Rant on Theories, Laws & Misconceptions Options

[Supersprynt]

I hesitated creating a thread regarding this but this is really the best medium in which many people can talk openly about something w/o much consequence. Plus I'm big on freedom of speech and so here it goes.

Friday night I go and see Damon Wayans stand up. Second time I saw him, and he was pretty funny the first time. This time he wasn't nearly as funny. Mainly because he started attacking anything that wasn't Christian. Oh boy. So he goes on to say that evolution is the stupidest thing he's ever heard and goes about mocking how its ridiculous something just formed and one day hopped out of the water and another day got legs and another day jumped up into a tree and then finally said "I got to get a job" as a human.

Hilarious. Oh wait, its not. In fact I was flabberghasted and the level of sheer stupidity emanating from this mans mouth. Evolution is the stupidest thing he's heard? Did he think it happened in 6 days? He then continued to say that atheism is on the rise and its basically got to be stopped and how its horrible not to believe in anything.

By now your thinking, where is he going with this? My dilemma which is actually eating at me is how many of you think that evolution isn't real? How many people think that evolution happened overnight; and how many people are under the impression that evolution is just a hypothesis, nothing more than a guess; how many people think atheism is evil? Im genuinely curious.

If I dont get any responses to this I'll chalk it up to I wrote too much, you got tired, fell asleep and drooled on your keyboard. I also want to say that if you do decide to respond, you do it in an intelligent, RESPECTFUL manner. I'm not looking for this to get closed because religion is a very very touchy subject. This is primarily for those who have an open mind, and willing to engage in intelligent conversation.

Thanks.

[Defgeph]

Evolution. You can't argue with scientific facts.

Do I believe there was this man named Jesus ? Yes.
Do I believe in religion ? No
Do I care what you believe in ? Not really. It's non of my business.

To many terrible things happen in the name of religion. Religion should be kept to one's self.

[celicaST]

evolution is not a theory, its a fact. atheism is not evil. i believe there is a higher power but i dont believe in a religion. because although evolution explains how, it will never explain why. in my opinion, the varying religions around the world were created to explain natural phenomena and to in effect provide order in early society. seems to me that religion today is propagated more by fear than anything else.

This post has been edited by celicaST: Feb 25, 2007 - 9:17 PM

[snapshotgt]

The thing that really gets me annoyed is when people think "religious" people don't believe, or cannot believe in evolution. Yes, it is true some don't, they are fundamentalists.

BUT, you can be religious or "very religious" and still believe in evolution. You cannot think about it in a "black and white" way.

What does atheism have to do with this? You brought it up for no reason. I'm not going to get into it with you because this thread would end up being locked. Not calling you evil -- just do not share your views in anyway.

This post has been edited by snapshotgt: Feb 25, 2007 - 9:25 PM

[Consynx]

i've gone over this in a 6gc chat before.

the whole "you need to have faith. . ." in who knows what...
yea, i got faith...in myself.


...right now i am having trouble thinking of anything that can come out of believing in a religion that u can't get outside. . .

^^ and to that, didn't know there was anything wrong with NOT believing in a divine being.

This post has been edited by Consynx: Feb 25, 2007 - 9:39 PM

[NickJames]

For a person to attack a particular belief is wrong in general. What I believe is that on top of freedom of speech, we have many other freedoms, such as freedom of religion, and whatever that may mean to people, thats fine. But in a general sense, whether a God given right or just common sense, we should ALL, including the rich and famous, comedic or not, to respect the thoughts and "beliefs" of everyone else. I personally believe in God, I don't have a complete understanding of it all, but I do believe that religion in and of itself is a man made creation, used to categorize and seperate people. I also believe in evolution, in the sense that things are always evolving, adapting, learning, if anybody can't see that, whether spiritual or not, should take the opportunity to look at the facts. So to believe in God AND evolution (science) is not blasphemous or wrong, just more open minded. So.....with that, I feel that it is cruel and completely unnecessary to attack, mame, ridicule other "beliefs" or lack there of. What it all boils down to is, can't we all get along!?!?!?! And if we can't, then what is the point of being alive, except of course to love our cars lol

This post has been edited by NickJames: Feb 25, 2007 - 10:00 PM

[CelicaBuddy]

I am an Athiest... Doesnt mean I'm a horrible person and that I have nothing to believe in like this comedian thinks... I just believe in more factual things and things I can actually see... (granted you cant see evolution happen... but...)

To me evolution and how this world was made makes WAY more sense to me because it goes off theories and facts where you can actually put 2 and 2 together...

I dont believe in religion because to me it doesnt make sense to me that "one being" or whatever it may be, created everything we know over night or whatever. Where's the evidence of god creating this world and everything?

Because there's seems to be a lot more scientic evidence of evolution...

[Jen]

If you have time (and patience), this is a very interesting video.

Creation vs. Evolution debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cffk0zQ33k

[NickJames]

The way that I see it though is that science and religion are beginning to go much more hand in hand. I can see what you mean when it comes to being able to see things for a fact....I used to belive that, until one day I had a spiritual "experience" so to speak. Now I believe in more. I do a lot of learning about all the different religions, I try to keep an open mind. I saw something a while back going over the complexity of life, and it would be like a 1 in like some astronomical number chance for it to be real. Life and existence is just too beautiful and comlicated to it to not be from intelleigent design. And that goes from earth to the entire universe, its amazing and complex and, in my opinion, completely feasible that God and science can a should be able to coexist.

[Supersprynt]

I'm agreeing with most of all of your points. I do admit I tend to "black & white" the situation because I dont encounter too many people who actually say yes evolution makes alot of sense and yes I believe in god.

Absolutely agree that denominations should be a private thing. You believe what you have to believe to make your life complete.

Snapshot - I brought up atheism because Damon Wayans did. I was running through what he said while I was typing.

And Sabrina your right. Atheism DOESNT mean your a horrible person. Thats propaganda. Your also right about the evidence thing. Especially since theres zero evidence supporting the other.

Nick - I'm going to have to disagree with what your saying that religion and science are coming together. I think now more than ever are they farther apart, and for good reason. They are opposites. Science is based on observation, and facts. God and spiritualness are based upon belief, feelings and therefore neither one will be together. The world is equally horrid as it is beautiful. If you do not see the horrible things that happen everyday you only get a single perspective. The world has developed from trial and error. If god created evolution, in which some things fail, god fails. God cannot fail, cannot be wrong or else he would nto be god.

Jen REALLY long vid. lol

This post has been edited by Supersprynt: Feb 25, 2007 - 10:24 PM

[NickJames]

Science does not show things and learn things by proving, science is the art of DISproving theories until it can't be done therefore having an answer, so you say that there is no proof of God, but science has yet to DISprove it. It is true, however, that a large portion of scientist, even those working on evolution, believe in God and/or a higher being. And to reply to the failing aspect. God created us, and if we fail, we fix, and continue on, so it is not God that fails, it is us.

This post has been edited by NickJames: Feb 25, 2007 - 10:26 PM

[Supersprynt]

Ah yes. See you have fallen into a classic pitfall from which you are talking about. You are incorrect on this basis. It is NOT the job of people to disprove what you are saying. It is YOUR job to backup what you belief with evidence and facts. Science does not go around disproving things. Hypotheses are made, they are tested and retested and retested until they are Theory.

Unfortunately u have it backwards. If your in college; take the first 2 philosophy courses. It will challenge you in ways you didnt yet know you could be. I say the first 2 because the first is If-Then stuff, only does the second one come into the fallible logic your using now.

Addendum.

Science, in the broadest sense, refers to any system of objective knowledge. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.

Science does not have a direction. As in, they do not Prove or Disprove. Scientists observe. Simple as that. If a hypothesis is observed to be wrong. It is changed or thrown out. Only after hypothesis pass the scientific method does it become a theory. This is where the Theory of Evolution lies now. Its not a "theory" as in, we "think" this is whats going on. It is passed the scientific method and has evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt.

This post has been edited by Supersprynt: Feb 25, 2007 - 10:33 PM

[Jen]

Oh, but Erik if you have the time, it is such a great video! You get to see two perspectives, it's really interesting if you're into that kind of thing.

---

Maybe a little off topic, but something I've always wondered about (get pissed about). I'll put it vaguely since I'm supposed to be doing homework right now. The seperation between church and state is a bunch of bs. If there was really a "seperation" they wouldn't have laws against gay marriage, and laws against stem cell research.

PS. I love this thread.

This post has been edited by Jen: Feb 25, 2007 - 10:31 PM

[NickJames]

but the tesitng and retesting is a search to disprove the theories, then if it cannot be disproved anymore, then it is fact

[Supersprynt]

NJ - your a little unfamiliar with the scientific process. Theories have already been studied beyond a shadow of a doubt to be true. Hypotheses are those which are explanations where they think this is why it happens. Its not like they can take "the belief in god" and test it and test it because its impossible. Its not an observation. Its a feeling, a belief. You cant disprove god because theres nothing to observe, its faith. So when you say they havent disproven god its because they aren't, they cant, its impossible. What they can do is explain everything else that was once attributed to god. And in consequence, it sorta disproves his existence "according to the bible etc."

Jen - there is seperation of church and state. No its not stated in those words but it does state that the government does not support one religion over another. If you, or anyone can find the text of the constitution regarding this that'd be great. The states define marriage as between man and woman. It has nothing to do with religion really.

[uberschall]

i am not atheistic. i am agnostic. it is my firm belief that the scope of human understanding is limited to the things that we can experience with our basic senses-sight, touch, etc.

i think that the human realm is rocks, trees, and everything on the earth, and that's it. regardless of how life came to exist on this planet, we simply cannot completely understand it.

in our limited scope, evolution is obvious from the standpoint that it continues to this very moment. there are new diseases born of existing ones through small-scale evolutionary processes. on top of that, the paleontological evidence of evolution is undeniable.

as for science, we can define it however we want. playing semantics about the definition of the word does not diminish that no matter what you want to call it, sciences are understandings and methods, nothing more. science nor religion can present a flawless ideological baseline, but it is an important feature of any ideological system to include a higher power.

if you choose to establish said higher power as a creationary being, so be it. if you choose to submit that there is no higher power, fine. i submit that we are simply incapable of beginning to understand anyway.

[Supersprynt]

Jen - separation of church and state was coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptists regarding the first amendment.

