I noticed you didn't post anything that religion adds to science... what happened I thought there are lots of things religion and science and do together, I'm waiting on those many things.
I don't seriously get into religious debates online because I am not a m0r0n. Debating about this online is about at intelligent as trying to be an e-thug and brag about your RL to online people...I just like reading along.
Wasn't trying to troll lol. You must see everything as a troll attempt though not that I care for a troll's opinion, which has no real authority behind it. The picture sp@m is really not part of the discussion though...
You may individually decide to disregard my opinion, but you cannot deny it as part of the discussion (however minor).
And the gross generalization that all I have done is post pictures is quickly disproven, and is therefore an invalid reason for disregarding my entire opinion.
Well, to be honest, the entire discussion has been offtopic since Primate and Josef began arguing about the Bible on page one...I guess we have all been offtopic. Ah well, I am done here since I have to finish up writing a summary of my research here.
Josef, I applaud you for sticking through this despite the lack of support or understanding for what you've written. But you can't disprove God, either. That's wishful thinking in itself.
Killstone, Paracelzus... where exactly are you drawing your information from? An overwhelming percentage of the scientific world, consisting of atheists, deists, theists, and everything in between, accepts evolution, either biological, or cosmic.
So who doesn't?
Creationists, for the most part. Creationists are infamous for distorting information and data, for not understanding their material--but that's not terrible in itself, it's a human flaw. So there's a process in science that weeds this out. It's called peer review.
But creationists don't do peer review. They publish straight to the gullible masses--all to often straight to those who want to believe (hence why your ChristianAnswers site immediately raises red flags, as it specifically caters to one group who ALREADY WANTS a specific answer and are willingly to let down their skepticism that they'd apply to any other religion.) They seek to inject their material straight into the science textbooks (without having even gone through the scientific method itself!)
Science doesn't work that way, though. That's why it works so well. It is international. It does not include or exclude any religion or viewpoint. It is open to any ideas--so long as you can argue the case with empirical evidence (as opposed to the ID arguement--"I don't know how it happen so it can't have happened on its own.") If you don't believe me, watch this video of atheist science populizer Eugene Scott refuting atheist science populizer Richard Dawkins:
(check out the rest of his stuff too. He's a Christian scientist who fully accepts evolution, even abiogenesis, and has many educational videos on evolution.)
One of the few testable predictions that creationists make is Intelligent Design. Unfortunately, the flagellum is NOT irreducibly complex. It is shown that you can strip away a majority of the components of a flagellum and find an injector.
Here's a nice video for that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w
You guys also need to understand statistics. As Josef has said, you're looking at Earth being so special because you live on it and you only see what present forms exist today. The chance of life on a planet may be, let's say, one in a billion. So what are the odds that we happen to live on one of the planet that supports life? Very small. Well, don't just look at earth. Look at the many billions of possible planets, and then tell me what the odds are that one has life on it. Pretty high, actually! If there are ten billion planets, then we'd expect to find at around ten planets that can sustain life. Ten very unique planets, each of which could have life that thinks that their own planet is the only one with life on it.
We don't actually know how many planets are out there, or what the odds are that one has life. Ten billion planets is an extremely low estimate. But we have no reason to believe that out of the many thousands of galaxies (and thousand more we're discovering faster than we can give interesting names to,) we've seen that there is no reason to believe that there are not many stars with terrestrial planets that are the right temperature to have liquid water (which itself may not even be a necessity for life.)
Life is extremely adaptable, even here on earth. Life doesn't need oxygen (consider anaerobic bacteria). It doesn't need the sun (consider geothermal vents.) It doesn't need a pleasant place to live the way you assume it has to (consider extremophiles.)
As for the philosophical argument that God is perfect... is perfectly null. The FSM is perfect. My right shoe is perfect. Zeus is perfect. I can make any claim I want to and create my own form of logic to accompany it. Let's call this form of logic "Sessa-ism." The answer to every question is "Because Sessa said so, and Sessa is perfect. Sessa is the truth." It's %100 logically consistant with my own rules.
Problem is, this has absolutely nothing to do with actual reality. Just like your argument that God is perfect. It's null. Useless if you want to learn the truth and not your imagined logic system. The bible was written by man, edited by man, translated by man, and interpreted by man. We don't even fully understand the hebrew some of the first copies were written in--what do certain words mean? What connotations do they have? Do we view one concept in a polar opposite way than what the original authors would have? The bible is not evidence for God. Sorry. It's one holy book, among many.
