Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 152 of 152

Thread: Proof for God's non-existance?

  1. #101  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    ROFLMAO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Guest
    In case your wondering why I left out most of your reply...it's too retarded. Any intelligent person will instantly see the fallacies your making. Hell, even a retarded person. I quote these two paragraphs because they're slightly less obvious.

    Since you've made it apparent you wont be swayed by logic or fact, I've given up on that.

    but lets tackle this anyway. nature of quantum physics versus verifiability of quantum physics. The latter was the comparison I made to show how absurd your statements towards abiogenesis were.

    If your argument really is along the lines of "well there is DISAGREEMENT! Therefore it's WRONG!", then I'm just not going to bother replying anymore.
    lol - and your argument that because there is disagreement it is right is a welcome alternative?
    This set the tone of stupidity for your entire post. It's as though you are incapable of thinking. My argument was based on the fact the disagreement is based upon evidence, and not necessarily disagreement so much as different methods for it to take place. This is common in biology.

    I say this not in attempt to sway you, since you're far too obtuse for any information to enter beyond your massive ego.

    just because the idea of abiogenesis is about 175 years old (if you want to credit it to Darwin) and its still "getting worked on" in no way means that it is a correct theory, since heliocentricism had over a thousand years of votes of confidence behind it before it got the axe

    ...and this is the part where I wish to indiscriminately murder anyone like you.

    It is a valid argument, if this was anything like heliocentricism. That is why I dub it an apple-Buick comparison. Abiogenesis already has a very firm foundation in the sciences, as does evolution in general. Technology hasn't advanced far enough for us to recreate it, that's about the only difficulty we have. Biology is nothing like ASTRONOMY.

    Perhaps I can understand where such a misunderstanding would take place. But here I just think it's your unwillingness to be swayed by fact.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Jeremyhfht
    In case your wondering why I left out most of your reply...it's too retarded. Any intelligent person will instantly see the fallacies your making. Hell, even a retarded person.
    since you neglected to indicate the fallacies, that must indicate where you are at then


    I quote these two paragraphs because they're slightly less obvious.
    lol - how magnanimous of you
    Since you've made it apparent you wont be swayed by logic or fact, I've given up on that.
    rotflmao
    Quote:
    Quote:

    but lets tackle this anyway. nature of quantum physics versus verifiability of quantum physics. The latter was the comparison I made to show how absurd your statements towards abiogenesis were.

    If your argument really is along the lines of "well there is DISAGREEMENT! Therefore it's WRONG!", then I'm just not going to bother replying anymore.

    lol - and your argument that because there is disagreement it is right is a welcome alternative?


    This set the tone of stupidity for your entire post. It's as though you are incapable of thinking. My argument was based on the fact the disagreement is based upon evidence, and not necessarily disagreement so much as different methods for it to take place. This is common in biology.
    so tell oh hero of logic, without agreement (like for instance if there is no agreement on when abiogeneisis occurred, how abiogeneisis occurred and what was the result when abiogenesis occurred) on what grounds do you accept it as right?
    I say this not in attempt to sway you, since you're far too obtuse for any information to enter beyond your massive ego.
    yes I have the habit to open posts with drawn out eulogies establishing my superiority by default
    (" you are dumb - you hear me D U M B - and yer funny lookin and stinky ... and ... and you are a retard ... and so is your brother")

    -Gawd (yawn)
    Quote:

    just because the idea of abiogenesis is about 175 years old (if you want to credit it to Darwin) and its still "getting worked on" in no way means that it is a correct theory, since heliocentricism had over a thousand years of votes of confidence behind it before it got the axe

    Wink


    ...and this is the part where I wish to indiscriminately murder anyone like you.
    how courageous
    It is a valid argument, if this was anything like heliocentricism. That is why I dub it an apple-Buick comparison. Abiogenesis already has a very firm foundation in the sciences, as does evolution in general.
    yes, a foundation in guesses - guesses in when it occurred, how it occurred, the result of it occurring etc etc - much like there were guesses in abundance with heliocentricism
    Technology hasn't advanced far enough for us to recreate it, that's about the only difficulty we have.
    the only difficulty is that there is no one arguing from the position of direct perception

    Biology is nothing like ASTRONOMY.
    both work out of identical epistemologies however
    Perhaps I can understand where such a misunderstanding would take place. But here I just think it's your unwillingness to be swayed by fact.
    the fact is that abiogenesis is a guess
    youmay wish to dress it up as a well educated guess, but in its hey-day, heliocentricism wore the same attire ...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    ROFLMAO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Guest
    And this is precisely why I'm not bothering further.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    neutrino spouts off:

    Oh heck no - the vast majority of creationists, IDers, YECs, anti-evolutionists will glady accept conventional medicine including those firmly grounded in the theory of evolution (like antibiotics) in one minute, then post the next minute on the internet about how evolution is wrong and how scientists don't know what they're doing.
    I don't see too many people relying on prayer for their healing but I suggest they put their money (or their faith) where their mouth is. After all if but a mustard seed of faith can move a mountain (according to the Bible), then surely the certainty of their faith can cure the sniffles.
    As he is oft wont to do, neutrino has made a brightly glittering generality which hardly fit any of the people in the groups he attempts to offend.

    Most of the people neutrino attempts to place in his are not saying evolution is "wrong." What many of us suggest is that the theory of evolution is vastly incomplete.

    What we question is not the theory as a whole, but aspects of it which we do not think add up. We can certainly see and appreciate the the development of variations within almost all specie. This is an aspect of evolution which has been observered, duplicated and verified as required by scientific method.

    Beyond that, we (may) have observed evidence of speciation, although we have never duplicated this process. Gregor Mendal's early experimentation in the genetics of sweet peas showed how different varieties of sweet peas can develop, but they did not show how to turn a sweet pea into a pansy.