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

[x_itchy_b_x]

umm the flying angelic beings that people with small minds who couldn't describe what they saw thousands of years ago saw aliens and the wings we see in illustrations just suggest flight since all the people could comprehend was that birds fly. the aztecs saw boats when the Spanish came and killed them all and they described the boats as floating mountains not knowing what a boat was how would they call them boats, get it. smart. reigion is just a belief to try and explain where we came from and the stories were poorly translated and crap loads of books where left out of the bible because it wasn't in the interest of the roman catholic church to put those books in. also in the great vast of time humans have been on earth the bible is new, to get the real info look further back in history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSB4QRjt8fM...256&index=0
the nemesis theory because backs this theory up with the idea of being in a double star system. id rather learn whats older than religion and thats the universe.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=45...mp;q=physics+10
go to 35:00 in that video ^

also i believe in a God, not in the sense of Jesus or Budda or Shiva who ever. but more in the creator of the universe. The great architect of the universe.
Thats just my belief though :x

[Consynx]

got a good bit into video....
goin to bed
will try to watch it later


AND read these other huge comments...i am typing from the bed at this point.

and Science is not disproving other theories. . .
TONS of science is hypothesis...and then there's testing to back em up and see if they fail...
that is why science is different...it requires a form of proof, because a plain hypothesis without any testing/reseasrch goes NoWhere

[97lestyousay]

I believe in right and wrong. I see nothing wrong with
religion teaching the difference. When people start pushing
thier beliefs on others is where I draw the line. As far as evolution,
we still are. I believe if forced in a controlled environment we
can be made to adapt to almost anything over a few generations.

Edid: what happened to the Damon Wayens from Mo-Money?

This post has been edited by 97lestyousay: Feb 25, 2007 - 11:48 PM

[j0e_p3t]

i believe man evolved from monkeys which evolved from blah blah blah which evolved from a fish which evolved from more blah which evolved from the tiniest single-celled organism. but then where did those things come from? evolution can only go so far back.

[Supersprynt]

Evolution doesn't pretend to explain from what did the first single-cell organisms start. It merely explains how the vast range of millions of different animals across the land and sea came to be so perfect in their environments.

We never evolved from monkeys though. They aren't primates.

[jgreening]

Deductive reasoning (the scientific method) is not the opposite of belief - its just different. There are many many people (me included - undergrad philosophy major, lawyer by trade) that tend to be very rational yet also have faith in God.

I once struggled with reconciling the whole issue myself. Even in my most agnostic days (during college) there were two questions that I could never answer purely from a scientific perspective.

1. If the world was created in a "big bang" (followed by evolution), how and why did the big bang occur?

2. In a universe full of various forms of "matter", how can we explain how and why some things are living?

I would argue that the most logical among us might conceed that there is something bigger than us that holds the answers to these questions.

[97lestyousay]

My sons step dad told him dinosaurs never existed, because
there is no mention of them in the bible. Some
people get too closed minded.

[j0e_p3t]

Evolution doesn't pretend to explain from what did the first single-cell organisms start. It merely explains how the vast range of millions of different animals across the land and sea came to be so perfect in their environments.

We never evolved from monkeys though. They aren't primates.

exactly. science doesn't explain anything it cannot. i'm saying that evolution only goes so far back. science can only explain so much. something (which i believe to be God) created those single-celled organisms and placed them all over earth, which then evolved into different species in order to adapt to their constantly changing environment. i'm one of those who believe in both science and God. and yes, humans evolved from primates.

[Supersprynt]

Agreed. But the big bang is only a hypothesis, if that. Its still highly debated. The big bang merely describes the current universe setup. Whose to say there wasnt just another universe before that and it imploded?

If science is observation and deductive reasoning, what would the the opposite? I'd say it would be blind faith, the following of mere feelings and beliefs based on highly circumstantial and very thin stories. You can say that I "believe" in evolution as someone would "believe" in god, but its not just different, its so different I would still conclude its the opposite.

When you say how can we explain why and how some things are living? What things are you talking about? We're a young species, why do the answers have to be provided here and now? Its as if because we cant explain everything now it has to be god. As a philosophy major you definately should know how wrong that would be.

There is very much we just plain old don't know yet. Think about the scientific knowledge 200 yrs ago compared to today. God helps keep people secure. Makes people feel warm and cozy inside. Makes things easy to understand, cut and dry. No wondering, no worry about things because its in gods hands. God has a plan.

I firmly believe there is no single "being" that has all the answers, all the power and a plan to carry out. We are but an insignificant part of a gigantic world. There is infinite space bigger and unexplained, but it would be unwise to say it never will be explained.

My sons step dad told him dinosaurs never existed, because
there is no mention of them in the bible. Some
people get too closed minded.

This reminds me of a girl who told me that dinosaur bones were put in the ground by people trying to ruin christianity.

I also found something today, I forget where, stating that some fundamentalists are stating that the earth not only does not rotate, it doesnt revolve. Now this is scientific fact, and people are still denying it. This is the stuff that drives me up walls.

This post has been edited by Supersprynt: Feb 26, 2007 - 12:13 AM

[j0e_p3t]

This reminds me of a girl who told me that dinosaur bones were put in the ground by people trying to ruin christianity.

lol. i've actually heard someone say that.

[Nate]

Agreed. But the big bang is only a hypothesis, if that. Its still highly debated. The big bang merely describes the current universe setup. Whose to say there wasnt just another universe before that and it imploded?

If science is observation and deductive reasoning, what would the the opposite? I'd say it would be blind faith, the following of mere feelings and beliefs based on highly circumstantial and very thin stories. You can say that I "believe" in evolution as someone would "believe" in god, but its not just different, its so different I would still conclude its the opposite.

When you say how can we explain why and how some things are living? What things are you talking about? We're a young species, why do the answers have to be provided here and now? Its as if because we cant explain everything now it has to be god. As a philosophy major you definately should know how wrong that would be.

There is very much we just plain old don't know yet. Think about the scientific knowledge 200 yrs ago compared to today. God helps keep people secure. Makes people feel warm and cozy inside. Makes things easy to understand, cut and dry. No wondering, no worry about things because its in gods hands. God has a plan.

I firmly believe there is no single "being" that has all the answers, all the power and a plan to carry out. We are but an insignificant part of a gigantic world. There is infinite space bigger and unexplained, but it would be unwise to say it never will be explained.

My sons step dad told him dinosaurs never existed, because
there is no mention of them in the bible. Some
people get too closed minded.

This reminds me of a girl who told me that dinosaur bones were put in the ground by people trying to ruin christianity.

very well put... as i was reading the posts before this i was trying to think of how to say what i was thinking. you pretty much hit the nail on the head for me

[97lestyousay]

This reminds me of a girl who told me that dinosaur bones were put in the ground by people trying to ruin christianity.

Hopefully shes not raising your kids.

[OrbitalGT95]

umm the flying angelic beings that people with small minds who couldn't describe what they saw thousands of years ago saw aliens and the wings we see in illustrations just suggest flight since all the people could comprehend was that birds fly. the aztecs saw boats when the Spanish came and killed them all and they described the boats as floating mountains not knowing what a boat was how would they call them boats, get it. smart. reigion is just a belief to try and explain where we came from and the stories were poorly translated and crap loads of books where left out of the bible because it wasn't in the interest of the roman catholic church to put those books in. also in the great vast of time humans have been on earth the bible is new, to get the real info look further back in history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSB4QRjt8fM...256&index=0
the nemesis theory because backs this theory up with the idea of being in a double star system. id rather learn whats older than religion and thats the universe.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=45...mp;q=physics+10
go to 35:00 in that video ^

also i believe in a God, not in the sense of Jesus or Budda or Shiva who ever. but more in the creator of the universe. The great architect of the universe.
Thats just my belief though :x

I saw these videos awhile back, really makes you think, specially with that nemesis theory of a planet/comet thats comes in and out every so many thousands of years. I wasn't going to post this at first cause to argues both religion and evolution, but yeah...

[jgreening]

Whose to say there wasnt just another universe before that and it imploded?

Tthe big bang theory is generally accepted as the most prevalent scientific thought on how the universe started. I agree that it hasn't been proven.

If science is observation and deductive reasoning, what would the the opposite? I'd say it would be blind faith, the following of mere feelings and beliefs based on highly circumstantial and very thin stories. You can say that I "believe" in evolution as someone would "believe" in god, but its not just different, its so different I would still conclude its the opposite.

Reducing faith to "feelings" would only come from someone who has no faith. If you took those first two philosophy classes, you may have learned that Descarte and his successors never suggested that because something could not be proved did not mean that it was untrue.


When you say how can we explain why and how some things are living? What things are you talking about? We're a young species, why do the answers have to be provided here and now? Its as if because we cant explain everything now it has to be god. As a philosophy major you definately should know how wrong that would be.

I am talking about the fundamental difference between living things and things which are not living. "Life" is certainly a strange thing if you think of the world just made up of bunch of matter created from an explosion. Does the fact that we can't explain it mean there was a creator? No, but alternative theories just seem silly to me.

There is very much we just plain old don't know yet. Think about the scientific knowledge 200 yrs ago compared to today.

Agreed.

God helps keep people secure. Makes people feel warm and cozy inside. Makes things easy to understand, cut and dry. No wondering, no worry about things because its in gods hands. God has a plan.

For some, you are definitely correct. There are many sheep in the world. However, that does not apply to all people who believe in God.

I firmly believe there is no single "being" that has all the answers, all the power and a plan to carry out. We are but an insignificant part of a gigantic world. There is infinite space bigger and unexplained, but it would be unwise to say it never will be explained.

How is your belief here subject to any less critism than you have leveled on people who do believe in God?

[Supersprynt]

I honestly have no opinion of the big bang theory. Discussing it further would render only speculation. I need a better understanding of the idea before passing judgement on it.

When I included feelings with my description of faith, it was meant as the inclusion of a love for (a) god(s). Faith is merely a strong belief. If you want to play with words about how someones feelings are seperate from their beliefs go ahead. I don't think its a far cry to say that ones love for god leads them blindly.

What alternative theories seem silly to you? What I have a hard time wrapping my hands around is if some theories are silly, why does one in which a being who has ultimate power, knowledge and wisdom to create, control & change a seemingly huge universe not seem silly?

When I think about why someone would believe in god several reasons come about. First and foremost is parents. Religion is taught as truth as a child for many and it is wrong to be debated. I dont think its any secret what many at least christian organizations did in the last 1,000 years to the people who refused to believe. Second is that people like the cozy, secure feeling etc. A distant third comes the "its the most plausible explanation" reason. This is because theres no evidence. So when I at least weigh things that can be explained to something that someone long ago decided existed, its no contest.

I'm also not saying my belief here is subject to any less criticism. You can criticize it all you want. The problem is, the argument science vs. creationism can never fully blossom because people who argue for god have little argument. Theres no evidence, theres hardly anything to go on besides, "if it doesnt exist prove it" or "because the bible says so" or "beings are so complex it had to be thought out by a super-being." None of that is valid argument. So it ultimately goes no where.

This post has been edited by Supersprynt: Feb 26, 2007 - 1:11 AM

[soven]

just jump on youtube and search videos by brettkeane.

[jgreening]

"beings are so complex it had to be thought out by a super-being." None of that is valid argument.

Whats invalid about that argument? I think its a damn fine one.

[Supersprynt]

Its not an argument because its 100% opinion.

