PDA

View Full Version : Hibernation not related to evolution.



Sithray
24th June 04, 12:50 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/06/24/science.hibernation.reut/index.html

The reason I post this is quite of few people I have debated IRL concerning evolution use the hibernation of animals in cold weather as proof of evolution (IE animals in colder climates evolved to be able to sleep for months at a time)

Bukow
24th June 04, 12:58 PM
The article explicitly points to evolution -- or at least adaptation over time. The scientist involved in the study says, "It is an adaptation to get through periods when food is scarce. It is a mechanism of energy saving..."

(Edited for readability.)

joen00b
24th June 04, 01:16 PM
I have to agree with Bukow on this one, if anything, it proves Evolution is happy and healthy even today.

Phrost
24th June 04, 02:10 PM
Evolution = changes over time.

Creationism = omnipotent being made everything the way it is today, a long time ago.

Hrmm...

And we're still having this discussion?

Kumbukk
24th June 04, 09:39 PM
Time doesn't exist

Energiser
24th June 04, 09:43 PM
The article explicitly points to evolution -- or at least adaptation over time. The scientist involved in the study says, "It is an adaptation to get through periods when food is scarce. It is a mechanism of energy saving..."

(Edited for readability.)

Explain how it's an adaptation exactly. where are your polar friggin bears that don't, or can't hibernate, to compare to these ones that can?

Diggler McFeely
24th June 04, 09:55 PM
That's just begging the question.

Bukow
24th June 04, 11:02 PM
Explain how it's an adaptation exactly. where are your polar friggin bears that don't, or can't hibernate, to compare to these ones that can?

All I know is what the guy said in the article. He said it was "an adaptation... meant to conserve energy when food is scarce."

How do polar bears -- or any specific other animal, who may not live under similar conditions -- either prove or disprove this statement?

Voompa
24th June 04, 11:10 PM
That's just begging the question.

You're so linear

Mesmer
25th June 04, 01:51 AM
Time doesn't exist

I agree with this statement.

imported_Blazer
25th June 04, 03:47 AM
I agree with this statement.

and if everyone did nothing would get done. sounds nice.

Cybsled
25th June 04, 06:50 AM
Polar Bears dont hibernate because they have food supply available to them (seals...beached whales...newbie scientist/eskimo).

Kiko
25th June 04, 06:56 AM
Wouldn't it also be hard to hibernate at the poles during the way too long days?
Makes sense to me..

Riddeck
25th June 04, 09:16 AM
Polar Bears dont hibernate because they have food supply available to them (seals...beached whales...newbie scientist/eskimo).


Hahah, newbie scientist.



Yummy

Andorion
25th June 04, 10:53 AM
Sithray, you just found clenching proof that evolution is all an elaborate lie. You win teh game.

Sithray
25th June 04, 12:29 PM
Sithray, you just found clenching proof that evolution is all an elaborate lie. You win teh game.

I don't think that is what I was saying at all, and although that guy said the lemers "adapted", it doesn't fit the mold of typical hibernation.

Chantress
25th June 04, 01:39 PM
Evolution = changes over time.

Creationism = omnipotent being made everything the way it is today, a long time ago.

Hrmm...

And we're still having this discussion?

The false assumption you make is that what was created can not change. Your creationism theory does not accurately reflect true creationism.

Sithray
25th June 04, 01:48 PM
The word creationism does not reflect my views accurately, I prefer intelligent design or the science of creation.

Phrost
25th June 04, 02:01 PM
Heh, that's nothing but spin Sithray. Objective scientists don't believe in creation, only those influenced by a religious agenda do. How hard is this to understand?



According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14% 5 However, the American public thinks very differently.

And Chantress, you apparently don't understand the views held by many of the people on your side of the argument. According to a Gallup poll in 1997, 44% of Americans believe humans were created as is by 'god' sometime in the last 10,000 years.

Ouden
25th June 04, 02:08 PM
I think the Nation of Islam's beliefs on this matter are correct:

1. In addition to Allah, there are many lesser gods, and these gods are actually men. These gods are also subject to death.

2. The universe began 78 trillion years ago when a black god created himself from a single atom, which formed itself out of nothing. For the past 66 trillion years, the universe has been run by a council of 24 black gods.

3. One of these black gods, named Yakub, became evil and created the white race only 6,000 years ago. He created this white race by allowing only light-skinned blacks to mate and by killing all black babies. He died after 150 years, but his evil successors continued his experiment, which lasted more than 600 years, on the Isle of Patmos. His followers eventually produced the white race. In this process, they removed morality and decency from the white man. When the white race eventually left Patmos, they began to wage war against all other races on the planet. At some point during this early history of the white race, some of them tried to change back into black men by reverse breeding. This is how gorillas and monkeys came to exist.

4. The white race was allowed by the black council of gods to rule the earth for only 6,000 years. This period supposedly ended in 1914, but Elijah Muhammed taught that the council extended the deadline in order to allow more time for the black man to rise up. Once the black man has awakened to his true nature and purpose, he will remove the white man from the face of the earth in a final battle.

They will of course be using the great UFO in the sky to help out:

From Muhammad's message: "The present wheel-shaped plane known as the Mother of Planes, is one-half mile by a half mile and is the largest mechanical man-made object in the sky. It is a small human planet made for the purpose of destroying the present world of the enemies of Allah. The cost to build such a plane is staggering. The finest brains were used to build it. It is capable of staying in outer space six to twelve months at a time without coming into the earth's gravity. It carried fifteen hundred bombing planes with the most deadliest explosives--the type used in bringing up mountains on the earth. The very same method is to be used in the destruction of this world."

This is the true path my brothers. Give up on your silly notions of creation or evolution.

Chantress
25th June 04, 02:30 PM
Heh, that's nothing but spin Sithray. Objective scientists don't believe in creation, only those influenced by a religious agenda do. How hard is this to understand?



And Chantress, you apparently don't understand the views held by many of the people on your side of the argument. According to a Gallup poll in 1997, 44% of Americans believe humans were created as is by 'god' sometime in the last 10,000 years.