    We (humans) have, I guess, been able to genetically engineer "new" species, but we have not observed this happening in nature. Some will say, well, we have not had enough time of study to have observed such an event in nature. So far, we have only proved that it takes some creative agent to manipulate DNA.

    We have also attempted to induce mutation by subjecting various plants and animals to stimulae we think could cause mutation which could have produced new specie. Yet we have not produced a new specie.

    Many of us who may believe in creationism in some way, do not deny the aspects of evolution dealing with varitions within specie. What we question is at what point in the development of life did God quit creating and allow nature to take over.

    Neutrino, as well as many others of the scientism persuasion, seem to forget that science and industry gave us the atomic bomb, thalomide babies, acid rain, depeletion of the ozone layer, and, perhaps, global warming. Several medications have been foisted off on the public as cures to something and ultimately proved to cause more serious problems than the ones they were purported to cure.

    Nor can we forget that the medical practice of blood letting probably had more to do with the death of George Washington than did whatever sickness he was experiencing.

    I think most Christians facing brain surgery would hope that their surgeon has done more than study the Bible in preparation for a career neuro-surgery.

    Accepting and using medical treatment is not a denial of God's power to heal any more than death from some disease is proof of God's inability to heal.

    I would suggest that if there is any power in prayer, then the religious who employ both medicine and prayer are better off than the people who employ only medicine.

    Neither would I rely solely on prayer unless I were in a situation where medical attention were unavailable. But, even in that instance, I would have hope while the non-religious would have none.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    We have observed speciation in the wild, and we have caused speciation in the lab.

    References upon request.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    that's the problem with trying to apply religious thinking to science : in religion believing is everything, and is essential for something to exist

    in science obstinate facts won't go away, never mind how hard you disbelieve in them
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Everytime someone has sent me an "observed" naturally occuring new specie, it turns out it is either a variation or an already existing specie.
    Or else they have redefined what a specie is.

    To me, two specie are usually unable to produce offspring between. Even if some can, the offspring must, in turn, be able to reproduce itself without being able to reproduce with either parenting specie. Some have tried to pass of Ligers and Tigons as new specie. They are merely crossbred cats.

    So please do post your link to a report on a bona fide observed natural occurance of speciation. Also provide your definition of what constitutes new specie.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    I am happy to use your definition of species. I don’t have one.

    An example of speciation in the lab:

    In a matter of months, butterflies sporting the yellow and red wing color pattern of a wild species were created through simple laboratory crosses of a wild species with a red wing pattern with a wild species with a yellow wing pattern, researchers report in the June 15, 2006 edition of the journal Nature.

    <snip>

    The "weird" wing pattern of H. heurippa individuals makes them undesirable as mates for members of their parents’ species, but attractive to each other.
    http://stri.org/english/about_stri/m...lease_2006.pdf

    An example of speciation in nature:

    In contrast, Hendry's team found evolutionary adaptations and reproductive isolation in salmon after only 12-14 generations: some 60-70 years. Specifically, scientists studied salmon introduced into Lake Washington, in Washington State, during the 1930s and 1940s. Soon after the initial introductions, two populations became established, one spawning in a river and one along a lake beach. "Sockeye salmon bury their eggs and spawn in different kinds of locations, and in a variety of environments, even in a small system such as this," Hendry explained. "When new populations become established at different sites, you'd expect them to evolve different adaptations, and that's in fact what happened."
    Published paper: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...i;290/5491/516

    In addition, ring species are relevant to the discussion:

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

    And here is a link to summaries of many recent articles which illustrates both the complexity of speciation as well as its commonplace nature. I recommend you read through the summaries; in fact, if you only follow one link I suggest it be this one.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/search/?keyword=speciation
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Well, you have presented two studies -- one in which butterflies produced more butterflies and one in which salmon produced more salmon.

    There remains a huge argument in the scientific community as to whether these kinds of hybrids are totally new species or just variations of the same specie.

    The fact that the hybrids are not "chosen" as mates by the parent variety, does not mean they "cannot" breed with the parent. There are many animals which choose to mate only with their variety even though they could mate with other varieties. Different varieties of finches (which includes many varieties of canaries) could breed with other finches, but do not because of coloring and/or song variations. Yet, placed in a cage with no other option, they will breed.

    Whether the butterfly or salmon reports are reports of actual new specie or just a new variation of that specie is a matter of debate.

    What we do know is that suspected evolutionary type mechanisms readily produce new varieties of specie. Even among evolutionary advocates of Darwin's day, there were disputes over the specie/variety designations assigned to several animals.

    It is also possible that I was thinking genus and saying specie. It remains that the butterflies only produced other butterflies and salmon only produced other salmon wherever those designations fit on the taxonomy chart. So it may be necessary for me to back down from my "no speciation" claim.

    Now if the butterflies had produced dragonflies and if the salmon had produced mackerel, that would have been something. Whether these crossbreeds are really new species is more a matter of what science you subscribe to. Those who want to think of them as new specie may do so, but others will not consider them as such.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Well, you have presented two studies -- one in which butterflies produced more butterflies and one in which salmon produced more salmon.
    I presented two studies and a link to many, many more. Would you prefer a posting containing all the studies? I did recommend that you visit the link (and still do.)

    The studies posted fit your definition of new species:

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    To me, two specie are usually unable to produce offspring between. Even if some can, the offspring must, in turn, be able to reproduce itself without being able to reproduce with either parenting specie.
    If you move up the taxonomy to require the demonstration of a new genus, then there is no reason that you would not also be comfortable asking for a demonstration of the creation of a new family, order, class, phylum, or even kingdom.

    I fail to understand why evolution is such a problem for some churches to begin with. It suggests a creator with a great deal more elegance and finesse than a 'make it and be done' type. Your sign-off suggests that you envision a God that encompasses all Earthly things and presumably more. Does God have a problem with evolution? Does he allow some, but not too much?