I'll add: if I say, ok: let's take the eye for example. Why can't that have been created naturally. Why do you think it had to have been created "intelligently?"

For me personally; I like keeping things simple. That eye has millions of rods and cones and if I were to create the perfect eye I'd include lets parts.

This post has been edited by Supersprynt: Feb 26, 2007 - 1:29 AM

[lagos]

1. If the world was created in a "big bang" (followed by evolution), how and why did the big bang occur?

i skimmed through most of this thread.... but there are explanations for what happened before the big bang. i believe one of them is called M-Theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

[Rayme]

Now what I'm about to say is very interesting if you strongly beleive in the evolution theory. Well...I find it very interesting.

They say the whole world started as a single organism that spawned into all that exists, over millions and millions of years.

what is the most simple living organism? A cell? yes!

but wait a minute..a single cell.. how do you get to a cell?

A cell contains various but very simple mechanisms, exterior membrane, reproduction system, suicide system..etc..

If you beleive the cell "evolved" from something else, there goes the problem, you just cannot remove one of the cell's system, the cell just cannot function properly without one of those very simple mechanism...it could live without the reproductive system, but eh...that would be the end...

I'm going to stop and make you think now



Just looking at the cell diagram..Its hard to visualize how everything started from zero.

This post has been edited by Rayme: Feb 26, 2007 - 5:40 PM

[Supersprynt]

Pardon my haste but, just because you have a hard time visualizing what started from very little (not 0) and changed in a time period of billions of years doesnt change a single thing.

After re-reading your post, which I guess you think makes someone think about things except the fact that your implying a cell isnt a cell unless it has all those things inside. Your looking at a contemporary model of a cell. What your saying is that if a part of the contemporary model doesnt exist, the cell cant function or "live." And that maybe correct, but doesnt change the fact that it started out as something different and improved and changed function as time went by.

Whats the most simple thing RIGHT NOW? Maybe a cell. But billions of years ago it could have been the most complex...

This post has been edited by Supersprynt: Feb 26, 2007 - 5:51 PM

[celicaST]

Now what I'm about to say is very interesting if you strongly beleive in the evolution theory. Well...I find it very interesting.

They say the whole world started as a single organism that spawned into all that exists, over millions and millions of years.

what is the most simple living organism? A cell? yes!

but wait a minute..a single cell.. how do you get to a cell?

A cell contains various but very simple mechanisms, exterior membrane, reproduction system, suicide system..etc..

If you beleive the cell "evolved" from something else, there goes the problem, you just cannot remove one of the cell's system, the cell just cannot function properly without one of those very simple mechanism...it could live without the reproductive system, but eh...that would be the end...

I'm going to stop and make you think now



Just looking at the cell diagram..Its hard to visualize how everything started from zero.

animal cells (like you pictured) are not very simple. you make it sound as though the single cell had to just appear. it took millions of years for the first cells to evolve, and they were very primitive. bacteria will give you a better example. more complex cells, such as plant/animal cells evolved from these earlier cells. even the mitochondria (organelles in animal cells) are believed to have been independent cells that then became part of the larger animal cell.

[pepsiman]

http://www.godexistence.com/five.htm

I am a Christian and at one point i doubted the existance of God and you all got some good points but this website has ALOT of good points

lol and I believe in dinosaurs

This post has been edited by pepsiman: Feb 26, 2007 - 7:14 PM

[Supersprynt]

Pepsiman - theres not a single good point in that website. All those "rules" are nothing more than "should"s and "there is a creator."

It clearly states "General Proofs" but theres not a single proof of anything. Its not hard to grasp that concept either so why are many being fooled by stuff like this?

General Proofs:

Rule 1:
"For everything made, there is a maker"

This statement isn't supported by any real facts. They take examples like a table, and attribute it to life. You cant compare something that you can actually watch be created from something else and compare it to something like the beginning of life.

Rule 2:
A power by itself, unless mastered by intelligence, could destroy instead of building.

If its a rule, why is there could in the statement? Any power, could do anything. Whats their point?

Rule 3:
There should be a first maker.

This isnt a rule, this is an opinion.

Rule 4:
In the beginning was a very intelligent being who put together the atom.

Not a rule, opinion again.

Rule 5:
There is a very intelligent being who made both the atom and the solar system, who is all almighty, all-powerful, and all intelligent.

see above.

Rule 6:
People called an artist who started a wonderful piece of art, a creator, not just a maker. Then for this intelligent being who started the atom, and the matter along with it, and from it everything else, isn’t appropriate to call him “The creator.”

Basing rules off of something thats not proven...x4.

RULE 7:
The universe should be made by a person because of the beauty that is illustrated everywhere in the universe. The beauty must come from a person with a lot of sensitivity, feelings and a great touch of beauty.

Should again, wow opinion runs rampant.

Not a single one of those is actually a rule. This is convincing?

What I'm trying to do here is find some sort of argument thats FOR a "creator" or god. I personally do not believe there is, but thats because I don't see any empirical evidence for a creator. Thats not to say there CAN'T be one, but the more we explain things once attributed to the power of god, the more unlikely his existence becomes, and the farther from what has been described as a god it becomes therefore the existence of a "god" as described doesn't exist. Long path I hope I explained it well.

This post has been edited by Supersprynt: Feb 26, 2007 - 7:28 PM

[Rayme]

of course you are all right, but the whole picture is at some point, you cannot go from simpler to simplest, something will not work. I didn't create that problem, I've seen a show on it.

Its the same principle as what if you would cut something in half forever..at some point it would be impossible.

I'm not saying I'm right, im just showing the theories of why I don't beleive in creation from zero. A single string of DNA is in itself, very complex, and all living organism has it...now how the most simple life form can be ramdomly created and have all the systems necessary to start the whole evolution tree? its my 2cents.

[Punisher]

I hesitated creating a thread regarding this but this is really the best medium in which many people can talk openly about something w/o much consequence. Plus I'm big on freedom of speech and so here it goes.

Friday night I go and see Damon Wayans stand up. Second time I saw him, and he was pretty funny the first time. This time he wasn't nearly as funny. Mainly because he started attacking anything that wasn't Christian. Oh boy. So he goes on to say that evolution is the stupidest thing he's ever heard and goes about mocking how its ridiculous something just formed and one day hopped out of the water and another day got legs and another day jumped up into a tree and then finally said "I got to get a job" as a human.

Hilarious. Oh wait, its not. In fact I was flabberghasted and the level of sheer stupidity emanating from this mans mouth. Evolution is the stupidest thing he's heard? Did he think it happened in 6 days? He then continued to say that atheism is on the rise and its basically got to be stopped and how its horrible not to believe in anything.

By now your thinking, where is he going with this? My dilemma which is actually eating at me is how many of you think that evolution isn't real? How many people think that evolution happened overnight; and how many people are under the impression that evolution is just a hypothesis, nothing more than a guess; how many people think atheism is evil? Im genuinely curious.

If I dont get any responses to this I'll chalk it up to I wrote too much, you got tired, fell asleep and drooled on your keyboard. I also want to say that if you do decide to respond, you do it in an intelligent, RESPECTFUL manner. I'm not looking for this to get closed because religion is a very very touchy subject. This is primarily for those who have an open mind, and willing to engage in intelligent conversation.

Thanks.

Aren't comedians supposed to make fun of society and their child-hood and what not?

With that aside.. I believe in a form of evolution.. I believe we were created by something a higher power not from evolutions theory.

But people like an explanation to things.. Evolution to me is a theory and people can take it or leave it I don't care.

I believe that evolution happened after we were created... so maybe God (Term for higher power, life form or society..? whatever you want to think) created us billions of years ago.. primative.. and set the laws of evolution and then walked away. I also believe that .. if you want to look at the bible for creation story.. 6 days to God or a higher life form isn't equivelant to what we humans see as 6 24hr days.. I think for God each day may be millions or a billion years. To back this up.. since I'm already talking bible.. it is stated that God is the beginning and the end.. not under "times" constraint at all.

So I like to think of each day in the creation story as being 1 billion years.. that would be plausable. I do not believe that the earth (and heavens) are only 5-6000 years old..

Also .. if there is a God as the bible describes, than everything we research today could be of his invention.. to keep us occupied as we became more technologically advanced.. life would be a very boring dull event with out things to explore and discover.

I do think it was wrong for that excuse of a comedian to bash on evolution and whatever else... What's the deal with that? (har-har).

As for religion, I think it's fantastic.. except for the radicalist parts.. every religion has it's radicals.. Christianity is blood stained from the beginning.

But in itself religion is great.. It helps people to have a moral ground.. Whether or not in the end religion comes out to be true or not (As in, there is no God or higher power etc..) it wasn't/isn't a bad thing.

That is just my 2cents.

[Punisher]

of course you are all right, but the whole picture is at some point, you cannot go from simpler to simplest, something will not work. I didn't create that problem, I've seen a show on it.

Its the same principle as what if you would cut something in half forever..at some point it would be impossible.

I'm not saying I'm right, im just showing the theories of why I don't beleive in creation from zero. A single string of DNA is in itself, very complex, and all living organism has it...now how the most simple life form can be ramdomly created and have all the systems necessary to start the whole evolution tree? its my 2cents.

Let's add more thought.. If you don't believe in evolution, than you believe in creation. What has always made my brain come to a screeching hault and let out the biggest fart known to man is: What or how was God created? Our entire existance and everything around us is a total mystery..

Just thinking of how vast the universe is... What I REALLY love is anything pretaining to black holes.. I was watching a show on Discovery about it.. with Stephen Hawking.. Just blows my mind to think what possibly happens around and in a black hole.. The theories on it are amazing.

[Supersprynt]

of course you are all right, but the whole picture is at some point, you cannot go from simpler to simplest, something will not work. I didn't create that problem, I've seen a show on it.

Castle to a piece of stone...

Its the same principle as what if you would cut something in half forever..at some point it would be impossible.

Impossible how? For you, for scientists? Impossible is relative to the viewer.

I'm not saying I'm right, im just showing the theories of why I don't beleive in creation from zero. A single string of DNA is in itself, very complex, and all living organism has it...now how the most simple life form can be ramdomly created and have all the systems necessary to start the whole evolution tree? its my 2cents.

If you dont believe in creation for zero, which has nothing to do with evolution, then why do you believe in god at all. The bible says the universe was created in 6 days...

[Supersprynt]

Punisher - Evolution isnt a "theory" as the common person takes it. Its a scientific theory. As in the Atomic Theory (everything is made up on atoms) or the Theory of Relativity. How would someone accept the Atomic Theory, and not Evolutionary Theory. Its not just an idea that you can say oh yeah it didnt happen. Its got so much evidence supporting it that it stands with the theory that atoms make up everything.

If I get this right - your saying god created something, billions of years ago with the intention of it becoming an "us"?

What you seem to be doing is changing around the bible to fit your own personal conflicts with. Its plausible if ... or It'd make more sense if you changed this...

I think a fair statement would be that you believe in a something, but not so much a "god".