Anyway, I'll end this here. I need to get some real work done.
You got it right pretty much :/ unfortunately your well-placed argument will be ignored by religious people. They just have to live and die with their stupid ideas. Arguing on the internet rarely accomplishes anything other than your own amusement.
4/22/2009 1:36:14 PM You got it right pretty much :/ unfortunately your well-placed argument will be ignored by religious people. They just have to live and die with their stupid ideas. Arguing on the internet rarely accomplishes anything other than your own amusement.
Same goes with you... However i do believe in micro-evolution, just not macro-evolution which is just a theory/hypotheses, and since there can be no 100% evidence for macro-evolution, then i cannot possibly believe that my whole life and purpose is a waist of my time. So don't go about saying that we will live and die with stupid ideas. Because if you think about it, no one can prove 100% of anything. NO ONE IS CERTAIN ABOUT ANYTHING! For example, what is fire, 100% exactly. The law of gravity doesn't even apply in some cases.
"For example, what is fire, 100% exactly. The law of gravity doesn't even apply in some cases."
Oh wow, what a brilliant example of unashamed stupidity, "what is fire" how old are you? How can you not know even the most simple scientific trivia, this isn't even knowledge, it's trivia.
"law of gravity doesn't even apply in some cases" ... really? and what cases might that be, this sounds like a great scientific discovery you just made.
Paracelzus.... you make your own meaning in life, if it is a waste without a god to you then you have a warped defintion of meaning. And also even if your definition that science doesn't understand fire etc, this still doesn't imply a god, it doesnt imply anything other than we don't understand it yet. Please do some research if your gonna bother posting stuff, otherwise you make yourself sound very foolish.
Since Paracelzus seems to lack an understanding of even the most basic scientific trivia, here let me help you out. Read about fire, but something tells me you're more likely to call it magic.
i just thought id point out to all you christians who claim it says there is no life on other planets were it says this?
Not to disprove that god created life but there are thousands of undocumented years since god created earth and such. what is to tell you he did not create life on other planets? yet you all dogmatically conclude we are the only planet with life yet he does not even mention the other planets. So explain why you think he did not. The chances of there being life on other planets is higher then the chances of life ever coming to earth at all so explain why it is 'impossible'. and everyone stop picking on the creationists lol.
Also people like josef i have no problem with. I just find it annoying to those people who think there is no god yet when asked why say 'because there is evil in the world' . They would complain if given no free will (well they wouldnt as they wouldnt be allowed to ) yet complain when others use it wrongly. So Lord Primate your point from the first place about god creating evil is bull*beep*. as most of your arguements have been.
"law of gravity doesn't even apply in some cases" ... really? and what cases might that be, this sounds like a great scientific discovery you just made.
"Paracelzus.... you make your own meaning in life, if it is a waste without a god to you then you have a warped defintion of meaning. And also even if your definition that science doesn't understand fire etc, this still doesn't imply a god, it doesnt imply anything other than we don't understand it yet. Please do some research if your gonna bother posting stuff, otherwise you make yourself sound very foolish."
"Paracelzus.... you make your own meaning in life" God makes a meaning in my life, i do not.
" if it is a waste without a god to you then you have a warped defintion of meaning" would you think that if i believed that if i did not have a personal relationship with Jesus, that i believed in hell, and i decided not to believe that Jesus came as the sun of God, and died for my sins, that i, before death, would realize that i have no meaning in life?
"And also even if your definition that science doesn't understand fire etc, this still doesn't imply a god" I was not trying to connect God with that information, i was simply stating, that man does not know everything.
4/23/2009 8:39:46 AM Since Paracelzus seems to lack an understanding of even the most basic scientific trivia, here let me help you out. Read about fire, but something tells me you're more likely to call it magic."
You have a horrible way of saying that i am smarter then you :D
Please stop posting this "Go educate yourselve" crap, it is getting old... If you want to make a point, then go find the information in your own websites, instead of letting me and other people, pick out precise little bits of information that you might want us to understand, that was in some cases, was very broad about what i and other people have talked about...