    Finally, you might be interested in one of your countrymen's endeavors:

    http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05180/530330.stm


    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    I have checked the nomenclature of salmon, mackerels, dragonflies, and butterflies.

    In the case of demonstrating a change from salmon to mackerels, you are actually requiring the demonstration of a new family, which is two levels above species:

    Oncorhynchus kisutch family Salmonidae to Scomber scombrus family Scombridae

    In the case of butterflies/dragonflies you are requiring the demonstration of a new order, which is higher level yet.

    Heliconius heurippa Family Nymphalidae, Order Lepidoptera to Cordulegaster boltonii, Family Cordulegastridae, Order Odonata.

    Chimps and humans on the other hand are in the same family (Hominidae), which is a level below Order.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113 Re: GOD EXIST 100 % : It's ALLAH, Show the proof!!! 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by sherif003
    Excuse me
    Would you stop for a moment?!
    Haven't you thought-one day- about yourself?
    Who has made it?
    Have you seen a design which hasn't a designer?
    Have you seen a wonderful,delicate work without a worker?
    It's you and the whole universe..
    Who has made them all ?!!l
    You know who ?.. It's "ALLAH",prise be to him
    Just think for a moment
    How are you going to be after death ?!
    Can you believe that this exact system of the universe and all of these great creation will end in nothing...just after death
    Have you thought, for a second, How to save your soul from Allah's punishment ?
    Haven't you thought about what is the right religion?!
    Here you will get the answer


    http://www.anashed.net/flash/lastb_reath.swf
    http://www.todayislam.com/
    http://www.islam-guide.com
    http://www.sultan.org
    Do you think evolution is true?

    I invite you to discover the answer by visiting this link :
    http://www.harunyahya.com/articles/1...standing03.php

    I hope you read carefully and objectively and tell me your opinion;

    Sincerely, i found the evolution is the product of the imagination and has no relation about the truth:
    THAT IS : the theory of evolution is unable to prove any of the evolutionary stages that allegedly occur at the molecular level.

    Allah is the Creator of the heavens, the earth and all that is in between.
    The signs of His being have encompassed the entire universe.


    I suggest to you to see these videos:
    http://www.harunyahya.com/m_video_de...p?api_id=40934
    http://www.harunyahya.com/m_video_de...hp?api_id=1132
    http://www.harunyahya.com/html/m_vid...post1_pno1.htm

    [/b]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    What are the "evolutionary stages that allegedly occur at the molecular level" ?

    thanks in advance
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Guest
    No. Don't reply to it. Just ignore it. And hope it will go away.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Assuming that Dr. Venter is successful in creating a living cell, it would only prove that life can be created, not that it can occur via spontaneous generation. And perhaps it would disprove intelligent design. Good luck to him.

    As to the other, I think my original point was that I question at what point creation ended and nature was allowed to take it own course. I think I would go further down the taxonomy chart than evolution purists are willing to go.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    No. Don't reply to it. Just ignore it. And hope it will go away.
    Did your traumatic experience with punarmusiko leave a mark?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Well, you have presented two studies -- one in which butterflies produced more butterflies and one in which salmon produced more salmon.
    Well the next time a butterfly gives birth to a turtle I'll let you know. Although I would like to think that you realize evolution predicts no such thing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    No. Don't reply to it. Just ignore it. And hope it will go away.

    Thank you for your reply. I think we discuss in this forum with respect Mr!

    But, try to find the truth here :

    http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/
    http://www.darwinism-watch.com/index.php
    http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/
    http://www.creationofman.net/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    No. Don't reply to it. Just ignore it. And hope it will go away.
    Did your traumatic experience with punarmusiko leave a mark?
    Hardly, I just don't like to see everyone waste their time on such fools. Normally I wouldn't say that outright, but I've found NO intelligent signs in these people.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    ok mr.clevercloggs, i've tried your links and seen the light - they're links to nowhere
    proof that not just christian fundies are idiots
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    neutrino said:
    Well the next time a butterfly gives birth to a turtle I'll let you know. Although I would like to think that you realize evolution predicts no such thing.
    Certainly I realize evolution predicts no such thing as that.

    What evolution predicts (retroactively, so to speak) is that at some point in time an insect which was not a butterfly laid an egg which hatched into a larva which then went into a pupa stage and metamorphisized and what emerged was a butterfly rather than parent insect. And this genetic accident recurred with sufficient numbers and in such close time proximity that a viable breeding population eventually was able to successfully maintain the butterfly population.

    Evolution also (futuristically) predicts that at some point in time, a butterfly will lay an egg which will hatch into a larva which will then enter a pupa stage and metamorphisize and emerge as something which is not a butterfly. This genetic accident will occur with sufficient numbers and in such close time proximity to produce a viable breeding population to successfully maintain the new insect which is not a butterfly.

    That is the process that evolution advocates buy into. And if they could prove to me which non-butterfly insect spawned the original butterfly, I would be more likely to swallow this tail. But that could be a monarchial task.

    (Aside: I also understand in a population such as insects where one mating produces multiple offspring, a genetic anomaly could potentially effect all eggs from that mating, thus establishing a small breeding population. It is also my understanding that for insects such as butterflies, breeding is a once in a lifetime event. For that reason, if you see a smiling butterfly, you should assume that tonight's the night! Meanwhile, the process seems much less reasonable when applied to animals which do not generate large numbers of offspring from one single breeding.)
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Not quite -

    Evolution predicts that with reproductive isolation, two groups will become so genetically diverged from one another over time that they will reach a point at which they cannot interbreed.

    That's all.

    Any single generation will be the same species as its parents' species. Cumulative change will gentically isolate two groups.

    Here's a piece that you might be missing:

    The last common ancestor of dragonflies and butterflies was neither a dragonfly nor a butterfly. It was an ancestral species to both, and when groups of that species became isolated, one branch led to lepidoptera, and another branch led to odonata.