I agree with the blackholes thing. Its hard to grasp a gravitational force so strong it doesnt let light out, making it invisible.

This post has been edited by Supersprynt: Feb 26, 2007 - 7:47 PM

[Punisher]

Punisher - Evolution isnt a "theory" as the common person takes it. Its a scientific theory. As in the Atomic Theory (everything is made up on atoms) or the Theory of Relativity. How would someone accept the Atomic Theory, and not Evolutionary Theory. Its not just an idea that you can say oh yeah it didnt happen. Its got so much evidence supporting it that it stands with the theory that atoms make up everything.

If I get this right - your saying god created something, billions of years ago with the intention of it becoming an "us"?

What you seem to be doing is changing around the bible to fit your own personal conflicts with. Its plausible if ... or It'd make more sense if you changed this...

I think a fair statement would be that you believe in a something, but not so much a "god".



I agree with the blackholes thing. Its hard to grasp a gravitational force so strong it doesnt let light out, making it invisible.

Uh.. I said that an idea to ME.. is that GOD created us.. and set evolution into action and let us evolve.. I do believe in evolution to an extent.. that life can adapt to it's surroundings given a long period of time. I do not believe in the theory of evolution. It is a theory, I don't care how much "scientific" fact someone claims to have. We can answer exactly how we were created.. but we can't cure cancer?

I think it would also be a fair statement that you are acting like a pompous ass now. You ask for peoples idea's and believes.. why? So you could try to scientificly shoot it down and tell us what WE believe? I believe in GOD as in a CHRISTIAN GOD. Take your fair statements elsewhere.

You are set on what you wish to believe in and so am I, there will only be head butting over something that neither of us can prove to eachother.. so there is no point in arguing about it.

PS> I said IDEA TO ME.. as in it is one of many idea's I have.. they are just my personal thoughts on something that I spend maybe a collective hour each year thinking about. I do believe fully that the creation stories 6 days are not really 6 24hr periods.. because to a being like GOD (yes, once again I believe!) there would be no such thing as minutes or days.

This post has been edited by Punisher: Feb 26, 2007 - 8:10 PM

[Rayme]

of course you are all right, but the whole picture is at some point, you cannot go from simpler to simplest, something will not work. I didn't create that problem, I've seen a show on it.

Castle to a piece of stone...

Its the same principle as what if you would cut something in half forever..at some point it would be impossible.

Impossible how? For you, for scientists? Impossible is relative to the viewer.

I'm not saying I'm right, im just showing the theories of why I don't beleive in creation from zero. A single string of DNA is in itself, very complex, and all living organism has it...now how the most simple life form can be ramdomly created and have all the systems necessary to start the whole evolution tree? its my 2cents.

If you dont believe in creation for zero, which has nothing to do with evolution, then why do you believe in god at all. The bible says the universe was created in 6 days...

Who said I beleived in the bible?

How about another theory, that life always existed, there was always life and will have life forever (on a universe scale), that there was no beginning and will never be an end. Life might be just organism flying from place to place and creating a large tree of evolution wherever it fall. If you think about it, its not anymore stupid than saying that the universe is infinite, which scientist says it is.

[Supersprynt]

Punisher - Evolution isnt a "theory" as the common person takes it. Its a scientific theory. As in the Atomic Theory (everything is made up on atoms) or the Theory of Relativity. How would someone accept the Atomic Theory, and not Evolutionary Theory. Its not just an idea that you can say oh yeah it didnt happen. Its got so much evidence supporting it that it stands with the theory that atoms make up everything.

If I get this right - your saying god created something, billions of years ago with the intention of it becoming an "us"?

What you seem to be doing is changing around the bible to fit your own personal conflicts with. Its plausible if ... or It'd make more sense if you changed this...

I think a fair statement would be that you believe in a something, but not so much a "god".



I agree with the blackholes thing. Its hard to grasp a gravitational force so strong it doesnt let light out, making it invisible.

Uh.. I said that an idea to ME.. is that GOD created us.. and set evolution into action and let us evolve.. I do believe in evolution to an extent.. that life can adapt to it's surroundings given a long period of time. I do not believe in the theory of evolution. It is a theory, I don't care how much "scientific" fact someone claims to have. We can answer exactly how we were created.. but we can't cure cancer?

I think it would also be a fair statement that you are acting like a pompous ass now. You ask for peoples idea's and believes.. why? So you could try to scientificly shoot it down and tell us what WE believe? I believe in GOD as in a CHRISTIAN GOD. Take your fair statements elsewhere.

You are set on what you wish to believe in and so am I, there will only be head butting over something that neither of us can prove to eachother.. so there is no point in arguing about it.

PS> I said IDEA TO ME.. as in it is one of many idea's I have.. they are just my personal thoughts on something that I spend maybe a collective hour each year thinking about. I do believe fully that the creation stories 6 days are not really 6 24hr periods.. because to a being like GOD (yes, once again I believe!) there would be no such thing as minutes or days.

Well there you go. You dont have be going off and getting rattled and calling people names. Thats what happens when you are ill informed and your called out on it. Calling the Theory of evolution just a theory and you dont believe in it like its something you can just dismiss as if there wasnt loads of evidence for it. If you cant argue like someone who can sit and explore your own thoughts and ideas in a manner which is civilized, then make yourself absent in this discussion.

All I've done is state what is arguable, not arguable. Points that are backed by evidence and points that are only opinions which have no factual basis. You can THINK the evolutionary theory is just a theory but your wrong. Whether or not you can deal with that fact is up to you. Its evident you cannot and therefore resort to name calling.

I asked about evolution, not your beliefs. Go re-read it. I didnt ask about whether or not you believe in god, or what evolution is to you. I dont care what god you believe in, and since my fair statement was spot on considering if you believe in a Christian God, evolution didnt happen. So I can tell you right now, you dont kno wtf you believe, because everything you say contradicts something else.

I am not SET in what i WISH to believe. I see and hear and observe and I come up with a conclusion based on that. I dont believe in evolution like you believe in god. I see facts and agree with a conlcusion and explanation.

You summed up alot of narrow minded people in what you've said. You spend a collective hour, in a year thinking about something that controls your life. I think about this constantly. I re-evaluate what I believe all the time because thats what scientists do. They go back, rethink, retest. Its not that I dont want to believe in a god, so i dont. Its that with everything there is. believing in a god doesnt make sense to me.

Your first post showed something of a conflict between trying to believe in god and wrestling with all that science shows, and your second post here shows very clearly that your one dimensional.

I created this thread to get an idea on what peoples' take on evolution was. Not the beginning of life, not the existence of god, not what you think happened billions of years ago.

When people present what they think are facts or arguments that are arguing for the existence of a god that evolution never happened and that we are the way were were created, they are often invalid and basically garbage. I didn't make them that way, thats what they are. I just say it out loud. Sorta. I'd be saying the same things in person I promise that. I'm not saying nobody cant pick apart my beliefs, please do. I challenge them everyday myself and I honestly do it nearly everyday.

of course you are all right, but the whole picture is at some point, you cannot go from simpler to simplest, something will not work. I didn't create that problem, I've seen a show on it.

Castle to a piece of stone...

Its the same principle as what if you would cut something in half forever..at some point it would be impossible.

Impossible how? For you, for scientists? Impossible is relative to the viewer.

I'm not saying I'm right, im just showing the theories of why I don't beleive in creation from zero. A single string of DNA is in itself, very complex, and all living organism has it...now how the most simple life form can be ramdomly created and have all the systems necessary to start the whole evolution tree? its my 2cents.

If you dont believe in creation for zero, which has nothing to do with evolution, then why do you believe in god at all. The bible says the universe was created in 6 days...

Who said I beleived in the bible?

How about another theory, that life always existed, there was always life and will have life forever (on a universe scale), that there was no beginning and will never be an end. Life might be just organism flying from place to place and creating a large tree of evolution wherever it fall. If you think about it, its not anymore stupid than saying that the universe is infinite, which scientist says it is.

You said you did?

This discussion is so off base that its ridiculous. Evolution, isn't an explanation of how life began but how life has changed over the years to what we see today.

Its a real shame alot of people argue dont know what they're arguing against.

This post has been edited by Supersprynt: Feb 26, 2007 - 8:42 PM

[Kwanza26]

You know Super... people who believe are not gonna stop believing no matter what evidence or proof is shown. The design of religion is to reduce individual questioning of the universe to accept what is God's ultimate truths, so providing evidence only proves as a challenge and only strengthens belief itself. Pointless really. Understanding has to be gained independently.

Beyond that... I also don't expect much in terms of understanding or free discussion with the religious side ever (let alone HERE!)... unless these religious folk are theologians or philosophers in their own right. People in general do NOT distinguish between disproving of "Supernatural beliefs" such as Creationism and Miracles and such. "Supernatural beliefs" IS NOT the essence Christianity. You can take all of that crap out, and Christianity is still Christianity. Science, be it evolution or whatever is COMPLETELY compatible with the essence of religion. The essence of religion is LOVE. Love thy neighbor as thyself. What does that have to do with natural selection? Nothing really. It's ignorant literal interpretation of the bible that causes all of the headaches. Christian theologians will confirm literal interpretation of the bible is in fact... ignorant.

To close... Spirituality is fine and dandy and so long as you understand that religion is a guide to living a moral and just life; you can be a good religious person and believe in Science and evolution. It's the Supernatural stuff, the magic that people tend to believe in that is in contradiction to science.

Who said I beleived in the bible?

How about another theory, that life always existed, there was always life and will have life forever (on a universe scale), that there was no beginning and will never be an end. Life might be just organism flying from place to place and creating a large tree of evolution wherever it fall. If you think about it, its not anymore stupid than saying that the universe is infinite, which scientist says it is.

Life in fact is NOT infinite. Energy, however, is. Our human interpretation of life is limited to our planet. Don't call that a theory unless it's a real Theory.

[Rayme]

Sorry I mixed it, I took in consideration that people that beleive in evolution follow the thought that life spawn in a soup of molecules, and that there was the other group that thought that everything was created by some "god". Usually its creation vs evolution. I think origin of life = evolution and goes hand in hand but I guess its not universal.

-And I didn't mention the bible , actually I try no to mention religion, it goes nowhere..

[Kwanza26]

Sorry I mixed it, I took in consideration that people that beleive in evolution follow the thought that life spawn in a soup of molecules, and that there was the other group that thought that everything was created by some "god". Usually its creation vs evolution. I think origin of life = evolution and goes hand in hand but I guess its not universal.

-And I didn't mention the bible , actually I try no to mention religion, it goes nowhere..

You're from Canada... I doubt you guys up there have the same sort of problems with fundamentalist ideas as we do in "religious" America.

[Jen]

Religion was "created" long before "Christ" even existed. Religion was only made-up because people questioned why we were here on this Earth.

