PDA

View Full Version : Evolution through my eyes...



Pages : [1] 2 3

Sithray
30th January 04, 05:55 PM
The reason I am starting this thread is because the recent stupidification of my home state has angered me. I in recent times have become far more religous than I was in the past, while at the same time keeping a completly open point of view to science as I feel it is the only FACT that man has today (besides God if you are religous). When everything else in the world is done away with, all you have is God and Science and I feel the are 100% connected. God is THE greatest scientist.

Now lets look at a scientific view of the bible.

7 ages of the universe

1st Age, Possibly the big bang, the universe begins to fill, possibly billions upon billions of years ago, planets and stars are formed, the earth is formed

The earth is made inhabitable, described as a planet that was filled with fire (volcanoes, the forming of the crust) A wind blew over the earth and an expanse of water formed around the earth. The earth cooled and land was formed. This could have taken millions of years, possibly MUCH longer)

Lets wal through earth step by step...

The earth was without form, void, darkness, covered in fire and water (so where there were not oceans, there were volcanoes)

Let there be light, divided light and dark: The earth gained a rotation, created gravitational fields, the expanse of water settled on the earth.

2nd Age: The the expanse of waters were seperated (water cycle begane, gravity and the sun causing water to evaporate) howver back then the water in the heavens was much thicker, the hebrew word used for it denotes it may have been a body of water in the heavens. If the water was indeed thicker than today, man would have lived much longer. (Eventually this water fell and caused the flood)

The Earth was now formed, scientifically and in the order it would have happend via the theory of the big bang, and this was written some 4500 years ago.

3rd Age: Land. Earthquakes shook the earth, the water began to settle upoon the face of the earth in its own place (oceans formed). (Continental divides, the land mass of the earth greatly increased in size as it was pushed to the surface of the waters)

Let the earth bring for seed. You have to think of it like this, the waters were probably RICH with micrscopic life which acted as a filter/lifeblood of the oceans, as well as seeds. Ever notice how a new island in the middle of the pacific is suddenly growing grass within a few months. Also says a great wind blew across the earth at this time, probably pollenation and the spreading of vegetation over the land mass.

4th Age: Stars/Moon. During this age light from far away stars was finally reaching the earth, which means that this procces up till now could have taken millionsxmillions of years. Also, the moon was formed to give light at night. The moon may have already been oribiting the eath for millions of years, dust and debris have finally settled on the surface making it a giant reflector. Several theories come to mind about the moon, perhaps a planetary mass struck the earth millions of years prior (pushing it into orbit of the sun? starting the rotation?) The oxygen composition of the moon backs up this theory. Rings were formed around the earth but were caught by the gravitational field, the moon was formed and became a sattelite. (Early on the moon had a motlen surface, as space cooled it the dust and crystals formed from the molten activity made the surface reflective, this has been proven with science)

5th Age. Oceanic/Heavenly Life. The life in the ocean was first along with the flying creatures of the heavens. This doesn't mean just birds either. There is a hebrew word for bird which translates into Fowl, and it was NOT used.

Notice how everything stated here follows the the path of what evolutionists believe, only this was all orchestrated by a divine hand (actually several divine hands as God used his angels to help him).

6th Age. Land Life and Man. First great beasts, then mammals, then tiny creatures in that order. This also follows scientific advancement. This process could have taken millions of years as only a few were created and it says they filled the earth. Then along came man, who was made master of the earth (as we obviously are).

My study of science and evolution really increased my belief that the earth was created. The bible was written as I said 4500 years ago, yet it's depiction of the creation of the earth coincides with how science believes the earth was created. I believe it was all done by a divine hand. I do NOT believe the earth only took a few thousand years or a few days to create. I believe the proccess took a long time to make. Some religous nuts view that as herecy because god can do anything he wants at the blink of an eye. This I also believe, but who are we do decide how quickly God should do things??? Several times in the bible it says that a day or hour to God is like a thousand years to man, or that a blink of an eye is a life age. So our perception of time pales in comparison to that of God's.

That is my belief, and I am EXTREMELY angry that GA wants to make a fool of itself and attempt to remove all aspects of scientific beliefs from the public school system.

I wrote this in about 15 minutes, so it may not make the best sense, I will not argue with anyone, but I will clarify anything people have questions about.

Also, no soild proof of man having existed more than 6,000 years ago has ever been proven. 6,000 years is about the time the bible places man as entering out of the Garden of Eden. Perhaps man hade lived for quite some time prior to that point, but it is not documented in the bible. CLARIFICATION. We KNOW that man lived prior to that 6,000 year mark according to the bible, we just don't know for how long.

Antec
30th January 04, 06:08 PM
Uhh hi, expain dinosuars and there being no humans found in the same time as them, if god created the earth in 7 days then dinosaurs must have been before God(becasue god is a figure used by man to bring peace and a sense of something greater after this shit hole). Also if you dig ANYWHERE in the world deep enough you will find a thin layer of dust not of this world(ie the makeup isnt found anywhere else on earth) thus almost all life on earth was wiped out by a giant meteor and the dust from it covered the earth.

Hate to break your heart but god isnt real, majority of the planet doesnt believe in your god, and hes just a tool used to keep people in check(ie dont rape your neighbors wife, dont steal, be a good person)

Sucks for GA, i went to school there and i remember the arugements that went nuts becasue religous poeple couldnt stand to listen to another point of view, a view that was giving to them by their parents, and given to them from their parents.

Saoshen Sih`ja`Tgzu
30th January 04, 06:17 PM
It's too bad georgia isnt on a fault line like california...

then there would be 2 states we could hope someday fall off into the ocean..

Cybsled
30th January 04, 06:24 PM
The book of creation is no different fundamentally then old Summarian myths about the creation of the universe nor ancient greek myths about the creation of the universe. Hell, the greek myths were even better in many respects because they got the crazy idea that land life had its origins in the sea. The bible getting the general order down, like the myths that preceeded it, doesnt make it any more valid then the other works.

The bible also states that all flowering plants/etc pre-date flying animals or land animals, aka INSECTS. It's stupid to nitpick, but if you try to present it as a be all end all, you need to account for things such as a simple thing like plants that are dependant on insects for pollination and their reproduction cycle. Animals being created in a reverse order of size also makes no sense as almost all food chains are based on a bottom up idea. "Hi I'm an aardvark, but I'm kinda fucked because god didnt make the ants yet...got any Pez?"

And to Antec: The layer of "dust" you're talking about is Irridium. It is found inside the earth, but not in the crust. It is more commonly found in meteors and the places they strike (like the moon). Irridium and the remains of the impact crater in the Yukatan helped solidfy our understanding of what caused the mass extinction 65 million years ago.

And to Sithray's edit: There is pretty solid proof, you just disagree with over a dozen different methods that can be used to determine this using reasons that are less solid then the things you mean to discredit.

Phrost
30th January 04, 06:26 PM
I used to believe Santa Claus squeezed his fat ass through my chimney to bring me presents.

I grew up.

Sithray
30th January 04, 06:49 PM
Uhh hi, expain dinosuars and there being no humans found in the same time as them, if god created the earth in 7 days then dinosaurs must have been before God(becasue god is a figure used by man to bring peace and a sense of something greater after this shit hole). Also if you dig ANYWHERE in the world deep enough you will find a thin layer of dust not of this world(ie the makeup isnt found anywhere else on earth) thus almost all life on earth was wiped out by a giant meteor and the dust from it covered the earth.

Hate to break your heart but god isnt real, majority of the planet doesnt believe in your god, and hes just a tool used to keep people in check(ie dont rape your neighbors wife, dont steal, be a good person)

Sucks for GA, i went to school there and i remember the arugements that went nuts becasue religous poeple couldnt stand to listen to another point of view, a view that was giving to them by their parents, and given to them from their parents.

You are a fucking idiot...did you even read what I wrote? Grats on Felching 101.


4th Age: Stars/Moon. During this age light from far away stars was finally reaching the earth, which means that this procces up till now could have taken millionsxmillions of years. Also, the moon was formed to give light at night. The moon may have already been oribiting the eath for millions of years, dust and debris have finally settled on the surface making it a giant reflector. Several theories come to mind about the moon, perhaps a planetary mass struck the earth millions of years prior (pushing it into orbit of the sun? starting the rotation?) The oxygen composition of the moon backs up this theory. Rings were formed around the earth but were caught by the gravitational field, the moon was formed and became a sattelite. (Early on the moon had a motlen surface, as space cooled it the dust and crystals formed from the molten activity made the surface reflective, this has been proven with science)[/edit]

I GUESS THAT DOESN'T EQUAL A HUGE METEOR STRIKING THE EARTH AND LEAVING A LAYER OF IRRIDUM!!! OMG YOU ARE TEH STUPID!


I used to believe Santa Claus squeezed his fat ass through my chimney to bring me presents.

I grew up.

I never believed that...does that make me smarter than you?

Phrost
30th January 04, 06:58 PM
I dunno, maybe your parents felt guilty about feeding you all the other bullshit so they left that little fantasy out?

Lohocla
30th January 04, 07:08 PM
A great man once said:

"It's better to have ideas rather than beliefs. It's easy to change an idea."

And I will only add one single pertinent fact.
No one ANYWHERE has ANY PROOF what-so-ever to ANY idea about how the universe originated. ALL we have is a VERY VERY small amout of "evidence" that is circumstantial at BEST.

Have a nice day.

Sithray
30th January 04, 07:11 PM
The book of creation is no different fundamentally then old Summarian myths about the creation of the universe nor ancient greek myths about the creation of the universe. Hell, the greek myths were even better in many respects because they got the crazy idea that land life had its origins in the sea. The bible getting the general order down, like the myths that preceeded it, doesnt make it any more valid then the other works.

Sad only attempt Cyb, the Bible predates those cultures by quite some time. The bible is one of the FIRST wirtten records of the history of man, only Egyptians prior have information that can be found today, and the bible was Penned starting during the time when Egypt was a world power.


The bible also states that all flowering plants/etc pre-date flying animals or land animals, aka INSECTS. It's stupid to nitpick, but if you try to present it as a be all end all, you need to account for things such as a simple thing like plants that are dependant on insects for pollination and their reproduction cycle. Animals being created in a reverse order of size also makes no sense as almost all food chains are based on a bottom up idea. "Hi I'm an aardvark, but I'm kinda fucked because god didnt make the ants yet...got any Pez?"

The bible describes an ONGOING creation of plant and animal life over a period of time. It does not, nor did I say that everthing was created at once. And early pollenation could have happened from the winds that blew across the earth...as I said, see the example of grass on an island in the pacific.....but I guess a fish planted that huh? Sometimes you seem smart cyb, and sometimes you completley lack all logical sense.


And to Antec: The layer of "dust" you're talking about is Irridium. It is found inside the earth, but not in the crust. It is more commonly found in meteors and the places they strike (like the moon). Irridium and the remains of the impact crater in the Yukatan helped solidfy our understanding of what caused the mass extinction 65 million years ago.

I partially agree with this statment. I think soemthing struck the earth, I believe that is how the moon was formed, this does not mean it was an accident though.


And to Sithray's edit: There is pretty solid proof, you just disagree with over a dozen different methods that can be used to determine this using reasons that are less solid then the things you mean to discredit.

Solid proof?? You do realize cyb the the oldest find of ancient man only dates back 5,000 years??? But surely you already knew that... The only evidence people who believe in evolution without creation is the Java Man, which has Scientists from both sides of the table claiming it is human, it is gibbon, it is human, it is gibbon...There is also Turkana Boy, in both cases the skulls were incomplete, and SKETCHINGS were made of a complete skull. There was NEVER a complete skull nor skeleton found, and scientists who believe in evolution DEFINATELY embellished on the art work a little. In one case the found a PORTION of the top of the skull and on the other they found a PORTION of the jawbone. A good example of this is the Iguanadon. The group of scientists who found it wanted to prove it walked on all fours, so they sketched it to look that way, but later a complete skeleton was found and boom, lo and behold it was a biped.

Of course it's not my job to teach you science, but if you are going to claim to know it, at least act like you know it.

Also, you have to know that Dubious also found 2 complete human skulls near his Java Man find which dated about the same...but with you knowing so much about science and all you probably knew that....

Also, the bible reports there were the Nephilim, phsically DIFFERENT in form from man, larger, bigger bodies/heads HAIRY...Evolutionists often completely overlook this in the bible. A Flood would have wiped these people out, and all that water pressure would have caused bones to appear considerably aged to carbon dating, which was used in the 80's to date the bones. In 1996 they were re-aged and found to be much younger. Again, I am sure since you studied science as I did you probably knew this...

One more thing about Java Man, the femur and another bone (which one?) were proven to not even be related to the skull portion found (this was shown in 1993) and were actually real human bones. Some people accused dubious of planting the human bones, but it was never proven. Dubious was a firm evolutionist who at one point even tried to cover up the fact he found two human skulls at the same sight, if it weren't for others at the time those would have gone under the rug.

Merril
30th January 04, 07:11 PM
Actually Sithray, you did hit the nail on the head but you didn't swing hard enough. ;)

There are a lot of parallels between the way the bible says the universe was formed and the way science goes about explaining it. So much so that people still accept the bible's 'creation myth' without knowing exactly why. I would have to say that suspending the belief that science and religion must exist in opposition is one of the most important and intellectually liberating steps a person can come to as a mature adult and that this 'balance' should be the goal of any thinking person.

I don't have time to spell it all out at once, but I'll kill a little bandwidth and give you my take on the first couple of verses.

"1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters."

According to the most popular theories in astrophysics... the universe was formed thru an event occuring within a "super singularity" and thus space and time were born along with quite a few huge clusters of mass. These enormous proto-nebulae organized in such a way as to become galactic 'super clusters' (spatial groupings of hundreds of galaxies). At the center of some of these galaxies huge stars were born which over time turned into the first black holes. The mass of these would allow galaxies such as ours to attain a spiral aspect in conjunction with the force imparted by the hypothesized initial event.

So now we have a universe with measurable time, and space filled with huge clusters of nebulae and galaxies. So what about the stars and their respective planets?

Stellar masss takes a very long time to condense. Once the hydrogen at the center reaches critical mass and a 'star' is formed heavier elements are expulsed into the surrounding area as particulate matter or 'dust'.

The star acts as a sort of centrifuge and this dust begins aggregating into rings with their own orbital paths. In effect, 'the earth is without form and void'. The light from the sun is obscured by the dust, hence the 'darkness'. The Spirit of God in this sense would speak to the mathmatical tendency of this stellar system to organize itself further by these dust rings coalescing into planets over a period of a billion or so years. The waters spoke of in this sense would be the sky itself; while this is poetic and perhaps the conjecture of the early semitic author... it's not really helpful or accurate.


If you want I can expand on this later to 'synergize' more of the Genesis account with science.

Sithray
30th January 04, 07:25 PM
I only went into the creation of the Earth Merril, I totally believe the scientific theory of how the universe was formed. I am BIG on science and believe it should be used in conjuction with religion. People who shun science because of their religious beliefs are in my eyes stupid. Science is a proven fact, and it is something man is/should be fascinated with.

Sorry if my grammar is bad or I am not making good sense, I am doing this at work so I don't have alot of time...

Merril
30th January 04, 07:26 PM
Sad only attempt Cyb, the Bible predates those cultures by quite some time. The bible is one of the FIRST wirtten records of the history of man, only Egyptians prior have information that can be found today, and the bible was Penned starting during the time when Egypt was a world power.


No. It does not. What you need to realize is that most of the Bible was an oral tradition passed down over the years until it could be scribed onto parchment. A lot of that tradition came from Sumeria and Babylon before they got anywhere near Egypt. The practise of written religious texts was something that arose as part of Babylonian culture since the earlier Sumerians were still using their chickenscratch alphabet for recording how many bushels of barley equated to a goat.



You do realize cyb the the oldest find of ancient man only dates back 5,000 years???

10-12,000 actually.
100,000 if you include h. austrolopithecus
400,000 if you include h. erectus
2,000,000 if you include h. habilis
15-20,000,000 if you include h. ramapithecus

Bleh. Wish I could debate this further tonite, gotta go play EQ. (ducks thrown objects)

Antec
30th January 04, 07:31 PM
You are a fucking idiot...did you even read what I wrote? Grats on Felching 101.

Your right, i didnt read that bullshit u posted, i kinda just skimmed over the first couple paragraphs and wrote my post. Ive read all the religous jibbercrap before, same story, still avoiding the solid proof, you know stuff you can touch and see.

PS: no one "really" gives a shit what u think, go back to being a stupid redneck who would prefer to do nothing but drive around in mud and goto church and pray to the boogie man in the sky

Lohocla
30th January 04, 07:35 PM
The Sumerians were around the same time the Egyptians were. They have found writings (clay and stone tablets mostly) that place the Sumerians back about to 3500BC as an organized political force. And if you have ever read their myths, you'd be astounded how many parallel the Bible, or should we say how much the Bible parallels them. Many other myths from many other cultures appear in the Bible as well.

ALSO the books of the Bible were passed down by word of mouth untill they could be edited (yes edited) and fitted into a book. In fact, there were 4 distinct versions Bible by the time it was made a book, you can find all four for yourself if you look close enough. Who's to say that ideas didn't change between the time they were thought of and the time they were written down?


EDIT: Damn Merill, faster than I was.

Lohocla
30th January 04, 07:37 PM
Antec how do you know if this is the same "religious jibbercrap" if you didn't read it?

To assume . . .

Luko
30th January 04, 07:41 PM
Somewhere in news said Chinese made paper before anyone.

/hides

Lohocla
30th January 04, 07:44 PM
Old Kingdom of Egypt c. 2500BC had "paper" unsure when Chinese made theirs.

Sithray
30th January 04, 07:46 PM
Yeah Lohocla, Antec is pretty much a fucking moron. Had he read my post he would know I am a firm believer in science. Instead he is one of those "nut" evolutionist who is just as extreme as a "nut" creationist. I have found a reasonable center ground that explains both ends of the spectrum. Science with Faith if you will.

And I am sorry, but your knowlege of the bible is pathetic...Edited?? Noone edited the bible you .... Each writer wrote his/her book, and Moses wrote the first few books, making him one of THE first people to create a written record of the history of man. Each book was then saved, and kept as law in the temple, not one other person ever took a pen to the books, and they were placed in order they were received, books of the law/prophets they were called back then. The accounts of Jesus were from points of view of his apostles, and then the letters from Paul to the 1st century congregations etc. None of them were edited, and they were saved by the then body of elders (paul/apollos etc) and are now the Christian/Greek scriptures. The sumarians are the ones who went by word of mouth, hence MYTHS AND LEGENDS.

And the bible discusses the people of Sumaria...pagans it called them. Have you read the bible Merril? I would wager no.

Donnely McLeod
30th January 04, 07:50 PM
How many times do I have to say it before you all get it into your skulls? The Bible is not a science book; although it is accurate. If anyone is nitpicking it is the person who reads what isn't there. Enough research will make your data look Valid though.

Any dating method based on the original estimates of the planet made in the 19th century have zero validity because they pulled the numbers out of their asses. It was made up entirely from guesswork. What you're saying is that its not solid to say they're wrong, but it is solid to believe 'facts' based on pure guesswork?

And the good old KT boundary. Ahhh, to guess at what it is.

1) Frankel found KT layer and said it was 'asteroid dust'. (from the get-go, he was biased).

2) He found a crater like the one in Quebec... except this one apparently was the reason for the KT layer and the extinction (although the one in Quebec was hardly acknowledged by life at the time of its impact, but it was identical to the impact in the Yucatan).

3) With the other theories of mass extinctions (Ordovician-Silurian) of the same level of destruction... there is no KT boundary. Frankel said a Chinese team found some in an alleged 438million year old deposit, but 3 other teams have been... less lucky.

So Frankel made up a theory. Gathered some odd pieces, put it together his own way and said it worked. Yeah, those are some real solid facts you live on. Progress, apparently, does not consistist in replacing a theory that is wrong with one that is right. It consists in replacing a theory that is wrong with... one that is more subtly wrong. Aye, Cyb?

This is the whole thing. You'd rather debate theory then fact.

Sithray
30th January 04, 07:50 PM
Old Kingdom of Egypt c. 2500BC had "paper" unsure when Chinese made theirs.

Chinese were the first people to have paper as we know it. Egyptians had their own paper called papyrus which was reeds form the nile turned into mulch, flattened and dried in the sun. It pre-dates modern chinese paper by about 500? years. Their ink was a thick ink, some even made from reptile venom.

Donnely McLeod
30th January 04, 08:00 PM
Your right, i didnt read that bullshit u posted, i kinda just skimmed over the first couple paragraphs and wrote my post. Ive read all the religous jibbercrap before, same story, still avoiding the solid proof, you know stuff you can touch and see.

PS: no one "really" gives a shit what u think, go back to being a stupid redneck who would prefer to do nothing but drive around in mud and goto church and pray to the boogie man in the sky

Every time I read what you write I add a slur and want to put a bottle of whiskey next to the computer screen to try and 'see it from your point of view.' Of course, I'm not that drunk and pathetic.

Hell, this coming from a guy who bad repped me twice in a row because I posted a pic. He even added the most depressing insult on one of them: 'ure gay'

Lohocla
30th January 04, 08:00 PM
Sith, i'll show you all 4 versions if you like - just talking early old testiment here.

You can highlight different verses in 4 different colors and read any color. They are obviously different is style and each still says about 90% of everything said in total.

This is not an idea or belief, this is something I've seen touched and tasted.

And there are Sumerian tablets in museums. Mostly I like the Sumerians cause of MARDUK, SLAYER OF TIAMAT!

Donnely McLeod
30th January 04, 08:02 PM
No. It does not. What you need to realize is that most of the Bible was an oral tradition passed down over the years until it could be scribed onto parchment. A lot of that tradition came from Sumeria and Babylon before they got anywhere near Egypt. The practise of written religious texts was something that arose as part of Babylonian culture since the earlier Sumerians were still using their chickenscratch alphabet for recording how many bushels of barley equated to a goat.

We've been through this Merril. You've said it. You have not read it. You have not investigated it. That means you have no qualified voice to say anything about it. Wanna argue biology? Will do. But sometimes, these assuming, broad, sweeping statements make me embarrassed to having read it man.

Donnely McLeod
30th January 04, 08:04 PM
Workout now and my mom's husband is making cajun wings so I'll have to argue later tonight.

Sithray
30th January 04, 08:07 PM
Sith, i'll show you all 4 versions if you like - just talking early old testiment here.

You can highlight different verses in 4 different colors and read any color. They are obviously different is style and each still says about 90% of everything said in total.

This is not an idea or belief, this is something I've seen touched and tasted.

And there are Sumerian tablets in museums. Mostly I like the Sumerians cause of MARDUK, SLAYER OF TIAMAT!

No Lo, you will more than likely link various translations of the bible, which are not acceptable to me. I want a direct translation (including all possible words for a word) from ancient hebrew into english and ancient greek into english. I have copies which are exactly that, mirrors of all scrolls (which do exist, originals and all). As I have stated in another thread the NWT is probably the only truly accurate translation of those ancient languages into modern english, withough taking out Gods name as many translations have done.

Do some research and get back to me.

I am out, will pick this up tomorrow

Lohocla
30th January 04, 08:09 PM
Will do, I'll even mail you my hardcopy if you like. It's quite an interesting read. It's one translation, as accurate as can get (depending who you talk to I guess).

Kalric
30th January 04, 09:46 PM
Hate to break your heart but god isnt real, majority of the planet doesnt believe in your god, and hes just a tool used to keep people in check(ie dont rape your neighbors wife, dont steal, be a good person)



And whos to say he doesnt exist?

How are things suppose to pop up. A never ending universe, with countless of galaxies, endless amounts of stars, more then you can count of solar systems, possibilites of other lives.

And if you come back down to earth and think for a second that you are the only life with its own will............. anywhere??????????

All this came out of no where? No one responsible for its creation? Not even a superior lifeform or being?

Can you prove this sir? I cant prove that there is, all i can do is believe and have faith. Its fucked up to think that we come into a world - this universe..... only to live our time and die.

Flare
30th January 04, 10:19 PM
Can you prove this sir? I cant prove that there is, all i can do is believe and have faith. Its fucked up to think that we come into a world - this universe..... only to live our time and die.
Why? That pretty much describes everything in the known universe, with the exception of energy. Anything and everything "lives" a certain amount of time, and then "dies." You, dogs, cats, plants, rocks, planets, stars, galaxies, everything.

You rabid creationists can spout all you want about beliefs and God... but the fact is, there's far more evidence that supports evolution and the "universe popping into existence from quantum foam" than there is for an imaginary beign in the sky watching over everything we do.

For the purposes of this arguement, I will acknowledge the stance that God exists... but provide one shred of evidence of his existance. "My faith" doesn't count. I'm not saying produce any facts, but produce something... anything at all that points to the existence of this hypothetical God. I will also acknowledge, for the purposes of this argument, that any of the scientific "facts" are indeed not facts, but mere conjecture. That being the case, I have a boat load of conjecture and possibilities that jibe with our current knowledge of the universe to support evolution... yet you creationists have nothing but "faith" to back you up. Not one single, solitary piece of data has ever in the history of the universe been brought forth to suggest that God exists and created everything. Not one single little tiny iota... and to me, that speaks volumes. Not a single piece of evidence to support God, but reems and reems of evidence to support evolution.

Go go gadget self-deception to make yourself feel important. Sorry, but people are nothing special beyond being a form of matter combined in unique ways... all of which are bound to happen given an infinite amount of time. If it makes you feel better to think you have some sort of purpose and some magical beign is watching over you, more power to ya... but I like to base my world view around reality, and not some made up fantasy. I guess I'm a realist that way... seems better to attack life with all the facts, instead of starting out on a flawed and shakey belief structure to begin with.

Cybsled
30th January 04, 10:56 PM
Sithray, I reject your reported age of the bible because you have no proof. You pull the same old bullshit on me, I pull it on you.

We can play the ring around the fucking stupid debate all day long. I'll be chilling with Prometheus as he lies crucified...er, I mean chained to a rock and has his liver eaten daily to pay for his salvation of mankind.

Donnely: Not all extinctions nessisarily occur because of extraterrestrial bombardment and the one 65mya might not nessisarily be due to the asteroid, you are correct. The Cretaceous (sp) extinction's strongest canidate is an asteroid having some major fault since the relative age of the craters and the relative existance of the irridium seem to coincide, as well as a general pattern of the life in what is North America dying out first. Thats not to say that it was the only fault, but its a good contender. We at least have a better idea on this one then the Cambrian extinction or the Perm-Triassic ultra extinction

Sithray
30th January 04, 11:47 PM
Sithray, I reject your reported age of the bible because you have no proof. You pull the same old bullshit on me, I pull it on you.

Hello, welcome to reality, nice to welcome you aboard Cybsled...

Dude, the bible has dates/time lines as well as NAMES of rulers who history has proven existed. So I CAN age the bible based on HISTORICAL data...you lose that round and get an F-- for total lack of reasonble argument and failure to produce any proof.

Sithray
30th January 04, 11:50 PM
10-12,000 actually.
100,000 if you include h. austrolopithecus
400,000 if you include h. erectus
2,000,000 if you include h. habilis
15-20,000,000 if you include h. ramapithecus

Bleh. Wish I could debate this further tonite, gotta go play EQ. (ducks thrown objects)

Ummm...I am going to have to call you a "rabid evolutionist" on that one Merrill...those dates are not based on ANY fact, but rather, theory...you do realize what a T-H-E-O-R-Y is right? My FACT was based on a SCIENTIFIC find of a human skeleton frozen in the mountains. It only dated 5,000 years.