    Evolution does not say that one thing that is present on the planet today can give rise to another thing that is on the planet today. (Evolution does not say that humans descended from monkeys.)

    Rather, evolution says that humans and monkeys have a common ancestor. The distinction is important, and I hope it helps.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    No. Don't reply to it. Just ignore it. And hope it will go away.
    Did your traumatic experience with punarmusiko leave a mark?
    Hardly, I just don't like to see everyone waste their time on such fools. Normally I wouldn't say that outright, but I've found NO intelligent signs in these people.
    IOW you want us to accept your conclusions on faith?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    free radical says:
    The last common ancestor of dragonflies and butterflies was neither a dragonfly nor a butterfly. It was an ancestral species to both, and when groups of that species became isolated, one branch led to lepidoptera, and another branch led to odonata.
    and
    Rather, evolution says that humans and monkeys have a common ancestor. The distinction is important, and I hope it helps.
    All you have to do is conclusively show what those common ancestors were and you will have a lot of converts.

    However, evolution also anticipates mechanisms such as mutation which can produce linear alterations as well as the mechanism which you describe. And there are other mechanisms. One of evolution's big problems is determining which mechanisms manifested which changes.

    I do not deny that, in theory (evolution you realize is a theory) and on paper, these mechanism appear to be possible. Whether that is actually what happened remains the sticking point.

    If evolution were able to more clearly develop the lines of actual ancestry (that is, who was whose father) and show the specific mechanisms by which specific changes actually occurred, the controversy would quickly abate.

    But so long as the lines of ancestry remain so blurry and specific mechanisms not directly applied to a specific sets of changes, the controversy will remain.

    Some insist that is how it had to have happened because they do not want to consider that some other process such as a creative agent was involved.

    Whether or not evolution took place is not of great concern to me. Evolution could have easily have taken place under the direct and specific manipulation and direction of God. To me evolution does not directly undermine my concept of God and what He could have done or did or did not do.

    My real concern relates to people who "believe" in evolution as a default explanation because it is the only explanation of life diversity that is available to an agnostic or atheist. Many such people believe in evolution because they think it eliminates God from the equation. It doesn't.

    It remains that if God does exist and He is the God of the Bible, then we each have run afoul of his standards. Who posting here has never lied -- I know I have. Who posting here has never stolen something -- I know I have. Who here has never used the Lords name in vain -- I know I have.

    So what are we other than a pack of lying, thieving blasphemers? Each one of us posting here is a lying, thieving blasphemer. So if (I am merely saying IF) God exists and He were to judge you on those standards, would you be guilty or innocent? And does your answer concern you?
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    ... (evolution you realize is a theory) ...
    now i thought this type of drivel should be banned since Reagan's misuse of it on the campaign trail

    how about reading the following link, and especially this extract :

    "In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be."
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Ha! Talk about drivel!!!

    MarnixR posts this mis-definition of theory:

    "In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be."
    Under the definition, evolution does not even qualify as a theory.

    The site marnixR pulled this from has a footnote which provides this definition of theory:

    Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. American Heritage Dictionary
    This, in turn was taken from the site at http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory which lists several different versions of the definition of “theory.” The writer of the article marnixR quoted chose a definition which does not include the speculative aspects of theory and then expanded it to the point that theory becomes proven fact and law.

    I’m sorry, but rewriting the definition of generally accepted words merely to disguise reality and suit one's own purpose is not an acceptable method of validation.

    One REAL and full definition of theory, as it appears in the Collegiate Edition of the New Webster’s dictionary -- the definition of theory which is acceptable to most people -- is this:

    “A systematic arrangement of facts with respect to some real or hypothetical laws: a hypothetical explanation of phenomena; a hypothesis not yet empirically verified as law but accepted as the basis of experimentation; an exposition of the general or abstract principles of any science or humanity which have been derived from practice; a plan or system suggested as a method of action; an ideal arrangement of events, usu. Preceded by in; a doctrine or scheme of things resting merely on speculation, contemplation, supposition or conjecture; math: a presentation of all the axioms, theorems, lemmas and principles relating to one subject.”
    You should note that this definition uses words and phrases such as "hypothetical explanation," “not yet empirically verified as law,” “resting on speculation,” “conjecture.”

    Evolution fits within this definition of theory. It does not fit the trumped up, phony, unacceptable crackpot definition presented on a highly agenda motivated “Evolution-is-not-a-theory” type of web site. This type of site carries no more weight with me than the web links Muslims have been posting.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    obviously, nothing carries weight with you that doesn't fit your preconceptions

    since you can't even be bothered to be civil to your fellow forum members, you're on my ignore list
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    I'm also withdrawing from the discussion.

    Dayton, I was impressed with your open interest in evolution at the beginning of the thread, but I fear your tone is becoming more confrontational, so I'll bow out now.

    Thank you for the discussion, it was largely a great pleasure.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    marnixR will not read this which is OK with me, but I have no idea why calling somebody out when they have presented a irregular definition of something is being uncivil. I guess it would be civil to agree with whatever someone said no matter how wrong it was.

    Nor do I understand why sticking to the generally accepted definition of something is a preconception. I think that fits into the area of generally accepted conception.

    The definition that marnixR offered to suggest that science now considers a theory to be the equivalent of proven fact is just not what I think any self-respectng scientist would subscribe to. I wonder how many posters here consider a theory to have the same weight as known fact. If there are very many, I would not consider this a very scientific science forum.

    I think when one has to resort to rewriting accepted definitions, that is when one has shown that nothing carries weight unless it fits some preconception.

    The Theories of Relativity, although well proven in many aspects, as well as compromised in others, remain theories. Some of these two theories have proven to be fact, but taken as a whole, the two theories remain, in their totality, theories

    It would seem to me that is is far more disrespectful and uncivil to try to rewrite definitions and then get upset when others do not agree with the change in definition than it is to defend the generally accepted definition.