There is no perfect religion. If there were, everyone would be practicing it. A perfect religion, to me, is something that is proven true. Like for instance.. if Jesus "came back" or something.

God, I sound so intelligent. *sarcasm* Maybe this only makes sense to me. I tried explaining it to my boyfriend and he looked at me stupid.

[Batman722]

everyone else is quoting posts...I wanna too...

You know Super... people who believe are not gonna stop believing no matter what evidence or proof is shown. The design of religion is to reduce individual questioning of the universe to accept what is God's ultimate truths, so providing evidence only proves as a challenge and only strengthens belief itself. Pointless really. Understanding has to be gained independently.

B-I-N-G-O

Beyond that... I also don't expect much in terms of understanding or free discussion with the religious side ever (let alone HERE!)... unless these religious folk are theologians or philosophers in their own right. People in general do NOT distinguish between disproving of "Supernatural beliefs" such as Creationism and Miracles and such. "Supernatural beliefs" IS NOT the essence Christianity. You can take all of that crap out, and Christianity is still Christianity. Science, be it evolution or whatever is COMPLETELY compatible with the essence of religion. The essence of religion is LOVE. Love thy neighbor as thyself. What does that have to do with natural selection? Nothing really. It's ignorant literal interpretation of the bible that causes all of the headaches. Christian theologians will confirm literal interpretation of the bible is in fact... ignorant.

B-I-N-G-O

To close... Spirituality is fine and dandy and so long as you understand that religion is a guide to living a moral and just life; you can be a good religious person and believe in Science and evolution. It's the Supernatural stuff, the magic that people tend to believe in that is in contradiction to science.

and Bingo was his name-o

Kwanza sums it up pretty well IMO
expressing my personal religious opinions is NWS

[jgreening]

Having let this topic rest on my mind for a day, I came up with something I think might be useful to contribute.

A person who believes in God does so out of faith. If we could prove (in the scientific sense) that God exists, there would be no faith needed to believe. Thus, a person who belives in God will always be unable to convince the person using deductive logic of the proposition. If all you have in your arsenal for intelligent thought is logic, you will be unable to conceive of the possibility that absolute truths might be found through faith. Its simply not logical.

Why is this important? Because if you are searching for the answer about whether there is a God, you will NEVER be able to answer that question scientifically.

So, if not logic, what do you base your belief on? There are many answers for this question but none of them will satisfy the scientific skeptic.

Lets try a little different tact on this. Why is it important that something be "provable" to be believed? I just argued above that if its provable, it requires no belief. Notwithstanding that, lets take something more simple than the existence of God.

Do you believe that being exposed to art (music, theater, etc) can effect fundamental change in a person?
Do you believe that laughter gives a person peace?
Do you believe that people need other people to lead fulfilling lives?

The answers to these questions may be opinions, yes. But they can also form the basis of a deeply held beliefs. The answer to these questions will never be able to be proved scientifically. Does that make them any less "true"? - I know what your thinking: "theres no scientific truth to those things". Thats not my question. My question is does the fact that no one can prove that laughter gives a person peace mean that the person who believes must be incorrect? HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY BE SO FIRMLY CONVINCED THAT LAUGHTER GIVES A PERSON PEACE????? YOU CAN'T PROVE IT!!!!!!! And the implication is that because it can't be proved, the believer must be wasting his time on a blind guess.

This gets us back full circle to one of Erik's original statements. He said something like religion is based on feelings and blind faith. Lets just say he meant "faith" for purposes of our discussion here. My response to that, as I mention above, is that he is absolutely right. However, because I make room for the possibility that both conclusions reached through scientific thought and those reached through belief can be true, I don't consider the conclusion to be an indictment of religion like he does.

[x_itchy_b_x]

HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY BE SO FIRMLY CONVINCED THAT LAUGHTER GIVES A PERSON PEACE????? YOU CAN'T PROVE IT!!!!!!!

yes you can..
brain scans ftw im just being a jerk i know what your getting at.

If we could prove (in the scientific sense) that God exists

science does prove this, in a sense. the universe had to be created. no matter how you look at it.
something just doesn't suddenly exist. im not talking about man made things. but some thing created the initial force that created the universe. the universe has laws, if those laws were slightly off like the force of gravity was a little bit weaker or stronger the universe would not have worked out the way it did.
hmm maybe i don't believe in God as much as I believe in a creator. but whats the difference?
im just waiting till 2012

[Supersprynt]

I see what your trying to get at, but your analogies aren't quite the same.

Take laughter for example. Laughter produces endorphines in the body. Endorphines are like a drug to the body, and in fact, creates a calming, soothing reaction. So laughing bringing about peace in someone is actually scientifically fact. It can be reproduced in a lab over and over again.

Humans, by nature, are a social being. Does one NEED human contact to live, no. Do they need human contact to live a fullfilling life, maybe. Depends on who your talking to and what their idea of a fulfilling life is.

If art creates a fundamental change in someone, its not the art that does that, its the persons thought processes and reaction to the art form. Art now can be said is a catalyst for change, but not a cause.

Edit: Typos

This post has been edited by Supersprynt: Feb 27, 2007 - 11:25 AM

[hurley97]

people like to believe in things. it keeps them going, and for some keeps them leading a good life.

no, religion is not necessary for individual survival. neither is art or sex, but for some people these things improve quality of life and for others it makes no difference.

religion doesn't necessarily have to refer to believing in a god. religion is what you believe in, whether it be one god, two gods, or none at all. if you're open minded you wouldn't try and force your religion on anyone by trying to convince them yours is correct

[playr158]

yea i read very little of this but people who have said
"evolution is a fact" are completely wrong because it is ONLY a theory even in the science community
you can't prove evolution....you're still missing the half man half monkey....

Darwin the man who was the biggest supporter and researcher ect of evolution even said
his theories and ideas were WRONG yet people still try to believe them?

general words from ....
the complexity of an eye has no chance of stemming from "evolution" and that there was a great chance of a tornado going through a junk yard and coming out the other end having FULLY assembled a working 757.....

This post has been edited by playr158: Feb 27, 2007 - 12:44 PM

[Supersprynt]

In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven 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 theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.

Evolutin isnt "just a theory." Its scientific theory. Theres a difference.

Where are you getting your information?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

Its disturbing seeing such strong willed arguments and saying "no chance of the eye evolving" when you dont have the facts.

Quotes from Charles Darwin:

Intro to Evolution of Species

"Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine. But I look with confidence to the future to young and rising naturalists, who will be able to view both sides of the question with impartiality."

"We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act. "



This post has been edited by Supersprynt: Feb 27, 2007 - 1:00 PM

[x_itchy_b_x]

why cant creation and evolution coexist? plenty of time has passed for both.
bam things were created... then they evolved into other species, but im not saying man came from monkeys.
im saying a giraffe grew a longer neck to get higher leaves. that type of evolution.

haha i should note i dont believe thats what happened im just throwing out theories ive heard, so people can get other ideas.

theres alot of other theories out there. some just aren't as mainstream, but that doesn't make them wrong (just hard for closed minded, media brain washed, government manipulated, religion corrupted people to accept or comprehend).

playa i love the giraffe gif!

This post has been edited by x_itchy_b_x: Feb 27, 2007 - 1:12 PM

[playr158]

In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven 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 theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.

Evolutin isnt "just a theory." Its scientific theory. Theres a difference.

by this defenition you should be able to "test evolution through experiment"
ie apple dropping is the scientific theory of Gravity

you can't test evolution....

but note i'm discussion CREATION evolution not attribute evolution (ie the garaffe grew a longer neck, or a pattern shift of a moth)

personnaly i don't believe in creational evolution but i really dont care if someone does...your choice

This post has been edited by playr158: Feb 27, 2007 - 1:04 PM

[Supersprynt]

Your right. You cant test evolution like you test for ammonia in water. But what you can do is go through the fossil record make observations, calculations and see if evolution fits. And it does. Its consistent with what existed, and what existed cannot be changed, its literally IN STONE.

[jgreening]

im saying a giraffe grew a longer neck to get higher leaves. that type of evolution.

Evolution does not work that way. The giraffe can't will itself a longer neck. The way evolution works is that the species slowly mutates through reproduction and the giraffes with the longest necks survive thus evolving to have longer necks.

I also agree that evolution occurs. Its not reasonably debatable. It does not, however, prove anything with regard to whether there was a creator.

[playr158]

Your right. You cant test evolution like you test for ammonia in water. But what you can do is go through the fossil record make observations, calculations and see if evolution fits. And it does. Its consistent with what existed, and what existed cannot be changed, its literally IN STONE.

fossil records ok....you have dynos what did they evolve from or to?
crocidle has been the SAME since that same period..0 evolution into anything...
the monkey....hasn't evolved into a human...we have yet to see a middle piece fossil
the human has been generally the same since the caveman

where is your stone middle pieces?

This post has been edited by playr158: Feb 27, 2007 - 1:14 PM

[Supersprynt]

Exactly right, it doesn't pretend to.

Thats how far off this topic has gotten.

The only thing is with the only thing most people base their faith on, the bible, says "this is the way it was as stated by god..." and then now evidence is showing thats not how it is, people still dont accept that its NOT how the bible said it. And if the ONLY thing that says that is wrong, what else is wrong?

Except people come up with their own ideas about their personal god and evolution etc. To argue with that is pointless because things are changed around so much that its impossible go get a conclusion.

[jgreening]

Your right. You cant test evolution like you test for ammonia in water. But what you can do is go through the fossil record make observations, calculations and see if evolution fits. And it does. Its consistent with what existed, and what existed cannot be changed, its literally IN STONE.

fossil records ok....you have dynos what did they evolve from or to?
crocidle has been the SAME since that same period..0 evolution into anything...
the monkey....hasn't evolved into a human...we have yet to see a middle piece fossil
the human has been generally the same since the caveman

where is your stone middle pieces?

Humans have absolutely evolved. Where were you in eighth grade social studies? Remember the hunched over cro-magna man with the extended jaw? I am less convinced of any direct link between today's primates and humans however.

[Supersprynt]

Your right. You cant test evolution like you test for ammonia in water. But what you can do is go through the fossil record make observations, calculations and see if evolution fits. And it does. Its consistent with what existed, and what existed cannot be changed, its literally IN STONE.

fossil records ok....you have dynos what did they evolve from or to?
crocidle has been the SAME since that same period..0 evolution into anything...
the monkey....hasn't evolved into a human...we have yet to see a middle piece fossil
the human has been generally the same since the caveman

where is your stone middle pieces?

You have no fundamental knowledge of evolution.

If no change is necessary, if the change is detrimental, it doesnt survive.

Dinosaurs went extinct, thought that was common knowledge.

A monkey, is not a primate. A monkey was something else before what we call a monkey.

People are under the impression change still isn't ocurring. Take cockroaches today. Alot of cockroaches who were easily killed with a certain kind of pesticide do not react to it today. This mutation is keeping them alive, and this mutation allows more cockroaches to survive. They replicate, and the mutation becomes widespread throughout the entire species.

Mutation is an accident. Evolution, is the effect of Natural Selection. Which means the good mutations in animals are kept from them surviving & reproducing. Passing that mutation on.

Seriously read up, this is stuff you should know before coming in here.

This post has been edited by Supersprynt: Feb 27, 2007 - 1:24 PM

[jgreening]

the only thing most people base their faith on, the bible, says "this is the way it was as stated by god..." and then now evidence is showing thats not how it is, people still dont accept that its NOT how the bible said it. And if the ONLY thing that says that is wrong, what else is wrong?

The debate about whether biblical passages should be read literally is beyond the scope of this discussion. However, I was only pointing out that people that believe that the bible is true can also believe that evolution occurs. The point was already made that the concepts are not mutually exclusive.

[saleeka]

Deductive reasoning (the scientific method) is not the opposite of belief - its just different. There are many many people (me included - undergrad philosophy major, lawyer by trade) that tend to be very rational yet also have faith in God.

I once struggled with reconciling the whole issue myself. Even in my most agnostic days (during college) there were two questions that I could never answer purely from a scientific perspective.

1. If the world was created in a "big bang" (followed by evolution), how and why did the big bang occur?

2. In a universe full of various forms of "matter", how can we explain how and why some things are living?

I would argue that the most logical among us might conceed that there is something bigger than us that holds the answers to these questions.

Just curious, but am I correct in assuming that you no longer consider yourself to be agnostic?

This post has been edited by saleeka: Feb 27, 2007 - 3:05 PM

[jgreening]

There are many many people (me included...) that tend to be very rational yet also have faith in God.

Just curious, but am I correct in assuming that you no longer consider yourself to be agnostic?

[Jen]

Ironically, this is what I'm studying in Biology right now.

http://bb.fccj.edu/courses/1/Spring2007-BS...iodiversity.htm

[Kwanza26]

yea i read very little of this but people who have said
"evolution is a fact" are completely wrong because it is ONLY a theory even in the science community
you can't prove evolution....you're still missing the half man half monkey....

Darwin the man who was the biggest supporter and researcher ect of evolution even said
his theories and ideas were WRONG yet people still try to believe them?

general words from ....
the complexity of an eye has no chance of stemming from "evolution" and that there was a great chance of a tornado going through a junk yard and coming out the other end having FULLY assembled a working 757.....

LoL... talk about about not knowing the subject. You just love to talk talk talk especially when you don't have the slightest understanding huh...

Darwin's theory of Evolution has been around since the 19th century. It is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY meaning you can go out and observe and document much like Darwin did. It's not an idea that has yet to be proven. It's a widely accepted theory today in the modern world supported by DNA evidence. If there were any flaws or burden of proof, would not our technological advances in the past 150+ years since the theory was introduced, be able to prove otherwise?

Also... you're using such a stereotypical example to try and disprove evolution. Airplanes are not biological. LOL. Go look up cumulative selection and actually LEARN what the theory is before you try and attack it with nonsense. I'm sure it can hold its own against an internet mechanic... I mean, it has done fine for the past 150+ years against the church and society...

[Jen]

Ironically, this is what I'm studying in Biology right now.

http://bb.fccj.edu/courses/1/Spring2007-BS...iodiversity.htm

Okay that didn't work.

this is going to be LONG..

In lecture, before I teach evolution, I tell my classes of all my travels all over the world. The exotic places I have been to: China, Australia (aborigines), New Zealand, (Maories), Nepal

(Buddhists and Hindus), Hawaii, Tahiti and the South Pacific,(polynesians), Costa Rica, Guatemala, Peru,(lived in the Amazon with the Indians two summers for short periods), as well as much of Europe and all over the U.S. and Canada.

Why do I tell you that? Because I have listened to the stories of all these different peoples and cultures and they each have a story of how their culture KNOWS the world began. It is all based on their beliefs and that is good and fine. Their beliefs system, also known as religion, determines the laws of the society without which none of us could get along. Beliefs systems are excellent for that purpose, and I have no quarrel with that. However, we, as Christians, have the audacity to think that our bible has the only true story. You have to remember, or know, that Hawaiians believe that Mauna Loa, their huge active volcano, is the goddess of life, and that the Aborigines believe that Lightening Man is the only true God of life. The Amazon Indians have a different belief, as do Buddhists, etc. We are only 30% of the world’s religious populations and, the technology that abounds today was not around when our bible, theTorah, The Koran, etc. were written.

So, as you read and learn this chapter please keep an open mind and know that religious beliefs and scientific theory can go hand in hand…particularly where how the world began is discussed. We need our belief system to get us through tough times and to shape our actions to each other.



Origins of Life


How did life emerge on earth? How did organisms evolve? It started with two types of evolution: physical and chemical evolution. Evidence of the earth’s early history comes from chemical analysis and measurements of radioactive elements in rocks and fossils.



Chemical evolution – of organic molecules, biopolymers, and systems of chemical reactions needed to form protobionts ( first living cells) took place in our early oceans. Combining water and lipids to form the first cells with membranes. Scientists today can replicate the first formations of the protobionts, amino acids, simple sugars, even RNA and DNA in their laboratories, using the same chemicals that were in the earth’s early atmosphere and oceans: methane gas, sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen gas, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide and water. Those ingredients, plus an electrical charge (lightening), form the above cells very nicely in the laboratory today.



Biological evolution – from single celled, prokaryotic bacteria to multicellular eukaryotic cells, and then multicellular organisms. Today, in our cells we have organelles such as mitochondria that make their own DNA, different from the DNA made in the nucleus of our cells. Not so strangely, the mitochondria looks more like an animal viral particle and does not resemble the rest of the cell. And, in the proteins of the electron transport chain in our respiratory system are particles of chlorophyll…both evidence of early beginnings from ancient cells that evolved further.



Our earth has changed greatly from its tumultuous beginnings, cooling, allowing water to form, the temperature to stabilize, and now contains 21% oxygen, whereas the early atmosphere had no oxygen in it. Only when algae evolved to trap the energy of the sun and convert it into an organic molecule (sugar), using carbon dioxide as its carbon source and releasing oxygen as its waste product, was life able to evolve away from the seas and live on land.



ORIGINS OF LIFE - Earth is 4.7 billion years old, life evolved 3.7 BYA



From chemical and biological evolution. We can actually place the time oxygen was first prevalent on earth by such things as the changing of iron ore from one state to another (by its rust), and then by radiometric dating.



How did Chemical evolution take place?
“BIG BANG” THEORY


First there was hot, dense matter. Then, fusion. Hydrogen, helium, other materials form. Gravity, and the sun forms, and cosmic dust forms the earth, the moon from the earth’s mantle. Lighter materials form the earth’s crust, heavier materials form its molten core and mantle.



No atmosphere or oceans at that time



Volcanic eruptions and comets hitting earth release water and vapor, other gases from interior. The early atmosphere contained no oxygen, just sulfuric acid, methane, other gases, eventually carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide.



Water vapor rose, eventually forming rains which caused cooling, erosion…



Energy from volcanic eruptions, meteor impacts, lightening. UV light caused chemical reactions that eventually formed amino acids, then proteins, eventually single-celled anaerobic organisms



No fossils on land at the time. We think life emerged from the sea.



Cyanobacteria ( blue-green algae) developed ability to take in CO2 from water, and gave off O2 in water and atmosphere. Radioisotopes from rocks of ferrous iron converted to ferric iron. This only happens in presence of O2…can tell when O2 appeared on Earth by this .



1.2 billion years ago (BYA) - Other organisms evolved - multicelled, that gave rise to other organisms that eventually went to land. Some went back to the seas.



PROOF of EVOLUTION? Scientists theories are based on facts that HAVE TO BE PROVEN OR DISPROVEN. There has to be experiments to prove these facts. Whereas personal belief systems are just that…beliefs..”someone said such and such and I believe it.” No facts…just I believe. We have proof in so many different ways. I could write a book on this, but for brevities sake, here are just a few:



Fossils – of dead organisms…bones, teeth, shells.

Radioactive carbon dating (stromatolites – Canada, Australia)

DNA – we still have photosynthetic cells in human respiratory system and we don’t convert sunlight to energy!



EVOLUTION – The change in a population’s genetic makeup thru successive generations. (Populations evolve, not individuals by becoming genetically different)



THEORY OF EVOLUTION – all species evolved from earlier, ancestral species



MACROEVOLUTION – long term, large-scale evolutionary changes occurring in groups of species, new species formed, others lost.



MICROEVOLUTION – small genetic changes occurring in a population.



Gene Pool - total of all genes possessed in a population. Microevolution is a change in a population’s gene pool.



Most members of a population have the same # and kinds of genes, but some genes have variation, such as in flower color. Variations in a gene are called alleles.



Sexual reproduction causes a random shuffling or recombination of alleles through meiosis. This reshuffling causes genetic variation and is part of the source of evolution.



4 processes that affect microevolution:



Mutation – ultimate source of genetic variability…involves random changes in a cell’s DNA. Caused by radioactivity, UV light, x-rays, mutagens, and random mistakes in our genetic code caused by incorrect DNA processing.



Mutations can be good, harmful, or lethal. Sickle cell anemia was once a gene mutation that conferred an advantage to Africans against malaria. If the person had one defective gene, they survived malaria. But, if they had/have 2 defective alleles, they have full-blown sickle cell anemia and usually die in their 40’s. Many African-Americans and Asians now have the sickle cell gene or genes.



Mutations are also:



Random and unpredictable

The only source of new genetic raw materials

Rare events



Gene flow – movement of genes between populations, leading to changes in the genetic composition of local populations. Ex: frogs in a pond tend to breed with the same frogs in that pond. Sometimes, migration occurs and frogs from one pond may move to another and interbreed. Now there is an exchange of different genes and gene flow has occurred.



Genetic drift – in small populations ---the chance genetic changes in the genetic composition of a population. Important in small populations. Ex: perhaps there is an albino frog in a pond. There is a 25% chance that he will pass that gene on to offspring. However, if a predator kills him before he can mate, that set of genes is eliminated from the population and we say that genetic drift has occurred. In a larger population, there is a greater chance that the frog would survive. That is why genetic drift is more common in smaller populations.



Natural Selection – when individuals in a population have genetically derived traits that allow them to survive and reproduce more offspring than other individuals, we say it is a result of natural selection.



· Must have variability of characteristics e.g. color, size, shape, behavior

· Trait must be heritable – genetic based in order to be passed on to next gen.

· Trait must lead to increased. reproduction…more offspring than other members of a population



N.S. causes any alleles resulting in a beneficial trait to become more common in succeeding generation.



Adaptation – A heritable trait that allows organisms to better survive & reproduce under a given set of environmental conditions.



Read the article and experiment about the Peppered Moths. It is a classic case representation of natural selection.