I agree with you, most people "on my side" dont have a clue. They get the general concept right, but havent given it the time, energy, or thought to really consider it. That is not to say that they are wrong, just that it is not important enough for them to be worthy of consideration.

Simply put, creation, like evolution, is another theory of origins. I personally find it much more plausable than evolution I have stated and illustrated here repeatedly.

On another note, your judgment of the objectivity of the scientist who study creation science(it is not really a science by the way, but more an archeology, since Science couldnt possibly recreate the "Creation") is lacking. I seriously doubt you have ever even had a conversation with one of them to see how objective they are.

Phrost
25th June 04, 02:57 PM
The very fact that their motivation is to prove the tenets of their religious faith correct invalidates them as genuine scientists.

A true scientist is just as happy when his theories are proven incorrect as it furthers human knowledge, which is the express purpose of science itself.

Granted, people are people, and get attached to their 'life's work', but ultimately it all boils down to honesty about the reasons why you're pursuing something. And if you start the scientific process with an intent (conscious or unconscious) to prove something specific at all costs, you will succeed in doing so, if only to yourself and your supporetrs, and at the expense of reason and integrity.

Faith and Science are mutually exclusive. You cannot be a good scientist if you start out by believing in things you cannot prove; and "God" is the thing in which you need the most faith to believe.

Sithray
25th June 04, 03:35 PM
The very fact that their motivation is to prove the tenets of their religious faith correct invalidates them as genuine scientists.

A true scientist is just as happy when his theories are proven incorrect as it furthers human knowledge, which is the express purpose of science itself.

Granted, people are people, and get attached to their 'life's work', but ultimately it all boils down to honesty about the reasons why you're pursuing something. And if you start the scientific process with an intent (conscious or unconscious) to prove something specific at all costs, you will succeed in doing so, if only to yourself and your supporetrs, and at the expense of reason and integrity.

Faith and Science are mutually exclusive. You cannot be a good scientist if you start out by believing in things you cannot prove; and "God" is the thing in which you need the most faith to believe.

I wont argue on this, but that was a pretty ignorant statment all around.

Phrost
25th June 04, 03:44 PM
What is there to argue with? If you go searching to prove something you refuse to sincerely doubt (which is exactly what it means to have faith), then whatever conclusion you arrive at is already invalid.

Science doesn't work like that, so creationists need to stop invoking it to support their claims.

Andorion
25th June 04, 03:48 PM
I look forward to the day when life is kick-started from inanimate matter in a lab - it will happen in my lifetime, likely within the next 20 years.

Of course, even that won't convince creationists of anything. "God created us, he must have granted us that power, it's all by design!"

Xioxou
25th June 04, 04:07 PM
I think the Nation of Islam's beliefs on this matter are correct:

From Muhammad's message: "..."Nation of Islam's founder, Elija Muhammad, that is. Not to be confused with Mohammed ar Rasool, prophet of Islam.

Ouden
25th June 04, 04:15 PM
It mentioned Elijah Muhammad right above that, so I figured it would be clear it was him. Maybe not.

Bukow
25th June 04, 04:30 PM
... It carried fifteen hundred bombing planes with the most deadliest explosives...

Damn. The... most...deadliest... explosives!

Sithray
25th June 04, 06:17 PM
I look forward to the day when life is kick-started from inanimate matter in a lab - it will happen in my lifetime, likely within the next 20 years.

Of course, even that won't convince creationists of anything. "God created us, he must have granted us that power, it's all by design!"

No, it will just prove an intelligent being kick started life...thus life by design. Don't be so obtuse.

Angrie the Strategist
25th June 04, 06:42 PM
No such thing as scientific "proof." In science nothing can ever be proven to be always true. You can gather evidence, support, proof (in the other sense of the word), but you can never prove something like you prove it in mathematics. Science is a process which by you create a hypothesis and go about trying to show it's false.

I would explain why this is, but I've already done so 100 times on this message board, and it never seems to help.

Clearly this demonstrates the value of higher education :-(

Andorion
25th June 04, 08:51 PM
No, it will just prove an intelligent being kick started life...thus life by design. Don't be so obtuse.

Are you saying you believe we all evolved from microscopic lifeforms? Or do you believe god put us together like some giant jig-saw puzzle then flipped a switch? Life itself is something held sacred by religious people, and by you I'm sure. The ability to CREATE LIFE is the defining factor of a god. If we develop a method to stick some matter together, zap it, and create life, then tell me what's so special about your god. Unless, of course, you believe humans were zapped into existence exactly how they are now, and there's no such thing as evolution.

Either way, it's pretty amusing how you laud some fucked up form of the scientific method only when it suites your puroses, and use the word "science" in your beliefs to make yourself sound more open-minded. I don't think anyone could have put it any better than Phrack did. You believe whatever you want, but do us intelligent folk a favor and leave the word "scientific" out of it, lest we have to start using another word that doesn't imply closed-mindedness?

~Berj

btw, your thread is title "Hibernation not related to evolution" so I'd say that's exactly what you're saying.

Ouden
25th June 04, 10:09 PM
Damn. The... most...deadliest... explosives!

That's not a typo on my part, how it's actually worded.

Energiser
25th June 04, 11:28 PM
The very fact that their motivation is to prove the tenets of their religious faith correct invalidates them as genuine scientists.

A true scientist is just as happy when his theories are proven incorrect as it furthers human knowledge, which is the express purpose of science itself.

Granted, people are people, and get attached to their 'life's work', but ultimately it all boils down to honesty about the reasons why you're pursuing something. And if you start the scientific process with an intent (conscious or unconscious) to prove something specific at all costs, you will succeed in doing so, if only to yourself and your supporetrs, and at the expense of reason and integrity.

Faith and Science are mutually exclusive. You cannot be a good scientist if you start out by believing in things you cannot prove; and "God" is the thing in which you need the most faith to believe.


This is the same reason why evolutionists aren't genuine scientists either.

That last bit is bold because i thought it really stood out, the mind blowing obtuseness involved in being able to say that with a straight face blows my mind.