I'm not particularly religious, but I believe that religion can be a great thing (sorry, I'm too tired to think of a better way to phrase this =P). It can definitely bring meaning to peoples' lives and has the potential to create order and morality. However, in my limited experience, organized religion has failed to fulfill any of these goals. Well, maybe it has brought some kind of warped meaning to the lives of some...I don't blame the church/temple/mosque/etc. It is the fault of those would blindly follow faith.
In my opinion, religion, whichever one you choose to follow, is a set of guidelines--a standard to measure yourself by. Atheists independently create their own rules, while those who are unsure can turn to a religion for help. Religion is not meant to dictate how you live your life but to point you toward the right direction in the twisted maze that is our existence. Just look back in history...did Christ dictate or preach? Did he become a dictator or a saint? There is no doubt that he should be revered for his sacrifice, but that does not make his ideas law. They are naught but that: ideas of what the world should be and how we can get there. Ideas you can turn to in times of confusion and despair as guidelines on how to act. As such, religion plays the part of the lighthouse. The ship's ultimate command lies with the captain, but the lighthouse shall guide it past perilous waters to safety.
And paracelzus, I'd just like to point out that it's quite ironic that you do not "believe in macro evolution since there's no 100% proof," yet you believe in God. No offense, I know what you mean. It just seemed funny the way you said it =)
"Please stop posting this "Go educate yourselve" crap, it is getting
old... If you want to make a point, then go find the information in
your own websites, instead of letting me and other people, pick out
precise little bits of information that you might want us to
understand, that was in some cases, was very broad about what i and
other people have talked about..."
That's hilarious, so now you don't like it when not only I prove that your wrong but you don't like it that I show it? I can understand that you're crying, I mean I raped your ass so many times in this thread it must be getting raw by now.
Now do yourself a favour and stop posting, it's funny, but in a very sad way.
EDIT: I'm still waiting on the "law of gravity" thing.
Please expand on this. If you mean free-fall or in orbit, then you're mistaken: gravity is still at work in the system, it's just that it's uniformly distributed through an item's mass. If you don't mean this, however, feel free to explain.
"the speed of light"
Again, please explain further. The speed of light is a constant in empty space, and even then light is influence by gravity (which is why you can't actually see a black hole: light is pulled in and not back out.) "Yes i do know what the definition of those are, or else i probably would not be here..."
Surely, then, you must realize that what you call "just a theory" is actually the highest form of proof in science? Like the Theory of Gravity? Germ Theory? A theory is an explanation that bounds together all observed evidence, continually supported by evidence. It does NOT mean hypothesis. A hypothesis is a specific prediction (ie, my hypothesis is that if I drop a ball in a vacuum it will fall as fast as a feather, which in turn will support the THEORY of gravity.)
Classic creationist giveaway. "Just a theory."
Next, you say you believe in "microevolution" but not "macroevolution." There's not really a recognized scientific difference between the two. Enough small improvements produces large improvements. The accumulation of small improvements leads to speciation, which you mostly likely call "macroevolution." Experiments have proven macroevolution: separate a population of fruit flies, allow them to breed separately for 40 generations, then reintroduce them back together. They don't reproduce with members of the opposite group. Thus, speciation.
Classic creationist giveaway number two. "Marcoevolution has never been observed."
"and have taken many courses from a TRUE scientist point of view."
So why are you making such elementary mistakes? ~~~~~~~ Now for the philosophical part.
"God makes a meaning in my life, i do not. "
Would you also say that Zeus, a deity who traditional Christians do not accept as being real, gave meaning to Odysseus's life? Or would you say the Greeks personified the gods to reflect what they themselves thought meaningful?
You'll have to be more specific than that, I have no idea how those 2 might support your claim, but let me assume that you think gravity doesn't "work" on light? That's the only thing I can come up with, and that is obviously false, as can be seen, or actually unseen, by blackholes, gravity is so high that not even light can escape it's event horizon.
As for microgravity, I'm not sure how you think this helps your cause.
sorry i havnt posted in a while, ive been rather busy lately and as a result havent had the time to debate on these forums. I continue to not have time so I am going to pull my self out of the debate all together. It was fun debating with you Josef, but eventually it just ends up being a waste of time. I am not going to convince you and youre not gonig to convince me.
But I will leave you guys with this. In the end, when we die, if I'm wrong I lose nothing, but if you guys are wrong you lose eternity in a place far better than earth. :)
Unless it turns out the right god is Allah or Zeus or Thor or FSM or some tribal god whose name has been lost to time. Statistically I think we're all likely to go to someone's hell, so I'm not really holding my breath.