Sithray
30th January 04, 11:53 PM
And Flare, jesus, you are worse than a creationist man. You are on the complete extreme other side. Here I am able to use religion and science together, when you are so closed mind you refuse to take religion into the factor at all. So tell me Flare, what started it all? Where did this "sea of foam" come from...please, explain to me the VERY beginning....you can't and neither can the most advanced scientist.

That is why, despite what you believe, most high end scientists believe in a god, there are some things that just CAN'T be answered. So why Flare, if scientists who know a gabillion more than you about theuniverse believe in God, why won't you even think for a half a second that he exists? Pride? Perhaps you feel like you shouldn't have to answer to anyone, that somehow gives you a feeling of "total freedom"...

Donnely McLeod
31st January 04, 12:08 AM
I'm not saying produce any facts, but produce something... anything at all that points to the existence of this hypothetical God. I will also acknowledge, for the purposes of this argument, that any of the scientific "facts" are indeed not facts, but mere conjecture. That being the case, I have a boat load of conjecture and possibilities that jibe with our current knowledge of the universe to support evolution... yet you creationists have nothing but "faith" to back you up. Not one single, solitary piece of data has ever in the history of the universe been brought forth to suggest that God exists and created everything. Not one single little tiny iota... and to me, that speaks volumes. Not a single piece of evidence to support God, but reems and reems of evidence to support evolution.

You're talking about God. I'm talking about creation.

Spontaneous generation: impossible. Test after test after test after test has produced nothing.

Evolution: No intermediate forms. Your reems and reems of evidence are based on the same psuedo-science beliefs that wrought so many damned fakes over the past century and a half.

I already said it. I'm not here to cater to your quaint little delimmia of what's left. I don't care what you went through, what you saw in life, the tragedies that shook you or whatever shit made you cynical. I'm not trying to prove God exist, am I? No. All I'm doing is having fun disproving evolution. You can rant and rave and hate God all you want. I'm like, "Yeah, ok, but I wasn't talking about God, was I?" YOU always want to talk about religion and God. *I* always want to talk about science. I've never seen you provide a good, solid piece of proof - one way or the other - just go on and on and on and on and on about how much you hate religion.

How the fuck can you sit there and say this? Nothing but faith to back me up? I'm not gonna humor your question to me. I'm gonna challenge you to find one scientific fact I've stated that wasn't backed up. Every single fucking time we go through this I put out all the research I've done. If I'm held to that standard, then you better get on the ball with it buddy because there are few and far between that have actually argued science with me. Wanna flame back and forth? Do it with someone else. Wanna shoot something at me that you think'll work? You're welcome to try. But be a man about it.

Tegian
31st January 04, 01:10 AM
Evolution: No intermediate forms. Your reems and reems of evidence are based on the same psuedo-science beliefs that wrought so many damned fakes over the past century and a half.


I don't understand how it is so hard to believe in the evolution of species, if it is a fact that things do mutate and evolve. You people just bitch and moan about how we can't know anything for a certain because we didn't live in that time, but there is plently of evidence around that makes it more than logical that we evolved. I mean an immediate form you could look at is frogs, they start out as a fish with gills and then end up being a amphibious animal that breathe air. Also how do you explain fossils, though some are imcomplete or had to be reconstructed, they are there and they are not the same as beings that are found today.
I don't believe that the creation of earth was just spontaneous, I think it's ignorant to think that we know everything about the powers that are in the universe in this day and age. There is undoubtably something beyond our knowledge, but it is naive to think that evolution is a horrible theory and that there is no evidence. Why spend time and energy trying to disprove something, when you could be forming your own better hypothesis, though I guess disproving it is much easier than thinking for yourself.

imported_Blazer
31st January 04, 01:56 AM
never read an evolution thread when you gotta headache. Almost didnt finish watching farpoint station :cry:

Kalric
31st January 04, 02:35 AM
Flare... get this strainght. Faith is what i use to back my beliefs up. Its not Sithray's nor Joe's or Henry's "facts". They are my own. I dont think that anthing thing is created with-out something outside of it being great enough to create their or it's existance. That being said, you were created by your folks fucking one night. To some it would seem some outcome of having sex.

So all these years, was sex its only purpose or was their a greater power at work?

:edit: fuck trying to type when u have been at the bar drinking and whatnot.. its hard to freakin type. :edit:

Diggler McFeely
31st January 04, 02:48 AM
Goddamn smokers.

Traetick
31st January 04, 03:13 AM
Does anyone recall the last time you were in church and you hear the priest reading about when a man would commit adultery then god would ravish the wife and kill her firstborn etc etc. Well its in there sadly along with all other types of vengeful revenge on "gods people". I just dont understand how someone can commit to something of which they know NOTHING about. I mean is there even a true copy of the bible that wasnt translated by a euro/latin king? They re-worded it and forced there people to live by it out of fear of god. The pagans had there sacred lands stolen, houses burned and were forced to be apart of the christian community or die. Religion is war, Religion is wrong even is MAN that causes these things and not god. Why cant people still have thoughts, hope, imagination, inner faith and research all they can for themselves instead of just accepting their fate. This topic could go on forever and of course everyone has their own opinions which is great but the topic will never be solved. I figure as long as i live life happy and just be a good person that in the end ill be ok. I dont want a god that requires worship. I dont think god would be that narcissistic. I think if god/gods were real then they would appreciate you more if you lived life with question rather than acceptance. As i said though this is just my opinion....dont take it to seriously.

Merril
31st January 04, 06:06 AM
And I am sorry, but your knowlege of the bible is pathetic...Edited?? Noone edited the bible

Except for the scribes of Emperor Constantine of Rome, King James of England, and the Vatican eh?


And the bible discusses the people of Sumaria...pagans it called them. Have you read the bible Merril? I would wager no.

Actually I have... enough to know that I believe you need to look at a map.

SAmaria was the region discussed extensively in the bible and that area extended from the Jordan river in the east to the Mediteranean Sea in the west. From Nazareth in the north to Jericho in the south.

SUmeria was located way out east. North of the persian gulf, a little to the southeast of the Tigris/Euphrates and in the extreme southern part of what later became ancient Persia.

Merril
31st January 04, 07:36 AM
We've been through this Merril. You've said it. You have not read it. You have not investigated it. That means you have no qualified voice to say anything about it. Wanna argue biology? Will do. But sometimes, these assuming, broad, sweeping statements make me embarrassed to having read it man.

Yes, we have been over this. Whether or not I've read every last book, scroll, or clay tablet on the subject; and whether or not you believe that I'm qualified to make these statements, I'm going to stick to opinions based on verified historical data until you can give me good reason not to.

People have dated the biblical flood as having occured right around 3200 BC. If you want to dispute this, fine. But I want a date on the BC/AD scale otherwise I'm running with what I've got.

There is no historical evidence that I am aware of that corroborates early semitic people developing written language before this event took place.

You're a reasonably intelligent guy Don. Who do you suppose the Hebrews interacted with prior to the Babylonians if not the Sumerians? Why do you suppose the huge gap in time between Adam and Noah is glossed over with a very brief record of lineage? Perhaps because that was the style of writing at the time? Basic facts and nothing more because that's what the written language allowed for until the Babylonians came along and priests developed written language as a means of documenting religious tradition?

The first reference to writing that I recall in the bible is hundreds (if not a thousand or more years) later during the stories of Moses. The funny thing here is that the stories of Moses and the code of laws he set forth were paralleled by Hammurabi, the ruler of Babylon. I am very unwilling to believe that this is mere coincidence. Nor do I believe it pure happenstance that Moses presented these laws on tablets similar to what the Babylonians used as writing media. You have heard the story of the Tower of Babel correct? What about that? How do you explain Genesis 11:1? Do I even need to bring up the whole golden calf thing, or have you heard enough?

From here the Bible proceeds to tell of the Hebrews captivity to the Babylonians and all the trials and tribulations they suffered which ends with them fleeing southwest and winding up in Egypt. And then most of the rest of the old testament deals with them being in constant conflict with the Ancient Egyptians.

Okay. Donnely here's your question for the day. If Genesis was written way back then why is there no record of it being passed down thru cuneiform or heiroglyphs?

Cybsled
31st January 04, 09:16 AM
Yes Sithray, PART of the bible can be dated through rulers and such. But the early parts of it are pure conjecture and cannot be reliably dated since they have no mooring in accepted historical records and cannot be cross reference. Sorry kid, but you lose.

Phrost
31st January 04, 11:09 AM
Go go gadget self-deception to make yourself feel important. Sorry, but people are nothing special beyond being a form of matter combined in unique ways... all of which are bound to happen given an infinite amount of time.

Thank you.

I made that same point 2 years ago in another one of these "Science vs. the Georgia Boys" threads. Unfortunately, they didn't get it then, and I don't think they'll get it now either.

Phrost
31st January 04, 11:38 AM
Have you ingorant fucks even doubted ONCE the idea that the Bible is the magical, unquestionable work of god?

Seriously. Research is your friend.

For example: Council of Nicea.

Go fucking google it.

In the 4th century, Constantine summoned a bunch of christian leaders together to decide what was official doctrine, and what was heresy. At this time, many books were excluded from the bible, including the book of Thomas, because they didn't "fit" with the vision the church leaders wanted to create.

Did you know they actually voted on the issue of god being a trinity? Because of an opinion put forth by a man named Arius, that if God "begat" a son, there must have been a time when he did not exist, the council scrambled to find a magical solution to this dilema. Hence, the Trinity.

http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum01.htm

And before you make the bullshit claim that "God was working through Constantine", read the first few bits of this to find out what a 'great' guy he was.

http://www.yashanet.com/library/antisem.htm

Constantine, only one year after convening the Council of Nicea, had his own son (Crispus) put to death. Later he suffocated Fausta (his wife) in an overheated bath. Then he had his sister's son flogged to death and her husband strangled. (1) It was also during the reign of Constantine that the cross became a sacred symbol in Christianity, just as it had been in pagan religions.(2) Throughout his reign, Constantine treated the bishops as political aides. He agreed to enforce whatever opinion the majority of the bishops formulated

Start there, and there's plenty more.

If you missed all that because you're staring at the screen, drooling, then I'll repeat it.

THE ROMAN EMPEROR AND A BUNCH OF EARLY CHURCH LEADERS DECIDED WHAT BOOKS WERE GOING TO BE IN THE BIBLE, AND WHAT THE OFFICIAL DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY WOULD BE.

Welcome to planet fucking reality. Hope you enjoy your stay.

Donnely McLeod
31st January 04, 11:53 AM
I don't understand how it is so hard to believe in the evolution of species, if it is a fact that things do mutate and evolve. You people just bitch and moan about how we can't know anything for a certain because we didn't live in that time, but there is plently of evidence around that makes it more than logical that we evolved.

So tell me... what mutates? You been reading science journals that I haven't? I don't think there is uncertianty my friend. I am certian. I'd like you to show me one objective piece of evidence that can NOT be refuted.

Evolution isn't science. Its not even bad science. Its religion.

And, of course, Phrack... you refuse to argue, simply dismissing things as though 'they've been proven time and time again.' Time and time again, you refuse to argue science. You only want to pick on religion. That's all it is.

There is one point of self righteous bullshit I must address. Flare seems to hold to the idea that its egotistical to believe in God. Let me get this straight. An evolutionist who thinks he is the only solution to everything and that man is his own power is less egotistical. That is the most ludicrous, twisted, idiotic logic I have ever heard. Are you serious? Can a person be that incredibly stupid? That is, possibly, the most self-defeating, asinine statment I've heard. Self importance is this: removing moral responsibility and having people make up their own set of rules. Guess what... that's self importance. I find it offensive that such non-spiritual proponents of so-called 'moral freedom' have the credulity to comment on what spiritually minded people feel. God damn hypocrites. All you can see is your own ego on any matter. You don't care about truth, reality or exploration. You only care about what serves to benefit yourselves. Despite the enormity of evidence against evolution you refuse to open your eyes. Its cowardice, plain and simple. You believe it because you want nothing to answer for. Every time I bring up a question of validity, this is how it plays out.

I state scientific findings that refute evidence.

One, maybe two people actually argue it with me.

Eventually we wind down.

When it comes up again, sure enough, the wishful thinkers decide: we've proven this over and over.

You can attemp to diffuse opposing arguments by character attacks stating that simpleton rednecks are just headstrong and believe in a boogie man. Stop acting like fags and be men. If you can't handle a frontal assault, then cry me a river. Go bitch to your wives about it, not to me. Because, frankly, I tire of your refusal to fight.

Apparently your evidence is nothing more then saying, "Aww, that's cute," to something devestating.

Donnely McLeod
31st January 04, 11:54 AM
Have you ingorant fucks even doubted ONCE the idea that the Bible is the magical, unquestionable work of god?

Yes, why do you ask? What does this have to do with evolution?

edit: That's it. This is what it is for you. You just hate religion (either that or you just hate christians). Thank you. You've answered my question. So how does your hatred of religion prove evolution?

Donnely McLeod
31st January 04, 12:29 PM
There is undoubtably something beyond our knowledge, but it is naive to think that evolution is a horrible theory and that there is no evidence. Why spend time and energy trying to disprove something, when you could be forming your own better hypothesis, though I guess disproving it is much easier than thinking for yourself.

Wait, wait, wait. You want me to think for myself by believing in the most terribly invented societal hoax since the world was flat? You want me to think for myself... but only along the lines of what others think? You seem to be of the opinion that disproving it is easy. Well... you're right. Its simple. There are no intermediate fossils. There is no DNA evidence. And comparing genomes is like comparing a needle to a freight train on the basis that they're both made out of steel. I refuse to believe in something so... twisted and illogical. Believing in evolution is not thinking for yourself. Evolution is just an excuse.

Flare
31st January 04, 12:41 PM
Donnely... you are so haphazard and rabid, I have no idea what you are actually asking for. I suspect that holds true for the rest of the people who can think for themselves as well. Lay out exactly what you want, don't cloak it in bullshit and mind numbing rhetoric.


Spontaneous generation: impossible. Test after test after test after test has produced nothing.
This is absolutely hilarious. Talk about hypocritical! Spontaneous generation impossible (yet it's been proven in test after test after test after test that's spontaneous energy creation happens, but of course, Donnely quietly glosses over that fact) - yet God can spontaneously create things. So which is it... is it impossible, or does it happen? Take your pick, don't be a hypocrit.


So tell me Flare, what started it all? Where did this "sea of foam" come from...please, explain to me the VERY beginning....you can't and neither can the most advanced scientist.
You tell me where God came from and I'll tell you where quantum foam comes from, how about that? What? God was always there, you say? The same reasoning can be applied to quantum foam as far as we are concerned with the structure of the Universe. There are plenty of theories as to how the universe was created; yet I seriously doubt any of them are provable. If you want to call the quantum foam that begat the universe God, then I guess that's as good a name as any... but to anthropomophisize it is utterly childish and ridiculous.


So tell me... what mutates? You been reading science journals that I haven't? I don't think there is uncertianty my friend. I am certian. I'd like you to show me one objective piece of evidence that can NOT be refuted.
Is this what it will take for you to take your blinders off? Evidence of mutation... because pal, I got it for you. Caught a cold lately, or know someone who has? What about the flu? Viruses and bacteria mutate all the time. Oh, but I'm sure you'll refute that, because they aren't more complex organisms... with each individual element of DNA, the mutation time expands exponentially, and thus complex organisms take hundreds of thousands of years to mutate, which given the amount of time we've known enough to study this sort of thing, it makes it kind of hard to provide the proof you're going to ask for next. But hey, I've provided your proof of mutation, which is what you asked for. But in typical rabid creationist fashion, you'll change your story and ask for something else. "God" forbid someone provides evidence that your precious God who cares for you doesn't exist.

Sithray
31st January 04, 01:44 PM
So the question then Flare is, what came for, God or the Foam? It sounds to me likeyou put just as much faith in Foam as I put in God (and in foam :) )

Kwill
31st January 04, 02:03 PM
How about God and the foam? I don't know that they have to be mutually exclusive, do they?

Morley
31st January 04, 02:15 PM
Evolution isn't science. Its not even bad science. Its religion.

:rolleyes:


self righteous bullshit

Like the kind you spew around on this subject???

Tegian
31st January 04, 02:16 PM
So tell me... what mutates? You been reading science journals that I haven't? I don't think there is uncertianty my friend. I am certian. I'd like you to show me one objective piece of evidence that can NOT be refuted.

Evolution isn't science. Its not even bad science. Its religion.


As Flare said things mutate all the time at a molecular level, sure they are not complex organisms but as Flare also said as things become more complex the longer it takes them to show signs of mutation. And as homosapiens as we are today we have been this way for a incredibly small fraction of the worlds history so we wouldn't show any real mutations, and it looks like we never will with the rate that we are destroying our own habitat.
But there is other evidence such as fossils, but for some reason you seem to not believe in fossils or something. I guess the fanatics say that archaeopteryx was made by some scientist emgraving feathers, but that is also proof of the bridge between reptiles and birds. Animals also metamorphsize like frogs who go from a fish to amphibian. Also there is a specific trend in the chambers of the heart, as your go through the evolutionary tree fish begin with 2 chambers, amphibians 3 chambers, reptiles 3 chambers (4 in crocodiles), birds and mammals have 4 chambers, though of course you will say that is all irrelevant. And then of course there are all the animals that have specific traits that allow them to venture undetected, or capture prey easily, or move around faster etc.
Sure some of this is not cold hard fact, but it's all very logical. On it's own and when you combine it with the facts that we posses today.


There is one point of self righteous bullshit I must address. Flare seems to hold to the idea that its egotistical to believe in God. Let me get this straight. An evolutionist who thinks he is the only solution to everything and that man is his own power is less egotistical. That is the most ludicrous, twisted, idiotic logic I have ever heard. Are you serious? Can a person be that incredibly stupid? That is, possibly, the most self-defeating, asinine statment I've heard. Self importance is this: removing moral responsibility and having people make up their own set of rules. Guess what... that's self importance. I find it offensive that such non-spiritual proponents of so-called 'moral freedom' have the credulity to comment on what spiritually minded people feel. God damn hypocrites. All you can see is your own ego on any matter. You don't care about truth, reality or exploration. You only care about what serves to benefit yourselves. Despite the enormity of evidence against evolution you refuse to open your eyes. Its cowardice, plain and simple. You believe it because you want nothing to answer for. Every time I bring up a question of validity, this is how it plays out.

I really don't see how any of this makes any sense whatsoever. It is egotistical to think of a God, in that you are taking some power above you and then you are applying it directly to loving you and its sole purpose is to watch humanity and keep it in order, but at the same time letting us use free will.
Evolution does not say that man is only his own power. Evolution does the opposite putting is to be controlled by our surroundings and nature. We don't control our ability to evolve directly, so how are we possesing any kind of power. Evolutionists are not out to get you and your precious beliefs, all we do is hold our own and people constantly attack them, because they don't want their God to be any more disempowered. It's really just a repetition of history, the same thing happened with facts such as the earth not being the center of the universe and that it is round not flat.

Lohocla
31st January 04, 06:59 PM
Phrack: I doubt The Bible and Evolution equaly. All of you should too.

I've already said my stuff about why the bible is a "fishy" source of info, time for Evolution.

Yes MICRO EVOLUTION exists. This would be the genetic mutations of DNA within a species. As you have stated Flare this has been shown to exist many many times over. Why do you extrapolate this data to include trans-species mutation? There really is no basis for that extrapolation at all. Sure it may happen, but there is the same chance that is doesn't. And the evolution that most people talk about is Macro Evolution or the trans-species mutation of DNA.

Now for the fossils. Isn't it entirely possible that those fossils found that look un-like species we have today were entirely different species that went extint? Why is the idea of these fossils being of animals that are "missing links" the only answer to the question of "What are these?", they could very well be the end of an entirely different "evolution chain" or something that God tried out and it failed to adapt to the world. The thing is there are many many answers to that question and every one of those answer Can Not Be Proven. EVER.

Tegian, all of that stuff is very circumstantial. yes it looks like that "shows evolution" (the hearts and other stuff) it very well may show something else too. I do not think it is good practice to base a belief system on Circumstantial evidence.


Sure some of this is not cold hard fact, but it's all very logical.
Don't say this. This is a "slippery slope" fallacy and easily countered. I'll give you an example:
Tegian played EQ. All EQ players are nerds. All nerds are unpopular. All unpopular people are depressed. All depressed people kill themselves. Tegian will kill himself.

This statement is 100% logic. But without the injection of fact at EVERY point, the whole statment is UNSOUND. I know it's an extreme example, but suits my point.


Now I am not a Creationist and I am not an Evolutionist. There are massively massive flaws in both belief systems. I'm still thinking on it. So lets keep talking because the more information that one has, the better informed their decision will be.

Merril
31st January 04, 07:21 PM
In the 4th century, Constantine summoned a bunch of christian leaders together to decide what was official doctrine, and what was heresy. At this time, many books were excluded from the bible, including the book of Thomas, because they didn't "fit" with the vision the church leaders wanted to create.

Did you know they actually voted on the issue of god being a trinity? Because of an opinion put forth by a man named Arius, that if God "begat" a son, there must have been a time when he did not exist, the council scrambled to find a magical solution to this dilema. Hence, the Trinity.


You left out the most hilarious part of all Phrack... but that's okay. I was waiting for Donnely to bite so I could nuke the arguement from orbit but now I can do that anyway. Bombs away.

Donnely never answered the question of whether Jesus could be God without first being man. The answer is 'no'. 'Why' you might ask. Well, the entire point of the bible is that a man would fulfill the prophecy of Israel and become the messiah. Furthermore, the tragic irony of Jesus dying on the cross would be lost if he was in some part deified prior to his 'ascension'.

Anyone want to take a wild guess what happens if Jesus doesn't get to be 'Christ' until after he dies? Well, it's really quite simple. He loses his mythic status and turns back into an ordinary guy. Emperor Constantine loses a very powerful unifying force (one that he needed to stabilize the Eastern and Western Roman empires) and religion becomes decentralized and 'vulgar' the way it did much later anyway with the translation of the Bible from latin to english.

But... Arius was branded a heretic, Constantine's version of the Bible was popularized and so today we have the Vatican supporting a wildly inaccurate view of who Jesus was based on a poorly editted version of the original story and so they have misinterpreted everything and lost the whole point of Jesus' sacrifice. In case anyone's wondering what that is I'll just go ahead and spell it out right here and now in his own words:

(Sorry, no greek character support on the board so I have to use a phonetic approximation)

(John 12:35) Eti mikron chronon to phodz en umin estin. Peripateite odz to phodz echete, ina me skotia umas katalabe. kai o peripaton en te skotia ouk oiden pou upagei.

(Or for those who prefer english)

"The light is with you for a little longer. Walk while you have the light, lest the darkness overtake you; he who walks in the darkness does not know where he goes."

A bit cryptic but taken in context it means "Your life won't last long. Live life while you're alive, lest death overtake you; he who dwells on death is lost."

The church today teaches people to do just that. To dwell on death. How many times have you heard in church 'if you die today where will your soul wind up'? Jesus' message was simple and it's been lost: "Live the best you can and don't worry about it."

Lohocla
31st January 04, 07:53 PM
Yeah Jesus was an Awesoem man. (I think he did live - at least as a man) And his teachings are awesome. MUCH is lost in interpretation.

Hell, even Nietzsche thought Jesus was cool and he Dispised all forms of Christianity.

Phrost
31st January 04, 08:28 PM
Yes, why do you ask? What does this have to do with evolution?

edit: That's it. This is what it is for you. You just hate religion (either that or you just hate christians). Thank you. You've answered my question. So how does your hatred of religion prove evolution?

SIMPLE EXPLUNASHUN FUR U

A. U BLEEVE THE BIBLE IS TEH WURD OF GOD AN USE IT TO PROOV UR BLIEEFS BOUT EVOLUSHUN

B. EYE PROOVD TEH BIBLE IS TEH WERK OF A BUNCH O DUMBSHITS WHO WANTED TO USE IT FER THEY OWN REZONS

C. UR ARGUMENT SUCKS, I WIN.

Sithray
31st January 04, 09:22 PM
First of all Merrill and Phrack, Don and I do not follow the doctrines set out and Nicea, and view most of them are in direct contrast to the teachings of the bible in it's original verse. You both are basing your "bible knowlege" on doctrines which I have rejected as points of view of men and not the point the bible is trying to make. If you both were actually educated on religion, you would know this. Catholics made a joke of religion, and most people view what they think as what christians think, this is not the case and is a sad way to argue a point.

When I studied science (almost have a BS) I studied all aspects of the subjects I covered, I did not pick one viewpoint and ay "I disagree with that, therefor I disagree with all. You guys are horribly close minded, and thats why I think you always get completely owned when you guys try to get into these discussions, then when you get owned, you just type alot of stuff without actually saying anything relevant.

Sithray
31st January 04, 09:23 PM
And Merrill, I understand you are trying to sound smart lately, but you are coming off as a joke man...a big joke.

Sithray
31st January 04, 10:16 PM
The church today teaches people to do just that. To dwell on death. How many times have you heard in church 'if you die today where will your soul wind up'? Jesus' message was simple and it's been lost: "Live the best you can and don't worry about it."

This makes any possible validity you could have made worthless. This simple sentence proves you know jack and shit about the bible and what Jesus taught. Don and I seriously are laughing at you on the phone. At least Flare and Phrack steer clear of issues they don't know alot about, and make good arguments for or against what they believe in, you are in the deep end without water wings here man, get out now while you can.

JustiNIC
1st February 04, 03:37 AM
I read about a page total of this thread... I'm not going to argue with anyone here, but simply state my opinion on the subject.

I don't know what the fuck happened, where / how / it started, or how we got where we are today, but I have a much easier time believing that we evolved from pre-existing organisms than just being thrown on a rock that came to be in seven days by an "omnipotent being" because he got bored.

I believe in "not God." I'm not for evolution OR creation, I just think God is a "happy place" for a lot of people. "When I die, I'm going to Heaven! Yay!"

When I die, I'm going six feet under. THE END.

Donnely McLeod
1st February 04, 08:46 AM
This is absolutely hilarious. Talk about hypocritical! Spontaneous generation impossible (yet it's been proven in test after test after test after test that's spontaneous energy creation happens, but of course, Donnely quietly glosses over that fact).

This is rich. You're using several failed experiments founded by Stanley Miller as the basis that spontaneous generation is possible? You're glossing over the enormous chasm of DNA structure you twit.

And Micro evolution? I've never seen Macro evolution before. I've seen virusus mutate, but I've never seen a cat mutate. Micro 'evolution' is called adaptation. But the virus always remains a virus. Wishful thinking on your part.

Okay, we've been through the shit of archeopteryx. It was found in a quarry where a scientist had made several other fraudulent fossils. When the British museum opened it to an outside team they *concluded* that it was a fake. The British museum closed it to all outside research and had it examined by their own team wich, of course, concluded that it was authentic. The British museum had suffered several embarrassments before that; including Piltdown. Common sense and a lack of denial will tell you that.

By the way, I read a report in USA Today a few days ago that spoke of Austraulopithecus; it wasn't related to humans.

And, of course, Phrack you just can't get off religion. You think because a bunch of fags got together and made up a bunch of lies that you've disproven the Bible? Is that what you think? Is that really the extent of your intellect?

The truth of the matter is this. Evolution cannot be observed. Where it lurks in our DNA is untraced. Its unproven completely. Micro evolution has nothing to do with Macro-species. No link is found. There's no way for it to be reasonably explained, so the answer is: It was so long ago and took such a long time that its unobservable; despite the fact, yes, FACT that no transitional fossils are found.

And to Merril. Jesus was not God. This is stated in the Bible. Once again: you've not read it. Stop commenting on it.

Phrack: His validity is through his hatred of religion.

Flare: His validity is through 'we are free moral agents' *and* his hatred of religion.

Merril: Caves in to the dogmatism and cynicism surrounding religion.

Its interesting that evolutionist all share the same, common ground. Most of the time, rather then argue science you bash religion and use every example of *man's* twisting of it. Of course, when I show evidences of fraudulent material you're aghast. Adding to this, you're attacking doctrines... I don't even believe in. Like I've always said, your ignorance isn't my problem. I'm not responsible for your quaint little misconceptions.

Everything you describe are doctrines prescribed by men. Evolution is a doctrine prescribed by men. I am cynical in one aspect of life. I don't believe in man. Not a thing he says. I don't believe in governments, universities, flags or anything as such. I think humanity is rotten to the core. I hate the church. I hate the darwinists: equally. They are one in the same. The doctrine of evolution was used for more genocides and mass murders by governments in the past century then during the crusades (the crusades which were political-based, not religous based). Lenin and Stalin used it to rule. Hitler used it as a proponent to exterminating Jews and Gypsies. No. evolution is a doctrine of man, not a truth of science.

Energiser
1st February 04, 09:04 AM
I am both shocked and surprised by the direction this thread is going.

Lohocla has a good head on his shoulders. He is one of the few people i've seen here that has what i would call an intelligent opinion on the subject.

Phrost
1st February 04, 09:45 AM
Donnypoo can't defend against any of my points, so he has to bring up the fact that I can't stand Religion.

To his credit though, he's partly right. I do resent people who are stupid enough to be deluded into believing ALL kinds of nonsensical fantasy garbage, be it God, or fairy godmothers. It's insulting to think I share space on this rock with such people, much less chromosomes.

However, I do recognize that religion is an important tool for keeping the simple people of the world content to suffer through their meaningless, miserable lives. Were such folk ever to realize that this is all we've got, and there's NOT going to be some big cosmic party for them after death, people like me would have much more competition for the good things in life.

Fortunately, since someone has to be the janitors, garbage men, pavement pounders, etc; religion is also there to comfort them into not worrying about trying for a better life in the real world.

And while it's a little sad, it makes me happy.

Energiser
1st February 04, 10:09 AM
I do resent people who are stupid enough to be deluded into believing ALL kinds of nonsensical fantasy garbage, be it God, or fairy godmothers. It's insulting to think I share space on this rock with such people, much less chromosomes.


Macro-evolution is nonsensical fantasy garbage, it must be uncomfortable finding yourself insultingly stupid?

I don't understand this attitude at all, for want of a better term, it's fucking moronic.

Translate this into Arabic, put on a turban and a robe and switch a few words around and this would be very beleivable as having come from the mouth of a cave dwelling shi'ite fundamentalist for fucks sake.

*edit - to look down on people simply because you think you have reality by the balls is such frighteningly obscene arrogance it boggles my mind, and (in my opinion) is incompatible with a person of intelligence.

*edit #2 - just to be perfectly clear, you display narrow mindedness that is absolutely synonymous with the stupidity you decry.

*edit #3 - i personally put Evolution and Religion in the same bucket, and find narrow-mindedness a far more poisonous trait than religion, or near-religious beleif in evolution, or having 6 penises on ones forehead.

Sithray
1st February 04, 11:25 AM
People who are attacking religion in this thread are basing their opinions of it on false doctrines and pagan beleifs (Yes I think most religions out there, although claiming to be christian are pagan). And Justinic...I don't think anyone in this thread said it took 7 days to create the earth, but you have failed to kill yourslef so I wouldn't expect you to get this. I think the earth/universe took possibly billions of years. One day I feel I will know for sure.

Sithray
1st February 04, 11:29 AM
However, I do recognize that religion is an important tool for keeping the simple people of the world content to suffer through their meaningless, miserable lives. Were such folk ever to realize that this is all we've got, and there's NOT going to be some big cosmic party for them after death, people like me would have much more competition for the good things in life.

Fortunately, since someone has to be the janitors, garbage men, pavement pounders, etc; religion is also there to comfort them into not worrying about trying for a better life in the real world.

And while it's a little sad, it makes me happy.

I have college education, I work in a corporate IT environment, does that make me simple?

Sure the "simple" man may fall victim to false doctrines (IE good=go to heaven bad=go to hell), but the man who educates himself on the bible knows what to believe.

Cybsled
1st February 04, 12:24 PM
You say pagan like its a bad thing. One main thing you'll notice in the transition from multi-god religions to a one god dogma, is that the focus of the earth being our mother is taken away and replaced with the earth being our plaything and resource. Essentially, the death of a personified planet.

Older religions had a natural balance to them without the oversimplified terms of a "Im your boss, do what I say". People understood that effects on one pantheon would have effects on another in indirect ways. The push towards mono removed most of the thought...you were expected to obey, not question or understand.

Phrost
1st February 04, 01:56 PM
Letz Make It Evn More Simpul!

U Blieve In A God Wif Magikal Powerzes Who Kan Do Anyting Like Fly An Shit

I Go Off Resurchd Faks An Critikul Thinking.

Who Is Teh Stoopid?

JustiNIC
1st February 04, 03:30 PM
I don't think anyone in this thread said it took 7 days to create the earthDidn't the bible? That's what Sunday School tried to tell me when I was younger.

Morley
1st February 04, 04:01 PM
The bible did say that and a lot more. In it God told his "chosen" people to commit genocide, tells that if you don't worship him you will go to hell, always got others to do his bidding...
I mean really, what kind of "loving god" tells his people to kill off ALL of his enemies? Gives ultimatums of "do what I say or be damned forever"?, Is supposed to be "all powerful" but yet needs others to do things like deliver "his chosen" out of slavery? If he is so powerful why the hell didn't he just whisk them away to a safe place?? Now that would have been a miracle worthy of an omnipotent being, not making it rain frogs, giving people boils or killing off all of their first born, that seems like a chickenshit way to go about getting what you want.
It is a nice fairytale, but nothing more. The "early" adoptors of this religion used it just as Phrack said, as a way to keep the masses in line and bend them to their will and make themselves richer. Have doubts about this? Go have a look at the Roman Catholic church, their "holdings" are worth more than 10 Bill Gates, and yet they do nothing with all that wealth.

Lohocla
1st February 04, 05:49 PM
Micro evolution basicly is adaptation. Birds on Eastern Island? evolved a longer and more curved beak for reaching a different food source. Moths in England evolved a different color scheme to coinside with the changing air quality in London. This is evolution. Their DNA changes. But you all must realize in no way am I saying this translates to Macro evolution at all. There have been zero cases of trans-species evolution found and really nothing other than a few basic similarities to even give us the idea of macro evolution. I do not think, at this time, that the Theory of evolution is any better than any of the other theories out there.

There is more useless crap in this thread than there should be. Five different people are discussing five different ideas. You need a definition to argue about.

And one last thing:
Phrack, why do you disbelieve in "magical powers" of God. Not saying your wrong or right, just would enjoy hearing the "why". Curiosity.

imported_Blazer
1st February 04, 07:05 PM
the question is does any of this shit really matter? we're here we're alive lets live our lives. thats whats important, in my opionion atleast.

Merril
1st February 04, 07:06 PM
And Merrill, I understand you are trying to sound smart lately, but you are coming off as a joke man...a big joke.

Actually, I'm just being myself. Normally this forum doesn't require the brains that God hypothetically bestowed on a gnat to wade through. If we start talking about more intellectual subjects then I'll start being a little more thoughtful. Otherwise I'm not going to waste my time trying to over-analyze subjects that don't require any thought at all. If you believe I'm wrong about something then that's great. But at least have the common courtesy to state your opinion as openly as I have mine. I'm a big boy. I don't mind being proven incorrect. If I'm incorrect on any point tell me how. You two have yet to do that.


This makes any possible validity you could have made worthless. This simple sentence proves you know jack and shit about the bible and what Jesus taught. Don and I seriously are laughing at you on the phone.

I'm still waiting for you to overwhelm me with your scholarly brilliance. Two bible-belt boys laughing on the phone to each other isn't going to sway my opinion one iota. You're going to have to do a lot better than that. What facts or observations are the basis for your disagreement? What alternative conclusions are you drawing? What outside information are you citing?

Quite frankly I'm a little tired, just as I suspect others are... of the same old pattern to these threads. Donnely says something. You state that he's right. Donnely states that everyone else is wrong. You state that he's absolutely right that everyone else is wrong. At the end of it, noone's opinion has changed. No new facts are being considered and the whole thing equates to a fourteen car pile-up in terms of intellectual value.


And to Merril. Jesus was not God. This is stated in the Bible. Once again: you've not read it. Stop commenting on it.

Then the entire arguement is moot. If Jesus was not God, then he could have been anyone and it wouldn't have mattered. It was what he did and what he said and who he was mattered not the least.

Thank you for torpedoing your own arguement.


Merril: Caves in to the dogmatism and cynicism surrounding religion.

So am I a dogmatic cynic or a cynical dogmatist? /rofl.

Sithray
2nd February 04, 10:21 AM
The bible did say that and a lot more. In it God told his "chosen" people to commit genocide, tells that if you don't worship him you will go to hell, always got others to do his bidding...
I mean really, what kind of "loving god" tells his people to kill off ALL of his enemies? Gives ultimatums of "do what I say or be damned forever"?, Is supposed to be "all powerful" but yet needs others to do things like deliver "his chosen" out of slavery? If he is so powerful why the hell didn't he just whisk them away to a safe place?? Now that would have been a miracle worthy of an omnipotent being, not making it rain frogs, giving people boils or killing off all of their first born, that seems like a chickenshit way to go about getting what you want.
It is a nice fairytale, but nothing more. The "early" adoptors of this religion used it just as Phrack said, as a way to keep the masses in line and bend them to their will and make themselves richer. Have doubts about this? Go have a look at the Roman Catholic church, their "holdings" are worth more than 10 Bill Gates, and yet they do nothing with all that wealth.

All are false doctrines created by man, not by the principles in the bible, it just so happens stupid uneducated fucks fall for them...

Sure the bible says a 1st day, a 2nd day etc, but if you read the bible you know when god is referring to a day he is usually referring to a long ass period of time. Also, the bible does not teach about going to hell, and yes the Isrealites were to clear out all who opposed them, a forshadow of what is to come...

OMG MERRIL!! Sad only is your knowlege of the bible, seriously dude, fucking read it or shut your mouth

Menarion
2nd February 04, 03:19 PM
Probably one of my most interesting times interpreting the bible was a college class I had that looked at the bible from an historical/literary light instead of a religious one. That's looking at things from the other side.

beck
2nd February 04, 03:22 PM
With every successive posts, most of you prove yourself to be more hateful and ignorant, I think that speaks volumes.

Sithray
2nd February 04, 03:55 PM
Probably one of my most interesting times interpreting the bible was a college class I had that looked at the bible from an historical/literary light instead of a religious one. That's looking at things from the other side.

wow thanks for clearing that up....point made? who knows.

Merril
2nd February 04, 04:30 PM
OMG MERRIL!! Sad only is your knowlege of the bible, seriously dude, fucking read it or shut your mouth

translated: I've got nothing to counter anything you've said with... I just like the sound of my fingers tapping keys.

Put up or shut up Sith.

Sithray
2nd February 04, 05:15 PM
translated: I've got nothing to counter anything you've said with... I just like the sound of my fingers tapping keys.

Put up or shut up Sith.

Why Merrill? If I was to post something you wouldn't understand it, just as happened in this thread so far, and you would counter with religous dribble that doesn't even apply nor is accepted as true doctrine. You have been completely owned in this thread for your lack of knowlege and can only come back with "put up or shut up".

Read my fucking posts you dim-witted bitch. Had you read them, you would know where I stand on this issue and wouldn't be asking the same fucking question time after time after time. Or perhaps you did read them, but your googleage didn't help you to fathom what you were reading. Let me find some time here in a moment. I will not argue religous doctrine in this thread as already stated, what I will argue is how my religious beliefs tie in closely with science, and how I feel the two can be used hand in hand.

On one side you have extreme creationist who believe in a literal 7 days and often don't accept science as fact, on the other extreme you have evolutionists who believe in an unproven theory with no answer as to how it all got started yet refusing to accept any religous answer. Both are blinded by faith and just at diluted as the other.

Then you have me, a man going to college for science while working as an IT professional, who is also religous (moreso now than before). I believe Science can answer ALL of the questions we have given enough time, yet I still believe in a God who makes it all happen as it should. You though Merrill, seem to know nothing beyond what the top 10 list on google will bring up for you, on any matter...

And it still stands merrill, you are out of your league until you read the bible, until then you are seriously a joke in my eyes

Sithray
2nd February 04, 05:28 PM
Actually, I'm just being myself. Normally this forum doesn't require the brains that God hypothetically bestowed on a gnat to wade through. If we start talking about more intellectual subjects then I'll start being a little more thoughtful. Otherwise I'm not going to waste my time trying to over-analyze subjects that don't require any thought at all. If you believe I'm wrong about something then that's great. But at least have the common courtesy to state your opinion as openly as I have mine. I'm a big boy. I don't mind being proven incorrect. If I'm incorrect on any point tell me how. You two have yet to do that.

Proof you are about as dense as a plate of lead. You say I don't openly state my opnion? HAVE YOU READ THIS THREAD!?!? Comments like that just prove your getting stupid in your old age.


I'm still waiting for you to overwhelm me with your scholarly brilliance. Two bible-belt boys laughing on the phone to each other isn't going to sway my opinion one iota. You're going to have to do a lot better than that. What facts or observations are the basis for your disagreement? What alternative conclusions are you drawing? What outside information are you citing?

Quite frankly I'm a little tired, just as I suspect others are... of the same old pattern to these threads. Donnely says something. You state that he's right. Donnely states that everyone else is wrong. You state that he's absolutely right that everyone else is wrong. At the end of it, noone's opinion has changed. No new facts are being considered and the whole thing equates to a fourteen car pile-up in terms of intellectual value.

So I just looked for SOMEWHERE in this thread where I said Don was right? In fact, I barely read his posts...More proof you haven't even read this thread. Oh I got it! You don't read anything (IE the bible) but then when the subject comes you you try to pipe in, only to make yourself look like the fucking fool you are.


Then the entire arguement is moot. If Jesus was not God, then he could have been anyone and it wouldn't have mattered. It was what he did and what he said and who he was mattered not the least.

Thank you for torpedoing your own arguement.

See my above post about using false dogma as your basis to stand on, more proof of your small brain cavity. I would wager less than 500cc of space. Are you the missing link Merrill? Maybe I will start beleiving in full blown evolution after talking to you, are we going backwards? [/quote]


So am I a dogmatic cynic or a cynical dogmatist? /rofl.

I would bet you are the only one who thinks that was funny...

fixed qutoes

Sithray
2nd February 04, 05:54 PM
You left out the most hilarious part of all Phrack... but that's okay. I was waiting for Donnely to bite so I could nuke the arguement from orbit but now I can do that anyway. Bombs away.

Bombs away indeed.


Donnely never answered the question of whether Jesus could be God without first being man. The answer is 'no'. 'Why' you might ask. Well, the entire point of the bible is that a man would fulfill the prophecy of Israel and become the messiah. Furthermore, the tragic irony of Jesus dying on the cross would be lost if he was in some part deified prior to his 'ascension'.

Don already addressed this, but you don't read things as we have already learned. Second, Jesus did not die on a cross. He was not killed by the Romans (who crucified) he was killed by the Jews, who nailed you to a torture stake (an erect pole, not a corss). But again you never read the bible, so don't have a leg to stand on...not even a peg leg.


Anyone want to take a wild guess what happens if Jesus doesn't get to be 'Christ' until after he dies? Well, it's really quite simple. He loses his mythic status and turns back into an ordinary guy. Emperor Constantine loses a very powerful unifying force (one that he needed to stabilize the Eastern and Western Roman empires) and religion becomes decentralized and 'vulgar' the way it did much later anyway with the translation of the Bible from latin to english.

Again basing your arguments on false data...pathetic. The argument you stated here holds now weight with an informed person.


But... Arius was branded a heretic, Constantine's version of the Bible was popularized and so today we have the Vatican supporting a wildly inaccurate view of who Jesus was based on a poorly editted version of the original story and so they have misinterpreted everything and lost the whole point of Jesus' sacrifice. In case anyone's wondering what that is I'll just go ahead and spell it out right here and now in his own words:

(Sorry, no greek character support on the board so I have to use a phonetic approximation)

(John 12:35) Eti mikron chronon to phodz en umin estin. Peripateite odz to phodz echete, ina me skotia umas katalabe. kai o peripaton en te skotia ouk oiden pou upagei.

(Or for those who prefer english)

"The light is with you for a little longer. Walk while you have the light, lest the darkness overtake you; he who walks in the darkness does not know where he goes."

A bit cryptic but taken in context it means "Your life won't last long. Live life while you're alive, lest death overtake you; he who dwells on death is lost."

The church today teaches people to do just that. To dwell on death. How many times have you heard in church 'if you die today where will your soul wind up'? Jesus' message was simple and it's been lost: "Live the best you can and don't worry about it."

Yes, Arius was trying to uphold what he thought the bible really meant (although hs views as well were a little screwed up), and after he was hushed from speaking at nicea, his books/literature were burned and people weren't allowed to talk about his teachings. This shows how the council at nicea was more about controlling the people than it was about preserving the message the bible contained. So you possibly? undestand this, yet still use heretical teachings as your basis for argument? Idiot!

And any church that teaches people to dwell on death falls into that HUGE false religion category that Jesus taught would show up. But hey, if you read the bible you would have known that. I find it odd that you were bright enough to read that scripture and understand it, yet stupid enough not to be able to add 2+2...Perhaps if you had read it in full instead of "skimming" (as obviously you have done in this thread) you would better understand what you think you already know (which is not much)

fixed quotes

Jesus H. Christ
2nd February 04, 06:28 PM
Letz Make It Evn More Simpul!

U Blieve In A God Wif Magikal Powerzes Who Kan Do Anyting Like Fly An Shit

I Go Off Resurchd Faks An Critikul Thinking.

Who Is Teh Stoopid?

Straight to hell with your shriveled soul ya' prick!

Saoshen Sih`ja`Tgzu
2nd February 04, 06:35 PM
close but not quite..

http://www.asklyrics.com/display/Straight_To_Hell_LYRICS/83566

Kwill
2nd February 04, 06:36 PM
Bombs away indeed.



Don already addressed this, but you don't read things as we have already learned. Second, Jesus did not die on a cross. He was not killed by the Romans (who crucified) he was killed by the Jews, who nailed you to a torture stake (an erect pole, not a corss). But again you never read the bible, so don't have a leg to stand on...not even a peg leg.

fixed quotes

What translation of the bible are you using here? Some Jews (obviously not all) demanded that he be crucified, but he was on a cross with other criminals. Luke 52,53: This man approached Pilate (he was the Roman guy remember) and asked for the body of Jesus. Taking it down from the <b>cross</b> he wrapped it in a linen sheet ...

Luke 32,33: There were two others with him, criminals who were being led a away to execution; and when thy reached the place called The Skull, they crucified him there, and the criminals with him, one on his right and one on his left. ....Luke 36: the soliders joined in the mockery ...

Mark 15: ...they shouted all the louder "Crucify him!" So Pilate, in his desire to satisfy the mob, released Barrabas to them; and he had Jesus flogged and handed over to be crucified.

The bible is pretty clear it's a cross. This was a Roman crucifixion.


Historical findings have substantiated the traditional cross. One finding is a graffito1 dating to shortly after 200 A.D., taken from the walls of the Roman Palatine. It is a drawing of a crucified ass; a mockery of a Christian prisoner who worships Christ. The Romans were no doubt amused that Christians worshiped this Jesus whom they had crucified on a cross.

In June of 1968, bulldozers working north of Jerusalem accidentally laid bare tombs dating from the first century B.C. and the first century A.D. Greek archeologist Vasilius Tzaferis was instructed by the Israeli Department of Antiquities to carefully excavate these tombs. Subsequently one of the most exciting finds of recent times was unearthed - the first skeletal remains of a crucified man. The most significant factor is its dating to around the time of Christ. The skeleton was of a man named Yehohanan son of Chaggol, who had been crucified between the age of 24 and 28. Mr. Tzaferis wrote an article in the Jan/Feb. 1985 issue of the secular magazine Biblical Archaeology Review (BAR), and here are some of his comments regarding crucifixion in Jesus' time:

At the end of the first century B.C., the Romans adopted crucifixion as an official punishment for non-Romans for certain limited transgressions. Initially, it was employed not as a method of execution, but only as a punishment. Moreover, only slaves convicted of certain crimes were punished by crucifixion. During this early period, a wooden beam, known as a furca or patibulum was placed on the slave's neck and bound to his arms.

...When the procession arrived at the execution site, a vertical stake was fixed into the ground. Sometimes the victim was attached to the cross only with ropes. In such a case, the patibulum or crossbeam, to which the victim's arms were already bound, was simply affixed to the vertical beam; the victim's feet were then bound to the stake with a few turns of the rope.

If the victim was attached by nails, he was laid on the ground, with his shoulders on the crossbeam. His arms were held out and nailed to the two ends of the crossbeam, which was then raised and fixed on top of the vertical beam. The victim's feet were then nailed down against this vertical stake.

In order to prolong the agony, Roman executioners devised two instruments that would keep the victim alive on the cross for extended periods of time. One, known as a sedile, was a small seat attached to the front of the cross, about halfway down. This device provided some support for the victim's body and may explain the phrase used by the Romans, "to sit on the cross." Both Eraneus and Justin Martyr describe the cross of Jesus as having five extremities rather than four; the fifth was probably the sedile. (p. 48,49)

In a followup article on this archeological find in the Nov/Dec. issue of BAR, the statement is made:

According to the (Roman) literary sources, those condemned to crucifixion never carried the complete cross, despite the common belief to the contrary and despite the many modern re-enactments of Jesus' walk to Golgotha. Instead, only the crossbar was carried, while the upright was set in a permanent place where it was used for subsequent executions. As the first-century Jewish historian Josephus noted, wood was so scarce in Jerusalem during the first century A.D. that the Romans were forced to travel ten miles from Jerusalem to secure timber for their siege machinery. (p. 21)

Edit: now that I posed this, I want to make the point that not only is there the argument about God, creation, evolution and the rest, but there's the argument between different Christian sects about what the Bible actually says and better yet, what it actually means.

I understand now that Jehovah's Witnesses translate the passages in the bible into "stake" rather than cross. There is even less point in arguing about biblical translation, so I will leave it at this. To each his own belief.

Phrost
2nd February 04, 06:42 PM
We just keep getting wackier and wackier with our beliefs, don't we?

Next episode, Jesus will fly off with Harry Potter to be a guest teacher at Hogwarts.

Hey, you can't believe in some magic without believing in it all.

Phrost
2nd February 04, 06:53 PM
Straight to hell with your shriveled soul ya' prick!

:king: I'd have to take over. Pretty sure I'd do a better job with the place.

Sithray
2nd February 04, 07:06 PM
Uh Kwill, you did read the part where Pilate "washed his hands" of Jesus and handed him back to the Sanhedrin...the Romans DID NOT kill Jesus, the Jews did. Even then Crucifixion was not always done on a cross. He was killed by Jewish methods. The direct translation for what Jesus was nailed to was "Stake" (stauros, the same word was used in all the gospel accounts, it directly translates Stake). Certain religions adopted the Cross and it became popular belief, but that is all it was, Jesus was NOT killed on a cross. And I know you had a nice big quote there that had accurate historical information, but it sadly had nothing to do with how Jesus died.

Definition of Crucifixion:

Crucifixion is the process where a person is nailed or bound to a cross or a stake. It was first used by the Persians and later by the Egyptians, Carthaginians, and Romans as a form of capital punishment. Alexander the Great introduced it to the Mediterranean area and the Romans perfected it as a means of capital punishment.
Normally, there was a permanent stake in the ground. The victim carried the crossbar on his back to the stake which usually weighed between 50 and 75 lbs. Sometimes the person was nailed to the crossbar, other times he was tied to it. The crossbar, and victim, were then hoisted into place. One method was to hoist the crossbar into a notch on top of the stake so the whole thing looked like a T. Another method was to place the crossbeam a few feet below the top making a cross. Yet another method was to nail or tie the person to a single stake in the ground. Usually a small sign on a pole with the crime written on it was carried ahead of the victim in front of the procession to the cross. It was then nailed to the cross above the head of the victim.
When nails were used, they were driven through the wrists between the radial and ulna bones and not through the palms since the nail would have ripped through the palm because the palm could not withstand all the weight of the body.

Now lets take a pice of that definition:


Yet another method was to nail or tie the person to a single stake in the ground. Usually a small sign on a pole with the crime written on it was carried ahead of the victim in front of the procession to the cross. It was then nailed to the cross above the head of the victim.

Sound Familiar? Jesus was nailed to a stake then a sign, which was carried before him was nailed to the stake above his head (also while he was carrying it Jesus was asked "let me carry your torture stake"...again, if people would just RESEARCH before speaking it would save so much time and energy.


I understand now that Jehovah's Witnesses translate the passages in the bible into "stake" rather than cross. There is even less point in arguing about biblical translation, so I will leave it at this. To each his own belief.

That would apply had the JW translation been where I got my information...unfrotunately I got my information from RESEARCH.


The bible is pretty clear it's a cross. This was a Roman crucifixion.

Blatantly false information. Please see my above quote which is the definition of crucifixion.

I totally forgot how to do quotes today I guess

Sithray
2nd February 04, 07:46 PM
Gah, I allowed myself into a religous debate. I am trying to keep this on the subject of how I feel God is a scientist and created the universe in much the way scientists today feel it was formed, and how the bible follows that timeline (IE order of universe/earth/life creation) a book penned by moses (genesis) thousands of years ago and with scientific accuracy. (IE starlight reach the earth, erath gaining rotation, moon being formed etc.)

Phrost
2nd February 04, 08:21 PM
But why do you have to dumb it down by interjecting a lab-coated Charlton Heston look alike with a beard into it?

Can't you at least consider that it's pretty juvenile to have to believe there's a cosmic Mommy/Daddy involved in things? What you any different than the people who thought the gods drove the sun across the sky with a chariot, outside of a smaller intellectual window (being that science has proven many other beliefs false) in which to interject such fantasies?

Sithray
2nd February 04, 08:31 PM
But why do you have to dumb it down by interjecting a lab-coated Charlton Heston look alike with a beard into it?

Can't you at least consider that it's pretty juvenile to have to believe there's a cosmic Mommy/Daddy involved in things? What you any different than the people who thought the gods drove the sun across the sky with a chariot, outside of a smaller intellectual window (being that science has proven many other beliefs false) in which to interject such fantasies?

Again confusing pagan religious beliefs with what was originally taught in the book of the law and later by Jesus. And yes, I at least considered such thoughts to be juvenile, but upon study of science and religion came to my current set of beliefs.

Now Phrack, can you at least consider that it is pretty juvenile to refuse to accept a cosmic parent involved in all things? Sort of rebellious teenager don't ya think? Blindly sticking to a faith that hopefully there is no god and science started on it's own, while ridiculing those who probably have more faith than you in what they believe because all they have is faith. You are just as much in the faith bucket as the very people you pick on.

Why do you always resort to throwing in religous ideas that you and I both know I will sit here and say are false (sort of like alot of scietific theories have been proven false mind you) because I have researched the issue. The arguments used are the equivalent of me using disproven scientific theories to argue my point, and you going "shows how much you know that theory is wrong".

Do you mock what you do not understand Phrack?

spelling is teh suc

Phrost
2nd February 04, 08:36 PM
The difference between our viewpoints, Sith, is that yours requires belief. Mine does not.