    A theory is a theory; a fact is a fact. Evolution is a theory which is derived from observations and known facts which are then used to draw potential conclusions relating to bio-diversity.

    As with any set of observations and facts, different people can use different approaches to synthesize and organize them and reach some similar and some different conclusions.

    I have seen a number of posts which flatly state that evolution is a fact. When several people say that, they do not always mean the same thing. A few people have explained what they mean, and I can agree to the extent of their explanation. However, they do not agree with every idea advanced which embraces evolution.

    No matter now much marnixR would like it to be different, evolution remains a theory based on a number of obsevations and known facts by which people have attempted to explain bio-diversity in the absence of a creative agent. Although there are facts within any given theory, a theory can never rise to the status of fact within itself and remain a theory.

    If there is no creative agent, then evolution is the only reasonable explanation which as been offered to explain bio-diversity. However, evolution does not, in and of itself, preclude the concept that some creative agent was behind evolution.

    My point, all along, is that evolution does not provide an adequate excuse to reject God. But rejecting God does require one to adhere to the theory of evolution whether or not it is the result of natural events or directed events.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    marnixR will not read this which is OK with me, but I have no idea why calling somebody out when they have presented a irregular definition of something is being uncivil. I guess it would be civil to agree with whatever someone said no matter how wrong it was.
    especially when their right and your making your self look a c**t.
    marnix clearly made it plain there is a difference with the general idea of a theory and the scientific, this is from your Encarta american edition http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...fid=1861719564
    5. scientific principle to explain phenomena: a set of facts, propositions, or principles analyzed in their relation to one another and used, especially in science, to explain phenomena.
    and this from Merriam Websters 10th edition http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...nary&va=theory
    5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
    and lastly this from the American heritage Dictionary http://www.bartleby.com/61/20/T0152000.html
    2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice.
    ok you need to get your self educated a little afterall this is a science forum.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    When those of us who question evolution ask factual questions which evolutionists cannot answer or when we present information which contradicts claims of advocates, we are called uncivil and confrontational.

    marnixR first used the term drivel, not me. However, I am being uncivil but marnixR was being -- what? marnixR offered someone else's personal rewrite of the definition of theory and I offered the dictionary definition and I have preconceptions? And the compilers of the dictionary have -- what?

    marnixR also said “christian fundies are [not the only] idiots.” This is being civil?

    free radical offered an explanation of how animals have common ancestors which I would be more than willing to accept, but, apparently cannot provide the actual common ancestor of the butterfly and dragon fly and, therefore, I am being confrontational?

    Without naming names, it appears to me that there are some here who are far more confrontational, far more disrespectful to those who believe different, and far less civil to their adversaries than I.

    I do not see "Christian fundies" calling the scientific people idiots or uneducated or stupid. But it seems quite acceptable for them to say those things about religious people.

    I do not agree with Muslims on their religion, but even they have been far more civil when posting here than have been the replies to them.

    Tell me, do atheists and agnostics have consciences?
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Wiki
    In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.
    What is it that evolution can't explain? And is it within the field of evolution?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Geezer, again, does what is common among many of the local scientificos in taking only that part of the definition which he likes while ignoring those parts which say things he does not like.

    Every definition which Geezer has posted is only part of the entire definition found in that reference.

    There is nothing scientific about ignoring the things which disagree with one's preconceived notions while pointing only to those things which agree. That, I think, is more within the purview of politicians.

    Resorting to name calling such as several people have done here is a sign of immaturity and lack of solid argument. I hardly think name calling substitutes for substantive information. And partial information is devious and designed to mislead. A half truth is also a half lie.

    So, who authorized the local scientific community to change the definition of theory to suit their own purposes, anyway? The definition which marnixR originally posted is not found in any legitimate, unbiased source of definitions.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Guest
    Daytonturner needs a course in English. Since in his oh-so-open mind he has ignored me, I'll leave this to others to read.

    His argument against using only part of a words definition would cause every language to crumble. Words have many uses, and many definitions for those uses. Especially the more scientific or complex ones. This means that if you attempt to use all the definitions for a complex words at the same time, the entire foundation of the word would collapse.

    This is what Daytonturner wants here. He wants to apply the inappropriate definition just because it suites him. I do hope the responders will be intelligent enough to point this out? /hint /hint.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    I think the better response is that evolution may well be 'just a theory,' but then so is gravity.

    Being 'just a theory' is bloody good in science. It means that an idea has survived critical review and testing. There is nothing beyond 'theory,' in science, to my knowledge. There is no 'proof' in science, for example, due to the nature of science. ("Proof" is a characteristic of law, and maths.)

    Evolution is a theory. It is one of the soundest theories in science, and in the words of the president of the National Academy of Science:

    The theory of evolution has become the central unifying concept of biology and is a critical component of many related scientific disciplines.
    He goes on:

    In contrast, the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested. These observations lead to two fundamental conclusions: the teaching of evolution should be an integral part of science instruction, and creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such in science classes.
    The focus is, appropriately, on what constitutes science. Evolution does, creation doesn't.

    What evolution is not, is proof of God's non-existence. No scientist would ever claim that evolution says anything about God. Anyone that says that science is trying to disprove God has no good idea what science is about.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    From the same website, from the National Academy of Science:

    Terms Used in Describing the Nature of Science

    Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

    Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.

    Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.

    Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

    The contention that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact" confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Daytonturner needs a course in English. Since in his oh-so-open mind he has ignored me, I'll leave this to others to read.

    His argument against using only part of a words definition would cause every language to crumble. Words have many uses, and many definitions for those uses. Especially the more scientific or complex ones. This means that if you attempt to use all the definitions for a complex words at the same time, the entire foundation of the word would collapse.