3 Types of Natural Selection – they each have different environmental conditions and different genetic outcomes. Study the diagrams in your book to see what the terms mean.



1. Directional– “different is better”

Environmental conditions changing, allele frequencies shift, so that alleles at one end of normal become more common than midrange forms. Ex: changes in varieties of peppered moths, insects’ genetic resistance to pesticides.



2. Stablizing – “average is better”



Tends to eliminate individuals on both sides of the curve and favor individuals with an average genetic makeup who have adapted well to the environment.



3. Diversifying or disruptive – “average is NOT better”

Environmental conditions tend to favor individuals at both ends of the curve, and eliminates average individuals. Ex: finches and beaks…medium seed production is eliminated or sharply declines. Those birds with larger beaks or stronger beaks will survive. Those with average beaks will decline.



Co-evolution – 2 different species interact over a long period of time. When changes in the gene pool effect one, the other gene pool also changes.

[ScoobyDooCruiser]

I don't claim to be educated enough to give an opinion. I am just a beginner in the giant world of thought.

However, I am curious, how many of you have read Darwin's Origin of Species in it entirety? It’s a good read, and before any creationist vs. evolutionist debate is even attempted, I would suggest reading it. Also, worth reading are some the works Gregory Mendel, the monk who founded modern genetic theory.

Before an understanding of the current winds of science is possible, the intellectual origin must be known. We cannot argue reasonably unless the development of the thought, and not simply the current manifestation, is known.

[forkee]

heres my 2 cents

im catholic. i believe in God. i believe in evolution. i dont see the point in going to church every week, so i dont go. i hate people that try to push their beliefs. i dont try to push mine, i just explain why i think the way i do. if you agree fine, if not, who cares. i wont get offended.

the bible is just a bunch of stories, more of a mother goose and tales rather than a factual representation of history. your not supposed to take it literally, but realize the story behind it and i guess the morals, but then again i find alot of morals in there to be pretty messed up. i pretty much pick and choose what i decide to take in.

the universe and all of creation was not made in 6 days (God rested on the 7th) even though the bible says so. at least not what we know as one week. if 1000 years was one second to God, then the whole 1 week for creation story seems more plausible.

adam and eve story shows us that we were specially chosen from the rest of the animal kingdom to take care of everything that God has made. and today we really do need to take care of the planet, for it is our home, mother earth. when we are young, we follow orders and just take things for granted, but sometimes we question the reasoning of older people (God) and choose our own paths (like adam and eve). the snake is like part of our conscience that makes us question ourselves. just like freud's id, ego, and superego. a lot of times questioning ourselves is a good thing though.

people find religion therapeutic, some are addicted to it. believing in things is what makes us human. no other living thing has that.

i think it was descarte (or however u spell it) who said, "i think, therefore i am". the fact that i can think means i exist. i dont know if you exist, or in fact if im really where i think i am. i just know i exist. the mind just puts together all the input from all of our senses and tries to make sense of it. what does God look like? who knows? people say we were made in his image. does that mean he looks human? and because of evolution, does that mean God first looked like a primordial glob of goo?? i think that by saying we were made in his image, it forces people to "think" that he is somehow in all of us for people then see the likeness, thereby humbling us to one another. one might interpret this as kindness.

people have put together their experiences throughout existence and tried to make sense of that. and thats where the bible comes along. its not history like we know history (as a book of facts). to me its a history of peoples stories spread throughout time. it probably has changed millions of times for it came from a time where theres no way in hell anything was written so it was mostly spoken. like that game where you tell someone something and it travels to the end of the line, the words will be different but the message is the same. all the books that different major religions follow preach similar messages of peace, patience, virtue, and love.

not to say that the majority of society are dimwitted, but if your gonna get a message across, it is easier to explain it in detail with reasoning and rationale behind every action? or to make a story that will make you think and get the message (hopefully).

comedians are stupid. they look at things and try to get something funny from it. their whole existence is based on the fact that they have a seperate opinion and we watch them to see their interpretation of things and hopefully find them entertaining. their reasonings are illogical. spock would never laugh at one. i watch them sometimes and get a good laugh, but i would never take them seriously. their method of thinking is, if A=C and B=C, then A must equal B. they don't care about the why. why does A=B? and sometimes A doesn't equal B. for example:

A is a rectangle
B is a square
C is a shape with 4 sides

both A and B have 4 sides but a rectangle does not have 4 equal sides like a square

a comedian uses flawed logic sometimes to make a rectangle into a square. like the bible, dont take them too literally, just try and get the message.

This post has been edited by forkee: Feb 28, 2007 - 1:26 AM

[playr158]

yea i read very little of this but people who have said
"evolution is a fact" are completely wrong because it is ONLY a theory even in the science community
you can't prove evolution....you're still missing the half man half monkey....

Darwin the man who was the biggest supporter and researcher ect of evolution even said
his theories and ideas were WRONG yet people still try to believe them?

general words from ....
the complexity of an eye has no chance of stemming from "evolution" and that there was a great chance of a tornado going through a junk yard and coming out the other end having FULLY assembled a working 757.....

LoL... talk about about not knowing the subject. You just love to talk talk talk especially when you don't have the slightest understanding huh...

Darwin's theory of Evolution has been around since the 19th century. It is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY meaning you can go out and observe and document much like Darwin did. It's not an idea that has yet to be proven. It's a widely accepted theory today in the modern world supported by DNA evidence. If there were any flaws or burden of proof, would not our technological advances in the past 150+ years since the theory was introduced, be able to prove otherwise?

Also... you're using such a stereotypical example to try and disprove evolution. Airplanes are not biological. LOL. Go look up cumulative selection and actually LEARN what the theory is before you try and attack it with nonsense. I'm sure it can hold its own against an internet mechanic... I mean, it has done fine for the past 150+ years against the church and society...

Darwin himself DISOWNED his own THEORY .....
i'm glad your smart enough to know airplanes aren't biological....good for you

and seams like you like to talk talk talk yourself considering you don't know **** about what i do....but then again you don't matter for **** and i have nothing to prove to anyone here...

but on the other hand its just tooooo easy to come in and make sparks fly with you sensative people....maybe you should get a hug and a cookie

This post has been edited by playr158: Feb 28, 2007 - 1:44 AM

[saleeka]

There are many many people (me included...) that tend to be very rational yet also have faith in God.

Just curious, but am I correct in assuming that you no longer consider yourself to be agnostic?

The point of most logical people believing in somthing of a higher power/understanding is a core to what it means to be agnostic, yet i'm still unsure what you are getting at- the word God to me is unclear in this context...

That said, I feel that being agnostic is the most logical middle ground you can have. Our human scope isn't capable to grasp somthing we cannot physically achieve, so there is always questions left without answers. Why bother? I am man enough to admit that I am too selfish to commit to any set of rules or train of thought that does not allow me to experience the life that I have at this moment to it's fullest, stopping short of any action that would be detremental to other being's lives. I don't see anything wrong with that...

This post has been edited by saleeka: Feb 28, 2007 - 3:30 AM

[Supersprynt]

Darwin himself DISOWNED his own THEORY .....
i'm glad your smart enough to know airplanes aren't biological....good for you

and seams like you like to talk talk talk yourself considering you don't know **** about what i do....but then again you don't matter for **** and i have nothing to prove to anyone here...

but on the other hand its just tooooo easy to come in and make sparks fly with you sensative people....maybe you should get a hug and a cookie

"[Charles] never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier...the whole story has no foundation whatever."

-Henrietta Litchfield, Februrary 23, 1922

This is the problem with believing in something when you have absolutely zero scientific knowledge of the point your trying to dismiss. You do exactly what every other person opposed to evolution does, try to disprove it with false logic and word games when in reality you should be trying to come up with something substantial for your point of view. Evolution is a well documented. Its not waiting to be proven.

Not to mention, even if Charles Darwin did "disown" his own theory, it wouldn't change a single thing.

This post has been edited by Supersprynt: Feb 28, 2007 - 9:42 AM

[jgreening]

I am too selfish to commit to any set of rules or train of thought that does not allow me to experience the life that I have at this moment to it's fullest, stopping short of any action that would be detremental to other being's lives. I don't see anything wrong with that...

For the sake of argument, I will assume that "experience life that I have at this moment to the fullest" means "experience everything I can". This may not be what you intendend. Having said that, I imagine there are many people who think that the more and varied experiences they can have, the better. Through experience, I have come to believe something 180 degrees different; that, experience itself is neither good or bad. It depends on what you are experiencing to know whether its good or bad both for yourself and for others. I believe that we all make choices about what we will experience and those choices have consequences. I am not talking about legal consequences or what happens to your soul. I am talking about what happens to your life.

Also, don't be so judgmental to think that living by a moral code somehow limits the life experience. I would argue that the most self-actualized people have a very high set of personal standards about what they will or will not participate in. On the other hand, it is my experience that those that do not set boundaries have lives that are often a mess.

This post has been edited by jgreening: Feb 28, 2007 - 10:08 AM

[Supersprynt]

Thats another misconception: Atheist/Agnostic peoples have no moral standards.

I believe I have very high moral standards. Most of them instilled from my parents, and of course as you gain life experience you change and modify them. Point being, there are equally as many immoral "religious" people as there are moral "unreligious" people.

Religion does not = morality.
And atheism/agnosticism doesn't = immorality.

This maybe obvious but sometimes it needs to be put in b/w.

[Fastbird]

This is just my personal views.

Religion is nothing more than a man-made creation to give man something to believe in. The majority of men are people who are compelled for one reason or another with the need to believe in a higher power, be it for personal security or whatever. Look at history though. Religions have come and gone. Only the truly blind are the ones who think that "their" god is the only higher being and that said being has been around forever. Religion gives people something to believe in, but sadly, also gives people (in their minds) justification for war. Take away religion and 75% of the conflicts in history go away.

Why not put aside all traces of organized religion and look in a different view. The possibility that there is a higher being whom created or influenced VIA evolution??

Evolution is a scientific fact, there's no denying that. Being a complete atheist is along the lines of being a die-hard religious person to me though. I personally feel that it's just not that cut and dry. Agnostic is the way to go for me. Not an ounce of belief in organized religion, but open to the possibility that there is something higher and more mystifing going on.

[saleeka]

For the sake of argument, I will assume that "experience life that I have at this moment to the fullest" means "experience everything I can". This may not be what you intendend.

Also, don't be so judgmental to think that living by a moral code somehow limits the life experience. I would argue that the most self-actualized people have a very high set of personal standards about what they will or will not participate in. On the other hand, it is my experience that those that do not set boundaries have lives that are often a mess.

What I mean by living life at this moment to it's fullest is that I'm not going to try to "do the right things" to obtain any sort of afterlife. Yes there could be something after this life here on earth, but there also may not be. Therefore, I'll stick to what I know and try to make the most of the time that I currently have here. I will also say that I'm a bit perplexed to understand how what I said translated into a general disliking for those who have "moral" values. Morals is such a loaded word, because it means different things to different people, but making a conscious effort to not negatively impact other's lives I feel is a pretty high moral standard to hold yourself to. I really feel that most people have such a misconception or complete lack of understanding what it means to be Agnostic sometimes...