What Jesus, Buddah, Mohammad, and many other holy figures taught were peace and love, so I think that's a surer ticket into heaven than believing in the dogma of one particular religion, if God is indeed just. So in that scenario, I haven't lost eternity at all by not believing in a specific deity. What I see in monotheism is political control, not divinity.
But I will leave you guys with this. In the end, when we die, if I'm
wrong I lose nothing, but if you guys are wrong you lose eternity in a
place far better than earth. :)
Of course, pascals wager, lol. I'll let the atheist experience take this one:
im sure if we are wrong and you are right, god being the cool guy he is will let us all in and there is no problem anyway but until then live life for what it is... not what might happen to you when you die?
By Paul Rincon Science reporter, BBC News, Hatfield
A model of Ethyl formate: Complexity can be built up step by step
Astronomers have detected two of the most complex carbon-rich molecules ever found in interstellar space.
Their models suggest even more complex await to be discovered, including amino acids - which are essential for life.
The results were presented at the European Week of Astronomy and Space Science meeting being held in the UK.
Researchers detected the organic molecules in the star-forming region of space known as Sagittarius B2, close to the centre of our galaxy.
Large carbon-rich molecules of many different types have been seen in this cloud in the past, including alcohols, aldehydes, and acids.
The two new molecules - ethyl formate and n-propyl cyanide - were found in a hot, dense cloud of gas which contains a luminous newly formed star. They represent two different classes of molecule: the esters and alkyl cyanides.
Atoms and molecules emit radiation at different frequencies, which appear as characteristic lines in the light "spectrum" from an astronomical source.
The IRAM 30m Telescope at Pico Veleta in southern Spain
"The difficulty in searching for complex molecules is that the best astronomical sources contain so many different molecules that their 'fingerprints' overlap, and are difficult to disentangle," says Arnaud Belloche, from the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy in Bonn, Germany.
"Larger molecules are even more difficult to identify because their fingerprints are barely visible: their radiation is distributed over many more lines that are much weaker," adds Holger Mueller, researcher at the University of Cologne.
Out of 3,700 spectral lines detected with the IRAM telescope in Spain, the team identified 36 lines belonging to the two new molecules. The astronomers then ran computational models to understand how molecules like these form in interstellar space.
They could be built up atom-by-atom via collisions of gaseous particles. Alternatively, atoms could meet and react on small grains of dust suspended in the interstellar gas.
n-propyl cyanide: Large molecules can sometimes be hard to disentangle
As a result, the grains build up thick layers of ice, composed mainly of water, but also containing a number of basic organic molecules like methanol, the simplest alcohol.
Their computational models suggest the largest molecules form section-by-section, using pre-formed building blocks already carried by the dust grains.
The new molecules seem to be "born" in this way, via a series of short steps that build up long-chain molecules.
"There is no apparent limit to the size of molecules that can be formed by this process - so there's good reason to expect even more complex organic molecules to be there, if we can detect them," says Robin Garrod, an astrochemist from Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, US.
Astronomers believe it could only be a matter of time before amino acids are found in interstellar space. This class of molecules is needed for the production of proteins, and are therefore essential for life.
In the past, researchers have looked for the simplest amino acid, glycine, without any luck.
One Cannot be a follower of Christ and not believe in God. Jesus is either the most important figure in history, or of no importance of all. He is either who he claims to be, God, and his teachings true, or he is a liar, not God, and thus we cannot trust his teachings. Anyone who claims to be God must either be telling the truth, lying, or insane. You cannot say he is a good teacher, but not God. That would be calling him a liar by his own teachings, or crazy.
If thats the case, why follow the teachings of a crazy man?
And Death, if you are determined to go through the bible page by page, I bet you will have a ball combing through the book of numbers. Id also like to see you go through verse by verse of Psalm trying to find issue, oh, and all the prophetic books, particularly those that have come to pass. Lets not even get starta on the book of proverbs...
You have your work cut out for you. You do not have the time nor the energy to do the entire bible, Death.
Why do you continue to throw fuel on this fire? Can you not THINK before posting? Getting the last word in some stupid religious argument that died is a sign that it must be getting to you or something. THINK! LET IT DIE!
Religion is a very good moral system in my opinion. I think it teaches people to be good people unless they take it too seriously and become the next jonathan edwards