    This is what Daytonturner wants here. He wants to apply the inappropriate definition just because it suites him. I do hope the responders will be intelligent enough to point this out? /hint /hint.
    no, done my bit, if he wants to continue to look a c**t then that is his prerogative.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Guest
    I don't expect anything further. Nobody so far has been able to talk sense into Daytonturner yet. I don't expect you to. That's like asking you to walk on water.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Forum Freshman Tony John C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    When it comes to the non-existence of something, especially an entity like a God, I believe people mis-categorize it. They treat it like some mythical animal (unicorns). Yet, if I may, I'd like to interject this thinking with what I believe is a more rational front.

    Firstly, God must be defined. In order to prove something does not exist, one has to define what that something is. I could say "flagnarfs" don't exist, but what are they?

    Secondly, one must decide whether or not the defined God does in fact match the description of a God. What are the set limits?

    Third, after the previous two are completed, you begin the process of cross-checking the definition and idea with in-place philosophical "guidelines". From logical fallacies to paradoxes. If God so much as steps onto a paradox that leads to fallacy, you automatically have evidence of non-existence.

    All of this can be done with just philosophical discussion, without any need for empirical evidence. It is, in essence, a "thinking mans" game. So far every definition I have heard of God leads to some major fallacy or another, and therefore cannot exist.

    To define God, you must define Infinite, that is impossible.

    If God is infinite than it obviously has no limits, for it to be limited it can not be infinite

    well you don't have the first two the third won't work.



    And now i will solve the problem with this. You will believe what you want to believe regardless of the evidense, or lack there of. You could all yell at eachother for the next 50 years and you still will believe what you want to believe. So it comes down to this argument is pointless, for amusement, or maybe to rant about one's own insecruities.


    Side note, Law is past theory. =D
    Why is hate so ingrained in humans? For the supposed enlightened species we are very limited to such primitive behaviors. Peace is a fleeting in our society.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Hmm. Well, if evolution is the soundest of all scientific theories, why does it generate so much controversy and have so many detractors, including members of the scientific community?

    You do not see this kind of controversy or opposition surrounding far stranger theories such as quantum theory or string theory and we have far less substantiating observation or data in support of them.

    Maybe the problem with evolution is that on one hand so much is known and on the other hand so little is known.

    Mostly, I have merely asked questions and raise issues concerning remaining unanswered questions. I have hardly touched the surface of the numerous objections raised by detractors.

    It would not seem that the "soundest" of all scientific theories should have so many questions and issues surrounding it.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    The only controversy surrounds attempts by members of the religious community to have creation (a story not supported by evidence) taught as science (a method that relies entirely on evidence).

    Members of the religious community evidently feel that evolution is a threat to a literal interpretation of the Bible.

    Plate tectonics and the Big Bang are seen in a similar light, and in some areas of your country there are attempts to include (incorrect) qualifying statements when teaching these scientific concepts.

    String theory etcetera do not (yet) challenge a literal interpretation of the Bible, and so have not been questioned by the fundamentalist community.

    Whether a topic is controversial has nothing to do with how soundly scientific it is, and everything to do with how threatened a group of dogmatic religious leaders feel by the concept.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927


    heres an image of lucy, one of the few australophitecan skeletons found.
    notice the hipbone. its critical, as it implies a bipedal walking posture,
    instead of a quadriped, like on these monkeys:


    chart showing proliferation of the homonids


    this chart is based on several scientific disciplines, including geology, biology, and chemistry, and includes all the data we've been able to collect on these skeletons.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony John C
    To define God, you must define Infinite, that is impossible.
    Says who? You define God as infinite (that's what it leads to). In saying that it's impossible to define, it basically means God is impossible. Thus making your definition worthless. As nobody who believes in God should dare attempt such a fallacy.

    A God does not HAVE to be defined as infinite. This type of thinking belongs LARGELY to Christianity. I'm generally sick of it being applied.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #145  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    free radical suggests:

    Members of the religious community evidently feel that evolution is a threat to a literal interpretation of the Bible.
    As I have said several times in the past, I have no compunction toward the idea that God may have used evolution as a part of His creation process.

    So evolution does not pose a threat to my interpretation of the Bible or my concept of God. Still I question that evolution is the sole and complete story of bio-diversity.

    So far, in this exchange, we have merely touched on the questions which revolve around missing links. We do not know, for example, what the common (evolutionary) ancestor of butterflys and dragon flies is. This does no mean there wasn't one, but it does mean there is something we don't really know and that, if one is an advocate of evolution, he must accept by faith based on his knowledge and experience that such an ancestor exists.

    There is no known physical body of such a creature; its presense is accepted by looking at the results and accepting the cause which seems most reasonable based on the evidence of what we see and what we believe to have happened. That is a lot like what religious people do. We look at the results and find God to be the most acceptable explanation for what we believe happened. The universe is here, life is here. They are complex and wonderfully put together in a manner that defies random accident. They are our butterfly and dragonfly.

    There remain other questions (beyond missing links) which may or may not be explainable. These would include the questions raised by

    1. the concept of irreduceable complexity;
    2. massive die-offs followed by rapid replacement of life forms in a period of time that would be only momentary on the geological clock
    3. the cambrian layer
    4. the conflicts between slow evolution and fast evolution explanations
    5. studies and experiments with fruit flies which have not produced one new strain of fruit flies in more than 1,000,000 observed generations.

    These, I think, are legitmate questions which may have been answered to the satisfaction of someone who WANTS to believe evolution. But if accepted as fact, they are not saccrocinct -- in science a fact is more subject to change than a theory.

    As I have also said many times, my concern is not whether or how much evolution has taken place. My concern is that many atheists and agnostics use evolution as a justification for rejecting God and his claims on their souls.

    This, in turn, puts them in a perilous position with God in that their immortal souls (that which makes them the unique person they are) will perish into an eternity of conscious torment and agony.

    Some suggest that a merciful God would not allow that to happen and rely on that hope or the hope that God does not exist and that death is final aspect of existence.