Andorion
26th June 04, 03:38 AM
Energiser, I think you're misunderstanding, or maybe he just didn't word that right. I believe things just like you believe things - I believe that evolution is the way we came to be, we're nothing more than clumps of matter, etc. You believe a god created this earth for us, and put us on it. The difference is my belief came to be as a result of my own observations and as my own conclusion, from my own weighing of the facts. Your belief comes first, and your facts and observations have one purpose: to support it. Maybe the sentence you should have bolded is this:

And if you start the scientific process with an intent (conscious or unconscious) to prove something specific at all costs, you will succeed in doing so, if only to yourself and your supporetrs, and at the expense of reason and integrity.

That's the difference between a real scientist and anyone with an engrained belief system.

~Berj

Bukow
26th June 04, 05:42 AM
That's not a typo on my part, how it's actually worded.

I know, I thought it was funny.

Kumbukk
26th June 04, 06:09 AM
I agree with Angrie

Phrost
26th June 04, 09:04 AM
This is the same reason why evolutionists aren't genuine scientists either.

That last bit is bold because i thought it really stood out, the mind blowing obtuseness involved in being able to say that with a straight face blows my mind.

Why? Belief in 'god' requires the most faith because it has the least empirical evidence to support it.

Much easier to hold Evolution as true using available knowledge, than an invisible, omnipotent, omnipresent being that chooses to speak through burning bushes and have his son murdered to somehow magically 'cleanse' people of their wrongdoings.

Merauk
26th June 04, 10:18 AM
Life as we know it originated in Africa. Apes became black people, black people became white people.

Energiser
26th June 04, 12:52 PM
Energiser, I think you're misunderstanding, or maybe he just didn't word that right. I believe things just like you believe things - I believe that evolution is the way we came to be, we're nothing more than clumps of matter, etc. You believe a god created this earth for us, and put us on it. The difference is my belief came to be as a result of my own observations and as my own conclusion, from my own weighing of the facts.

And if you start the scientific process with an intent (conscious or unconscious) to prove something specific at all costs, you will succeed in doing so, if only to yourself and your supporetrs, and at the expense of reason and integrity.

That's the difference between a real scientist and anyone with an engrained belief system.

~Berj


I don't beleive i've actually stated anywhere what i beleive on the subject.

You may think it's been implied, in which case you inferred incorrectly.

Look, i actually bothered to read this post, please do me a fucking favour and actually read mine if you're going to bother replying to mine with quotes.

for all the kids playing at home, EVOLUTION IS A BELIEF SYSTEM, EVOLUTIONIST SCIENTISTS HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME GODAMN AGENDA AS CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS.

I thought it was fairly obvious from what i said.



Your belief comes first, and your facts and observations have one purpose: to support it. Maybe the sentence you should have bolded is this:


Spare me the patronising bullshit.

Energiser
26th June 04, 12:54 PM
Why? Belief in 'god' requires the most faith because it has the least empirical evidence to support it.

Much easier to hold Evolution as true using available knowledge, than an invisible, omnipotent, omnipresent being that chooses to speak through burning bushes and have his son murdered to somehow magically 'cleanse' people of their wrongdoings.

While i don't actually agree with you, i am hoping you are intelligent enough to admit that this is a matter of opinion.

Last time i checked there was not a great deal of empirical evidence to support reverse-entropy, or for nothing suddenly getting bored and just blowing the fuck up.

Bukow
26th June 04, 01:16 PM
Last time i checked there was not a great deal of empirical evidence to support reverse-entropy....

Note to creationists: PLEASE STOP USING THIS LINE UNTIL YOU OBTAIN A BASIC FAMILIARITY WITH THE CONCEPT BEYOND SOMETHING YOU READ IN A POPULARIZATION.

Thanks.

Diggler McFeely
26th June 04, 01:23 PM
Note to self: PLEASE STOP CLICKING ON THESE PHILOSOPHICAL DEBATES (AND I USE THE TERM LIGHTLY,) ABOUT SCIENCE, RELIGION, AND POLITICS.

Phrost
26th June 04, 09:37 PM
While i don't actually agree with you, i am hoping you are intelligent enough to admit that this is a matter of opinion.

Last time i checked there was not a great deal of empirical evidence to support reverse-entropy, or for nothing suddenly getting bored and just blowing the fuck up.

It's subjective, but I wouldn't say wholly a matter of opinion.

Would you agree with this?

A. You don't need "Faith" when it comes to tangible things. You don't have faith that being kicked in the balls will hurt, you know, based on one or more tangible experiences.

B. "God" is likely the least tangible 'thing' there could be. If this were not so, there would be no debate to his existence. I sure wouldn't debate with you about the effects of being kicked in the balls.

Chantress
27th June 04, 01:35 AM
I'm left speechless. I can not really say it any better than Ener already has.

It is as likely that we got to this point in time by evolution as it is that we find one penny in a stack that covers the entire state of Texas....2 miles deep.

Math is not on your side.
Physics is not on your side.
Statistics is not on your side.
Chemistry is not on your side.
Biology is not on your side.
Exactly what form of imperical research do you have to support evolution? Last I checked it was a bunch of unproven theories that have not and can not be reproduced. That is not science.

Bukow
27th June 04, 04:01 AM
I'm left speechless. I can not really say it any better than Ener already has.

It is as likely that we got to this point in time by evolution as it is that we find one penny in a stack that covers the entire state of Texas....2 miles deep.

Math is not on your side.
Physics is not on your side.
Statistics is not on your side.
Chemistry is not on your side.
Biology is not on your side.
Exactly what form of imperical research do you have to support evolution? Last I checked it was a bunch of unproven theories that have not and can not be reproduced. That is not science.

Just replace all that with "The Bible is the only thing on my side..." and you may something resembling an argument. Because, "the vast majority of mathematicians think..." and "the vast majority of physicists conclude..." etc. is really not an argument you want to delve into. The overwhelming majority of authors of published papers in this (and every other) country laugh at this kind of thing, and acknowledge the (embarassing) fact that America is a backwater plainesville full of religious gullibility.