I understand that I am limited by a physical form that cannot possibly grasp everything. But again, the difference between you and me is that I don't fill those gaps with a belief in something divine.

The ancients filled the cracks in their knowledge with superstition and fantasy. Just because there are fewer cracks, doesn't make the fantasy you believe in any different.

Sithray
2nd February 04, 08:51 PM
The difference between our viewpoints, Sith, is that yours requires belief. Mine does not.

I understand that I am limited by a physical form that cannot possibly grasp everything. But again, the difference between you and me is that I don't fill those gaps with a belief in something divine.

The ancients filled the cracks in their knowledge with superstition and fantasy. Just because there are fewer cracks, doesn't make the fantasy you believe in any different.

So when you say you belive in evolution...that does not require belief?...you do realize how hypocritical that sounds right? Instead of God, you use scientific theories (speculations), highy disputed theories at that, even Hypothesis (assumptions), to fill your gaps. Now I don't know about anyone else here, but to me, that sounds like a belief structure to me, sure not a divine one, but a man based one, putting you in the same boat whether you like it or not.

And not all the ancients filled it with superstition and fantasy. Able, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses were all "ancient" men who believed in one god, who created all things in an orderly fashion, and who gave us principles to govern us. All the while the people around them believed in what you describe, but that does not ruin any credibility I or those men before me have.

I worship the same god as Moses and the men of old before him, I believe the same things as them, and I follow the teachings of Jesus, Gods Son. All the while I firmly believe in science and that most things around us will eventually be explained by it as we learn. I have filled no "gaps" as I have none to fill about the past. I look towards the future.

December
2nd February 04, 08:54 PM
Straight to hell with your shriveled soul ya' prick!

Wait, when did CtC get gimmicks?

Kwill
2nd February 04, 09:12 PM
Gah, I allowed myself into a religous debate. I am trying to keep this on the subject of how I feel God is a scientist and created the universe in much the way scientists today feel it was formed, and how the bible follows that timeline (IE order of universe/earth/life creation) a book penned by moses (genesis) thousands of years ago and with scientific accuracy. (IE starlight reach the earth, erath gaining rotation, moon being formed etc.)

I agree, I would like a truce also.

JustiNIC
2nd February 04, 09:53 PM
Ok, I'll stop talking about there not being a God on one condition:

If it turns out there is one, then hook it up with a ticket into Heaven when armageddon comes. :D

Deal?

Phrost
2nd February 04, 10:17 PM
This is where your argument falls apart.

I do not believe in ANYTHING.

Let me restate that.

I do not BELIEVE in anything.

I make rational, criitical decisions based upon the best information. When better information becomes available, said views are corrected.

Belief not only operates outside of factual information, it operates in spite of it. Science operates off Theory, which is nowhere close to the same thing. A scientific Theory is based on testing a Hypothesis.

There is no reputable evidence for a single creator. There is loads of evidence for evolution.

Not so hard to chose between if you're not infected with the religion meme.

Donnely McLeod
2nd February 04, 10:39 PM
I make rational, criitical decisions based upon the best information. When better information becomes available, said views are corrected.

Is it rational or critical to deny, doggedly, that mutations are harmful? Or that DNA repairs itself, making change impossible? Or that no test has produced life from lifelessness? Or that there is a complete lack of transitional fossils? Or that the 'science' you base your belief (yes, you might call it knowledge, but it takes a great deal of faith to believe evolution) on comes from a 19th century hoaxter (Piltdown was 2 miles from Darwin's friend's home)? Or that geology dating is based off of scaling that had numbers pulled from thin air? Or that reptiles changed their heart, became warm blooded and started to fly after their scales split into a million fine fibers and their bones became hollow? Or that hydrogen gas particles, lacking critical density and mutual gravity, 'swirled' into stars all by themselves? Or that during the Scopes trial the ultimate piece of evidence was a tooth claimed to be from an early man that turned out to be from a pig? Or that amino acids floated around on a sea (defying the Law of Mass Action) and 'formed itself' randomly into protiens generating a 'life-force' that could also reproduce? Did the laws of the universe automatically spring into existence out of designless confusion, did matter originate from nothing, did living things came from non-living things?

A princess kisses a frog and it turns into a prince; that's a fairy tale. A frog turns into a man and you're calling it science.

Good luck on your planet sir.

Donnely McLeod
2nd February 04, 10:43 PM
There is no reputable evidence for a single creator. There is loads of evidence for evolution.

Yes there is.

You can only have two choices.

Creation or Evolution.

Science proves that complexity requires design. Science proves that our universe is incredibly complex. We exist in a complex ecology. Evolution, the random disorder of things, cannot account for what was already here.

JustiNIC
2nd February 04, 10:49 PM
You can only have two choices.

Creation or Evolution.Uh, no.

Phrost
2nd February 04, 11:03 PM
*Sigh*

The problem is that your belief causes you to seek out and manipulate evidence that only supports said belief, while ignoring everything else.

I could stand here and scream at the top of my lungs, I could smack you in the face with document after document after document of REPUTABLE scientific evidence supporting Evolution, I could do a thousand things, but because of your belief, you've got fucking blinders to anything other than a fantasy about a magical being poofing the world into existence.

So all I can really do is pity you.

Well, that, and not buy that vacation house in Savannah. Fuck bringing my money into a state that's spawned minds like yours.

Kwill
3rd February 04, 12:15 AM
I still don't understand why the idea of a scientific explanation is such an anethma to people who believe in a divine presence. Because for most people who believe that evolution happens the idea that there might be a divine presence somewhere (except for Phrack, I am not including you here) is not inconceivable.

Flare
3rd February 04, 01:29 AM
I would be open to the suggestion that the universe was set into motion/the initial conditions for the universe were "created" by an intelligence outside of this universe. But to think that someone or something is watching over our every move, and there is an afterlife is utterly ridiculous; and being that the creation was conceived up outside of this universe, we have no way to interact with it, and thus it's rendered completely and totally irrelevant to us. Which still leaves us in the same position we are in now, nothing changes.

deadcat
3rd February 04, 01:45 AM
Have I ever mentioned I like pie?

Morley
3rd February 04, 02:46 AM
Yes there is.


Where? Show me irrefutable proof, I want cold hard facts, not “beliefs”, not “faith”. I want unimpeachable PROOF! I challenge you to provide ANY.

Traetick
3rd February 04, 05:44 AM
The funny thing is we are arguing on something that has not been proven and yet telling each other who is right and wrong. It happens in every religious debate. For some reason when it comes to religion, people have very strong opinions be it pro or con and if i worship a different invisible man than you do i would automatically be hated. Its been that way since the dawn of time. Sithray im sorry that the actual subject of this thread never really got debated on due to alot of immature answers but thats what happens when the subject comes up. George Carlin once made his list of commandments and the last one he said i actually believe in,......"Keep thy religion to thy self". There is no wrong or right here folks.

Nylite Skytear
3rd February 04, 06:18 AM
I'm a Jew and we are the chosen people. Fuck you all =P

Phrost
3rd February 04, 09:12 AM
The argument isn't whether or not something is absolutely, beyond the shadow of a doubt, correct, at least where I'm coming from. For the Georgia Boys, it is, because of their BELIEF.

Let's lay this out as simply as possible.

A. The Human Body is not a perfect mechanism. The Human brain, is limited in its ability to process information (and in some cases, very limited).

B. As such, there are things we cannot possibly understand. The quantity of these things varies from individual to individual.

C. Therefore, there will always be "holes" in knowledge, be it collectively, or individually.

D. It is up to the individual how they "fill" these "holes". Some fill them with "I don't know". Some fill them with "the latest evidence supports x", and some fill them with "God".

We've already established who falls into which catagory. If you're happy filling in the holes of your knowledge with "God" that's fine. Just recognize that it's not a rational viewpoint, and the rest of the critically thinking world won't have to make fun of you for being the intellectual equivalent of a backwoods hillbilly.

Menarion
3rd February 04, 10:02 AM
wow thanks for clearing that up....point made? who knows.


The bible wasn't created, and didn't exist in a vacuum. Without understanding other portions of history and literary tradition that exist outside the bible you can't really understand the bible.

Nuku_Unu
3rd February 04, 10:42 AM
What does it hurt to believe in God? Nothing really if you look at it honestly. Best case scenario you go to heaven when you die. Worst case is there isn’t anything after you die and you are just gone. But I rather have a chance at heaven then not believing at all and if there is a heaven be screwed because I didn’t believe. So really what does it hurt? The answer=nothing! So all you people that don’t believe in God you maybe screwing yourself over. You really want to take that chance? I am not talking about organized religion of any type. I am just talking about believing in God in your heart. What will it hurt the answer is nothing…..

Flare
3rd February 04, 11:00 AM
What does it hurt to believe in God? Nothing really if you look at it honestly. Best case scenario you go to heaven when you die. Worst case is there isn’t anything after you die and you are just gone. But I rather have a chance at heaven then not believing at all and if there is a heaven be screwed because I didn’t believe. So really what does it hurt? The answer=nothing! So all you people that don’t believe in God you maybe screwing yourself over. You really want to take that chance? I am not talking about organized religion of any type. I am just talking about believing in God in your heart. What will it hurt the answer is nothing…..

Yes, this the Agnostics prayer... but it does hurt to believe in God in the long run. It opens the door to all manner of ridiculous situations. Just take the Georgia school system for example... eliminating Evloution from teaching for all practical purposes, or so the religious nutcases would prefer at any rate. As Phrack said, people who fill those empty spaces with God then have no reason, and sometimes react violently when those spaces that were previously filled with God suddenly have a rational, logical explanation to fill them. They will even go so far as to destroy the truth to prevent their faith in Santa Claus... I mean God from being taken away from them, because that's all most religious people have, is their faith. They can't think critically for themselves and need someone, even if it's their imaginary friend to guide them and make decisions for them. Truely sheep in almost every sense of the word.

Sahpra
3rd February 04, 11:24 AM
Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. They are, in fact, in at least one-sense two sides of the same coin. By this I mean they both search for knowledge and understanding. Both seek to find answers to the unanswered questions concerning life, the world and the universe. To close your mind to either is to close your mind to possibilities. To settle on a set of answers and theories whether they are based on scientific theory and/or fact or on religious theory and/or fact is to close yourself off from finding more truth and answers that could very well end up being a combination of both…

Anyone who thinks that they have all the answers and that anyone who disagrees with them is blatantly wrong or foolish is fooling himself or herself. No one has perfect understanding concerning the origin of life, and no one has all the answers. Even with all the wisdom and knowledge that we possess there is so much we don’t know and understand. I believe that admitting this is the beginning of opening ourselves up to the possibility of learning and understanding more and reaching toward the goal of finding the truth of it all.

Sithray’s theory that both science and religion contain elements of the truth relating to the origin of life here on earth makes a lot of sense to me. Why not a divine creator who not only orchestrated the beginnings of life utilizing scientific principles, one who in fact established those principles that some hold as proof there is no God?

Either way I believe an honest and open search for truth and understanding serves us all better and can lead us to finding that truth, rather than closing our minds and thinking someone is “stupid or naive” simply because they have a different idea or theory about these things.

Sithray
3rd February 04, 11:29 AM
Flare and Phrack both attack a religous person calling them "backwoods", "hillbilly", "sheep", "unable to think for themselves", "not critical thinkers"...yet I have disproven these very statements. Is it so hard to acknowlege that people who are smarter than yourselves believe in a god? Or does the fact that someone smarter than you believes in god somehow hurts your ego, so you retaliate with twists and spins to the nth degree. I am not saying I am smarter than you guys, I am referring to scientists who have studied their whole lives, who believe in a divine power

It appears to me that neither of you are "critical thinkers" as you both have a problem discerning fact from fiction when it comes to religion (more exactly the bible). You both appear to be "sheep", blindly and FAITHFULLY following your theories of evolution without a god. Just read Saphra's post, well done. It seems the reason I argue with you two is because I believe in Science and Religion, where you guys believe in one, yet refuse to even acknowlege the other.

I suppose though, that until you both have come to an accurate understanding of the bible, you will both be nay sayers. I blame whichever religion you grew up on forcing false dogma onto you as the source of your hatreds of religion/god. You both use it constantly to repute religion, but again; you guys using false doctrines to argue your points is no better than I using outdated scientific data to argue my points with you.

And the people you speak of who get violent when science fills holes once filled by god, are obviously not that educated (yes even some priests and religous leaders can't tell head from tale when it comes to biblical teachings and misteach/apply them constantly) as I have no problem with science answering questions. However that does not shake my faith, nor does it make me angy. It just helps me to better understand (with my limited understanding) how God created all things.

Flare
3rd February 04, 11:57 AM
You both appear to be "sheep", blindly and FAITHFULLY following your theories of evolution without a god.
There's no "blindly" following anything going on on my part (and I'm sure Phracks as well) - I take accepted and tested evidence (which Donnely refuses to believe in) and use it as the basis of my "beliefs." Whereas a religious person takes the word of a person or people/group that has in interest in maintaining control over another person/group of people by fear (of going to hell, etc...).

So on one hand, you have "science" that has no intrinsic reason to provide false information. "Science" may provide false information now and then, but not intentionally (some individuals might, but it's quickly ferreted out by empirical testing)... but it on the whole does not provide false information, because there's no reason to.

On the other hand, you have religion. It and it's purveyors have every reason to provide false information, and in fact, providing truth errodes any position of power the purveyors have. Lies and Falsehood are built into religion, because without it, religion can't exist.

So we end up with one system, science, based around truth, and another system, religion, based around lies. One is to enlighten man, one is to control man. I choose to be enlightened by my faith, not oppressed by it. And yes, I will concede that some elements of science *must* be taken on faith. But even *that* faith can be and is encouraged to be questioned; Religion can't say the same thing.


I suppose though, that until you both have come to an accurate understanding of the bible, you will both be nay sayers. I blame whichever religion you grew up on forcing false dogma onto you as the source of your hatreds of religion/god. You both use it constantly to repute religion, but again; you guys using false doctrines to argue your points is no better than I using outdated scientific data to argue my points with you.
You keep saying this, but haven't backed it up. What would give me an accurate understanding, to your satisfaction? Seriously, I will read what you want me to read and what you think will give me adequate information to base my reasoning on, ON YOUR TERMS. I'm dead serious about this. If it's volumes and volumes of books, it may take me awhile to read them all, but I will give it an honest effort to read what you think is truth and I will give it it an honest (to God!) unbiased, critical examination.

Lohocla
3rd February 04, 12:06 PM
Phrack:

Belief not only operates outside of factual information, it operates in spite of it. Science operates off Theory, which is nowhere close to the same thing. A scientific Theory is based on testing a Hypothesis.

I would love to see you Test the Theory of Evolution for me. I'm sure it would be an awesome spectical. Shouldn't the fact that the "theory" of evolution has NEVER been tested throw some doubt on to why it's even called a Theory? It really is just more of a Hypothesis. Sure you can gather "facts" (very highly disputed to the least) about and which some claim even support evolution, but none of this is testing. Without real testing we are saying thus:

I think this is what is right because it works with what we have over here. Or with evolution; I think evolution is correct because we have fossiles and similarities in other places so it very easily could be right.

This is the Third step of the scientific method even, only the THIRD STEP. That means it truely shouldn't be called a theory or even of been published in any respected science journel anywhere. We can't even concieve of a test to do on the hypothesis of evolution.

Thus is it as much folly to believe, yes believe, in evolution as it is to believe in a creator. Are either wrong? Fuck if I know, but at least I'm still searching.

Nuku_Unu
3rd February 04, 12:28 PM
Yes, this the Agnostics prayer... but it does hurt to believe in God in the long run. It opens the door to all manner of ridiculous situations. Just take the Georgia school system for example... eliminating Evloution from teaching for all practical purposes, or so the religious nutcases would prefer at any rate. As Phrack said, people who fill those empty spaces with God then have no reason, and sometimes react violently when those spaces that were previously filled with God suddenly have a rational, logical explanation to fill them. They will even go so far as to destroy the truth to prevent their faith in Santa Claus... I mean God from being taken away from them, because that's all most religious people have, is their faith. They can't think critically for themselves and need someone, even if it's their imaginary friend to guide them and make decisions for them. Truely sheep in almost every sense of the word.You missed the whole point completely. I didn’t say I didn’t believe in evolution at all. In matter of fact I made no mention of any believe other then to believe in God. This doesn’t mean that you cant believe in both. The bottom line is I find it hard to believe that everything was just a "chance" happening. That’s fine you explain creation of man.. Explain creation of Suns Planets Worm Holes. Sure maybe man "evolved" over time. What’s the odds mathematically that "everything" else evolved perfectly also? You cant do it. The math doesn’t exist. Better yet what are the "odds" that the primordial soup was mixed just the right way, then was sparked by some kind of electrical current that created life? If it did happen how can you be so sure that it wasn’t the hand of God that stirred the pot? There are so many questions that neither side can truly answer so back to my original statement. What can it hurt to believe=nothing.

PS You can believe with out being a fanatic ya know.

Sithray
3rd February 04, 12:29 PM
There's no "blindly" following anything going on on my part (and I'm sure Phracks as well) - I take accepted and tested evidence (which Donnely refuses to believe in) and use it as the basis of my "beliefs." Whereas a religious person takes the word of a person or people/group that has in interest in maintaining control over another person/group of people by fear (of going to hell, etc...).

Accepted and tested evidence? You do realize that no testing has ever been done that proved the theory of evolution? All any testing has done is prove that life on earth (in one form or another) is very old, possibly millions upon millions of years. And Don doesn't refuse to believe anything. You shoot something at him, he names names, dates, times etc. to refute your point (even providing information and sources of information) and you say he refuses to believe? It sounds like he just CHOOSES to stay informed. His room is literally filled with science book on top of science book. People can hardly walk in there because of all the science journals littering the floor. (Only in his room, the rest of his house is suprisingly clean) On top of that every time in see him he is sitting at his computer reading online. I may be studying just so I can have a degree one day, but he studies because he really wants to learn all he can about it.


So on one hand, you have "science" that has no intrinsic reason to provide false information. "Science" may provide false information now and then, but not intentionally (some individuals might, but it's quickly ferreted out by empirical testing)... but it on the whole does not provide false information, because there's no reason to.

OMG Flare how can you say that? Take a look at Dubious. Here he finds a PORTION of a skull, and nearby he finds two complete human skulls. He also finds a human thigh bone. He writes up his report and chooses to omit the two human skulls he found and he says the PORTION of the skull is obviously proof of the theory of evolution as it is the skull of prehistoric man. What is the proof the skull is that of man? The thigh bone is obviously human.

Later (about a decade) people who were with him on the find came forward about the two human skulls, and in the 90's through DNA testing, it was found that the thigh bone didn't even belong to the portion of skull found.

So Flare, as you can see, people who want to prove evolution have just as much drive to lie as false religious leaders. I could go on about fakes experiments, people mixing chimp and human skulls (happened in the 70's DNA testing proved they were fake in the early 90's) etc, but you sitting there with the balls to say people in science have no reason to lie shows just how blined you are...


On the other hand, you have religion. It and it's purveyors have every reason to provide false information, and in fact, providing truth errodes any position of power the purveyors have. Lies and Falsehood are built into religion, because without it, religion can't exist.

I will agree with you here. The majority of religous leaders are only in it for one thing: Power. But even without said leaders misleading the people religion can still exist. Martin Luther is a good example of a man who saw the corruption in the church and did what he could to stop it. History goes back and reports on religous men who were beheaded for trying to teach TRUTH. However, letting that ruin your view of religion is the same as me going "well those scientists lies, faked, cheated to try to prove evolution, therefore I refuse to believe in science". However I don't do that. I study science to find the right answer, or what seems to be the right answer and I follow the research being done to see if it ever gets proven/disproven, and then I move on to the next scientific question.


So we end up with one system, science, based around truth, and another system, religion, based around lies. One is to enlighten man, one is to control man. I choose to be enlightened by my faith, not oppressed by it. And yes, I will concede that some elements of science *must* be taken on faith. But even *that* faith can be and is encouraged to be questioned; Religion can't say the same thing.

Yes religion can say the same thing and no, science is not always based around truth. Again, simply attacking religion to prove a point. I haven't attacked science once, just the horribly perforated hypothesis of evolution.



You keep saying this, but haven't backed it up. What would give me an accurate understanding, to your satisfaction? Seriously, I will read what you want me to read and what you think will give me adequate information to base my reasoning on, ON YOUR TERMS. I'm dead serious about this. If it's volumes and volumes of books, it may take me awhile to read them all, but I will give it an honest effort to read what you think is truth and I will give it it an honest (to God!) unbiased, critical examination.

Read a direct translation of the bible in Hebrew/Greek to english. From there research history based on names given/places/races/dates. PM me your address and I will send you some books you may find interesting. I will send Phrack some too. They are very scientific.

Flare
3rd February 04, 04:13 PM
You missed the whole point completely. I didn’t say I didn’t believe in evolution at all. In matter of fact I made no mention of any believe other then to believe in God. This doesn’t mean that you cant believe in both. The bottom line is I find it hard to believe that everything was just a "chance" happening. That’s fine you explain creation of man.. Explain creation of Suns Planets Worm Holes. Sure maybe man "evolved" over time. What’s the odds mathematically that "everything" else evolved perfectly also? You cant do it. The math doesn’t exist. Better yet what are the "odds" that the primordial soup was mixed just the right way, then was sparked by some kind of electrical current that created life? If it did happen how can you be so sure that it wasn’t the hand of God that stirred the pot? There are so many questions that neither side can truly answer so back to my original statement. What can it hurt to believe=nothing.

PS You can believe with out being a fanatic ya know. This is a common trap people fall into, saying "how can everything be so perfect, if it's not divine intervention." It's circular logic to think that way, but doesn't appear to be, because you are "inside" the system.

Of course everything is perfect, because it can't possibly be any other way. You evolved within this system, so you are going to be specifically suited for this environement. The planets, stars, etc... are going to be perfectly suited for this environment, because if they wern't, they wouldn't exist. Of course it's going to be perfect and beautiful to you, because that's how you evolved. The "perfect fit" is inherient in the entire system.

As for "chance happening," given an infinite amount of time (which, to all known evidence, suggests that it is) - any possible combination will eventually be tried. It's impossible for humans to conceive the infinite, our minds aren't built that way, which is why it's so difficult to understand why anything and everything that can possibly ever happen will happen eventually given enough time. Is this faith? Yes, of course, you can't test it... which is why I didn't bring it up. I don't necessarily subscribe to this philosophy either, but it's a reasonable explanation, but it's on par with believing in divine intervention... but far more likely, since it's mathematically possible to prove that "shaking a cup of random particles for an infinite amount of time will eventually result in every possible combination of particles."


OMG Flare how can you say that? Take a look at Dubious. Here he finds a PORTION of a skull, and nearby he finds two complete human skulls. He also finds a human thigh bone. He writes up his report and chooses to omit the two human skulls he found and he says the PORTION of the skull is obviously proof of the theory of evolution as it is the skull of prehistoric man. What is the proof the skull is that of man? The thigh bone is obviously human. I said science, not people. Peopel are fallible, and prone to being power hungry. I'm talking about the overall system, it will eventually (as I said) ferret out the lies and deceit through empirical proof/evidence to the contrary.


So Flare, as you can see, people who want to prove evolution have just as much drive to lie as false religious leaders. I could go on about fakes experiments, people mixing chimp and human skulls (happened in the 70's DNA testing proved they were fake in the early 90's) etc, but you sitting there with the balls to say people in science have no reason to lie shows just how blined you are... So science proved that a "scientist" was lying (for his own personal gain)... and the system of science is self correcting, because it *has* to be, or it can't survive. You can't build on flawed theories, or the whole system falls apart eventually.

The entire system of religion is based on lies. That's the difference. Science is based on truth with people injecting lies. The system heals itself. Religion is based on lies, with people injecting truths. The system attempts to heal itself by covering up the truths when it doesn't fit in. If that's not possible (because it's fundamentally impossible to hide truth forever) - it tries to manipulate/modify those truths to fit into it's system. Failing even THAT, the religious system will change (and then probably try to sweep the fact that it changed to accomodate truth under the rug) to fit a truth that just simply can't be hidden.

Religion is fundamentally hypocritical as well... claiming one thing, and then changing as the times change. If religion was as absolute as it's claimed to be, it should be the same now as it was 2000 years ago... but it's not. Christians of today bear very little resemblence to Christians 1000 years ago. So religion changes with the times, and accomodates society, because it can't survive if it does not... but if that's the case, then it's not a "truth," it's simply a system of control.


Read a direct translation of the bible in Hebrew/Greek to english. From there research history based on names given/places/races/dates. PM me your address and I will send you some books you may find interesting. I will send Phrack some too. They are very scientific. Give me names/ISBN numbers or something. I don't want to read a whole book or seven and find out they wern't exactly what you were wanting. Tell me the name, publisher and publication date/version you want me to read that you think is the "real" version; I just want to make sure there is no possibility of miscommunication.

JustiNIC
3rd February 04, 04:25 PM
What does it hurt to believe in God? Nothing really if you look at it honestly. Best case scenario you go to heaven when you die. Worst case is there isn’t anything after you die and you are just gone. But I rather have a chance at heaven then not believing at all and if there is a heaven be screwed because I didn’t believe. So really what does it hurt? The answer=nothing! So all you people that don’t believe in God you maybe screwing yourself over. You really want to take that chance? I am not talking about organized religion of any type. I am just talking about believing in God in your heart. What will it hurt the answer is nothing…..I can't make myself believe in something, just because it benefits me to do so. I want to believe in God, trust me it would make my life a lot easier in many respects, but I just cannot bring myself to believe that I was created by an "omnipotent" being whose existence has never been proven, and most likely never will. I believe in facts, and as far as that goes, none have been proven supporting anything, but science has a lot of theories that make more sense to me than the "facts" in the bible.

Sithray
3rd February 04, 04:43 PM
The entire system of religion is based on lies. That's the difference. Science is based on truth with people injecting lies. The system heals itself. Religion is based on lies, with people injecting truths. The system attempts to heal itself by covering up the truths when it doesn't fit in. If that's not possible (because it's fundamentally impossible to hide truth forever) - it tries to manipulate/modify those truths to fit into it's system. Failing even THAT, the religious system will change (and then probably try to sweep the fact that it changed to accomodate truth under the rug) to fit a truth that just simply can't be hidden.

Religion is fundamentally hypocritical as well... claiming one thing, and then changing as the times change. If religion was as absolute as it's claimed to be, it should be the same now as it was 2000 years ago... but it's not. Christians of today bear very little resemblence to Christians 1000 years ago. So religion changes with the times, and accomodates society, because it can't survive if it does not... but if that's the case, then it's not a "truth," it's simply a system of control.

Untrue, Religion was built on truth with LIES injected. Same as science. The bible talks about people/forces that would work to twist religion, to turn people away from it, or to blind them and have them THINK they are heading in the right direction when they really aren't. The bible constantly talks about Spritual Discerment:


dis·cern·ment ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-sûrnmnt, -zûrn-)
n.
The act or process of exhibiting keen insight and good judgment.
Keenness of insight and judgment.

This means you need to continually use GOOD judment when listening to MAN about what is taught in the bible. You need to gain insight by study to weed out the fabrications and get to the core. And again, the religions that accomadate to society, or change beliefs to appease the masses, are not TRUE religions, but FALSE ones (again the bible said that this would happen).

Now I will agree that MOST religions today are hypocritical, you probably grew up on a hypocrital religion and thats why you feel religion was built on lies. Personally, I worship the same way the 1st century christians worshiped (With Paul, Apollos etc as overseers and congrgations that all taught the same thing: Gods word and the teachings of Christ) and were directed to worship by Jesus. Any religion who does not do that, or has changed it in anyway to somehow allow certain "standards" or "tolerances" to enter into the relgion automatically veto them from the category of true religion.

My mother was a Catholic, my Father was athiest (cause of Nam), but they managed to find their belief structure and stuck to it. They encouraged us kids to find the answer on our own, and my father was fascinated with science as was my mother, so they talked to us about how science and religion were hand in hand. Don and I went to the extreme, for a while only accepting science as the answer, but the more we studied, the more we put the puzzle pieces together. Don used to really believe in evolution and studied with my grandpa (a scientist). My Grandpa went from athiest to agnostic during his studies. He believed there was a god due to his studies, just that god cared neither here nor there with man, but just liked being a scientist...I never believed totally in evolution, but I believed the theory held answers.

Now I believe, much as my grandfather, that there is a god who is a scientist, but that he cares about us, and has plans for our race. His original plan was thwarted by one of his very own, but soon it will become a reality again. When I was hell bent on science holding the answers I had never read the bible through, but after I had learned alot about science I gave it a read and my original post here shows how I tied scripture with science. I was amazed by the book and how it is so scientifically accurate, down to talking about DNA, how the earth revolved around the sun and hung upon nothing. This all in a book LONG before scientific research proved ANY of it. How else could they have known such things unless they had information from a higher source. (waiting for alien ref's...)

Then later prohpecies named names and dates of when things would happen, and history proves they happend. For a while people tried to debunk such prophecies saying they were written after the fact and made to sound like they pre-dated it, but when the scrolls were found and dated in the 70's? and again dated in the 90'sit was found they predate such prophecies by some 200 years (more specifically the medo/persian prophecy) Then Jesus foresaw the fall of the city and gave the timeline, and sure enough BOOM, rome destroyed it right on time. He said they would come and go, and then come again, and that is exactly what happened.

So you see Flare, religion was not based on lies. Men injected lies into religion to gain power, just as some men do with science. The only truth men try to inject in religion is when they see how off course it has gotten and try to get it back on course, but some religions are just to far gone for that.

I will get a title and what not tonight.

Flare
3rd February 04, 05:34 PM
Now I will agree that MOST religions today are hypocritical, you probably grew up on a hypocrital religion and thats why you feel religion was built on lies. Personally, I worship the same way the 1st century christians worshiped (With Paul, Apollos etc as overseers and congrgations that all taught the same thing: Gods word and the teachings of Christ) and were directed to worship by Jesus. Any religion who does not do that, or has changed it in anyway to somehow allow certain "standards" or "tolerances" to enter into the relgion automatically veto them from the category of true religion.
You and Don keep alluding to this fact that I somehow was brought up in an opressive religion. I was brought up without any at all. I never went to Church, except once or twice when we visited my grandparents. I believe I went to Sunday school for a few weeks when I was 7 or 8... but after the first few times I went, even then I remember thinking "Do people realy believe this stuff?" It was just so utterly absurd, even to an 8 year old, it flabbergasts me how adults could even consider believing it.

There was no opressive religion in my past, nothing traumatized me, I've had no bad experiences personally with it. No one comes knocking on my door trying to convert me or does anything I find uncomfortable or out of sorts. Every concept I have of religion was arrived at on my own, with no outside interference from anyone. No one has ever really even tried to push religion on me. It's just so ludicrous and outlandish from the get-go that I simply do not understand why people actually believe in it, beyond it being a nice fairy tale and some good ideas on how you should treat your fellow human beigns.

But to extend that to divine punishment and some invisible man in the sky taking you to task for your deeds after you are dead completely goes beyond the bounds of any rational thought.


I was amazed by the book and how it is so scientifically accurate, down to talking about DNA, how the earth revolved around the sun and hung upon nothing. This all in a book LONG before scientific research proved ANY of it. How else could they have known such things unless they had information from a higher source. (waiting for alien ref's...)
Where in the bible does it say the earth revolves around the sun? Or rather, where in the *original* text does it say, or even hint at this. As I recall, the Church burned/killed/threatened anyone who even made this claim until fairly recently (Like, umm the 1600's). That's a fine, fine example of how the Church and Christianity in particular have changed to accomodate facts. When there were no facts to support the Heliocentric model of the solar system, the Church delcared that the Earth was the center of the universe because we were all divine. But as indisputable proof emerged that we were indeed not the center of the universe the Church says "Oops, I guess not. So yeah, umm... yeah. We're number one! GO TEAM! Look! Over there! COWS!!"

Where in the bible does it talk about DNA? What "predicitions" are you talking about. Cite examples. Oh... and BTW - you can't use carbon dating as proof, because you (or was it Don?) has already claimed it's not accurate. In fact, I believe Don has stated that no system of dating anything is accurate. So how do you know those predictions wern't written after the fact? You state in one sentence that "proof" doesn't exist for evolution because of the methods used to determine that "proof," but in the very next sentence use those self-same methods to prove your point. It doesn't work like that.

If Religion is not based off of lies, then explain how the Church claims they spout "truth" and then that truth changes over time? If it's truth, it's truth. Period. No arguement. It can't change. It won't change. Yet the doctrine of the Church has, can and WILL change given the social climate. How do you explain that?

Phrost
3rd February 04, 05:53 PM
Truth:

*The astronomer and professor at Bologna Cecco d'Ascoli was burnt alive by the church in 1327 for daring to suggest that men may live on the other side of the world.

*Around 1513, Copernicus first wrote down his discovery that the earth goes round the sun. This discovery, one of the greatest in the history of human thought, would be violently opposed by ignorant Christian churches for the next three hundred years.

*Giodorno Bruno was burnt at the stake by Rome in 1600 for daring to suggest that the earth goes round the sun.

*Galileo was imprisoned, threatened with torture, and forced to recant his beliefs because they disagreed with Christian superstitions. Ever since, Catholic writers have told lies about him, and try to justify what happened.

*For almost all of the history of Christianity, the church preached that the earth was less than 10,000 years old. Apparently, though, the church now believes this is completely wrong.

*In the early 17th century, Vanini was burnt alive for daring to suggest that man has risen instead of fallen.

*In the 17th century, La Peyrere was imprisoned, and his book burned, for claiming that humanity must be older than Genesis implies.

*Methodist Church founder John Wesley disputed that the earth goes round the sun. He defended the witch superstition (admittedly after most of the murder had ceased). He believed that disease and insanity are caused by demons. He held the obscene belief that earthquakes are God's vengeance for human sin.



To which the Georgia Boys will respond:

But that's not OUR Christianity.

Unfortunately, that's the same church who is responsible for 99% of what they KNOW about christianity.

Phrost
3rd February 04, 05:59 PM
Oh, and wait.. it gets better:

The Vatican, always at the cutting edge of human thought, declared in 1992 that the earth may go round the sun.

http://www.dslnorthwest.net/~danwilcox/galileo.html

Yay for Religion!

Notably, which can be found beneath the article, is this quote:

"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."
Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615, during the trial of Galileo

Traetick
3rd February 04, 06:03 PM
Though your post may be true, if you say Georgia boy one more time im gonna show you how to really be a UFC champ.

Phrost
3rd February 04, 06:04 PM
Georgia Boy.

*Plucks air banjo to the tune of the Beverly Hillbillies*

Yee Haw!

JustiNIC
3rd February 04, 06:05 PM
I once knew this guy named George. Uh... Boy was he an asshole.

Phrost
3rd February 04, 06:09 PM
By the way, "Georgia Boys" is targeted at Donnely and Sithray, who are both products from either the Georgia public education system, or their parents' home schooling.

And combined with the recent push to remove science from it's education system, I'm serious about looking into ways to coax a comet out of its orbit to smash into that part of the country.

So far, nothing's come up at google, but that won't stop me.

JustiNIC
3rd February 04, 06:11 PM
I'll help. You can use my tractor beam!

Phrost
3rd February 04, 06:13 PM
Cool. My search of Ebay only turned up some Warhammer 40K stuff, and alcohol related items.

Lohocla
3rd February 04, 06:13 PM
Yeah Georgia is quite stupid at the moment. Taking evolution out of schools is just as bad as taking creation out of school.

Traetick
3rd February 04, 06:14 PM
I am from Ga as well and as you see i have a different opinion from them. You are just an ignorant know it all that closes himself from other possibilities. So in reality everyone in the south isnt actually a racist bible beating sister fucker like you think.

Traetick
3rd February 04, 06:15 PM
But yeah ill have to agree our school system sucks...

Phrost
3rd February 04, 06:17 PM
If creationism is to be taught in schools, it needs to be reserved for cultural awareness/history classes; not science.

Otherwise, science classes should be giving equal time to the theory that the earth was created out of the corpse of Tiamat after Marduk slayed her in a glorious battle, and various other religious myths.

Saoshen Sih`ja`Tgzu
3rd February 04, 06:18 PM
By the way, "Georgia Boys" is targeted at Donnely and Sithray, who are both products from either the Georgia public education system, or their parents' home schooling.


Whats the difference?

:confused:

Phrost
3rd February 04, 06:20 PM
I am from Ga as well and as you see i have a different opinion from them. You are just an ignorant know it all that closes himself from other possibilities. So in reality everyone in the south isnt actually a racist bible beating sister fucker like you think.

Everyone "in" the South, no.

Everyone "from" the South? The jury's still out on that one. We'll have to call in your sister to testify.

I can say all this because I lived in Georgia for 3 years. Wasn't my choice, Uncle Sam needed to have a cheap place from which to stage major deployments on the East Coast.

Lohocla
3rd February 04, 06:20 PM
I wasn't talking specific creation Myths, just the idea that a creator may exist.

And it should be taught where ever evolution is taught because both deal with the exact same subject and question: How did we get here?

Also, any luck on finding a test of the "Theory" of Evolution yet?


EDIT: Marduk totally rules. And he totally knows it. Eat more pills!

Phrost
3rd February 04, 06:24 PM
7th Grade Science Lesson, Free, courtesy of me:

The testing takes place at the Hypothesis stage. A Theory is something that has been tested and proved by the best available information and testing procedures.

The only people trying to spin the "theory" of evolution as something unproven are those who are trying to plug their ears to it.

How about reading a little Darwin? You're a century or so late on this, catch up.

Traetick
3rd February 04, 06:28 PM
Everyone "in" the South, no.

Everyone "from" the South? The jury's still out on that one. We'll have to call in your sister to testify.

I can say all this because I lived in Georgia for 3 years. Wasn't my choice, Uncle Sam needed to have a cheap place from which to stage major deployments on the East Coast.


What im saying is no matter how many anti christian tid bits you bring up it still does not prove them wrong, nor does their opinions prove you wrong. The fact of the matter is that this subject can never be solved no matter how smart you are, how many factoids you have, etc so atleast be OPEN to another persons ideas rather than criticizing their beliefs and intelligence based on where they are from. A good debater is one who is open to seeing the other points trying to be made and you havent done that yet.

Lohocla
3rd February 04, 06:33 PM
Those are not tests. Darwin had Observations. He saw this and that and made some inferences. This does Not qualify as testing. The only Real way to test evolution is to create a sample and watch them for some, at least, tens of thousands of years to see if they evolve. There is no other test avalible for the Theory of evolution.

The following taken from http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html#Heading2



1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments




A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests



At the Very most the theory of evolution can be said to satisfy the thrid step because people do use it to predict a future human evolution, but most of those people are taken as crazies.

Donnely McLeod
3rd February 04, 06:33 PM
Truth:

I'm waiting for your explanation as to how religous persecution is proof of evolution.

JustiNIC
3rd February 04, 06:44 PM
Both creation and evolution should be taught, or neither.

People should be given a chance to believe what they want without being pressured into any one predetermined belief set by others. I was a Christian my entire life. That is, until I started thinking for myself.

Phrost
3rd February 04, 07:22 PM
Your brother asserted that Religion is not based upon lies, but upon truth.

I proved this to be false.

It had nothing to do with evolution, and everything to do with the credibility of the sources of your information and belief.

Sithray
3rd February 04, 07:22 PM
I have stated this entire time I disagree with the theory of evolution being taken out of the Public school system in GA. That is what sparked this whole debate. Notice I said I was ANGERED by how stupid GA was acting about this one.

I agree with Justin that they need to teach either both, or neither, or both in conjunction with one another.

And although people may have been burned for believing the earth was not the center of the universe does not mean religion is against it, just certain rulers who were trying to control the masses. We go over this again and again, I am able to throw in valid scientific data while you two (Phrack and Flare) use WRONG religous points of view to argue your points.

Read the book of Job and Isiah. Job said the Earth was a sphere and hung upon nothing, Isiah said as the earth moves (Hebrew word translated into moves is NOT the same hebrew word that translates into rotate, so he was referring to move as in the earth was orbiting). In the book of Psalms David says that our "essence" is located in our embryo and how god sees all the unseen parts (Embryo is pretty much nothing but DNA, how much more essence can you get; and unseen parts? Microscopic anyone?)

The more I read you guys inability to bring in REAL information the more respect I lose for you. Phrack has resorted to one liner insults and Flare is just using the same erroneous information over and over and over again. On some subjects you guys are great at debate, but here you both have failed miserably.

And you think I take offense to being called a Georgia Boy? Yes I love Savannah, I think it is one of the best cities in the US, but I have lived all over the US, been overseas multiple times, live on islands in the pacific, in fact I haven't live in GA for about 8 years. Even when you lived there I was only in GA 1 weekend out of every month as the company I worked for had me living in a different city every few months. I did go to the GA public shcool system and my science teachers all believed in evolution (except one who believed in a neutral divine power) and taught it as well as creation in the classroom. They showed both sides of the coin (although one mocked creation and god openly and got in trouble for it, not in a teachers hands to do that) in a pretty balanced view. Don quit HS when dad died and finished in homeschool yes, but that was something he had to do...

It seems like you are trying to get off the subject of my original post. First you attacked religion based off wrong information, when you were countered you went after our location (as if that discredits us?). It seems you want to attack everything except the topic of discussion, how religion and science can be used hand in hand.

Sithray
3rd February 04, 07:29 PM
Your brother asserted that Religion is not based upon lies, but upon truth.

I proved this to be false.

No you didn't, you proved that MEN distorted the view of the bible. Are you seriously that thickheaded Phrack? And again:

The bible states that MOST religions will be false, and that a person has to use spiritual discernment to be able to differentiate from true and false (not that hard if you are really looking). It is obvious you know nothing about the bible beyond google. Had you read my previous posts (which it is increasingly apparent you have not, yet you continue to attempt to argue just to be shot down again and again) you would see I have already addressed the very arguments you are trying to rehash with unfounded information.

Phrost
3rd February 04, 09:23 PM
Spin!

Christianity promotes faith above "discernment". How is this in the least supportive of a rational opinion on anything?

Flare
3rd February 04, 10:11 PM
The more I read you guys inability to bring in REAL information the more respect I lose for you. Phrack has resorted to one liner insults and Flare is just using the same erroneous information over and over and over again. On some subjects you guys are great at debate, but here you both have failed miserably. Heh... that's because any "proof" we bring to the table, you dismiss with one form or another of the same old cliches the bishops, cardinals and the pope have been using for hundreds of years. We show you where religion has lied, cheated, stolen and been a blatant power grab. We show you how religion has changed with the times to fit in and keep people under control. We counter every arguement you make, but you make up new ones or dismiss the entire basis of our evidence to the contrary.

You're right about one thing, we can't offer you any sort of proof to the contrary because you will accept none. That is typical of any fanatic that can't or won't accept the fact that his or her entire belief structure is flawed from the first foundation.

Once again, I ask you to provide ISBN, book title(s), edition numbers etc... of this proof you think you have. I _will_ honestly read it and evaluated it unbiasedly as I can. I will give your belief the same respect I give science, in so far as I will take the evidence and weigh it against a) common sense, b) reasonability and c) generally accepted "facts" of how the "nature" and the universe work.

All you've given me so far is "Read a direct translation of the bible from Hebrew." Well... ok, but I'm fairly certain there are a lot of texts that claim to be "direct translations" and that, once I read one of them, you'd claim it wasn't a "real" translation. Another problem you have run into and may not even know it... or perhaps you can actually read and understand Hebrew is that it's virtually impossible to provide a direct translation from one cultures language to another. I read and write Korean (or use to anyway) and I found it utterly impossible to express a lot of concepts in English that are expressed in Korean, and vice versa. You *will* have the same problems in Hebrew to English, and I suspect they will be even worse given how far removed from the time of writing versus today they are. It's impossible to translate modern day ideas and concepts from one culture to another, much less from one culture to another removed 2000 years. Unless you can read and understand Hebrew, you are not reading what was written in the original Bible.

I want to pin you down to a particular edition of a particular text that you swear is Gods honest truth and there can be no question that is what you believe to be the word of God. I will read that specific one or ones, just so that we can be sure we are on the exact same page (as it were). So spit it out and provide exactly what you want me to read, and I will read it and evaluate it.

Donnely McLeod
3rd February 04, 10:16 PM
Spin!

Christianity promotes faith above "discernment". How is this in the least supportive of a rational opinion on anything?

Talking about religion with a cynic is like trying to tell a blind man what blue looks like. And if he tries to answer back its like a blind man trying tell a sighted man what blue looks like. Its not that the blind man doesn't know what color is or that he doesn't know things are colored; he simply is unable to understand because he can't see.

So, Phrack. What do you know about faith, belief and other spiritual things? You and Flare both have these outrageous, outspoken opinions and yet you both admit to either never having beliefs or being aetheistic.

I know my history. And despite your ability to look at history from the standpoint of all the bad things man has done, you can't see the simple truth. Its man. Its man that does all these terrible things. If I took my Camaro out and started running people over, why blame Chevy? I'm just using their car. You see what you want to see. You see life from nothing. You see religion as a two-fold snare: an opiate and a weapon. And in the aspect of religion, historically you're right. But wether or not its religion or God you hate is up to you. I can't really tell if you're aethiest or agnostic sometimes. 'Religion' is a tool man uses. Its a perversion of truth made to keep the layman from speaking. That's why Bible translators were all murdered, hunted, burned, tortured, etc. by the church: because if the Layman started to read the Bible he'd find out that the clergy had been lying for a thousand years.

So what exactly is your point? Do you have one? Are you all angsty about it? Are you red in the face? Do you wanna say something that you haven't 50 times over? What is it? Get to it, because, frankly, I'm getting bored reading the same diatribe over and over from the both of you. You couldn't win with evolution, so you just sit back and attack religion... that's what we call a character attack. An irrellevant feignt (sp?) to misguide attention.

Donnely McLeod
3rd February 04, 10:20 PM
Heh... that's because any "proof" we bring to the table, you dismiss with one form or another of the same old cliches the bishops, cardinals and the pope have been using for hundreds of years. We show you where religion has lied, cheated, stolen and been a blatant power grab. We show you how religion has changed with the times to fit in and keep people under control. We counter every arguement you make, but you make up new ones or dismiss the entire basis of our evidence to the contrary.

Back when I believed in evolution it was modified more then a few times. Um... I think its been more debated and more modified and changed and unstable in the past century then any religous change.

Go back to beginning with Darwin. Stop reading from the middle. Start at the bottom and work your way up.

Flare
3rd February 04, 10:23 PM
Talking about religion with a cynic is like trying to tell a blind man what blue looks like. And if he tries to answer back its like a blind man trying tell a sighted man what blue looks like. Its not that the blind man doesn't know what color is or that he doesn't know things are colored; he simply is unable to understand because he can't see.

So, Phrack. What do you know about faith, belief and other spiritual things? You and Flare both have these outrageous, outspoken opinions and yet you both admit to either never having beliefs or being aetheistic.

I know my history. And despite your ability to look at history from the standpoint of all the bad things man has done, you can't see the simple truth. Its man. Its man that does all these terrible things. If I took my Camaro out and started running people over, why blame Chevy? I'm just using their car. You see what you want to see. You see life from nothing. You see religion as a two-fold snare: an opiate and a weapon. And in the aspect of religion, historically you're right. But wether or not its religion or God you hate is up to you. I can't really tell if you're aethiest or agnostic sometimes. 'Religion' is a tool man uses. Its a perversion of truth made to keep the layman from speaking. That's why Bible translators were all murdered, hunted, burned, tortured, etc. by the church: because if the Layman started to read the Bible he'd find out that the clergy had been lying for a thousand years.

So what exactly is your point? Do you have one? Are you all angsty about it? Are you red in the face? Do you wanna say something that you haven't 50 times over? What is it? Get to it, because, frankly, I'm getting bored reading the same diatribe over and over from the both of you. You couldn't win with evolution, so you just sit back and attack religion... that's what we call a character attack. An irrellevant feignt (sp?) to misguide attention.
Dude... have you like, missed this entire conversation? So you admit that religion is a tool for control and nothing more? Is that what I'm hearing?

Either way, if you, personally, want to believe in God, man, <i>go right ahead</i>, but you sure as FUCK ALL better not be trying to teach my children (if I had any heh) that your belief is "truth." That's the entire point of this thread, as far as I could tell. Your faith is your business, but the minute you start trying to bring others to your viewpoint, you've crossed the line into religion and it's a control issue.

You can stand on the street corner, in a church, or what have you and spout as much BS as you want. But you are morally bankrupt if you try to bring it into a state funded institution where I have to pay to have my children listen to a pack of lies and bullshit. That's where I have the problem.

I also have a problem when the religious nuts start affecting my quality of living, just like they are doing in America now, especially with GWB in control. If you people want to believe in your God, fine... go do it. But don't do it on my time, and don't let it affect me. Your right to freedom of religion stops where my right to freedom to think and act for myself begins. Your religion has long been encroaching on all of my rights, and trying to foist your beliefs off on our children. That is wrong, and THAT is what I argue against.

If, as you say, you've come up on your own and exercised total free will and STILL you want to believe in God... man, that is totally your right, and I support you 100%. I am absolutely serious. IF that's what YOU want, then fine. But do NOT, absolutely do NOT spread your faith to other people... and religious people can't seem to help themselves from doing so. They find God, and by God they want to share.

Flare
3rd February 04, 10:26 PM
Back when I believed in evolution it was modified more then a few times. Um... I think its been more debated and more modified and changed and unstable in the past century then any religous change.
When have I ever said it wasn't modified? Of course it was modified, that's the WHOLE FOUNDATION of science. You modify your world view to fit the "facts." The foundation of religion is to modify "facts" to fit the world view. Only "facts" are real, so only science has it right. What part of that was unclear in this thread?

Science, by it's very nature, changes daily as we add to our knowledge. The Church has, does and will continue to supress truth and facts from the population to maintain it's control. Why can't you understand what I'm writing? You don't have to agree to it, but at least make an effort to understand that.

Donnely McLeod
4th February 04, 07:04 AM
Flare, I used to use the same arguments. I understand completely what you're saying.

The fundamental basis of evolution is starting from a jigsaw at the middle with all the wrong pieces so that none fit on the outside. My big complaint about the scientology of evolution is that facts are modified to fit the theory. The theory changes, but it doesn't really change. You have as many fueding factions of evolutionist from punctuated equillibrium thru Darwinian evolution. You can't base evidence on theory as evidence on fact. *You* aren't listening. Evolution is as religous as religion.

I completely agree with what religion is. What I'm saying is that I see more evidence of there being a Creator then of some impersonal, magical force. You seem to think that's religous. The physical universe exist. It has complexities that are impossible at random. "Nature is infinitely complex. Life is complex. Such staggering complexity can only point back to creation at some point in the ages past.

You don't want religion? Fine by me. That's your choice. Phrack hates religion? Okay, that's his choice. So my question is this: If we can't subjugate you to our opinions, how can you claim some higher ground to do so? As far as I'm concerned the game of fitting evolution into anything and everything is just as goofy as a two-bit clergy class. You saying you have no religion *is* your religion because you fervently believe in nothing but yourself.

You say you hate it when people try to force religious views on you. You force your religous views on others with the claim that they're based on tangible, solid proof. Tangible solid proof:

"The physical universe exist. It has complexities that are impossible at random. Nature is infinitely complex. Life is complex. Such staggering complexity can only point back to creation at some point in the ages past."

That the universe exist is proof it was placed here. That's not outrageous, its simple. The fact that we don't know, understand or comprehend how is simply because we lack the knowledge or the skill to find it. I deplore a so-called science that fills in the gaps with anything from forgeries to pet theories and an array of vague conjecture I can't even begin to describe. That's bad science. And anyone who places such blind faith in the most recent theory of it -accepting it as bonafide fact- without having searched it from the bottom up is just as religous as a clergyman.

Gravity can be tested. The Earth rotating around the sun can be tested. These are scientific facts. Science does *not* change. It remains science. When pet theories that fit with the public's need to believe in nothing made by scientist who were the equivalent of pop-stars seeking fame and fortune in the 19th century and, through the perversion of true science, make claim to have higher knowledge because of the white coats they wear; it ceases to be science. This is nothing more then a clergy class. But they've hijacked the name of the truth (science) and used it as a door into whatever they want. There are many scientists who do not believe in evolution; well-reputed, intelligent scientists. This doesn't mean they are religous, they simply stop looking at the universe with jaded eyes that have been influenced from their birth.

You said you were willing to read whatever research Sith could find. I'm willing to bet you wouldn't read Darwin's Black Box; at least, not open-mindedly.

Flare
4th February 04, 11:26 AM
You say you hate it when people try to force religious views on you. You force your religous views on others with the claim that they're based on tangible, solid proof. Tangible solid proof:

"The physical universe exist. It has complexities that are impossible at random. Nature is infinitely complex. Life is complex. Such staggering complexity can only point back to creation at some point in the ages past." I don't force my views on others. I don't start these threads, I don't go around on street corners, or churches. I, in fact, am exactly the opposite. The mere fact of how I run these boards should be evidence of this; I don't care what anyone does, as long as it doesn't affect me in ways I dislike. I don't try to force my worldview on anyone, and I expect the same courtesey in return. I realise there are going to be instances where there are things I dislike, but they must be endured for the greater good (happens a lot on this board, oddly enough :p).

Show me proof that the physical complexities of the universe are impossible given an infinite amount of time and random chaos. Show me one shred of proof of that, and I will concede your point. Your entire premise, it seems is based on the flawed assumption that X cannot happen randomly. Of course, it's not possible to prove a negative, so your entire premise in inheriently unprovable. Very convenient, and one of the typical weapons religious people use. "Prove God doesn't exist!" ... well how the hell are you suppose to do that? Prove he does exist.

I heartily disagree that the universe couldn't have happened randomly. I am *open* to the idea that the groundwork was laid down by an intelligence; I do not believe it, but I am open to that idea with some shred of evidence. But I absolutely do NOT think this hypothetical intelligence is watching over our every move, and/or that it cares one iota what happens to use now, or after we die.

You want to talk about the universe being "created" by something else, fine. But when you start talking about "God," that's where the problem begins.

I forsee a time in the very near future where we can create a "universe" virtually inside a computer (within my lifetime). Without getting into too much sophomoric philosophy, but does that make the creator of that universe God? No, not in the least.

As for Darwins Black Box... I don't even know what it is, why do you say I won't read it? If it's interesting material, I will read it. I will read what Sithray deems to be truth as well. I'm not saying I'll sit down and read volumes and volumes like a madman, but I'll get to them in a reasonable amount of time given my schedule.

Phrost
4th February 04, 11:36 AM
Hi, this orange cone here represents the points Phrack has made in the course of this argument:

http://www.safetyleague.com/slstore/access/Cone-c.jpg

This 99 Camaro SS represents Donnely.
http://www.zracer.com/camaro/images/rear_side.jpg

http://www.zracer.com/camaro/images/slalom.jpg

Cybsled
4th February 04, 11:41 AM
Just remember things like order, time, and complexity are HUMAN concepts and arent nessisarily a universal truth.

eFFIX
4th February 04, 01:00 PM
Here's one for the Religious nuts...

Look even how easily people get sucked into the virtual world of EQ, The Sims, etc. Imagine if some day in the future, you could permenently have the contents of your brain downloaded onto a computer HDD. Only consiquence, is that in doing so, your physical body is put into a coma. But, the process is reversable at any time, and you can go back into your body and "wake up" from the coma whenever you want (any memories you make, or knowledge you learn in VR, you will retain when you wake up).

On the other hand, your able to interact inside of a virtual space, lets say EQ for shits and giggles. People "playing" EQ on a computer, can interact with you, talk, cybor, whatever. Infact, there would be no way possible to tell the difference from a person playing from inside the virtual space, from a person typing on their keyboard in their computer room.

What happens when the physical body of the person who is awake in the virtual space dies? In the Matrix movie, the person in the matrix died as well, as they were connected. But in this case they are not connected at all.

Is the person dead? If they were a devout saint, and a follower of the Christian religion, do they go to heaven? If they are dead, how can they be alive inside of VR. You can still talk to the person, in fact, that person may not even be aware that their physical form passed away. And due to the nature of VR, you can live forever. Only they can't leave VR.

Lets add another spin. Your original body passes away while your in VR. You have your body cloned from a copy of your DNA. And you transfer yourself from VR, and into reality again. And look down at the corpse of your previous physical self. Are you dead or alive?

Sithray
4th February 04, 01:28 PM
Here's one for the Religious nuts...

Look even how easily people get sucked into the virtual world of EQ, The Sims, etc. Imagine if some day in the future, you could permenently have the contents of your brain downloaded onto a computer HDD. Only consiquence, is that in doing so, your physical body is put into a coma. But, the process is reversable at any time, and you can go back into your body and "wake up" from the coma whenever you want (any memories you make, or knowledge you learn in VR, you will retain when you wake up).

On the other hand, your able to interact inside of a virtual space, lets say EQ for shits and giggles. People "playing" EQ on a computer, can interact with you, talk, cybor, whatever. Infact, there would be no way possible to tell the difference from a person playing from inside the virtual space, from a person typing on their keyboard in their computer room.

What happens when the physical body of the person who is awake in the virtual space dies? In the Matrix movie, the person in the matrix died as well, as they were connected. But in this case they are not connected at all.

Is the person dead? If they were a devout saint, and a follower of the Christian religion, do they go to heaven? If they are dead, how can they be alive inside of VR. You can still talk to the person, in fact, that person may not even be aware that their physical form passed away. And due to the nature of VR, you can live forever. Only they can't leave VR.

Lets add another spin. Your original body passes away while your in VR. You have your body cloned from a copy of your DNA. And you transfer yourself from VR, and into reality again. And look down at the corpse of your previous physical self. Are you dead or alive?

Horrible example Effix.

Watch 6th day.

13th Floor is good too

eFFIX
4th February 04, 04:37 PM
It's not an example of there not being god, or religion. I'm asking what happens to that person when their body dies?

IE, what is it that goes to heaven? Your soul? Your conschiousness?

Sithray
4th February 04, 04:40 PM
It's not an example of there not being god, or religion. I'm asking what happens to that person when their body dies?

IE, what is it that goes to heaven? Your soul? Your conschiousness?

Well considering I don't believe people go to heaven when they die nothing would be the correct answer.

And the movies weren't about there not being a god, they are movies about the very situtations you described.

The 6th Day with Arnold
and The 13th Floor with can't remember (really good movie though)

eFFIX
4th February 04, 04:49 PM
Yah I've seen those movies.


Well considering I don't believe people go to heaven when they die nothing would be the correct answer.

So where do we go when we die Sith?

Sithray
4th February 04, 05:06 PM
Yah I've seen those movies.



So where do we go when we die Sith?

Bible says when we die we go into the ground, and on that day our thoughts do perish.

The bible then speaks of a ressurection to life in a paradise earth in the not to distant future. But again, this thread is about how people think that Religion and Science can't be used together.

Andorion
4th February 04, 05:28 PM
I'm sick of all your name dropping... everyone claiming facts, versions of books, truth and myth, the way it really happened and any other claim of intelligence.

Just stop it.

How about I tell you what I have witnessed, in my 23 years of life, what I *know* by my own two eyes and my own brain.

The basis of evolution is so self-evident and simple it doesn't even need to be defended. Life begets life, death doesn't. This, combined with the fact that traits are passed on by generation, is all you need to know.

I believe in only one tautology: What happens happens.

Douglas Adams believed the same, do yourself a favor and read his (long) speech here: http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/

Anyway, I think the term to describe me is "materialist" - we are nothing more than matter, we are energy wells - we are efficient singularities that break down energy, something seemingly complex created from something simple, but we're just a mechanism to increase entropy. We are whirlpools in the river, if you will.

If you follow the line of thought that there is nothing but the physical in this world, you come to the conclusion that there is no god, there is no afterlife, there is no spirit - life isn't important in some great sense of the word. You want to survive because if your ancestors didn't want to survive they wouldn't have, and you wouldn't be here. You want to reproduce for the same reason. Your beliefs and what's "good" and "bad" to you work the exact same way - good things helped your ancestors reproduce and not die, bad things helped your ancestors know what to avoid so they reproduce and not die.

I suggest ALL of you take the time to read Siddhartha - it's just over 200 pages long, you can finish it in one evening. It is hands down the best book I have ever read, and you will love it regardless of if you're a diehard religious type or not.

~Berj

eFFIX
4th February 04, 05:44 PM
Bible says when we die we go into the ground, and on that day our thoughts do perish.


So were all just gonna end up 6ft under anyways, so who gives a fuck. Ther is no point wasting time thinking about if a God created the world. Or even caring about how many days it took him to do it.

Your better off spending all that time/money that religions around the world rob from blind followers and investing it into thinking about how he did it. And figuring out how to duplicate it.

Lohocla
4th February 04, 06:59 PM
Alright Andorian, you say evolution is self-evident, I say it isn't. Explain why I'm wrong. If it were so simple fewer people would question it. But questioning authority and existing theories are what brought about the Theory of Evolution, so is questioning established ideas good or bad?


If you follow the line of thought that there is nothing but the physical in this world

That is a HUGE If. How can you be 100% positive that this world, as you put it, is ONLY physical and nothing else? Just because that's all you see? You don't see thought but you think, you don't see love but I'm sure even you can express love, you don't see hate and I'm more than sure you hate a few people.

It's like a name, your name. You have a name. The name does not have to be written anywhere to still be your name. Hell you may be the only person that knows it, but it is still your name. Information, in this case your name, exists even if said information is not currently entombed in a physical form.

Lohocla
4th February 04, 07:20 PM
Some fun with Dictionary. . .

tau·tol·o·gy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tô-tl-j)
n. pl. tau·tol·o·gies

1. Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundancy.
An instance of such repetition.

2. Logic. An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow.

So I guess the statement "What happens happens" could be true, rewritten as thus "Either things happen or they don't happen". of course the next logical thought would be "What doesn't happen doesn't happen" in accordance with your reasoning.

All three of these statements seem true. I don't see what relevance they hold though.

Untill you prove, beyond any doubt, that your theory is true, the tautology "What happens happens" is quite worthless. You aren't sure it happened, you just believe it happened.


EDIT: Bunch of holes, incomplete examples and jumps of logic and such, in that guy's speech, would of been fun talking with him though.

Kiko
4th February 04, 07:22 PM
Every time I see this thread, I think of that sappy song from Ice Castles.

DAMN YOU, SITHRAY!!

Merril
4th February 04, 07:25 PM
Well alright... you folks might wanna sit back and/or grab some popcorn because this post is going to be a little on the long side. Even if I pare it down to the most ridiculous extreme I fear it's going to be lengthy. So I apologize in advance for that.

First of all, to Sithray: If you want to insult my intelligence, you really should take care not to go off onto insanely long rants about either a) nothing, b) biblical pseudo-knowledge, and c) hypothetical nonsense based on thin wispy speculation because now I can't make a complete fool of you. You've already done that. Congrats.

What I will do is show you exactly where I think you did this and how. Unlike you, I'll refrain from the name-calling, the insults, and any other generally ignorant crap you typed that I skimmed over and missed due to lack of substantive language (nearly 90% of the first two or three posts following my last).

We may as well begin because this shit isn't gonna get itself done.

- You state that Jesus did not die on a cross but use the word "Crucifixion" in indirect reference to the way that he died while quibbling with Kwill over the finer points of greek language.

Yes it is true that the word "stauros" is used in the new testament, however... what you need to realize is that "stauros" is also the greek word for "cross". The word 'cross' itself has its roots in the latin language.

- You state that he was executed by Jews rather than the Romans. This is untrue. He was judged by the Jews, he was not executed by them. The Romans had authority and Pilate did ask the Jews several times if they wanted him executed, and he asked Jesus almost point blank if he'd prefer to be released or crucified because he did not consider him a criminal (John 19:4-10). He had Jesus executed because he feared a riot among the jews and for the security of his position if he did not (as could be inferred from reading John 19, verse 12 in particular) . The final authority rested with Pilate and Rome, as did the allegiance of those who executed him. This includes any 'jews' who may have taken part in the process.

- You say that I am using inaccurate data in stating the consequences of Arius' beliefs not being put down. But in the same post turn right back around and agree with me about why this was done. Nice self-negating propositions you set up there. Next time get your story straight before you launch into a blindly adversarial diatribe.

- You attack the broadest message I could pull from the bible applied in the most general sense to every day life without offering up any overshadowing insight. I suppose this is human nature to take the simplest explanation and complicate it unnecessarily.

- You state that "Certain religions adopted the Cross...". Well... in an ironic twist, one of those religions was Christianity itself. Constantine adopted the cross as a symbol for christianity along with coining the motto of the roman legion in his time: "Go forth and conquer in the name of christ". And before someone else brings up John's Revelation... it could be strongly argued that he was speaking of Constantine as much as anyone insofar as who the anti-christ was if you accept his prophecy at face value.

- Your further contentions of Jesus' exact bodily aspect during his execution is as trivial as it is irrelevant. Hebrew torture pole, Roman cross, it matters not in the least. The important thing to the story of Jesus' life was that he was tortured ad mortis after being condemned by mob justice in the face of Roman authority.

- You make this dangerous comment: "can you at least consider that it is pretty juvenile to refuse to accept a cosmic parent involved in all things?"

It is again, completely irrelevant whether God created man, or man created God. The important thing is for man to live in accordance with the highest ethical and moral standards and to allow his 'conscience' to act as his judge.

- You attack evolution. Not the smartest thing to do given that you started a thread trying to reconcile religion and science. By the way, it's a lot easier to observe genetic trends than it is people who died and turned to dust milennia ago. There's simply more to study.

- You claim to believe in and worship the exact same things as Moses and the rest of the genesis crowd; this is pure ... unadulturated ... nonsense. Not only do you not have the same set of circumstances that these people did, you also do not have the same set of ethics or morals. You have to bear in mind that ethical and moral standards shift from generation to generation along with cultural expression, linguistic variation, and current trends in thinking.

- In your response to Flare and Phrack you make claims of intellectual superiority rather than parity. If you had achieved half the spiritual peace you claim to, this would not even be remotely important to you.

- "Religion was built on truth with LIES injected."

Unfortunately religion was built on assumptions and surrounded in lies. The only reliable thing about any religion is the core system of ethics. The rest is suspect.

- The assertion that early Hebrew priests were cognizant of genetics, astrophysics, and all the rest of the things we've only just now developed the capability to analyze and measure.

The words 'wildly absurd' keep sticking in my head when I try and think up an objective response. I dunno why.

Let's move on to Don's stuff.

- First of all, to your entire arguement on the invalidity of evolution: we don't know enough to say evolution is definitively true. That doesn't stop us from observing and experimenting to be able to.

-"The fundamental basis of evolution is starting from a jigsaw at the middle with all the wrong pieces so that none fit on the outside."

Actually if you consider the math involved, this is only the case thru the first step or two. After which, most of the molecular behavior becomes self-perpetuating and self-organizing.

-"reptiles changed their heart, became warm blooded and started to fly after their scales split into a million fine fibers and their bones became hollow?"

Do a google search on paleontology and add the word 'feather'. Let me know what you find.

-"did living things came from non-living things?"

Yes. Ultimately, no matter which process was employed that's exactly what happened.


That's all for now.

Lohocla
4th February 04, 07:35 PM
Religions are crap. Good Ideas are good.

I like tautologies too!

Donnely McLeod
4th February 04, 07:55 PM
Life begets life, death doesn't.

Yeah. So you're saying that Living things give birth to living things and dead things don't do anything? Then how did life start? How did spontaneous generation come about? I'm keen to hear you explain the exception to the rule with the oh-so-played-out enough time/randomness and it will happen.

Flare. Probabilities have no memory. It doesn't matter if something happens 1/5 or 1/5000 times; no matter how many chances it takes the odds will always be 1/5 or 1/5000.

Some people call early life in the genetic soup 'simple.' So what is simple life? The closer you get to the ground the more complex it becomes. Life from nothing can't account for DNA. How did early life decide when it was alive? What infused it as life? How did the early cells 'learn' to divide and make chromosonal changes with translation units, males, females... all these things, given a hundred billion years can NOT happen. Its not a matter of odds. If you open your helmet in space you will die. Its a simplistic reality; life cannot evolve from nothing. Its not odds. Time doesn't solve the problem. Its reality. And no amount of wishful thinking and playing the guess-a-date game will change that.

Lohocla
4th February 04, 07:57 PM
Yeah if something has a 1/5 billion chance, no matter how many times you try it, it will ALWAYS have a 1/5 billion chance.

Statistics is fun.

Jesus H. Christ
4th February 04, 08:01 PM
You're all wrong, especially Donnely.

Morley
4th February 04, 10:55 PM
Time doesn't solve the problem
Wrong! Given enough time anything can be worked out/accomplished.

Morley
4th February 04, 11:07 PM
Though your post may be true, if you say Georgia boy one more time im gonna show you how to really be a UFC champ.Georgia boy...A.K.A. Inbred Redneck

Morley
4th February 04, 11:09 PM
So in reality everyone in the south isnt actually a racist bible beating sister fucker like you think.
You've never been to Tiger Ridge, have you?

Morley
4th February 04, 11:13 PM
I wasn't talking specific creation Myths, just the idea that a creator may exist.

Sure there is a creator, the Universe IS the creator. The formation of the universe created the planets and stars and they in turn (at least one we know of) created the conditions for life to form and evolve, so for life on this planet there are a couple of "creators".

Flare
5th February 04, 12:39 AM
Flare. Probabilities have no memory. It doesn't matter if something happens 1/5 or 1/5000 times; no matter how many chances it takes the odds will always be 1/5 or 1/5000.
Your point is what? Like you say, it doesn't matter how many times you shake the dice, you always have a 1 in 36 chance of rolling a specific combination. You could roll it one time, and hit that combination, or your could roll it 36 times and never hit that combination... but if you keep rolling it, you WILL eventually hit that combination, nor matter what the odds are. 1 in 15 trillion, and you'll eventually hit that 1. Maybe the first time, maybe the 150 trillionth time, but that's the nature of of the infinite; and that's what you don't seem to either a) grasp or b) want to acknowledge. Infinite means that if there is even the slightest chance of something happening, it WILL happen, period. No arguement. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. It's inevitable.

Lohocla
5th February 04, 02:18 AM
Look here, don't you all get it yet?

WE DON'T KNOW.

That is the bottem line. Period. Exclamation point. You don't know so don't try and sound like you do.

Yes, evolution may be true. Yes, an intelligent creator may exist.
We just don't fucking know. Why is that so hard to understand?

Did you personally witness evolution, or know anyone that has, or have seen pictures, or have read about a personal account of evolution? No. (talking the actual event of evolution occuring not interpretation of observed currently living species)

Have you seen "God", know anyone who has, have seen pictures, or read about a personal experience with "God" that can be authenticated? No. (trust me, you probably didn't)

Give up.


Damn I'm tired.

P.S. I'm not saying you shouldn't have your own personal beliefs, just stop claiming they are fact or "right".

Lohocla
5th February 04, 02:25 AM
Flare, even if you have an infitely long period of time, it still may never happen. It's scerwy to think about, but it is possible. But don't trust me, I'll explain.


IF there is a chance that some event happens, say 1 in 20 trillion, then conversely, there is a chance that said event will Never happen.

The probability of that is :

[ 1 - (1 in 20 trillion) ]^infinity

Yes I realize that is an INSANELY small chance, but it is still a chance.

WEEEE I really do love statistics.


Can I have $200 now?

Angrie the Strategist
5th February 04, 04:28 AM
Flare, even if you have an infitely long period of time, it still may never happen. It's scerwy to think about, but it is possible. But don't trust me, I'll explain.


IF there is a chance that some event happens, say 1 in 20 trillion, then conversely, there is a chance that said event will Never happen.

The probability of that is :

[ 1 - (1 in 20 trillion) ]^infinity

Yes I realize that is an INSANELY small chance, but it is still a chance.

WEEEE I really do love statistics.


Can I have $200 now?

No, you can't. You are wrong.

An event can have a probability of 0 and still occur. I'll provide you an example right now.

Choose a real number between 0 and 1. Congratulations, you've just experienced an event that has exactly 0 probability of occuring.

Boanerges
5th February 04, 10:28 AM
I agree with Angrie. What's the world coming to?

What are the odds a tuna sandwich will spontaneously turn into a slice of prime rib?

Statistics is the study of how often an event will occur. The problem is you need a sample set to do this. So how often do amoebas turn into monkeys? Well, nobody knows because it's not been observed to happen. So saying there's a 1x10^400000000000 chance of something occuring we've not observed occuring is arrogant to say the least.

Flare
5th February 04, 01:44 PM
Flare, even if you have an infitely long period of time, it still may never happen. It's scerwy to think about, but it is possible. But don't trust me, I'll explain.


IF there is a chance that some event happens, say 1 in 20 trillion, then conversely, there is a chance that said event will Never happen.

The probability of that is :

[ 1 - (1 in 20 trillion) ]^infinity

Yes I realize that is an INSANELY small chance, but it is still a chance.

WEEEE I really do love statistics.


Can I have $200 now? You try to quote statistics, and it's obvious you have no grasp of said subject. There is NO chance that it will "never happen." Use logic and deductive reasoning here (literally, use logic, I'm not trying to be be facitious or flame you). The concept of "never" can not co-exist with the concept of infiinite. They are mutually exclusive terms, and that's where your entire hypothesis falls apart. If it's easier, you can think of "never" as the anti-infinite, although never is really "infinite" mathematically... but that's a serious mathematical exercise that I don't think any one of us wants to embark upon.

So no, you can not have your $200, because your entire post was based on erroneous data.


What are the odds a tuna sandwich will spontaneously turn into a slice of prime rib? If you leave it in the back of the fridge long enough (next to the mayonayse from 1971), you might be suprised with result.

Morley
5th February 04, 01:46 PM
If you leave it in the back of the fridge long enough (next to the mayonayse from 1971), you might be suprised with result.
Or disgusted, apalled, shocked, amazed...

JustiNIC
5th February 04, 03:56 PM
Quadruple post.

Good fucking game.

Lohocla
6th February 04, 01:33 AM
Angrie:

I think I'm missing something from your post.

I'll assume the event you mean is: Think of a real number between 0 and 1.

considering that I've taken alot of math courses in my life, I would consider my chance of the outcome of that even is very very very close to 100%.

(.5) is between 0 and 1 and is a real number and exists.



Flare:

I am familiar with logic. I also know that mutually exclusive means that two different event have NO effect on each other. That definition happens to be at odds with your arguement which, as you claim, is:

that if something is tried for an infitinte amount of time, then that event never occuring is impossible.

Lets go through this in steps.

First I stipulate that event A has a 1/20 chance of occuring on any giiven day, with the limitation it can only occur at noon. The previous day's occurances have no berring on if event A will occur the next day. (Thanks Angrie)

Do you agree that on the second day there is a 1/20 chance of A occuring?

Do you agree that on the tenth day there is a 1/20 chance of A occuring?

Do you agree that on the millionth day there is a 1/20 chance of A occuring?

Do you agree that on the trillionth day there is a 1/20 chance of A occuring?

Do you agree that on the 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000th day there is a 1/20 chance of A occuring?

I will assume you do.

Now an interjection to my proof to show you an effect.

If you want 2 specific event to happen in a certain order, the chance that they do is:
(probability that first event happens) x (probability the second event happens)

You see this most often in dice. Each side has a 1/6 chance of showing on top.

The probability to roll two 'sixes' in a row is (1/6) x (1/6) or 1/36.



Back to the proof.

Fact - no matter how close you get to zero there is ALWAYS a number that is closer. (1>.5>0, .000001>.0000005>0)

Therefore:

since we want event A to Not occur, there is a 19/20 chance that it will not happen on any given day.

In order to have event A Not occur then we follow the example above and get this equation:

(19/20)^infinity

(probability of not A on day 1)(probability of not A on day 2)(probability of not A on day 3)(etc)


Now I know that even that the chance of event A not occuring for 20 days is small: 35.8% chance

What about 100 days? (19/20)^100 = .592%

1000? (19/20)^1000 = (.529x10^-22)% (really small number)

The thing is this equation will NEVER equall zero even if you go on forever.

Therefore, Statistics, quite easy and rudimentary statistics, prooves that the possiblity of event A never occuring is NOT Zero.



Your backroom "I know I'm right" logic can go eat a dick. Really isn't even good logic.

Lets look at your deductive logic while we're at it.

I assume your agrument is as follows, since you don't really state it in a rational matter.

hmm, i'm trying to think of a valid and sound argument for your logic and can't. If you care to post one, in real ordered and accepted method, I will be more than happy to look at it with you and see if I'm wrong. Anything is possible! (even though the idea that anything is possible was just disproved by Angrie) So I fix my remark to say, yes I might be wrong, but I really really really really doubt it.






EDIT: by 'real ordered and accepted method' I mean by the following format.

Premise
Premise
Premise
...
conclution

Here are some examples of premises:

both don't have to be positive, you can use any of the logic statements:

A) all a are b.
E) no a are b.
I) some a are b.
O) some a are not b.

There are other layouts such as the modus ponens:

If a, then b.
a.
Therefore b.

or modus tollens

If a, then b.
not b.
Therefore not a.


There are many other forms as well, but since you appear to be so versed in logic, I'll assume you know of them already.


RULES for deductive logic:

1) Middle term MUST be distributed at least once.
(middle term = subject of A or E, predicate of E or O)

2) If term is distributed in conclution, then it must be distributed in in a premise

3) at least one premise must be affirmative (cannot have a 'no' or 'not')

4) the conclution is negative if and only if a premise is negative

5) the conclution is partivular (one of the 'some' premises) if and only if a premise is particular

These are rules in general use and accepted by major centers of higher learning around the world. In some places they add a 6th rule, but there is little need here.


I look forward to reading your deductive argument for why my statistics work cannot be. Logic classes are as fun as statistics classes.

Flare
6th February 04, 02:19 AM
Flare:

I am familiar with logic. I also know that mutually exclusive means that two different event have NO effect on each other. That definition happens to be at odds with your arguement which, as you claim, is: I guess that's where you went wrong. Mutually exclusive does not mean that two different events have no effect on each other. Mutually exclusive means you can't have two events happen at the same time. It's either one or the other. Logically, it's an XOR statement.

Again, from your original post:


Flare, even if you have an infitely long period of time, it still may never happen. It's scerwy to think about, but it is possible. But don't trust me, I'll explain.
You can't use "never" happen when you're talking about an infinitely long period of time. This is unbalancing the equation (see below). The concept of "never" happening, given an infinite amount of time is nonsense. Never is implying an end to infinity in this case. You can't have a bound infinity (in this context), because then it would not be infinite.

The above statement only applies to this context. If you have a zero probability of something happening, "never happening in an infinitely long period of time" becomes the solution. So depending on what you are trying to describe, you can't use it. This makes perfect sense if you think about "Never happen in an infnite amount of time" being a numerical solution to an equation. Two different numbers can not be the same, so you can't have the same solution (in this case, "Never happen in an infinite amount of time") that has two different answers. How's that for some mind numbingly complex logic?



Fact - no matter how close you get to zero there is ALWAYS a number that is closer. (1>.5>0, .000001>.0000005>0)

Therefore:

since we want event A to Not occur, there is a 19/20 chance that it will not happen on any given day.

The thing is this equation will NEVER equall zero even if you go on forever.

Therefore, Statistics, quite easy and rudimentary statistics, prooves that the possiblity of event A never occuring is NOT Zero. This just goes to show exactly why you don't understand the concept of infinity. Don't feel bad, the human mind isn't built to understand it. You can describe it mathematically, and that's as far as "understanding" can go.

Your "statistical proof" that you've offered is so flawed, I don't even know where to begin. It's not even really statistical proof at all is the problem, it's mostly just a handful of unrelated numbers on your part, and I can't really "correct it."

If you want to argue infinity with me, you're free to do so, but you need to bring something more substantial to the table than some high school statistics that you aparently just barely remember some of the fundamentals and not how the processes work.

Anything with a non-zero probability of happening *will* eventually happen given an infinite number chances. It may take a very, very long time, but since we are speaking of an infinite amount of time, it doesn't matter how long it takes, and the concept of "time" and taking a long "time" are nonsense in this context, but there's no other way to describe it in laymens terms.

----

Ok, I went back and re-read part of your edit and your original statement. I see where the flaw is in your assumptions about an equation. You are trying to apply positive infinity to a negative action. That's akin to trying to divide by 0. It's not something that can happen.

You can't apply a positive inifity to something like "-X". In your case, you try to apply it to an event not occuring, and your equations will be unbalanced. You have to balance both sides of the equation before you can try to apply it, that's a common error.

I can't supply you with the logical reasoning methods you are asking for because this is a language of mathematics, not English. The methods you want are firmly rooted in English, and they don't follow the same logical progression(s).

Maybe an easier way to explain the whole situation is to relate the two subjects. Mathematicallly speaking, probability and infinity are basically the flip side of the same coin.

If you have a zero probablity, the chance of it NOT happening, is infinite. If you have a >0 probability, the chance of it happening is infinite.

So in your terms:



If the chance of something happening is zero, then it will not happen, thus the chance of it NOT happening is infinite. (IE - it will never happen)
If the chance of something happening is greater than zero, then it can happen, thus the chance of it NOT happening is <= 0.
If the chance of something NOT happening does not exist (I know this is a double negative, but it's part of the balancing of the equation. I told you English isn't suited to math), then the fact that it WON'T "NOT" happen implies that it WILL happen (this is a binary result, there is no other option). Or the chance of it happening is infinite, in other words.
That's about as close as you can express it in English. I'll sleep on it and see if I can come up with a better translation.

Angrie the Strategist
6th February 04, 02:21 AM
Your post is such a train wreck I don't even know where to begin.

In any case, you remain wrong.

Define:

Omega = {Set of all reals [0,1] }
Event A = You choosing .5 out of this set.

Now,
Prob(A) = 0.

Yet you just chose .5. Hence, events with 0 probability can occur.

PS - You also say:
"If you want 2 specific event to happen in a certain order, the chance that they do is:
(probability that first event happens) x (probability the second event happens)"

Actually, no. This statement is true only if the events are independent. But then again I'm sure the notion of independence is completely lost on you.

Flare
6th February 04, 02:38 AM
Real quick before I go to bed... I was running the whole thing through my head and there's a really sweet logic puzzle hidden in the whole concept somewhere.

Anyone really good at high order math dealing with infinities that can translate the verbage into English?

Lohocla
6th February 04, 02:38 AM
Fixed.

imported_Blazer
6th February 04, 02:44 AM
jesus christ ... my head hurts.

Lohocla
6th February 04, 02:58 AM
Flare:

First - fixed that '-' it was a typo.

Also, telling me I'm wrong and now showing how is not a real good way of making me want to change my mind.


Second, I'm much better at math than english, feel free to post the math. (you were the one that brought up deductive logic which tends to inhabit the realm of language)

Third: . . . achem


If you have a zero probablity, the chance of it NOT happening, is infinite. If you have a >0 probability, the chance of it happening is infinite.

If you have zero probability of event A, the probability of ~A is 100%, NOT infinity.
The flip side, it is impossible for anything to have a >1 chance of occuring. That is just about the very first axiom learned in any stats class anywhere.

Don't worry math and logic are hard, lots of people don't get it.



So in your terms:

If the chance of something happening is zero, then it will not happen, thus the chance of it NOT happening is infinite. (IE - it will never happen)
If the chance of something happening is greater than zero, then it can happen, thus the chance of it NOT happening is <= 0.
If the chance of something NOT happening does not exist (I know this is a double negative, but it's part of the balancing of the equation. I told you English isn't suited to math), then the fact that it WON'T "NOT" happen implies that it WILL happen (this is a binary result, there is no other option). Or the chance of it happening is infinite, in other words.

Translation with corrections in boxed with {}

If prob(A)=0, then prob(~A)={1} (100%)

If prob(A)>0, then prob(~A){>}0 [1-(0 < a < 1)=(0 < b < 1)] and [a+b=1]

The preivious statement invalidates your third point.

Lohocla
6th February 04, 03:01 AM
I agree with that lim statement.

Just remember, limits, BY DEFINITION are values the fuctions can NEVER attain, they just get REAL close.


EDIT:::

Deleted a bunch of posts past this one. Angrie and I had a misunderstanding, we now understand each other and agree.

For the record, I am not saying events with 0 probability do not exist, only that there is a chance that an event with a probability greater than 0 may never occur even given an infinite amount of time.

Angrie the Strategist
6th February 04, 03:15 AM
I agree with that lim statement.

Just remember, limits, BY DEFINITION are values the fuctions can NEVER attain, they just get REAL close.

EDIT: Misunderstanding about what Lohocola was stating. In any case, I'll keep my proof here.

Let f be the probability density function of the random variable X.

By the axioms of probability, f must satisfy:

1 = P{ x : (-infinity, infinity) } = integral(-infinity, infinity) f(x)dx.

Of course, also true is:

P{a<= X <= b} = integral(a,b) f(x)dx

But now, let a=b,

P{X=a} = integral(a,a) f(x)dx = 0.

What does this mean? You guessed it. The probability that a continuous random variable assumes any fixed value exactly zero. Not "really close," or "approximately" or any other word you want to use. EXACTLY. ZERO.

JustiNIC
6th February 04, 03:23 AM
WTF happened to this thread?!? I thought the math thread died!

Lohocla
6th February 04, 03:32 AM
No, Flare will try to agrue with me more and I will keep defending myself, and quite well, in the math if not the ability to convey that math, if I don't say so myself.

Donnely McLeod
6th February 04, 10:15 AM
Say I needed a new engine and didn't have a single scrap of knowledge about cars. Give me ten years without even a book, no understanding of mechanics, one set of tools I've never used and all the parts I need and I may, eventually figure out how to put the engine together. The simple matter is this: each time I got something wrong I knew what it was and didn't repeat the mistake. By elimination I discovered the key to making it work.

Through elimination I deduced properly the mechanics.

But now comes the converse: a lack of elimination.

Say I needed a new engine and didn't have a single scrap of knowledge about cars. Give me an entire lifetime without even a book, no understanding of mechanics, a lathe, a mess of random tools I've never used and the raw materials needed to craft the actual parts I need and I would never figure out how to craft the engine. There would be no mistakes to make, because there would abe a total lack of probabilities. Without an understanding of mechanics how could I grasp what parts to make? The Rotor? The Pistons? The generator? The plugs... Its not a matter of elimination or probabilities. Its a simple impossibility.

Of course, there's always the exception to the probabilities under the right circumstances. Like being provided with an extensive library of lathing, training in mechanics, etc. Those are the right cirumstances. But let's call it what it is: interference. That is an outside unit interfering to apply knowledge, understanding and skill to accomodate a situation in order for it to succeed.

Probabilites are still subjected to laws of the universe. Time does not have memory. Probabilities don't operate through elimination in a random environment. So who's rolling the universal dice?

Morley
6th February 04, 11:53 AM
Say I needed a new engine and didn't have a single scrap of knowledge about cars. Give me an entire lifetime without even a book, no understanding of mechanics, a lathe, a mess of random tools I've never used and the raw materials needed to craft the actual parts I need and I would never figure out how to craft the engine. There would be no mistakes to make, because there would abe a total lack of probabilities. Without an understanding of mechanics how could I grasp what parts to make? The Rotor? The Pistons? The generator? The plugs... Its not a matter of elimination or probabilities. Its a simple impossibility.

There again you are wrong. How did the origional inventors learn to invent what they did? By trial and error. Kowledge isn't something you are born with, it is aquired through time. It "helps" if you can read about or be shown how something works but it isn't absolutely required, somewhere along the line someone figured it out all by themselves. Given an infinite amount of time and the proper "equipment" ANYTHING can be accomplished by ANYONE if they keep at it. NOTHING is impossible, that is a defeatist attitude.
As a mechanic I am often called upon to do jobs that I have no knowledge of and no experiance in doing and yet I can still accomplish them...how is that? Because I try, and keep trying until I get it done right. Mistakes do get made, but you keep at it till you get it right.

Flare
6th February 04, 12:50 PM
Flare:

First - fixed that '-' it was a typo.

Also, telling me I'm wrong and now showing how is not a real good way of making me want to change my mind.


Second, I'm much better at math than english, feel free to post the math. (you were the one that brought up deductive logic which tends to inhabit the realm of language)

Third: . . . achem



If you have zero probability of event A, the probability of ~A is 100%, NOT infinity.
The flip side, it is impossible for anything to have a >1 chance of occuring. That is just about the very first axiom learned in any stats class anywhere.

Don't worry math and logic are hard, lots of people don't get it.




Translation with corrections in boxed with {}

If prob(A)=0, then prob(~A)={1} (100%)

If prob(A)>0, then prob(~A){>}0 [1-(0 < a < 1)=(0 < b < 1)] and [a+b=1]

The preivious statement invalidates your third point. Look, the bottom line is, I don't know how to explain it to you any better than I have. You are working from the ground up with flawed assumptions is the problem. If you can't accept the basic concept of infinity, then *I can't help you*.

In your case, a probability of 1 is an infinite probability. 1 states that it will happen, and thus it's certain to happen. Because of that, it's infinitely probable that it will happen. There's just no other way to explain it, but you can't seem to grasp that fact. So I guess we are effectively done here. You have a whole host of meaningless numbers thrown together at (apparently) random. You are trying to apply unrelated or mutually exclusive concepts to functions and numbers in ways that simply don't make any sense. It's akin to saying "The apple is stoplight seven by west."

Go read up on how infinity is used in mathematics. While sleeping on it last night, I actually did come up with a way to satisfy your statement, so you were right, but for the (very) wrong reasons. There is one situation that you can have a non-zero probability and it will never happen. The funny thing about it is that while the probability is non-zero, the solution leaves the probability being zero.

The case where you have an "Infinitely small probability" over an infinite amount of time. The thing is, the infinites on both sides of the equation eventually cancle each other out, and you end up with a big fat zero at the end. Being as an "Infinitely small probability" is effectively imaginary and requires a lot of mathematical dancing around in this context it's somewhat pointless to consider... but it IS a solution that satisfies your postulation.

While working through that, it occured to me a better way to explain the initial conditions though that you might be able to grasp.

Your probability of something happening is X. Pick a number, doesn't matter how small it is. Put it seven trillion, trillion decimal places out if you want.

Now, I'm sure we both agree that "numbers are infinite."

Now, subtract the inifite amount of numbers from the non-zero probability, or finite X you decided to come up with. If at anytime you get a an answer equal to or less than zero, the even occurs. Now, since you have an infinite amount being subtracted from a finite amount, you WILL reach (and cross) the zero boundry.

Any time you have a non-infinite probability going up against an infinite probability, the infinite will win. This is about as simple as I can fathom making it, if you don't understand how that works, then you are a lost cause.

Infinity - non-infinite <= 0 . Always. Period. Any other answer would result in infinity not being infinite.

I think the root of your problem is that you are stuck in a highschool/business/college statistics math which apply to real world numbers. They don't apply to higher order math and number theory in the same way you would typically expect. When you start messing with infinities and especially multiple infinities, it gets all twisted, ugly and really hair, really fast. But basically, since you apparently don't have the background to understand the basic concepts your trying to deal with, we're done here for all intents and purposes.

Unless you can show me some math where infinity != to infinity, there's really nothing more to discuss. Your life isn't going to change, and you aren't going to suck or anything for not understanding these concepts, they are purely a mental exercise, and they have no real bearing to anyone in the real world except the few people who make a living in theoretical physics and possibly cosmology. (I'm gonna assume from what I've read here, you aren't in either of those fields :))

JustiNIC
6th February 04, 01:03 PM
I skipped most of this thread but I did catch a good quote that I'm going to save.


"The apple is stoplight seven by west."Good one Flare! :D

Angrie the Strategist
6th February 04, 01:41 PM
[QUOTE=Flare]..etc..QUOTE]
In essence, both of you are telling half the story, and both are half right and half wrong.

It was my suspicion that the implication of zero probability events means that it is possible for certain events to not occur even after an infinite amount of time.

To verify my suspicion, and actually talk mathematics instead of rhetoric, I've just gone to Thomas Ligget's office. He is one of the foremost probabilists in the nation. He has also verified my result and said it was trivial.

Now, let me explain with an example:

Toss a coin an infinite amount of times. It is possible that all you get is heads forever. This event occurs with 0 probability, but it does not mean that it cannot occur.

Extending this to the universe analogy, it implies that even after an infinite amount of time, it is possible that some events, even those with positive probabilities (eg, tails has 1/2 probability), do not occur. However, this happens with 0 probability. But, again, this does not carry the implication that such an event is impossible.

It's rather twisted logic here, but it is correct.

PS - "infinitely probable" is not a term in mathematics. Probabilities always lie between [0,1].

PPS - you may want to check the direction of the < sign on that inequality you threw up.

Flare
6th February 04, 02:45 PM
[QUOTE=Flare]..etc..QUOTE]
In essence, both of you are telling half the story, and both are half right and half wrong.

It was my suspicion that the implication of zero probability events means that it is possible for certain events to not occur even after an infinite amount of time.

To verify my suspicion, and actually talk mathematics instead of rhetoric, I've just gone to Thomas Ligget's office. He is one of the foremost probabilists in the nation. He has also verified my result and said it was trivial.
I realize that the equation itself could be reduced to something fairly simple, I just don't have any idea how to reduce it. If you could post his results, that would be cool. I'd really love to hear from a real math person, instead of our armchair mathematics.

I know that infinitely probable (Or an infinitely small probability) is not a valid term, but it's the best thing I could come up with to translate the whole concept into English and try to explain it. A probability of 1 means the event will (or has or is) occuring. Saying an event is infinitely probable directly translates to a probability of 1 in this context. IE - it's a certainty.


Toss a coin an infinite amount of times. It is possible that all you get is heads forever. This event occurs with 0 probability, but it does not mean that it cannot occur. The problem here is you're dealing with potential values, not the results (or solutions). They work just fine if you don't solve the equation. Once the equation is solved, the results will be... resolved, for lack of a better term. Thus an event with zero probability will not have occurred and whether or not it cannot occur becomes irrelevent to the equation. It's pretty circular at that point, and can imply that infinity is not infinite, which would be bad.

I'd like to see the actual reduced equation (and solution) if you could coax it out of him, it would be pretty cool.

PS -

It should be >= 0, not <= 0. Sorry about that.

Donnely McLeod
6th February 04, 04:44 PM
There again you are wrong. How did the origional inventors learn to invent what they did? By trial and error. Kowledge isn't something you are born with, it is aquired through time. It "helps" if you can read about or be shown how something works but it isn't absolutely required, somewhere along the line someone figured it out all by themselves. Given an infinite amount of time and the proper "equipment" ANYTHING can be accomplished by ANYONE if they keep at it. NOTHING is impossible, that is a defeatist attitude.
As a mechanic I am often called upon to do jobs that I have no knowledge of and no experiance in doing and yet I can still accomplish them...how is that? Because I try, and keep trying until I get it done right. Mistakes do get made, but you keep at it till you get it right.

No, Morely, you are totally wrong. Mechanically driven vehicles began in the 18th century and there were thousands of different minds that slowly devised it over the course of 2 centuries, building upon what generations before had done.

I'll tell you the fallacy of your argument:



By trial and error.

You missed the point. There is no trial and error. Its random every time, it resets. Its like a person that wakes up with amnesia every day and has no way of knowing what went on the day before. They way you and most people who believe in probabilities act is that the universe has some 'force' in it that creates trials and eliminates errors each successive generation. That is simply nonsense. How can a random, chatoic environment with no consciousness operate on the premise that it eliminates its own mistakes each failure until it succeeds?!



As a mechanic I am often called upon to do jobs that I have no knowledge of and no experiance in doing and yet I can still accomplish them...how is that? Because I try, and keep trying until I get it done right. Mistakes do get made, but you keep at it till you get it right.

As a mechanic you already have the skills. A new situation applied to an already experienced person has no bearing to a foriegn eperience on a skilless person. If your speciality was on domestics and you were a good mechanic then it would be a simple matter of study to work on a Volvo. I have a limited mechanical study and I was able to do it. It only took me 3 tries at working on my Volvo to get it right (damn clutch pad). The point is, I had already developed my mechanical skills before that situation arrived. that's precisely *why* I said what i did. Say you gave the job of working on a Volvo to a 12-year-old kid who didn't even know how to put gas in the car. He'd need help. Its a system where knowledge is needed to go on to the next level. But in the scenario of spontaneous generation there is no knowledge that exist. THere isn't thought. There isn't anything containing life or intelligence or whatever... and yet, you say, given an infinite amount of time under random cirumstances it will happen.

Mistakes are made. You seem to be of the opinion that a single person can summon up knowledge without any knowledge. My entire illustration was on spontaneous generation. Each time was a new time with no previous building or 'knowledge.' In the 18th century no one could have made a working V-8 off the top of their head. You missed the point again. A person with no knowledge of mechanics is a person who doesn't understand the concepts of mechanical construction. Its not a matter of trial and error. Its not a matter of time. If you told a Bushman: "Go to the Moon" and then left him in the bush to do it, no amount of infinity would get him there. Reality is a system of decay. The longer the odds are missed, the less likely it is that they can be achieved because there is no elimination of trial and error; it resets each and every time.

That means that all those little amino acids were using trial and error to invent themselves into protiens?!

Stop reading into what I said things that weren't there and use common sense. Wishful thinking doesn't solve the problem, postulating and theorizing doesn't solve the problem. Odds and probabilities don't solve the problem. Life has not been created by man under controlled circumstances. Life has not sprung up out of graveyards where there is a plethora of genetic material (unless you're a fan of the Evil Dead). Life comes from life. Its not a matter of probabilities. Its reality.

Fact #1: We exist and are alive.
Fact #2: We have no DNA evidence supporting an evolved state.
Fact #3: Spontaneous generation has been both unobserved and unattainable in controlled or uncontrolled environments.

Put these three facts together. The result is, to a man with good common sense, that the answer is not an evolutionary change from single-celled to human. The result is, to you, that the universe rolls dice. Yes. That's reasonable. The universe rolls dice. The universe which is so perfectly balanced operates out of chaotic happenstance by rolling dice. The universe which you even labelled as a 'creator' that has no organization, randomly self-invented laws and has no conscience somehow 'produces' life from non-life? That smells like the north end of a south bound donkey. And to a simple-minded Georgia-boy like me that just doesn't make a lick of sense.

Morley
6th February 04, 05:24 PM
a simple-minded Georgia-boy like me doesn't make a lick of sense.
That is about all you got right in that post.

Phrost
6th February 04, 06:04 PM
Coincidentally, I happen to be reading "Why People Believe Weird Things" by Michael Shermer.

He's got some great explanations on why people believe fantastical bullshit.

Sithray
6th February 04, 06:35 PM
I was mentally owned by Donnely, so I ripped a flame protocol directly from Sithray by changing Donnely's words in a quote. Now I owe Sithray US $1,000,000.00 because I am guilty of trademark/copyright infringment and will send the forms and payment to Saoshen, Sithray's attorney who will then take his 20% and pay Sithray the rest.

Donnely McLeod
6th February 04, 07:06 PM
Coincidentally, I happen to be reading "Why People Believe Weird Things" by Michael Shermer.

He's got some great explanations on why people believe fantastical bullshit.

So, he use the usual?

Fear? Superstision? Ignorance? The 'need'? What? As far as I can see the impossibility of something happening is a relevant reason for not believing in it. You - on the other hand- hold dear your psuedo-religous faith in that, given an infinite amount of time with every possible circumstance, under random conditions something could, quite possibly happen.

So long as we're on the topic of fantastical bullshit, why not explain why we have the same aortic arch as a fruit bat and not an ape? Or how a bear became a whale. Or why Female Girraffe necks are 32 feet shorter then males, or how the elephant got such a long trunk. Or why a flower in south africa is dependant from a hummingbird a thousand miles away? I'm sure you can dismiss all the fallicies of your beliefs and so can your fellow ego strokers that write books about why people who don't believe it are stupid. This sounds like church dogma from the 15th century. The suppression of criticism through intimidation, insulting and academic inferiority is the only defense you can muster up.

You dismiss casually problematic things such as DNA and amino acid codes, concentrated chemical compounds, food requirements, complex reproduction systems, cell contents, bone construction, hormones, gastrointestinal tract, brain, heart, nerves, circulatory system, lymphatics, and all the rest. You just dismiss all the problems of this and seem to think people that point these problems out is due to religous ignorance! Lightning hit some seawater and changed it into a living organism, complete with DNA coding, and then that organism had enough brains to continually redo its DNA coding so it could gradually change into transitional forms and make itself into ever-new species. Ignore the fact that it has never happened today, and no evidence is available that it has ever occurred in the past. Evolutionists say you should believe it, and you should bow to their superior intelligence. Do not question; do not think. If evidence against your theory arises, modify the theory so that it can. Nothing concrete, nothing real, nothing tangible.

Phrost
6th February 04, 07:09 PM
Another coincidence; maybe the guys at SA read this forum.

http://somethingawful.com/

Donnely McLeod
6th February 04, 07:14 PM
Another coincidence; maybe the guys at SA read this forum.

http://somethingawful.com/

So a funny internet forum is proof?

Phrost
6th February 04, 07:14 PM
And I can't believe that nobody else brought up the 400+ Steves.

"Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools. "


NCSE's "Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism." (For examples of such lists, see the FAQs.)

Creationists draw up these lists to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a "theory in crisis." Most members of the public lack sufficient contact with the scientific community to know that this claim is totally unfounded. NCSE has been exhorted by its members to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution, but although we easily could have done so, we have resisted such pressure. We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!

Project Steve mocks this practice with a bit of humor, and because "Steves" are only about 1% of scientists, it incidentally makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. And it honors the late Stephen Jay Gould, NCSE supporter and friend.

We'd like to think that after Project Steve, we'll have seen the last of bogus "scientists doubting evolution" lists, but it's probably too much to ask. We do hope that at least when such lists are proposed, reporters and other citizens will ask, "but how many Steves are on your list!?"

Phrost
6th February 04, 07:21 PM
Seems like most scientists, who are in a much better position to know than a bricklayer from Georgia, agree that Evolution is real.

Hmm. I think I'll agree with the people who have devoted their lives to something, over some random kook on the internet from a state with a shitty education system.

Merril
6th February 04, 08:16 PM
So long as we're on the topic of fantastical bullshit, why not explain why we have the same aortic arch as a fruit bat and not an ape?

My guess that it would have to do with body aspect and the fact that we only use two limbs for locomotion as opposed to all four. Simply, the blood goes where it's needed. Over time, circulatory systems arise that capitalize on this efficiency.


Or how a bear became a whale.

I sincerely doubt it was a bear... most likely a porpoise instead. Local variations in available food items, ambient temperature, and threat from predation forced them to evolve a wider maw, thicker skin, and greater size. Why? To collect huge masses of smaller creatures (plankton in this case rather than fish) which also requires gastrointestinal filter systems, along with a more efficient GI tract for handling them. Why thicker skin? Well, it would aid in thermoregulation, the bigger the creature the more body heat would be required by endothermic respiration. Size? Well, apart from the obvious benefits of avoiding predators, there's a very functional explanation as well. That huger mouth is going to have to lead to a correspondingly larger digestive tract which is going to have to be supported by thicker skin and a larger bone structure along with increased musculature to move the whole mass along.


Or why Female Girraffe necks are 32 feet shorter then males

Because not only do giraffes use those necks to reach food, they also use them to keep watch for predators and as a status symbol when competing for mates. Longer necks equates to a male who's better equipped to provide food, warning of predators, and at the same time this male is also more intimidating to other males and over generations, females learn to select accordingly and it becomes an instinctive behavior to prefer mates with longer necks.


how the elephant got such a long trunk.

See above but substitute elephant for giraffe and trunk for neck.


Or why a flower in south africa is dependant from a hummingbird a thousand miles away?

Because relying on the wind was too problematic and random. It's a lot easier to use color shifts in flowers to attract hummingbirds. The flowers with red-tinged petals attracted the hummingbirds and were pollenated. The ones that didn't, declined.


Lightning hit some seawater and changed it into a living organism, complete with DNA coding, and then that organism had enough brains to continually redo its DNA coding so it could gradually change into transitional forms and make itself into ever-new species. Ignore the fact that it has never happened today, and no evidence is available that it has ever occurred in the past.

Perhaps, perhaps not. It would require a vastly more complex set of circumstances than merely 'lightning hitting some seawater'. The pH would have to be just right, the ambient lighting would have to be exactly right, the temperature of the water, the gases diffused into the water along with trace minerals... it's not something that can be easily recreated or 'proven'. But simply because science hasn't been around long enough to recreate a very key critical event in our past doesn't necessarily mean that it didn't occur.

Your arguement is much the same as saying 'I didn't observe the sun for approximately 11 hours, therefore it must have been swallowed by the earth in the west and then was spat back out in the east'. It makes no logical sense whatsoever.

Phrost
6th February 04, 08:22 PM
Dude, the argument is simple.

Scientists: study biology for dozens of years and devote their lives life to the pursuit of facts.

Donnely: Homeschooled; works with concrete.

Call me a fucking loon, but...

Sithray
6th February 04, 08:43 PM
Merrill, by default you just admitted to believing in something that cannot be proven. How you guys don't see how closely you resemble the very people you try to attack is simply amazing. You are just as much going on faith in evolution as I am going on faith in a Creator.

As far as an infinite amount of time...

It was once said that an infinite amount of monkeys given an infinite amount of time could produce the entire works of shakespear. The university of London tested this theory with 60 monkeys and 60 typewriters for 3 months.

During that 3 months of the monkeys living in the same room with the computers not one word was created, not even words like, to, an, so, go, NOT EVEN AS!!! The letters are right next to each other for pete's sake!

Sure 8 months is not infinity, but in 8 months don't you think at least one word would have been typed? They said the monkeys mainly used the computers as toilets. This dropped the "theory" of infinite amount of time monkeys shakspear etc, down from a theory status and to a hypothesis status. The word Theory is thrown around too often, hell, just look at "The THEORY of Evolution".

This was in a science journal I was reading so I can't post a link, but I will take a pic of it and post it.

Another example of "infinite time" not working is a square. If you were to place a square on a flat object, that square would never roll away, ever. It would just sit there. There is ZERO probabilty that square would roll away no matter how much time you throw at it. The only way for that square to roll away, would be for some outside force to cause it to do so; But then you are no longer working on the hypothesis of infinite time, but a new hypothesis that given an infinite amount of time something would come along to change said equation.

JustiNIC
6th February 04, 08:46 PM
Another example of "infinite time" not working is a square. If you were to place a square on a flat object, that square would never roll away, ever. It would just sit there. There is ZERO probabilty that square would roll away no matter how much time you throw at it. The only way for that square to roll away, would be for some outside force to cause it to do so; But then you are no longer working on the hypothesis of infinite time, but a new hypothesis that given an infinite amount of time something would come along to change said equation.Cube.

Sithray
6th February 04, 08:54 PM
Dude, the argument is simple.

Scientists: study biology for dozens of years and devote their lives life to the pursuit of facts.

Donnely: Homeschooled; works with concrete.

Call me a fucking loon, but...

sad only Phrack. What is it the eats you up? Is it that you have already lost and won't admit it? Or is it that Don was homeshcooled and works with concrete, yet is vastly superior to yourself in the field of science?

From what I have read of what Don has posted, when a name was named (scientist) not only was he able to cite what that scientist believed, but he was able to rebuttle with facts based on that scientist's work as well as the work of a few others...as I said before, his house is wall to wall with science books/journals. And although he works in concrete (if you call it that...it's a family business and he gets paid nicely), he used to be a comp techy but didn't like working indoors.

Are you getting weak in your old age Phrack?

Sithray
6th February 04, 08:59 PM
Cube.

Yes Cube would be a geometrical term to describe an object with 6 equal faces (a 3-d object). However cube can also be used as a term for increasing the power of a number or a work area. I used Square as I was referring to a 2 dimensonal picture that I was looking at.

Morley
6th February 04, 09:13 PM
nothing of worth
Look at the words again, he said (typed) them, I just filtered out all of the nonsensical crap.

downinit
6th February 04, 09:47 PM
Yes Cube would be a geometrical term to describe an object with 6 equal faces (a 3-d object). However cube can also be used as a term for increasing the power of a number or a work area. I used Square as I was referring to a 2 dimensonal picture that I was looking at.

If you want to remove all outside forces, then remove gravity. The cube probably wouldn't stay in place in that scenario.

downinit
6th February 04, 10:24 PM
I haven't joined in this discussion thus far, as it is, of course, a pointless exercise. We all know nobody comes out winning in the end. I just try and look at things from the most logical perspective, which is that, all of us, and everything around us (apparently) exists. Therefore, "creation" is the only logical answer. By creation, I don't necessarily mean Jehovah plunging Adam and Eve and a shitload of animals onto earth. I just mean our universe must have been conceived by something in some capacity, even if it's in a way in which we cannot understand. In other words, I believe there is a God, but I certainly do not know his relevance and do not claim to.

The devoutly religious and devout atheists both annoy me equally. The devoutly religious annoy me, because they claim to know God's relevance (who he is, what our purpose is etc.) when I myself certainly do not know God's relevance and whether he even gives a shit about any of us or whether we're just a product of the infinite lifespan of the universe he created. Atheists, on the other hand, annoy me because they only uphold science and refuse to accept the seemingly obvious fact that we're here and therefore something must have created us. Sure, science has resulted in countless great (and terrible) inventions, but I certainly wouldn't want to build my beliefs about our existence upon science. And again, when I say something must have created us, I'm not referring to the feeble ideation that "God knows who we are, and loves us, and made all of us for a special purpose". I just mean this entire reality in which we live is literally incomprehensible, and I pity anyone who tries to offer a man-made explanation for it, whether it be religious, or scientific.

Personally, I'd love to have the ultimate belief that I'm gonna go live happily ever after with Jesus in heaven when I die. It would make things infinitely more simple. But if I want to be ultimately responsible for telling myself the truth, I have to accept the fact that reality itself is a damn mystery and I'd be a fool to believe anything that requires faith.

Riddeck
6th February 04, 10:30 PM
I think what everyone needs to understand is that it is all really too too great for our minds to even begin to understand any of it. All shit mentioned on this thread is just the surface to a much much bigger pool of water.

That being said, lets drink.

Lohocla
7th February 04, 03:37 AM
OK Flare I'll try to post the bare basic math.

first off

Lim (1/x) = 0
x->oo

BUT

1/oo >= 0 (if very very close, infinitely close if you will)

therefore when I use the multipication rule for independant events in statistics we get

Prob(~A for infity days in a row) = (99/100)(99/100)(99/100)... for infinity days which = (99/100)^oo which is >= 0 but infinitely close to zero.

and A being (I will jump in the air at exactly noon on any given day - arbitrary event)

and Prob(A) = 1/100

All I am trying to show is that the chance exists, even though it is THE WORSE chance that can exist, infinitely worst at that!

(chance implying that is != 0)

I don't know how to dumb it down any further. Please show me my flaw.


And Sith, the problem with your square event is that it has a 0 probabilty to begin with (without interaction of an outside force, following Newton's Laws of Motion or whatever is the propern name for them) so it doesn't fit with what Flare and I are debating.


P.S. If there is one subject I do excel at, it is math. I've had many professors compliment me on my mathmatical ability and even try to get me to major in Mathmatics.

imported_Blazer
7th February 04, 03:42 AM
Someone answer this - Why does it matter where we came from? I personally dont spend any energy on trying to "decide" how we came into existance. WE exist live your lives enjoy the time you have and if you believe in evolution then death is just the end and theres nothing to worry about(you'll just sleep forever not feel pain or even be aware). If you believe in god go to church or pray or whatever and you will die and go to heaven and be reunited with your dead relatives.

Kiko
7th February 04, 08:45 AM
-=pours Riddeck a drink=-

Donnely McLeod
7th February 04, 11:09 AM
"Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence."

Is that an oxymoron, a hypocrisy or a contradiction?


"Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study." - Steven Jay Gould

Do you think I believe the world is only 6,000 years old? Do you think I believe life is only 6,000 years old? Calling fact psuedo-science just because you don't like it in an attempt to discredit it as loony doesn't change reality. You're just narrow-minded and easy to entertain. So go on believing that cows turned into whales or that scales became wings, bones turned hollow and such.

Morley
7th February 04, 11:58 AM
Do you think I believe the world is only 6,000 years old? Do you think I believe life is only 6,000 years old? Calling fact psuedo-science just because you don't like it in an attempt to discredit it as loony doesn't change reality. You're just narrow-minded and easy to entertain. So go on believing that cows turned into whales or that scales became wings, bones turned hollow and such.
Arguing with idocy of this magnitude is pointless. Donny. you'll never concede that you're wrong, that is the most arrogant form of narrow mindedness there is. but wrong you are. And how you can claim to know more than people with several PHD's when you have MAYBE a HS diploma...classically moronic.

Here are a few links for you to explore, and maybe, just maybe learn a little something too.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
http://www.natcenscied.org/
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evotheory.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evothought.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/evoforum/documents.html

Lohocla
7th February 04, 01:23 PM
The theory of evolution, formalized by Charles Darwin, is as much theory as is the theory of gravity, or the theory of relativity. Unlike theories of physics, biological theories, and especially evolution, have been argued long and hard in socio-political arenas From one of the Berkeley pages.

Yeah, there is a reason it is argued, YOU CAN'T FUCKING TEST IT LIKE PHYSICS THEORIES!



It is only by combing the information furnished by all the earth sciences that we can hope to determine 'truth' here, that is to say, to find the picture that sets out all the known facts in the best arrangement and that therefore has the highest degree of probability. Further, we have to be prepared always for the possibility that each new discovery, no matter what science furnishes it, may modify the conclusions we draw." - Alfred Wegener (From same Berkeley page)

Event his guy admits it's not a certainty. That Was ALL I wanted to get across to you, that you can't be sure. Stop claiming it's fact, it's a theory, there IS quite a difference.

Morley
7th February 04, 01:48 PM
Event his guy admits it's not a certainty. That Was ALL I wanted to get across to you, that you can't be sure. Stop claiming it's fact, it's a theory, there IS quite a difference.
Who claimed it was fact??? Theory is not fact, it is conjecture based on facts. Religion is belief in spite of the facts.

Merril
7th February 04, 04:39 PM
Merrill, by default you just admitted to believing in something that cannot be proven. How you guys don't see how closely you resemble the very people you try to attack is simply amazing. You are just as much going on faith in evolution as I am going on faith in a Creator.


My faith in science is of the same magnitude as my faith in a higher spiritual power. However, one can see the effects of science on society more readily than that of a proposed supernatural religious entity. Therefore, in reality... science is all. In terms of spirituality, God is all.

Another thing that needs to be said, my faith in God is spiritual, not religious. I feel it's an important distinction. Basically, at heart... I agree with the ethical and moral principals in the bible 100%. But I do not accept the traditionally dogmatized supernatural nonsense in it. I guess you could say I believe in being 'a kind, decent person' without being 'a gullible fool'.

As the old latin saying goes... 'In omnia paratus' ("In all things, balance").


Someone answer this - Why does it matter where we came from? I personally dont spend any energy on trying to "decide" how we came into existance. WE exist live your lives enjoy the time you have and if you believe in evolution then death is just the end and theres nothing to worry about(you'll just sleep forever not feel pain or even be aware). If you believe in god go to church or pray or whatever and you will die and go to heaven and be reunited with your dead relatives.

Ah... the most important question of all. Why bother?

Well... the answer is simple. You can't know where you're going unless you know where you've been. That applies here in two very important ways.

For the religious crowd, they want some security in knowing that this life isn't all there is to existence. They want to know that in some otherworldly afterlife they'll be rewarded for the kindnesses they've shown, or punished for the cruelties they've dealt out.

What I believe they fail to realize is that their 'God' is their own conscience and it is what supports or damns them. That being at peace or in disharmony with one's self is its own punishment and reward system. And that the very idea of extraneously rewarding or punishing situationally, chemically, or hormonally induced behavior and thoughts would seem ultimately vulgar, ignorant, and short-sighted to a benevolent 'deity' who loved his creations unconditionally as people say he does.

For the scientific crowd, they want answers to other questions. They want to know where mankind's roots lay so they can track where he might end up on the evolutionary scale. They want to know how genetics and evolution work. The more knowledge we have towards this end the easier it becomes for the species to flourish off world. And by transcending the limitations of a single world, our survivability as a sentient race takes an enormous leap forward.

So... on one hand you have spiritualists who want a life after death, and on the other you have scientists who want the ability to outlive this planet. Both are important concerns, but it's very hard to reconcile the two and have the best of both worlds.

eFFIX
7th February 04, 06:46 PM
If there is a God, where did he come from?

Was he just "always" there?

Did someone create God? If someone created God, then there would have to be a being more powerful than God. Which according to your bible, can't be true, as then God wouldn't be the only god. And he wouldn't be the most powerful, as sure he can create stars, planets, and life. But this other guy can create gods.

But since something has to come from somewhere, according to what I observe on this planet, it wouldn't be possible for God to have just always been there.

It's just a big circle, which basically comes down to, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"

And is about as absurd as believing that the universe was created via the big bang. Where did the particles that created the universe come from? It's just beyond our ability to comprehend it.

Sure it's easier to say I can comprehend the creation of the universe if God created it. As I can relate to some person, building a universe. It's a lot easier than saying it just exploded out of nothing. But you run into the same problem when you try to contemplate where God came from.

Which I guess is why the masses are spoon fed the same tired old line that God is beyond our ability as humans to comprehend, since he's God.

Me personally, I believe the universe has just always been there. And if at some place in time, it wasn't, that took place so long ago that it doesn't even matter.

Lohocla
7th February 04, 11:34 PM
Morley, Flare claims it's a fact. : -(


And Effix, well put. I disagree with you on a few points, but still very well said.

Xlynyr
8th February 04, 12:16 AM
Phew...here goes, can't resist...heh. At the risk of being branded a religious crank...here is what I have learned over many years of studying the Bible and because I believe I am not the product of evolution but the result of a deliberate act of creation by a cognizant, intelligent being the onus is on me to defend my beliefs when such are called into question and to supply evidence that will support my beliefs in a coherent, reasonable manner.

The trouble with religious discussions is that it so easy to veer off onto tangents without coming to grips with a logical thought progression on one particular subject. That's human nature for you and not a bad thing in itself but when studying the Scriptures sticking to one theme in a discussion is generally much more informative and productive from my experience.

Sithray began this thread with a creation/evolution theme and considering that I believe that God created all things then I would like to contribute what I have gleaned in studying the Bible and it's relevance to Humankind as his creation...so here goes.

The central theme of the Bible and a theme that is threaded throughout, from Genesis to Revelation, is The Messianic Kingdom of God. The questions that arise from that statement are:

1. Who is God?: He identifies himself in Exodus 3:14 - 'At this God said to Moses: "I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be."
This identification is represented in the Hebrew by what is known as the Tetragrammaton, which in translation to modern terminology is rendered Jehovah, or Yahweh. It has a root meaning, according to Hebrew scholars of "He who causes to become" as in a 'Creator'.

2. What is the Messianc Kingdom of God?: It is the means by which God will restore the relationship between Himself and humankind, who were sold into sin (imperfection, or missing the mark of perfection by definition) through Adam and Eve when they chose to reject the true God and his purposes by stealing the fruit of the tree of knoweldge of good and bad. The Kingdom is first implied in prophecy as a contingency plan in Genesis 3:15, where a brief statement of what will be accomplished by that Kingdom *seed* is outlined. The benefits of that Kingdom are alluded to in God's promise to Abraham at Genesis 18:17,18 and a more graphic description of what that Kingdom will accomplish is stated at Daniel 2:44. That Kingdom is actually the very same Kingdom that billions have prayed for when reciting The Lord's Prayer at Matthew 6:9 in the Christian Greek Scriptures. Rev 12:10 describes the Kingdom come to full power.

3. Where will the Kingdom be established? According to the Scriptures, it is to be established in the Heavens (2 Tim 4:18, 1 Cor 15:50, Psalm 11:4), although for a time there was an earthly *model* of this Kingdom in the form of the nation of Israel when the Hebrews chose to enter into a Covenant relationship with God. Exodus 19:4-8.

4. Why is this Kingdom necessary? Because God's original purpose to see the crowning achievement of his earthly Creations (created in His image) enjoy a productive, prosperous and peaceful existence on earth was not realized when Adam and Eve chose to serve another god. However, because He tells us at Isaiah 55:11 "So my word that goes forth from my mouth will prove to be. It will not return to me without results but it will have certain success in that for which I have sent it." those of us who do have faith in Him believe without question that his original purposes towards earth will be realized.
When Eve was *deceived* into partaking of the so-called forbidden fruit the situation was still salvageable by Adam who could have taken a stand against his wife's actions but he selfishly threw his lot in with his wife and the one called Satan (which has a root meaning in Hebrew of "Resister*) and consequently the rot set in as imperfection was now established in the original gene pool and would be passed on to their offspring and their descendants.

5. How will the Kingdom come about? Contrary to what some believe, timekeeping is important to Jehovah and the Bible reveals him to be a chronicler of events pertaining to His prophecies. He will always work towards His purposes in an orderly fashion an on schedule. The hereditary line through which the actual ruler of this Kingdom would be born is listed in the scriptures (both the matriarchal and patriarchal line) Matt 1:1-16, Luke 3:23-38. This proved to be the one known as Jesus Christ, God's Son in human form, who proved himself faithful to death and because he was a perfect son of God (just as Adam had been created a perfect son of God) thus he qualified to pay the necessary, corresponding ransom price required (that no imperfect human ever could) so that man could once again enjoy favor with God. 1 Timothy 2:6, Psalm 49:7

The events that occurred in the Garden of Eden ultimately called into question God's right to rule as Sovereign over his creations. Satan, by succeeding in his seduction of the first human pair challenged Jehovah's right to rule by assuming a false godship and sovereignty himself, based on lies and deceit...and thus a counterfeit kingdom was born with 2 newly recruited subjects, Adam and Eve). Satan challenged God that not one of his creations would ever worship Him out of selfess, unconditional and principled love (Job 1:8-12) The test case for that challenge and the outcome can be found in the complete book of Job. Just as a court case takes considerable time to be debated and evidence presented etc..how much more so the case for the right to rule as Sovereign Lord of the Universe? This test case has been going on for thousands of years.

Lohocla
8th February 04, 12:23 AM
Xlynyr there is one flaw in your argument. It assumes the Bible is true.

Proving that God exists by using a history that could only be fully true if He does exist is a circular argument and therefore worth nothing. Such is the problem with quoting the Bible.

Xlynyr
8th February 04, 02:04 AM
Yes, I agree with what you say, Lohocla. I do believe the Bible is truth because I have faith that it was written by Divinely Inspired men. I was just citing a fraction of the things I, personally, have gleaned from the Bible to highlight the fact that it contains logical thoughts and themes and is far from a mere fairytale. Unfortunately, it's impossible to convey in one post the wealth of information that is contained in the Bible which has ultimately proved to me that it is the inspired word of God.

Basically, though, the written word, whether by scientists, evolutionists or in this case, the Bible are all we have to formulate our ideas and opinions on as to the origin of the Universe and, in particular Life. We are all subject to whether or not we accept the credibility of what we are reading. We accept or reject what we are perusing depending on whether the information holds up under our scrutiny as to whether it is feasible and credible and probably also from our own pre-conceived ideas. It is up to each individual as to whether they are willing to believe the veracity of any particular book upon any given subject. In my case, the more I study the Bible the more it holds that *ring* of Truth.

I have read various books by proponents of evolution (Professors Leakey and Wickramasingh (sp)?) come to mind) because I deemed it fair that I should read both sides of the argument. Still evolution is in want of describing to me why the human brain has evolved with the capacity to conceive of the need to attain a state of spirituality...a need to worship? Why has the human, finite brain grasped the concept (if lack of understanding) of infinity? Not to mention that even after all this time that elusive Missing Link fails to materialize to sway the argument in their favor?

Although millions, possibly billions of homes (not to mention hotels) have a copy of the Bible it's kind of amazing that if one attempts to discuss what's written therein that it generally brings about a snicker of embarrassment and other negative reactions. People feel uncomfortable and perhaps even threatened for some reason. Generally speaking, I would not foist my beliefs onto anyone but where a chance opens up to speak out..such as in this particular thread where various viewpoints are allowed expression, I cannot resist.

:)

Antec
8th February 04, 03:12 AM
You guys have got to be shitting me, 12 pages and were still arguing over a boogie man in the sky playing the sims with us compared to a explosion a while back.

You guys need to get a fucking clue seriously.

Xlynyr
8th February 04, 06:35 AM
Pfft..not like we held a gun to your head and demanded that you read it, Antec. ;)

Phrost
8th February 04, 01:51 PM
Yes, I agree with what you say, Lohocla. I do believe the Bible is truth because I have faith that it was written by Divinely Inspired men. I was just citing a fraction of the things I, personally, have gleaned from the Bible to highlight the fact that it contains logical thoughts and themes and is far from a mere fairytale. Unfortunately, it's impossible to convey in one post the wealth of information that is contained in the Bible which has ultimately proved to me that it is the inspired word of God.

Basically, though, the written word, whether by scientists, evolutionists or in this case, the Bible are all we have to formulate our ideas and opinions on as to the origin of the Universe and, in particular Life. We are all subject to whether or not we accept the credibility of what we are reading. We accept or reject what we are perusing depending on whether the information holds up under our scrutiny as to whether it is feasible and credible and probably also from our own pre-conceived ideas. It is up to each individual as to whether they are willing to believe the veracity of any particular book upon any given subject. In my case, the more I study the Bible the more it holds that *ring* of Truth.

I have read various books by proponents of evolution (Professors Leakey and Wickramasingh (sp)?) come to mind) because I deemed it fair that I should read both sides of the argument. Still evolution is in want of describing to me why the human brain has evolved with the capacity to conceive of the need to attain a state of spirituality...a need to worship? Why has the human, finite brain grasped the concept (if lack of understanding) of infinity? Not to mention that even after all this time that elusive Missing Link fails to materialize to sway the argument in their favor?

Although millions, possibly billions of homes (not to mention hotels) have a copy of the Bible it's kind of amazing that if one attempts to discuss what's written therein that it generally brings about a snicker of embarrassment and other negative reactions. People feel uncomfortable and perhaps even threatened for some reason. Generally speaking, I would not foist my beliefs onto anyone but where a chance opens up to speak out..such as in this particular thread where various viewpoints are allowed expression, I cannot resist.

:)

Don't breed.

Lohocla
8th February 04, 05:14 PM
Xly, listen here

Event A = God exists

Event B = Bible is true.

You are saying:

If A, then B.
B.
Therefore A.

Guess what, that is an invald logic form. It's called "affirming the consequent" The problem is although there may still be truth in this arguement, it overlooks any other explanations.

here is an example.

A = it's raining.
B = sidewalk is wet.

If A (it's raining), then B (the sidewalk is wet). --- True. (uncovered sidewalk etc)
The sidewalk is wet. --- True. (just a stipulation for sake of argument)
Therefore, it's raining.

Sure it MAY be raining, but the sidewalk can also be wet if the sprinklers are on or any number of other explanations. Therefore arguments that affirm the consequent are Invalid.

imported_Blazer
8th February 04, 05:20 PM
Xly, listen here

Event A = God exists

Event B = Bible is true.

You are saying:

If A, then B.
B.
Therefore A.

Guess what, that is an invald logic form. It's called "affirming the consequent" The problem is although there may still be truth in this arguement, it overlooks any other explanations.

here is an example.

A = it's raining.
B = sidewalk is wet.

If A (it's raining), then B (the sidewalk is wet). --- True. (uncovered sidewalk etc)
The sidewalk is wet. --- True. (just a stipulation for sake of argument)
Therefore, it's raining.

Sure it MAY be raining, but the sidewalk can also be wet if the sprinklers are on or any number of other explanations. Therefore arguments that affirm the consequent are Invalid.

stop thinking into shit to much. STFU plzkthx.

Xlynyr
8th February 04, 06:28 PM
Yup, I see where you are going with that, I think Lohocla and I do actually constantly seek *other explanations*. Actually, for some time I subscribed to the "Chariots of the Gods" theory set forth by Von Daniken. That really appealed to me but it still left that ultimate question unanswered "Where did they come from?" Then there were the debunking books that refuted Von Daniken (Crash go the Chariots).

I choose to believe what I believe because it provides clear, logical answers to the questions I have regarding the issues raised in this thread whereas, so far, investigation into other source materials regarding these issues have not.

(To Phrack - too late)

Phrost
8th February 04, 06:42 PM
Not too late for...

*drum roll*

...<h1>Retroactive Abortion</h1>

Remember: a vote for Phrack is a vote against dumb people breeding...

...even after the fact!

Riddeck
8th February 04, 07:02 PM
I'm rich Bitch!

Merril
8th February 04, 08:05 PM
Still evolution is in want of describing to me why the human brain has evolved with the capacity to conceive of the need to attain a state of spirituality...a need to worship? Why has the human, finite brain grasped the concept (if lack of understanding) of infinity? Not to mention that even after all this time that elusive Missing Link fails to materialize to sway the argument in their favor?

This isn't that big of a leap actually. Though I don't have literature to back this, I contend that your supposed 'dependence on spirituality' is a consequence of 'pack mentality' taken to the Nth degree and given a social system to flourish under. Given a large enough pack of humans, even the strongest leader is going to feel a little overwhelmed... he needs to feel like he has the backing of someone or something even more powerful. And as history shows, this is precisely how religion evolved into the huge thing it is today.

Why have we grasped the concept of infinity? Well, oddly enough... because Rome became a haven for both Christianity and philosophy. Had this not been the case one's at a loss to second guess whether monks would have been studying the works of Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, Zeno, and Pythagoras in their monasteries... or whether these monasteries would wind up evolving into the Universities we have today.

Missing link? /Chuckle. I'd venture to say that people are looking in the wrong place for this. More likely the 'link' started out as behavioral and gradually shifted towards physiological. This is the abominable reality of trying to discern the supposed evolution of a sentient species: it's hard to know precisely how much you can afford to second guess at any given point.

Xioxou
8th February 04, 09:22 PM
If A, then B.
B.
Therefore A.

...

A = it's raining.
B = sidewalk is wet.

If A (it's raining), then B (the sidewalk is wet). --- True. (uncovered sidewalk etc)
The sidewalk is wet. --- True. (just a stipulation for sake of argument)
Therefore, it's raining.


There is also, a if and only if b. Which more acurately describes the situation involved with the bible.

A <=> B

Lohocla
9th February 04, 01:38 AM
Yeah Xio that is true. I guess it should go like thus:

The Bible is true if and only if God exists.

The wierd thing about that is the consequent comes first.


Blazer, there is no such thing as thinking too much. I pitty you that you believe so.



I choose to believe what I believe because it provides clear, logical answers to the questions I have regarding the issues raised in this thread whereas, so far, investigation into other source materials regarding these issues have not.

Xly, I can dig that answer. Works for you = good for you.

Bukow
9th February 04, 01:39 PM
Evolution = a scientific fact. Even the Catholics, who believe all kinds of daft shit, admit it.

Creationism/Neo-creationism/"Intelligent Design Theory" = flat earth theory. Everyone who believes such nonsense should realize that, had they grown up on the other side of the world, they'd believe whatever different fairy tale they'd been taught, with equal conviction. But they don't. The true believer always knows the Truth, right?

Sithray
9th February 04, 01:48 PM
Evolution = a scientific fact. Even the Catholics, who believe all kinds of daft shit, admit it.

Creationism/Neo-creationism/"Intelligent Design Theory" = flat earth theory. Everyone who believes such nonsense should realize that, had they grown up on the other side of the world, they'd believe whatever different fairy tale they'd been taught, with equal conviction. But they don't. The true believer always knows the Truth, right?

You are an idiot, I reccommed you crawl back in your hole and only come out when told to.

Bukow
9th February 04, 02:31 PM
Good answer.

Actually, after listening to you for a while, I'm beginning to have my doubts about evolution.

p.s. Your post is two sentences. If you don't possess the analytical fortitude to master basic punctuation, don't move on to weightier subjects.

Phrost
9th February 04, 02:57 PM
There are more credible, respected scientists named "Steve" that support the theory of Evolution, than all other respected scientists who disagree with it.

That should pretty much close the case.

Sithray
9th February 04, 03:04 PM
Good answer.

Actually, after listening to you for a while, I'm beginning to have my doubts about evolution.

p.s. Your post is two sentences. If you don't possess the analytical fortitude to master basic punctuation, don't move on to weightier subjects.

First off evolution is not a fact, so you debunked any credibitly you may have had by saying that. Evolution is a THEORY! You do know what theory means right? The word theory means SPECULATION. Need me to copy/paste the definition of both words for you? I called you an idiot because your tiny little post made you look like a HUGE buffoon.


the·o·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries

An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
Abstract reasoning; speculation

con·jec·ture ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-jkchr)
n.
Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork.
A statement, opinion, or conclusion based on guesswork

spec·u·la·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spky-lshn)
n.

Contemplation or consideration of a subject; meditation.
A conclusion, opinion, or theory reached by conjecture.
Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition.

guess·work ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gswûrk)
n.
The process of making guesses.
An estimate or judgment made by guessing.

Get the point yet retard?


re·tard ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-tärd)
v. re·tard·ed, re·tard·ing, re·tards
v. tr.
To cause to move or proceed slowly; delay or impede.

buf·foon ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-fn)
n.

ludicrous or bumbling person; a fool.

Come back when you are worth more than crap in a bucket.

Phrost
9th February 04, 04:36 PM
Sithray, you're right, but you're wrong.

"Fact" and "Theory" are not two levels on the same scale of knowledge.

This guy said it better:

"And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981"

I'd like to also submit that Mr. Gould is one of the more active members of the scientific community involved in debunking claims of the paranormal and other chicanery.

The "Theory" of Evolution is a theory because we do not know exactly how evolution occurs.

But it is a Fact, that Evolution does occur, and completely independent of our understanding of how it does.

Phrost
9th February 04, 04:38 PM
Maybe this will explain it better.

Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.
- Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434

A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.
- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15

Sithray
9th February 04, 04:50 PM
Phrack :( Using Gould was a bad idea:


Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study.


All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are charateristically abrupt.


Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never "seen" in the rocks.


I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?
I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin's authority, but because my understnading of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should as least "show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived." I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.


Since 1859 one of the most vexing properties of the fossil record has been its obvious imperfection. For the evolutionist this imperfection is most frustrating as it precludes any real possibility for maping out the path of organic evolution owing to an infinity of "missing links". The fossil record is replete with evidence favoring organic evolution provided by short sequences of species with overlapping mophologies arranged in a clinal manner with time; the same is true for many sequences of genera and even for a fairish number of families. However, once above the family level it becomes very difficult in most instances to find any solid paleontological evidence for morphological intergrades beween one suprafamilial taxon and another. This lack has been taken advantage of classically by the opponents of organic evolution as a major defect of the theory. In other words, the inability of the fossil record to produce the "missing links" has been taken as solid evidence for disbelieving the theory.

edit:fixed quotes
edit2:Just in case you need some help on those Phrack, those are famous scientists who still believe in evolution (gradualization) yet openly admit they have no solid proof of it.

Phrost
9th February 04, 04:57 PM
And yet, Gould is still a firm supporter of Evolution.

Hmm... could it be because those aren't the only bits of evidence supporting it?

Nice try Sithray. You took a few quotes and assigned your own conclusions to them. Funny, that at least in the case of SJG he's one of Evolution's strongest supporters.

I'm pretty sure with enough effort you could dig up something I've said, and present it with an implied conclusion that I disagree with myself, but that, just as this, would be a fallacy.

Sithray
9th February 04, 05:12 PM
And yet, Gould is still a firm supporter of Evolution.

Hmm... could it be because those aren't the only bits of evidence supporting it?

Nice try Sithray. You took a few quotes and assigned your own conclusions to them. Funny, that at least in the case of SJG he's one of Evolution's strongest supporters.

I'm pretty sure with enough effort you could dig up something I've said, and present it with an implied conclusion that I disagree with myself, but that, just as this, would be a fallacy.

I dug up three seperate quotes Phrack, are you grasping at straws?? Goiuld has changed his "theory" of evolution 3 times since he first started supporting it. First it was "Evolution by natural selection", in 1978 Gould adopted a "Evolution by Catastrophe" theory, which would account for the huge gap in the fossil records. Then in 1981 he merged the two theories forming a "Evolution by Natural Selection then by Catastrophe, then by Natural Selection again" yet still he lacks any solid proof to back his theories.

If you read The Structure of Evolutionary, a book by Gould where he attacks creationism (although it gives a MUCH better explanation of how he thought evolution worked), he refers to the creation of the earth in 7 literal days, and attacks that theory. I do not view the 7 days as literal, and anyone who actually knows about the bible shouldn't either. Gould simply refused to believe in a God because he was constantly head to head with dogmatic creationists who spewed out the worst crap ever. Had I been in his shoes I would have been turned off to religion as well, but the fact stands Gould NEVER studied the bible, therefore had to basis to attack the theory of creation. Again, keep in mind, when I refer to creation I am talking about a process that follows scientific methods over millions of years, possibly billions.

I have read 8 or 9 of goulds books, and read about a dozen of his essay's...have you done the same Phrack? The man literally has holes the size of a buick in his earlier work, and even bigger holes later on.