    As someone on another thread suggests, if people want to go to hell, bon voyage, adios dumass. As a Christian, I cannot feel that same lack of compassion. I do not want to be aware of anyone going to hell because I failed to warn them of the danger of rejecting God -- not even jeremy or Geezer. I have no idea what hell will be like, but I think it far more unpleasant a fate than I could wish on my most destested person -- a position which neither jeremy nor Geezer come close to being low enough to reach that status.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #146  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    As someone on another thread suggests, if people want to go to hell, bon voyage, adios dumass. As a Christian, I cannot feel that same lack of compassion. I do not want to be aware of anyone going to hell because I failed to warn them of the danger of rejecting God -- not even jeremy or Geezer. I have no idea what hell will be like, but I think it far more unpleasant a fate than I could wish on my most destested person -- a position which neither jeremy nor Geezer come close to being low enough to reach that status.
    dont worry about us sensible people, look to yourself and your own misgivings.
    we are in good company, and cooler by far in both senses of the word,( if you catch my drift )

    HEAVEN IS HOTTER THAN HELL

    The temperature of heaven can be rather accurately computed. Our authority is the Bible, Isaiah 30:26 reads, Moreover, the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold as the light of seven days. Thus, heaven receives from the moon as much radiation as the earth does from the sun, and in addition seven times seven (forty nine) times as much as the earth does from the sun, or fifty times in all. The light we receive from the moon is one ten-thousandth of the light we receive from the sun, so we can ignore that. With these data we can compute the temperature of heaven: The radiation falling on heaven will heat it to the point where the heat lost by radiation is just equal to the heat received by radiation. In other words, heaven loses fifty times as much heat as the earth by radiation. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann fourth power law for radiation
    (H/E)4 = 50
    where E is the absolute temperature of the earth, 300°K (273+27). This gives H the absolute temperature of heaven, as 798° absolute (525°C).
    The exact temperature of hell cannot be computed but it must be less than 444.6°C, the temperature at which brimstone or sulfur changes from a liquid to a gas. Revelations 21:8: But the fearful and unbelieving... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." A lake of molten brimstone [sulfur] means that its temperature must be at or below the boiling point, which is 444.6°C. (Above that point, it would be a vapor, not a lake.)
    We have then, temperature of heaven, 525°C (977°F). Temperature of hell, less than 445°F). Therefore heaven is hotter than hell.

    HELL FOR NONBELIEVERS

    If there is a special Hell for atheists and other nonbelievers, I shall never fear for my comfort. The musings of Epicurus will entertain my mind and Voltaire will tickle my wit. While Paine harries the Devil, Franklin will write us a constitution. Cicero, Madison and Frederick the Great can in turn conspire a government that Marx will quickly deride.

    Goethe and Poe will tell delightfully chilling tales by the eternal lake-of-fire-side. Mrs. Cady Stanton and Mrs. B. Anthony will preserve our equality and Darwin will write our history. Messieurs Robert Ingersoll and Bertrand Russell will entertain our ears in the theatre built by Carnegie and designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, and they'll speak through the sound system invented by Thomas Edison.

    Twain will make us laugh with his satire of old split-foot and criticism of the almighty, and Clarence Darrow will win his right to do so. Nietzsche will philosophize and Freud will analyze. Wells and Roddenberry will give us fantasy, Frost will give us poetry, Shaw will write us a play and Hepburn will be the queen of the stage.

    Virginia Wolff will biographize our very own Margaret Sanger, a choice we'll all applaud. Rubinstein will play us a tune and Berlin will pen the words. Charlie Chaplin will adapt for film a comedic tale of H.P. Lovecraft and Earnest Hemmingway that will star W.C. Fields. Howard Hughes will fund the disastrous project.

    Pearle Buck and Ayn Rand will make us think and give Skinner thoughts to study. Snoopy will once again have daily installment in our paper, with Schultz returning to the drafting table. All in all I will be quite entertained.

    My social calendar will be full to busting, and I'll have many calls to make. The Huxleys (Aldus, Thomas, and Sir Julian Sorell) will be worth a talk on biology and authorship. Perhaps I myself can compose the great novel of the underworld with the help of Lawrence, Orwell, Joyce and Asimov.

    I am in good company in my disbelief."

    Nevyn O'Kane
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #147  
    Guest
    Okay. I'm answering this one. This is just...pissing me off at this point.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    So far, in this exchange, we have merely touched on the questions which revolve around missing links. We do not know, for example, what the common (evolutionary) ancestor of butterflys and dragon flies is. This does no mean there wasn't one, but it does mean there is something we don't really know and that, if one is an advocate of evolution, he must accept by faith based on his knowledge and experience that such an ancestor exists.
    What. The. Sexual act. Daytonturner, it's fine if you're not accepting that evolution is the sole explanation for biodiversity. It is not fine when you keep making statements that prove you're completely ignorant of how it works.

    Evolution, by default, must state everything has an ancestor. Leading right up to the good ol' big bang and whatever came before that. It isn't FAITH, it's the theory itself.

    There is no known physical body of such a creature; its presense is accepted by looking at the results and accepting the cause which seems most reasonable based on the evidence of what we see and what we believe to have happened. That is a lot like what religious people do. We look at the results and find God to be the most acceptable explanation for what we believe happened. The universe is here, life is here. They are complex and wonderfully put together in a manner that defies random accident. They are our butterfly and dragonfly.
    No. Fuck you. No. That's the most retarded thing you have ever said. SCIENCE determines the most probable cause by using a wide array of methods. RELIGION determines the most probable cause by a metric FUCKTON of bias and opinionated illogical statements (much like yours here).

    They are nothing alike, in both their approaches and results.

    There remain other questions (beyond missing links) which may or may not be explainable. These would include the questions raised by

    1. the concept of irreduceable complexity;
    2. massive die-offs followed by rapid replacement of life forms in a period of time that would be only momentary on the geological clock
    3. the cambrian layer
    4. the conflicts between slow evolution and fast evolution explanations
    5. studies and experiments with fruit flies which have not produced one new strain of fruit flies in more than 1,000,000 observed generations.
    And each of these? Explained by websites such as http://www.talkorigins.org/ which you have ignored in the past. And do continue to ignore in order to remain ignorant.