What I have always found so interesting about religion is that almost every major religious doctrine can be boiled down into one main core belief: Treat others the way you want to be treated. I can relate to that more than anything else I've pulled out of my Christian upbringing, but you don't necessarily need to be Christian to hold that thought.

This post has been edited by saleeka: Feb 28, 2007 - 1:40 PM

[jgreening]

What I mean by living life at this moment to it's fullest is that I'm not going to try to "do the right things" to obtain any sort of afterlife. Yes there could be something after this life here on earth, but there also may not be. Therefore, I'll stick to what I know and try to make the most of the time that I currently have here. I will also say that I'm a bit perplexed to understand how what I said translated into a general disliking for those who have "moral" values. Morals is such a loaded word, because it means different things to different people, but making a conscious effort to not negatively impact other's lives I feel is a pretty high moral standard to hold yourself to. I really feel that most people have such a misconception or complete lack of understanding what it means to be Agnostic sometimes...

What I have always found so interesting about religion is that almost every major religious doctrine can be boiled down into one main core belief: Treat others the way you want to be treated. I can relate to that more than anything else I've pulled out of my Christian upbringing, but you don't necessarily need to be Christian to hold that thought.

My understanding of the definition of agnosticism is the proposition that people cannot know the answers to these metaphysical questions. The problem in the definition is how a person defines the word "know". If you define it to mean "scientific knowledge" or "knowledge based upon deductive logic", then anyone who is not an agnostic would be ignorant. I suspect that agnostic refers to people who do not have beliefs about such things. Since I do have firmly held beliefs, I no longer consider myself agnostic.

Also, I never once suggested that non-religious people were amoral or without standards. I only made the point that those without such personal standards (based on religion or something else like secular humanism) often have lives that are completely messed up.

This post has been edited by jgreening: Feb 28, 2007 - 3:22 PM

[jgreening]

I'm a bit perplexed to understand how what I said translated into a general disliking for those who have "moral" values.

You said this:

I am too selfish to commit to any set of rules or train of thought that does not allow me to experience the life that I have at this moment to it's fullest

I would say that this implies if it looks or feels good, people should do it. Again, you may not have meant that. However, some people absolutely believe in that proposition. My point was that people can live by a set of principles whereby they personally decide to limit their experiences for those principles (religious or not) and still live a fulfilling life - I would argue even more so.

[cnelson]

the ONLY problem i have with athemism.. some of my friends are.. i'm not. (and keep in mind, i know most people aren't like this) But whenever god comes up, or anything to do with god they just start laughing and making fun of it, and say some pretty bad stuff.. now its fine to not believe in a god, its another thing to just be an asshole about it. (These are not friends i hangout with by choice)

[hitcachi]

im just waiting till 2012

You think the Aztec calender is right? One thing is for sure, they have been right about alot of things and we have borrowed heavily from it already.

[x_itchy_b_x]

eh its interesting thats for sure.

[Supersprynt]

the ONLY problem i have with athemism.. some of my friends are.. i'm not. (and keep in mind, i know most people aren't like this) But whenever god comes up, or anything to do with god they just start laughing and making fun of it, and say some pretty bad stuff.. now its fine to not believe in a god, its another thing to just be an asshole about it. (These are not friends i hangout with by choice)

You should hear some of the things that are said about atheists by christian "authorities."



unrelated:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/m...eptions_faq.php

This post has been edited by Supersprynt: Mar 14, 2007 - 12:34 AM

[carb0n_f1b3r]

man i love you guys...i havent been on this site in soooo long..good topic.

ok so before we all get our panties in a bind lets go over some basics..

science/religion=fact?
lets see


Main Entry:
fact
Pronunciation:
\ˈfakt\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere
Date:
15th century

1: a thing done: as a obsolete : feat b: crime <accessory after the fact> archaic : action
2archaic : performance, doing
3: the quality of being actual : actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4 a: something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b: an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
— in fact: in truth
(courtesy of M-W.com)

so what does this mean?...A fact is an occurrence that is objective (or provable with out bias)

ok, now.. what is a science fact?

In science a fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a theory, which is an explanation of or interpretation of facts. Some scholars in the philosophy of science question whether scientific facts are truly objective or are always "theory-laden" to some degree. Thomas Kuhn and others as well pointed out that knowing what facts to measure, and how to measure them, requires some presupposition about the facts themselves.[citation needed] In the field of science studies, "scientific facts" are generally seen as entities which exist within complex social structures of trust, accreditation, institutions, and individual practices.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#In_science)

hmm... so why such an emphasis (or special attention paid to a certain aspect of a subject) on presupposition (or to have bias prior to actually knowing)

Its all because of another little term called intellectual honesty(or rigour)... its not that cheat sheet you cram in your pocket before a test

An attempted short definition of intellectual rigour might be that no suspicion of double standard be allowed: uniform principles should be applied. This is a test of consistency, over cases, and to individuals or institutions (including the speaker, the speaker's country and so on). Consistency can be at odds here with a forgiving attitude, adaptability, and the need to take precedent with a pinch of salt.... In relation to itellectual Honesty; Intellectual rigour is an important part, though not the whole, of intellectual honesty — which means keeping one's convictions in proportion to one's valid evidence. For the latter, one should be questioning one's own assumptions, not merely applying them relentlessly if precisely. It is possible to doubt whether complete intellectual honesty exists — on the grounds that no one can entirely master his or her own presuppositions — without doubting that certain kinds of intellectual rigour are potentially available. The distinction certainly matters greatly in debate, if one wishes to say that an argument is flawed in its premises.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty)

ok..lets see what this says
"definition of intellectual rigour might be that no suspicion of double standard be allowed: uniform principles should be applied. This is a test of consistency, over cases, and to individuals or institutions

just read the bold..easy enough..a test of consistency over cases people or institutions

and the next part about rigour

keeping one's convictions in proportion to one's valid evidence. For the latter, one should be questioning one's own assumptions, not merely applying them relentlessly if precisely

in other words keeping your beliefs about what you know in proportion to your evidence and continually questioning those assumptions about what you think you know, not just trying to make them apply in every case..

and finally the last bit..

It is possible to doubt whether complete intellectual honesty exists — on the grounds that no one can entirely master his or her own presuppositions — without doubting that certain kinds of intellectual rigour are potentially available. The distinction certainly matters greatly in debate (a debate as we seem to be in now), if one wishes to say that an argument is flawed in its premises

no one can be completely unbiased...

science is no fact...it was never meant to be a fact.. going through and picking off every little misconception (or misunderstanding) in this thread but it seemed to be useless pearls casted(or a waste of time) but if someone can understand this concept its worth while to me\

and now its [font=Arial Black][size=4][color=#FF0000]RELIGIONS TURN...

your beliefs... its surprising how many times people become so emotional when this kind of thing shows up because in another conversation with a different setting people can become really objective with religion(or a non-emotional conversation religion especially during study..) when they feel as if someone is disgracing God in some way though the urge to defend what you know to be true is intense, but judaeo-christian philosophy has the same kind of safe guard as science blind faith is not faith but an emotional response to love. the bible does not teach blind faith as necessary for anything also do not put God in a bottle hes God... if he wanted to through some dinosaur bones in the ground he can by what ever method he wants to.. if God is God he could have made the earth 4.5 billion years old when he created it ... maybe to communicate some how or who knows just realize that you do not... (Job)

dont just read but study HEBREWS

its like the we get all upset with each other for the same reasons religious people feel as if science some how dishonors what they have time tested to be true or a fact then take up in defense of God eventually to the point of trying to assume his throne....(see vid)

in doing so hurting the opportunities to win over hearts and some of the brightest minds on the face of the planet

im not done ill be back!

[Supersprynt]

Whats your point?

[carb0n_f1b3r]

basically that the two philosophies come from the same beginnings ever wonder why you adorn that silly hat and robe during the graduation ceremony? educate yourself on the origins of academia


so in summary

1. both science and theology are issues of debate because the facts each utilize are qualifications of numerous similar observations
2. these observations both try and explain phenomena , to a certain degree, and different aspects of the occurrence
3.Both science and religion are faith based ever taken quantum physics? (interpretation and controversy)
granted quantum mechanics is at the forefront of science theory but it displays the often overlooked metaphysical undertones in science
4. neither of the philosophies rely on blind faith.. they both have method in the madness based upon the presumptions of defined facts
5. whether science minded or religiously driven the point has always been to come up with answers, many times the conflict only lies in the motivation for the question when the answers differ. Do psychologists and sociologists have arguments over human motivational factors sure. Both however can be right even when their POV's are night and day from each other.
6. The chronic issue flares when one side or the other declares a irrefutable stance in their method.. this happens in every philosophy but those who do it are pushed to the way side by their peers for a lack of intellectual honesty .... you cannot know everything with out omnipotence
7. Lastly to set an example..because everyone wants to know and when we think we know we wanna be right about it... faux pompous
intellectuals will through fact after fact in the face of someone who disagrees to prove what? that they are right? unfortunately thats not the case... whether on one side or the other of a debate critically minded individuals should see the relevance of both arguments...

intellect is not a devise to subjugate but should be used to educate people... then allow them to make their own interpretation. Those who throw around intellectual clout generally are only trying to fulfill some egocentric deficiency in their view of themselves. rationally keep this in mind when the urge to rant on theories laws and even misconceptions

oh and you wanna know what life is all about?

[saleeka]

Those who throw around intellectual clout generally are only trying to fulfill some egocentric deficiency in their view of themselves. rationally keep this in mind when the urge to rant

I hate to point this out seeing as I'm usually pretty passive, but before you expcet everyone to read the dictionary for 45 minutes to grasp what you just said, mabey you should learn a lesson from yourself... You make a great point, imo, but seemingly only to those who are already on "that" level

[carb0n_f1b3r]

Those who throw around intellectual clout generally are only trying to fulfill some egocentric deficiency in their view of themselves. rationally keep this in mind when the urge to rant <a href="http://www.break.com/index/elmo_releases_sex_tape.html" target="_blank"></a>

I hate to point this out seeing as I'm usually pretty passive, but before you expcet everyone to read the dictionary for 45 minutes to grasp what you just said, mabey you should learn a lesson from yourself... You make a great point, imo, but seemingly only to those who are already on "that" level

yeah man i dig what your sayin.. and thats why i feel that way because i'll catch myself doing it too.. but its bad.. and i didnt really expect anyone to go through all that only meant to catch the attention of those on the up with argumentative composition and at the same time give others some intellectual ammo of their own while still makin my point..

[Supersprynt]

You wrote all that so you could try to put theology in the same playing field as science?

[carb0n_f1b3r]

*sigh no.....