Otherwise, go home. Phrack is the Alpha and Omega of the whole argument, so give it up.

Chantress
27th June 04, 09:49 AM
Just replace all that with "The Bible is the only thing on my side..." and you may something resembling an argument. Because, "the vast majority of mathematicians think..." and "the vast majority of physicists conclude..." etc. is really not an argument you want to delve into. The overwhelming majority of authors of published papers in this (and every other) country laugh at this kind of thing, and acknowledge the (embarassing) fact that America is a backwater plainesville full of religious gullibility.

Otherwise, go home. Phrack is the Alpha and Omega of the whole argument, so give it up.

Do I really need to get into how many texts through the ages, lauded as science, were proven to be inaccurate and reaching false conclusions?

Do I really care what the rest of the world thinks, since the majority of them only recently discovered modern conveniences like running water and electricity?

Like it or not, the world is a better place today thanks to Christianity at large. Given, there are corrupt and morally bankrupt people that call themselves Christians, but buy and large you are where you are thanks to Christian Religous principles.

I leave you with these quotes. None of them are by religous leaders. Some are by Einstien. Some are by our past political leaders, like the founding fathers.

http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/1608
http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/1609
http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/1611
http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/1957
http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/1997
http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/2753
http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/3002
http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/3014
http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/1434
http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/874
http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/410
http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/41
http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/10
http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/8

Energiser
27th June 04, 10:10 AM
It's subjective, but I wouldn't say wholly a matter of opinion.

Would you agree with this?

A. You don't need "Faith" when it comes to tangible things. You don't have faith that being kicked in the balls will hurt, you know, based on one or more tangible experiences.

B. "God" is likely the least tangible 'thing' there could be. If this were not so, there would be no debate to his existence. I sure wouldn't debate with you about the effects of being kicked in the balls.

Last set of posts i was hung over, today i have a mild headache.

Anyway, i agree with A, simply because what you're saying is essentially a tautology.

I don't think B makes sense at all. As far as i am aware God is not tangible at all, nevermind least. God being tangible or intangible has absolutely no bearing on wether or not he exists. There have to be plenty of intangible things that are accepted as common sense and fact by every sane person on the planet.


Originally posted by Bukow
Note to creationists: PLEASE STOP USING THIS LINE UNTIL YOU OBTAIN A BASIC FAMILIARITY WITH THE CONCEPT BEYOND SOMETHING YOU READ IN A POPULARIZATION.

Thanks.


Note to Bukow: i'm not a creationist jackass. Heres an idea, instead of some vague retort, how about you actually reply with links to the fucktons of empirical evidence you have to support the big bang hypothesis.

Diggler McFeely
27th June 04, 11:27 AM
"I get to go to lots of overseas places, like Canada."
-- Britney Spears




"The cool thing about being famous is traveling. I have always wanted to travel across seas, like to Canada and stuff."
-- Britney Spears




"Consider how hard it is to change yourself and you'll understand what little chance you have in trying to change others."
-- Jacob Braude


I like the 3rd one best.

deadcat
27th June 04, 04:47 PM
Diggler wins.

Andorion
27th June 04, 05:00 PM
Do I really need to get into how many texts through the ages, lauded as science, were proven to be inaccurate and reaching false conclusions?

I didn't read a one of your quotes after reading this sentence. We are living in an age of science unlike any other - human understanding of "the way things are" is at an all-time high, information is by and large FREE and it's getting easier and easier to seperate the evident truths from the fabrications. Religion clings to the old way of things, where information was not free, people were not knowledgable in "the way things are" and something like a nuclear power plant or weapon wasn't even imaginable, let alone understandable and buildable.

If you want to talk about things being innacurate, false conclusions, and misleading people through the ages, nothing even comes remotely close to religion. You think your religion is the way things are, but not only are there literally thousands or tens of thousands of religions practiced and whole-heartedly believed TODAY, but there have been many many more that have since become history, religions people truly believed in.

Science is the practice of discovering the truths of the world around us, instead of fabricating truths to explain it. It's often times wrong, often times misleading or misunderstood, but it invaraibly corrects itself as the method is more refined, data is re-examined and information is shared.

~Berj

Chantress
27th June 04, 05:08 PM
I didn't read a one of your quotes after reading this sentence. We are living in an age of science unlike any other - human understanding of "the way things are" is at an all-time high, information is by and large FREE and it's getting easier and easier to seperate the evident truths from the fabrications. Religion clings to the old way of things, where information was not free, people were not knowledgable in "the way things are" and something like a nuclear power plant or weapon wasn't even imaginable, let alone understandable and buildable.

If you want to talk about things being innacurate, false conclusions, and misleading people through the ages, nothing even comes remotely close to religion. You think your religion is the way things are, but not only are there literally thousands or tens of thousands of religions practiced and whole-heartedly believed TODAY, but there have been many many more that have since become history, religions people truly believed in.

Science is the practice of discovering the truths of the world around us, instead of fabricating truths to explain it. It's often times wrong, often times misleading or misunderstood, but it invaraibly corrects itself as the method is more refined, data is re-examined and information is shared.

~Berj

Nice political response of essentially saying that yes, Scientist have been proven wrong time and again though the ages. They will also continue to be wrong. I put my faith in the document that to date has not been proven wrong. You put yours in a process that is a good one, but will never lead to the answers that mankind in general truely seek.
I will leave you with yet another quote.


"If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts - i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy - are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset."
-- C.S. Lewis

Chantress
27th June 04, 05:18 PM
I like the 3rd one best.

The third one is good. I'm glad I'm not undertaking the task of trying to change others. I'm simply trying to educate. I'm providing the water for the horse, the horse chooses to drink or not based upon his assesment of what s/he reads and what her/his prejudices are.

Bukow
27th June 04, 07:03 PM
<i>Science</i> has never been proven wrong. How could one do so, except by using some method outside of science?