    [QUE PREACHING BULLSHIT]
    This, in turn, puts them in a perilous position with God in that their immortal souls (that which makes them the unique person they are) will perish into an eternity of conscious torment and agony.

    Some suggest that a merciful God would not allow that to happen and rely on that hope or the hope that God does not exist and that death is final aspect of existence.

    As someone on another thread suggests, if people want to go to hell, bon voyage, adios dumass. As a Christian, I cannot feel that same lack of compassion. I do not want to be aware of anyone going to hell because I failed to warn them of the danger of rejecting God -- not even jeremy or Geezer. I have no idea what hell will be like, but I think it far more unpleasant a fate than I could wish on my most destested person -- a position which neither jeremy nor Geezer come close to being low enough to reach that status.[/END PREACHING BULLSHIT]

    As my humorous tags show...what the fuck does this have to do with anything? You're preaching, nothing more. Leave it in the church, not a science forum. If I was a moderator I would have trimmed it, but I'm just intolerant of someone soapboxing their views.

    Stick to facts and logic. Then again if you were to begin with, we wouldn't be disagreeing now would we?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #148  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    My concern is that many atheists and agnostics use evolution as a justification for rejecting God and his claims on their souls.
    Where are these such atheists and agnostics (who use evolution to reject God)? :? Do any such people post here?

    Now, given a choice between acting out of fear and acting out of love, which mindset would be more "pleasing" to "God?" And, with utmost respect, which mindset are you advocating?

    Surely an atheist who acts selflessly, from love and compassion, is truer to the teachings of Christ than a religious person who stomps about making demands of others.

    I realise that it is challenging, but it is better to act out of love, and let God sort out who goes where, than to tell God you belong to him and not put any effort towards loving your fellow man.

    The bulk of these comments are not directed at you personally but rather at the evangelical movement which appears to sorely misunderstand what it means to be atheist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #149  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    The exact temperature of hell cannot be computed but it must be less than 444.6°C, the temperature at which brimstone or sulfur changes from a liquid to a gas. Revelations 21:8: But the fearful and unbelieving... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." A lake of molten brimstone [sulfur] means that its temperature must be at or below the boiling point, which is 444.6°C. (Above that point, it would be a vapor, not a lake.)
    And don't forget the thermodynamic argument posted some years ago:

    First, we postulate that if souls exist, they must have some mass. If they do, then a mole of souls can also have a mass. So, at what rate are souls moving into hell and at what rate are souls 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 souls entering hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today.

    Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all people and 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 in volume in hell. Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in hell to stay the same, the ratio of the mass of souls and volume needs to stay constant.

    #1 So, 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 Of course, 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 me by Jennifer Smith during Freshman year, and take into account the fact that I still have not succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then #2 cannot be true, and hell is exothermic."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #150  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by quote by free radical
    I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to hell, it will not leave.
    so in a way hell is like a black hole ? can black holes freeze over ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #151  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    free radical wonders:

    I realise that it is challenging, but it is better to act out of love, and let God sort out who goes where, than to tell God you belong to him and not put any effort towards loving your fellow man.
    OK, so understanding what Christians believe -- that "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God," and are thus doomed to an eternity of torment and agony, what are they to do to show love?

    Should they just keep their mouths shut and silently observe as their friends and relatives and acquaintances insure their place in eternal torment? What kind of love would allow a person to merely spectate as others perish? If that is love of your fellow man, then it follows that we should never offend someone by warning them of danger.

    If you know someone is allergic to peanuts and you know a food has peanuts in it, do you tell him? Or do you sit back, allow him to eat, and watch him die of anaphylactic shock and then congratulate yourself with, "Well, at least I did not bug the poor b*st*rd about what he was doing?"

    The evangelistic technique most often used by Jesus (and Who is a better example to follow?) was to remind people of their sinfulness and to tell them to repent and turn to God. He did not promise them a life of ease and pleasure, rather He said they would endure persecution and suffering.

    Somewhere in the last century some Christians began preaching and teaching that becoming a Christian would lead a person to a life free of suffering and that they would lead a life of success, peace and tranquility.

    Many people who responded to that message found that being a Christian did not miraculously change their circumstances. They still had the exact same problems they had before "trying" Christianity and fell away.

    I don't know how many times I have read here comments criticizing Christians for taking the easy way out. Christianity is the most difficult way out of this life possible. Atheism and agnoticism are the easiest ways out.

    Becoming a Christian emphasizes no promises for this life. It does not, for example, promise a peaceful life. It does, however, promise peace of mind in the midst of troublesome circumstances.

    What Christianity provides in this lifetime is the hope of an eternity in the presence of a holy and loving God. The alternative is facing God’s wrath and spending an eternity out of the presence of God. Euphemistically speaking, the Bible does not present this existence as a desirable one.

    The Christian message starts with the awareness that each of us is a sinner. We will each face God in judgment after we have died. If God judges us on our own works, we are doomed because we have not met his standards. If we repent and, by faith trust that the life, death and resurrection of Jesus was sufficient to please God, we will be judged on His merits rather than our own.

    So, do you show love for your fellow humans by not offending them with the message of God? Or do you show love by warning them that they are in danger of facing a wrathful God but that they can turn away that wrath?
    And should that message be given once? Twice? Or whenever the opportunity presents itself until the person repents or dies?
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #152  
    Forum Freshman Tony John C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    94
    I think these are some of the best answers ever.

    "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

    "I believe in a God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings"

    -Some scientist
    Why is hate so ingrained in humans? For the supposed enlightened species we are very limited to such primitive behaviors. Peace is a fleeting in our society.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •