS continuously restating the same things after I had just disproved them and posting large encyclopedia size websites of evolutionary "knowledge". He threw insults and I stated that he was an idiot and goodbye.I will not initiate it. There will be no flame war blamed on me. Also, I wasn't aware that there was a flame war in the thread with LS, but when I stepped in you were nowhere to be found. I don't think I've actually participated in a war yet.
I'm sure that he was a good little evolutionist. I have quotes from evolutionists as well: "There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."--Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.
Actually, evolution is widely accepted in the scientific community- the avowed (essentially ID'er) Francis Collins, a devout Catholic and leader of the Human Genome project said in his book The Language of God that "No serious biologist today doubts the theory of evolution to explain the marvelous complexity and diversity of life." (pg. 99)
Creationism is only more believable when one does not have all of the facts- an unbiased look at the empirical data suggests that the Theory of Evolution is in fact, accurate.Really, like how the THEORY evolution requires that both [b]LAWS of thermodynamics must be invalid?
Please, don't piss on my leg and call it rain.
I would like to see physical proof that a fish could have a light sensitive mutation. And it would be pretty amazing for it to mutate both a light sensitive patch, the nerves traveling to the brain, a whole in its skull (Assuming it had one) for the nerves to relay their information to, and do it enough and not be a random one in a billion occurrence, but to become hereditary, and then for that mutation to mutate more and more and more very gradually until it became a fine tuned light sensor. It's something that I would consider impossible, even in the most amazing of circumstances.
Contrary to popular belief, evolution does not tack on random parts to see if they work. Evolution through natural selection emphasizes the mutations inherent in the gene pool and promotes the survival (and therefore spread) of successful traits. A primordial fish with a photosensitive patch on the front of its head will have an edge over fish that don't have the patch- making it more likely to survive to pass on its genes.
"Photons travel very fast and in a straight line. It was only necessary to detect them and- more difficult still- determine the directions from which they came." (Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins) He goes on to explain that a curved surface allows for elimination of some directions, until eventually (with the pinhole system in our own eye) the system is perfect enough to allow for the written word, facial recognition and other wonders of the human mind:This is another problem I have with darwinism. They write this huge thesis on their theory, but at the end, everything you just posted is a theory, and Idea that someone had as to how something happened hypothetically however many billions of years ago. They don't have a fossil or a modern day animal that is undergoing such a change. You realize that without scientific evidence or something like that I'm not going to concede on any point. as the rules of the internet would say, "pics, or it didn't happen." This isn't star wars where you can quote a bit of text and use it as an argument, it has to be something I can find for myself, read about, and accept as something they actually found, touched, smelled, felt, or have seen occurring in nature.And viola! - the evolution of a camera-type eye is complete after a series of Darwin's "insensible gradations".
I understand it, what I meant really is how would it develop the nerves to the light sensitive spot, and why would it be specifically on the front/sides of the creature's head in all examples of known physical anatomy?
Animals don't need to "know" how to do anything. They don't chose to develop a certain adaption over another, it happens naturally. The frequent anthropomorphism of natural selection causes many of the misunderstandings of evolutionary biology.
First off, the theory of evolution has been elevated well past the stage of hypothesis. To be a theory, the concept must be supported by loads of observational evidence, in addition to making verifiable predictions about the natural world. Evolution fills both criteria.
Creationism, young earth or otherwise, and even in the guise of ID fulfills neither of the requirements.You must understand me, I believe in creationism, I believe in god, and I believe in the entire bible as fact. What I am not going to argue is that it is science that should be taught as fact in schools. Why? Because while there is some proof and fact supporting creationism and the bible, I would be a gigantic hypocrite of record breaking proportions to say that creationism should be taught in schools and evolution is not because there is not enough evidence to support evolution My conclusion is that until one has been proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, neither theory should be taught in schools as fact.
Or wrong?
LS was probably short on time, or exasperated.
The difference between religion and science is that given time and the chance to make the same observations, people will reach the same conclusions. That is actually what science is based on- peer review. Not everyone has a gene sequencer in their basement though, so we must trust the integrity of scientists to relay data accurately. They must do so anyway, because if they falsified evidence or made a mistake, their colleagues would be all over them pointing out their error.LS was not convinced, He just decided that his argument was better proven through juvenile actions and direct plagiarism. And honestly, most of the people I have talked to have muttered something about the "head scientists saying evolution is true" which is blind faith. Very few have the knowledge or the intelligence to present their cases rationally, instead they say that they only believe it because someone else told them to, which is my point.Also, that LS was convinced by someone smarter than him is of no surprise- the evidence for evolution is compelling and complete. Reluctance to accept the truth occurs solely in situations where religion interferes.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
that is because I got tired of LS continuously restating the same things after I had just disproved them and posting large encyclopedia size websites of evolutionary "knowledge". He threw insults and I stated that he was an idiot and goodbye.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
I'm sure that he was a good little evolutionist. I have quotes from evolutionists as well: "There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."--Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Really, like how the [b]THEORY evolution requires that both [b]LAWS of thermodynamics must be invalid?
The laws of thermodynamics are not violated in any way by the theory of evolution, and if they were, someone would have said something. The 2nd law (which I suspect you are dealing with) deals with entropy. It says, specifically, that "The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium." (I admit that I copied the wording from wikipedia.) The effect of this is that energy can not be increased within a closed system. Some YE creationists claim that life and the evolution thereof violates the second law. It doesn't. If earth was a closed system, it might. Earth, however, gains energy from the sun, as well as the gravitational pull of the moon on earth's oceans. Our planet is constantly being bombarded by high energy particles and EM radiation, so it is by no means a closed system. Energy is gained from the sun and is wicked up through the food chain.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
lol never heard it put that way before.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
And most of the "threats" concerning abortion where rhetorical scenarios creating the question of "why should you get to live, while the baby dies?" However, I am done with abortion, arguing abortion would make me angry enough to leave.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
I would like to see physical proof that a fish could have a light sensitive mutation.
If we look at medicine, we can not ignore how the diseases react to the drugs. When an antibiotic is administered, not all of the target is destroyed. For whatever reason, some of the disease causing bacteria survive. Of the ones that do, many will have done so because of some sort of variation from the genetic code. Such is the utility of diversity within a population. Because they are the only ones to have survived, they have less competition. In the next generation the mutation that allowed them to survive will be overrepresented, lessening the effect of antibiotics when used excessively.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
And it would be pretty amazing for it to mutate both a light sensitive patch, the nerves traveling to the brain, a hole in its skull (Assuming it had one) for the nerves to relay their information to, and do it enough and not be a random one in a billion occurrence, but to become hereditary, and then for that mutation to mutate more and more and more very gradually until it became a fine tuned light sensor.
Becoming hereditary is no obstacle- these transmissions happen in the genetic code- if it grows because of a mutation, it will be passed to its offspring. A light sensitive patch was the starting premise, but lets back up some more. A tiny primordial shrimp is in competition with other shrimp. Its species is blind. The first step for our hypothetical protagonist is to develop pigment molecules. We know from our inquiries into physics that light is composed of photons. When it strikes a molecule of a colored substance it may be affected- the photon would be stopped in its tracks- releasing energy. In plants, this energy is used to fuel photosynthesis. It is not a stretch to think that our shrimp's nervous system could be able to pick up this energy released when it is struck by light and from there it is a variable that can be operated upon by natural selection. The tiny ancient lifeforms (and today's- modern microbes can be killed with UV, which is just more EM radiation) were shaped and influenced by the extreme environment they lived in, and had short lifespans. Over millions of years, the eye had time to evolve.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
It's something that I would consider impossible, even in the most amazing of circumstances.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
This is another problem I have with darwinism. They write this huge thesis on their theory, but at the end, everything you just posted is a theory, and Idea that someone had as to how something happened hypothetically however many billions of years ago. They don't have a fossil or a modern day animal that is undergoing such a change.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
You realize that without scientific evidence or something like that I'm not going to concede on any point. as the rules of the internet would say, "pics, or it didn't happen."
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
This isn't star wars where you can quote a bit of text and use it as an argument, it has to be something I can find for myself, read about, and accept as something they actually found, touched, smelled, felt, or have seen occurring in nature.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
I understand it, what I meant really is how would it develop the nerves to the light sensitive spot, and why would it be specifically on the front/sides of the creature's head in all examples of known physical anatomy?
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
I must have never talked to an educated evolutionist, (and this includes university professors) but I have never debated or talked to someone who was able to give me irrefutable proof, but rather excuses for why there is none.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
You must understand me, I believe in creationism, I believe in god, and I believe in the entire bible as fact. What I am not going to argue is that it is science that should be taught as fact in schools. Why? Because while there is some proof and fact supporting creationism and the bible, I would be a gigantic hypocrite of record breaking proportions to say that creationism should be taught in schools and evolution is not because there is not enough evidence to support evolution My conclusion is that until one has been proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, neither theory should be taught in schools as fact.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Or wrong? LS was not convinced, He just decided that his argument was better proven through juvenile actions and direct plagiarism. And honestly, most of the people I have talked to have muttered something about the "head scientists saying evolution is true" which is blind faith. Very few have the knowledge or the intelligence to present their cases rationally, instead they say that they only believe it because someone else told them to, which is my point.
Originally posted by Red Nemesisyes, but not cells or anything of the sort. Nutrients were found in the basic conditions of primordial soup, so what? at what point did nutrients turn into living matter? Biogenesis is a failure because, once again, it conflicts scientific law.
]
The concepts of biogenesis and of evolution are not interchangeable. They succeed or fail on their own merits. That said, biogenesis is also valid science, because of the distinction between it and spontaneous generation. The conditions precipitating the rise of life were radically different than they are today. Amino acids (the building blocks of protein- the basis for life) have been shown to generate when the conditions of early earth are replicated in the lab.
The scientist you quoted was not making a valid logical comparrison. The false dichotomy might be useful for your argument, but in this case it does not exist- there is a scientific alternative to both the supernatural and spontaneous generation: early organic molecules morphed (it wasn't really evolution b/c no traits were exchanged) into more complex molecules and eventually cells, taking the first step on that long road to vertebrae.I'm not sure what to make of this. It certainly isn't logical thinking. Molecules do not "morph" into cells. Cells are not large molecules, and they are not some large morph of a molecule. A molecule is two or more atoms bound together, most likely by an interchanging subatomic particles. The Idea that a complex molecule could "morph" into cells is relatively ludicrous. When comparing a cell with a molecule, it is an entirely different business, and one of the most simple cells requires over 200 proteins. On closer examination, a protein is a rather large string of atoms, or a really really complicated molecule. Upon further investigation, many of the molecules found in any cell with any hope to reproduce are DNA, which are incredibly complicated in themselves. To talk about the complexity of the cell itself, its wall, its nucleus, all of its moving parts, we see that it couldn't have gradually formed and given itself life over billions of years.
Law is the ultimate transcendence of any "theory". I don't understand what your chemistry teacher is doing romanticizing the word "theory".
The emphasis on the word theory is misplaced- a scientific theory is as close as scientists come to declaring absolute truth. A theory encompasses many different physical laws (which are based on observation) and interprets them in a way that applies to the real world. My Chemistry teacher said that "it is rather grander to be a theory than a law." A law describes, a theory explains. Evolution, cell theory, and atomic theory are no more likely to be dethroned than the heliocentric model.
Hello? someone is saying something, someone has been saying something, and someone will always be saying something. This is the blind faith I speak of, when one of your points is that "someone would have said something"
The laws of thermodynamics are not violated in any way by the theory of evolution, and if they were, someone would have said something.
The 2nd law (which I suspect you are dealing with) deals with entropy. It says, specifically, that "The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium." (I admit that I copied the wording from wikipedia.) The effect of this is that energy can not be increased within a closed system. Some YE creationists claim that life and the evolution thereof violates the second law. It doesn't. If earth was a closed system, it might. Earth, however, gains energy from the sun, as well as the gravitational pull of the moon on earth's oceans. Our planet is constantly being bombarded by high energy particles and EM radiation, so it is by no means a closed system. Energy is gained from the sun and is wicked up through the food chain.That's not what it means at all. The law of thermodynamics states that entropy, or chaos will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium. The word entropy can mean chaos, or it can mean that it will lose energy over time. The closed system merely means that nothing is going to interfere with it, re stack it, build it, or add more energy. While we have kinetic energy from the sun and light rays, it is not the kind of energy that it would take to create life.
🙂 may I ask if you attend school or university?
[/b]
It was a judge Judy quote- one of my teachers said it today. It made me laugh.
I don't really know where you'd find proof. Who's side am I on? My point is that what you have shown is a hypothesis, little more, as there is no proof to back your rebuttal up. As for the deep sea creatures, they evolved so that they are the way they are. Now before you yell at me for being ironic, let me state that their are two kinds of evolution, evolution among species, such as a cave dwelling fish having useless eyes that can't see (as far as we know) evolving through genetic adaptation from a fish with sight. Any real scientist will believe in that. The one that is controversial is evolution=origin of the species, or Darwinism, which has little to no proof, due to the hypothetical scenario that it happened so long ago that no proof survived to be seen today, either in fossil or in living form.
[/b]
What would count as proof for you? Fossils don't contain membranes, so I would have to find a living fish... some of the deep sea creatures have little need for eyesight, so they might have a good example. The next step would be to change their environment to a situation where having keen eyesight would have a positive effect on survival rate. We'll wait 10 million years and meet back on the third Tuesday. In all seriousness, we rarely see evolution occurring in the field, because of the vast time spans it covers. Our best hope to illustrate evolution in action is in the microbial world. Generations of bacteria can last as little as 20 minutes, hastening normally ponderous lifespans to things easily within a human generation.
YES! but does survival of the species CREATE new genetic code, or just NARROW IT DOWN?
If we look at medicine, we can not ignore how the diseases react to the drugs. When an antibiotic is administered, not all of the target is destroyed. For whatever reason, some of the disease causing bacteria survive. Of the ones that do, many will have done so because of some sort of variation from the genetic code. Such is the utility of diversity within a population. Because they are the only ones to have survived, they have less competition. In the next generation the mutation that allowed them to survive will be overrepresented, lessening the effect of antibiotics when used excessively. [/B]