Certain <i>theories</i> have been proved to be incorrect -- by the scientific method! But that's evidence that science works, isn't it?

deadcat
27th June 04, 10:09 PM
3rd Rock From the Sun.

I'd so bang that chick.

Energiser
27th June 04, 10:28 PM
I'm not trying to change anyones mind, i'm just argueing, because at the time i had nothing better to do. I expect a reply to my last post soon, and it'd better be good. Or at least readable. Or containing a large amount of cussing and general character assassination. you know, whatever you feel up to at the time.

http://boasas.com/boasas/344.gif

Derreck
29th June 04, 01:20 AM
Math is not on your side.
Physics is not on your side.
Statistics is not on your side.
Chemistry is not on your side.
Biology is not on your side.
Exactly what form of imperical research do you have to support evolution? Last I checked it was a bunch of unproven theories that have not and can not be reproduced. That is not science.This is the stuff I love. The idea that some all powerful magical force created everything is more likely than things sort of turning out the way they did by chance. I think they're both ridiculous, but HOW can you think everything created by some almighty is the LESS ridiculous explanation?

Also Chantress, you're quoting writers of fantasy. I'm just uh... pointing this out.

Hurricane Aegien
29th June 04, 03:22 AM
I'm glad I'm not undertaking the task of trying to change others. I'm simply trying to educate..


heh, hehehehehehe, hehe.

Phrost
29th June 04, 08:44 AM
Nice political response of essentially saying that yes, Scientist have been proven wrong time and again though the ages. They will also continue to be wrong. I put my faith in the document that to date has not been proven wrong. You put yours in a process that is a good one, but will never lead to the answers that mankind in general truely seek.
I will leave you with yet another quote.

My fucking god you're dense.

Scientists LOVE to be proven wrong. A discovery either way improves on human knowledge and takes us a step further. That's how science works (for the 2389040938401232th time).

And every step of the way, they've had to fight religious nutjobs like you who'd have us living in huts and sacrificing goats Abraham style, because you feel that the Bible has all the answers, so why bother asking any questions?

You know what's the most idiotic thing about religious faith? The fact that somehow, a 6000 year old document written by people who though the earth was flat and wiped their asses with leaves somehow more accurately provides insight into how the universe works than a modern process of peer-reviewed, methodical discovery.

You're no different than the assholes I deal with on a daily basis who think that there's some secret, 4000 year old style of kung fu taught by an old man on a mountain in China that's superior to modern boxing and wrestling. If it's ancient, it's got to be better!

It boggles the fucking mind.

Sithray
29th June 04, 10:11 AM
Scientists LOVE to be proven wrong.

There is that completely ignorant statement again.

Phrost
29th June 04, 10:18 AM
There is that completely ignorant statement again.

Qualify what you say, or don't bother saying it.

Sithray
29th June 04, 10:36 AM
Qualify what you say, or don't bother saying it.

Common sense is the qualifier. People, no matter who they are or what their career, HATE to be proven wrong. Scientists will often fight to the death that their theories are correct. In fact, if a scientist ever is proven wrong, he is often written off as "the guy who got it wrong". You name ONE scientist who had his theories proven wrong, accepted it willingly and went on to continue research in said field.

Scientists only love being proved wrong in the movies.

Here is a quote for you from http://www.ncsu.edu


In many cases, the scientists themselves refuse to believe the key results that lead to the new theories.

NC State has a high ranking Physical/Mathmatical Science academic program.

Ouden
29th June 04, 11:03 AM
You know what's the most idiotic thing about religious faith? The fact that somehow, a 6000 year old document written by people who though the earth was flat and wiped their asses with leaves somehow more accurately provides insight into how the universe works than a modern process of peer-reviewed, methodical discovery.


Except for all that astronomy, accurate mapping techniques without satellites, math, the ideas for flight, etc?

Hell let's look at ancient Greece alone:

On a sunken Greek ship has been found the earliest working computer, that used a series of gears to plot the stars.

Euclid (fourth century BC) was a mathematician whose Elements of Geography, is still being used as a textbook in some places today.

Apollonius of Perga (third century BC) wasa mathematician who first demonstrated elliptic, parabolic, and hyperbolic curves. The German astronomer Johannes Kepler (sixteenth-century), who first described the elliptical orbits of planets, can thank Apollonius.

Archimedes of Syracuse (third century BC) is credited with having invented the Archimedes screw, a kind of pump, and many other mechanical devices. Plus discovering the First Principle -- that a solid body immersed in liquid is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the liquid displaced.

Aristarchus of Samos (third century BC) was an astronomer who, 1,700 years before Copernicus, discovered that the earth moves around the sun. Aristachus also argued that day and night are the result of the earth turning on its axis.

Herophilus (around 300 BC) was the first scientist to prove that the brain and not the heart was the organ of thought.

Erastosthenes (third century BC), using only reasoning and his powers of observation, accurately calculated the sizes of the earth, sun, and moon.

Hero, or Heron (first century AD) was an inventor/mathematician. One of his writings describes a steam engine, also said to have written the first book on robots.

And that's just some of the stuff that wasn't destroyed in the Library of Alexandria.

The ancient peoples were a lot smarter than people like to give them credit for. Of course if Christianty had been running Greece at the time of these discoveries, all of these men would have been burned as heretics.

Andorion
29th June 04, 11:04 AM
I don't know many scientists, but let me put it another way: SCIENCE loves to be proven wrong. One particular scientist might be sure about what he's studying, and might be proven wrong by another scientist, but generation after generation, the ultimate goal is to disprove all the false claims and work towards one truth.

This refining of understanding is contrary, of course, to religion. Every religion in the entire history of man is started, followed, maybe modified once or twice by some new documents, then fades away. Every one. Christianity will be no different.

Ouden
29th June 04, 11:19 AM
Unless of course it's the Boasian school of thought, which has been proven wrong countless times, but it's politically incorrect to acknowledge it.

Phrost
29th June 04, 11:20 AM
Common sense is the qualifier. People, no matter who they are or what their career, HATE to be proven wrong. Scientists will often fight to the death that their theories are correct. In fact, if a scientist ever is proven wrong, he is often written off as "the guy who got it wrong". You name ONE scientist who had his theories proven wrong, accepted it willingly and went on to continue research in said field.

Scientists only love being proved wrong in the movies.

Here is a quote for you from http://www.ncsu.edu



NC State has a high ranking Physical/Mathmatical Science academic program.

This is exactly why I used to post here only sparringly, when I had enough time to go over my posts with a fine toothed comb.

Because I chose to use the word "scientists" instead of "science", I gave you an opening to divert attention from the real discussion by allowing you to attack the strawman in the argument.

Here's how these discussions with religious nuts have gone for as long as rational people have tried discussing things with them:

Nut: Jesus is lord, god created the earth in 7 days, and if it's not in the bible, it's not true.

Critical Thinker: So explain dinosaurs.

Nut: ....god put them there to test our faith.

Critical thinker... so your god is fucking with you?

Nut: No, god is pure good and loves everyone equally.

Critical thinker: and that's why he tortures people for eternity for questioning him?

Nut: AHA! Satan is responsible for the torture, not God. Shows what you know!


:shyaa:

Yiktin Voxbane
29th June 04, 12:03 PM
ROFL, well said.

joen00b
29th June 04, 12:34 PM
I use my old stand by:

I've not learned so much as to realize my own ignorance.

Phrost
29th June 04, 12:53 PM
I don't presume to know everything either. I just don't accept faith in the absence of knowledge, and chose to rely on information gathered by those trained in critical thinking as opposed to those who'd have me believe in magic and superstition (Water into wine, resurection, angels, etc.).

Andorion
29th June 04, 01:01 PM
information gathered by those trained in critical thinking

This is a really important point all religious-types totally ignore. I *hate* having any sort of geological dicussion with a creationist, because not only do they only know what they read in some christian pamphlet, but they claim to know ALL and come up with answers to everything, stating them as fact.

I don't study geology, but there are people who have dedicated their lives to studying it, and I take their (combined) word on things. "Studying" is the key word... they don't sit down and philosophise, they do experiments, gather samples, test and refine theories, and share ideas.

~Berj

Bukow
29th June 04, 01:05 PM
Except for all that astronomy, accurate mapping techniques without satellites, math, the ideas for flight, etc?

Hell let's look at ancient Greece alone:

On a sunken Greek ship has been found the earliest working computer, that used a series of gears to plot the stars.

Euclid (fourth century BC) was a mathematician whose Elements of Geography, is still being used as a textbook in some places today.

Apollonius of Perga (third century BC) wasa mathematician who first demonstrated elliptic, parabolic, and hyperbolic curves. The German astronomer Johannes Kepler (sixteenth-century), who first described the elliptical orbits of planets, can thank Apollonius.

Archimedes of Syracuse (third century BC) is credited with having invented the Archimedes screw, a kind of pump, and many other mechanical devices. Plus discovering the First Principle -- that a solid body immersed in liquid is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the liquid displaced.

Aristarchus of Samos (third century BC) was an astronomer who, 1,700 years before Copernicus, discovered that the earth moves around the sun. Aristachus also argued that day and night are the result of the earth turning on its axis.

Herophilus (around 300 BC) was the first scientist to prove that the brain and not the heart was the organ of thought.

Erastosthenes (third century BC), using only reasoning and his powers of observation, accurately calculated the sizes of the earth, sun, and moon.

Hero, or Heron (first century AD) was an inventor/mathematician. One of his writings describes a steam engine, also said to have written the first book on robots.

And that's just some of the stuff that wasn't destroyed in the Library of Alexandria.

The ancient peoples were a lot smarter than people like to give them credit for. Of course if Christianty had been running Greece at the time of these discoveries, all of these men would have been burned as heretics.

Yes, your last paragraph is very important. All of these discoveries were early examples of scientific/mathematical principles being used to investigate the world around us. Greek religion at the time wasn't so overreaching so as to claim it had the final say in ever matter involving natural processes.

Andorion
29th June 04, 01:09 PM
no matter who they are or what their career, HATE to be proven wrong.

Ahh, the very core of what makes all religion stupid :)

"We're right, and if you think we're wrong, you're wrong. We're right. Have proof against something we believe? It's wrong. Your argument against one of our basic beliefs? It's wrong. Why? Because we're right, so a view counter to ours must be wrong."

It's a survival mechanism for any religion - once you start letting your followers question things and explore alternatives, you start losing them, and your religion goes poof.

Sithray
29th June 04, 01:18 PM
Nut: Jesus is lord, god created the earth in 7 days, and if it's not in the bible, it's not true.

Critical Thinker: So explain dinosaurs.

Nut: ....god put them there to test our faith.

Critical thinker... so your god is fucking with you?

Nut: No, god is pure good and loves everyone equally.

Critical thinker: and that's why he tortures people for eternity for questioning him?

Nut: AHA! Satan is responsible for the torture, not God. Shows what you know!


:shyaa:

?? I have never stated any of the above. You pick and choose what you want to attack. Sad way to debate IMO. And you used the term "scientists" in several posts, so it wasn't an "accident" no matter how you wish to spin it off.

Phrost
29th June 04, 01:47 PM
?? I have never stated any of the above. You pick and choose what you want to attack. Sad way to debate IMO. And you used the term "scientists" in several posts, so it wasn't an "accident" no matter how you wish to spin it off.

A. I wasn't attributing the statements to you, and I don't think anyone else misunderstood me to be either.

B. Who's 'picking and chosing' here? You dismissed an entire argument to go after the notion that scientists/science doesn't like to be proven wrong, as if the religious are all about having their ideas questioned. (FAITH!)

C. It was no mistake, it was a miscalculation on my part that allowed you to sneak in an attack. Yes, INDIVIDUAL scientists may not enjoy having theories they've invested a lot of effort into being proven wrong, but collectively "Scientists" or "Science" as a whole, enjoys anything that furthers human knowledge.

You simply managed to attack the humanity of the individual scientists in an attempt to dismiss Science.

D. In light of this, I still am waiting on a serious rebuttal of how you can support a world view shaped by people who believe the writings of individuals who believed in supernatural events, magic, and animal sacrifice, over a world view supported by research, critical thinking, and experimentation to determine a working knowledge of reality free from wild assumption.

Phrost
29th June 04, 01:57 PM
To make it even more simple for you:

I have two groups of people telling me what car I should buy.

Group A is comprised of mechanics, professional race car drivers, and members of the automotive industry.

Group B is comprised of the Amish, Cuna Indians, and Bedouin tribesmen.

Now the members of Group A have spent most of their adult lives studying cars, working on cars, and pushing cars to their limits.

On the other hand, the members of Group B mostly reject cars because they conflict with their world views, but some are familiar enough with them to know a thing or two and not be lost in a car discussion.

In this analogy, Sithray, you're chosing to base your views of automobiles on the ideas put forward by Group B, or as it applies to our greater discussion, Religion.

While I'm chosing to base my views on people who actually know what the fuck they're talking about.

imported_Driz
29th June 04, 02:03 PM
If you asked me, I'd say that the belief in creationism evolved from the reality of evolution.

Early man, up untill a few hundred years ago, had no clue on how to explain the world surrounding them in a manner that made sense. "Where did it all come from?" "WHat purpose does it serve?" "Why am I here?" Basic questions like those (which we still are asking), lacked answers. It's just that now with the advancement in our abilities to take scientific measurements of our surrounding world, We are finding it difficult to reconcile our theological beliefs with scientific facts we are discovering.

Now for me personally, I look at it critically and say to myself, "Evolution was the path, my theological beliefs were the driving force walking us down that path"

Not the best metaphor but the gist is that in my belief set, Evolution was the plan of the higher power I choose to believe in.

-Driz

(just my beliefs, I do not want to debate them, just offering a fresh perspective... I know I could be wrong)

Andorion
29th June 04, 02:18 PM
If you asked me, I'd say that the belief in creationism evolved from the reality of evolution.

Driz, I gotta quote Douglas Adams for ya :) This is from his speech at Digital Biota 2 (http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/)



Where does the idea of God come from? Well, I think we have a very skewed point of view on an awful lot of things, but let’s try and see where our point of view comes from. Imagine early man. Early man is, like everything else, an evolved creature and he finds himself in a world that he’s begun to take a little charge of; he’s begun to be a tool-maker, a changer of his environment with the tools that he’s made and he makes tools, when he does, in order to make changes in his environment. ... Tools have enabled us to think intentionally, to make things and to do things to create a world that fits us better. Now imagine an early man surveying his surroundings at the end of a happy day’s tool making. He looks around and he sees a world which pleases him mightily: behind him are mountains with caves in—mountains are great because you can go and hide in the caves and you are out of the rain and the bears can’t get you; in front of him there’s the forest—it’s got nuts and berries and delicious food; there's a stream going by, which is full of water—water’s delicious to drink, you can float your boats in it and do all sorts of stuff with it; here’s cousin Ug and he’s caught a mammoth—mammoth’s are great, you can eat them, you can wear their coats, you can use their bones to create weapons to catch other mammoths. I mean this is a great world, it’s fantastic. But our early man has a moment to reflect and he thinks to himself, ‘well, this is an interesting world that I find myself in’ and then he asks himself a very treacherous question, a question which is totally meaningless and fallacious, but only comes about because of the nature of the sort of person he is, the sort of person he has evolved into and the sort of person who has thrived because he thinks this particular way. Man the maker looks at his world and says ‘So who made this then?’ Who made this? — you can see why it’s a treacherous question. Early man thinks, ‘Well, because there’s only one sort of being I know about who makes things, whoever made all this must therefore be a much bigger, much more powerful and necessarily invisible, one of me and because I tend to be the strong one who does all the stuff, he’s probably male’. And so we have the idea of a god. Then, because when we make things we do it with the intention of doing something with them, early man asks himself , ‘If he made it, what did he make it for?’ Now the real trap springs, because early man is thinking, ‘This world fits me very well. Here are all these things that support me and feed me and look after me; yes, this world fits me nicely’ and he reaches the inescapable conclusion that whoever made it, made it for him.

This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in—an interesting hole I find myself in—fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.

~Berj

Sithray
29th June 04, 03:10 PM
A. I wasn't attributing the statements to you, and I don't think anyone else misunderstood me to be either.

My bad, sorry.


B. Who's 'picking and chosing' here? You dismissed an entire argument to go after the notion that scientists/science doesn't like to be proven wrong, as if the religious are all about having their ideas questioned. (FAITH!)

I like having my faith questioned. It allows me to get out there and do more research to see if there is an answer on a biblical level. I have yet had my faith shook by someone questioning it. All that has been gained from people asking me about my beliefs, or attacking them, is more faith that what I believe is correct: The universe was created by a sentient being/race of sentient beings who created all life in what WE UNDERSTAND to be the known universe using scientific method.


D. In light of this, I still am waiting on a serious rebuttal of how you can support a world view shaped by people who believe the writings of individuals who believed in supernatural events, magic, and animal sacrifice, over a world view supported by research, critical thinking, and experimentation to determine a working knowledge of reality free from wild assumption.

The bible showed the world was not flat, but circular. It was scientists who thought the world was flat; Or people who believed in pagan gods and thought the earth was on the back of a turtle. Hell, even the greeks thought the earth was round per the images of Atlas holding the "ball of the earth".

The new testament also called for a stop to animal sacrifice, and animal sacrifice was only done with the parts of the animals that would not be eaten. The priests cut the bulls and burned the fatty parts, head etc. Then the priests would eat and the leftovers would be given to the people. The same was done for lambs etc. The only animals that were totally devoured by flame were turtle doves. It's not like pagan rituals where all the people would stand around and chant and kill crap. Most Jewish people probably only witnessed a few of the thousands of saccrifices that happened. If anything, the rituals of the priest class kept fresh cooked meat on the people of Isreals table.

I agree with you that the society we live in was formed based on wrong, unscientific beleifs by people who either misunderstood the bible, or purposefully used it to control others. I think organized religion as we know it is 99% wrong and should be done away with as it simply hinders scientific growth.

I have modified my beliefs several times, and openly accept all scientific theory that has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and I monitor others to see if they are proven. The only thing I disagree with is that we are all here by chance. Random occurances cannot statistically have brought life, as advanced as it is, in the mere 13.5 billion years the universe has been around, especially in the last 500 million given the fossil record.

Could life have come from life (IE one animal became another?) Perhaps "God" used existing creatures to build new life. After all, he used a rib of man (sufficient DNA to clone and genetically alter a human) to create a woman. There would be plenty of science to support a sentient race creating man, but man, in all his arrogance, would rather claim we got here all on our own, and don't need any help with anything.

"Man will dominate man to his own injury, and will continue ruining the earth". "Who is earthly man to direct his own steps?" Words spoken thousands of years ago. Do they ring true? Yes, just look around. The selfish/haughty nature of man will not allow him to accept he may have been created, and that there may be someone/thing out there who "owns" him.

And Science only changes if Scientists work progressively. If Scientists refuse to accept that their theories are wrong, and continue to advertise them as correct (hell just look at all the evolutionist scientists who won't give up on certain theories) how can science advance? Science is only as good as the scientists running it.

Kiko
29th June 04, 04:25 PM
Not getting involved EXCEPT to observe that if religion isn't your bag, fine. Quite honestly, I have to wonder how anyone could FIND faith or convert, but I accept that it's possible. I'm certainly not out to push things on anyone else, it's a personal choice.

What sticks in my craw is the notion that anyone who does believe/have faith/accept religion (which includes being tolerant of OTHER faiths) has to be a brainless sheep to do so. Socially liberal, hmmm?

Bukow
29th June 04, 04:35 PM
What sticks in my craw is the notion that anyone who does believe/have faith/accept religion (which includes being tolerant of OTHER faiths) has to be a brainless sheep to do so. Socially liberal, hmmm?

I don't presume to speak for Phrack -- he does a fine enough job himself -- but if it's his views you're attacking here, I think the criticism falls a little flat. Being "socially liberal" in the sense he uses the word, refers to a political, rather than a moral or epistemic level of judgment. There is nothing inconsistent about saying, "You're totally gullible, but it's your right to be."

Kiko
29th June 04, 04:47 PM
Attacking? Hardly. Just pointing out what I observe.

If the shoe fits, you've kicked me with it. Thank you very much, I've had enough.

Bukow
29th June 04, 05:01 PM
Attacking? Hardly. Just pointing out what I observe.

If the shoe fits, you've kicked me with it. Thank you very much, I've had enough.

Not attacking you, either. I'm just pointing out that I think the criticism was a little misplaced.

Phrost
29th June 04, 05:40 PM
I can already tell this response will be a ginormous, Flareon on CTC circa 1999 - type, 'death by quotations' post. Here we go:


I like having my faith questioned. It allows me to get out there and do more research to see if there is an answer on a biblical level. I have yet had my faith shook by someone questioning it. All that has been gained from people asking me about my beliefs, or attacking them, is more faith that what I believe is correct: The universe was created by a sentient being/race of sentient beings who created all life in what WE UNDERSTAND to be the known universe using scientific method.


Unless this bit is just poorly stated, I wasn't aware the scientific method was used for creating things. Last time I checked, the scientific method was a discovery process designed to eliminate human error, bias, and such in order to arrive at the most likely explanation for an aspect of the natural world.



The bible showed the world was not flat, but circular. It was scientists who thought the world was flat; Or people who believed in pagan gods and thought the earth was on the back of a turtle. Hell, even the greeks thought the earth was round per the images of Atlas holding the "ball of the earth".

A. Please cite the book, chapter, and verse, in which the bible explains the earth is round, and orbiting the sun. The leaders of the religion you endorse used to torch anyone who taught otherwise.

B. Aristotle didn't use the scientific method. In fact, prior to Francis Bacon (from whom I'm allegedly descended *trivia*), there really wasn't much of a scientific method from which to operate. There were hundreds of philosophers, thinkers, geniuses even, but real science didn't begin until he proposed formalized methods for discovery.

C. The last time I checked my history, no "scientists" ever burned someone at the stake for disagreeing with them. That's solely in your court.

Nice strawman though. I didn't mention 'flat earth' anywhere in my post, and somehow you chose this, over walking on water and resurrection, to use as a sign of the bible's scientific viability.



The new testament also called for a stop to animal sacrifice, and animal sacrifice was only done with the parts of the animals that would not be eaten. The priests cut the bulls and burned the fatty parts, head etc. Then the priests would eat and the leftovers would be given to the people. The same was done for lambs etc. The only animals that were totally devoured by flame were turtle doves. It's not like pagan rituals where all the people would stand around and chant and kill crap. Most Jewish people probably only witnessed a few of the thousands of saccrifices that happened. If anything, the rituals of the priest class kept fresh cooked meat on the people of Isreals table.


You're fucking joking, right? Setting doves on fire in private is MUCH less barbaric than having a bunch of people standing around chanting while you do it.

Why did you even bother to respond to this? Did you think that you could somehow justify ritualized slaughter somehow as anything other than primitive by explaining that "oh, they ate it too". I'll make sure I pass on your insights to the editors of Serial Killer Weekly to help their readers out when they get busted for hacking up someone's kids.



I agree with you that the society we live in was formed based on wrong, unscientific beleifs by people who either misunderstood the bible, or purposefully used it to control others. I think organized religion as we know it is 99% wrong and should be done away with as it simply hinders scientific growth.


Fair enough. You can help out by clearing your mind of all your assumptions and beliefs, and starting to examine everything critically.

You can't have it both ways.



I have modified my beliefs several times, and openly accept all scientific theory that has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and I monitor others to see if they are proven. The only thing I disagree with is that we are all here by chance. Random occurances cannot statistically have brought life, as advanced as it is, in the mere 13.5 billion years the universe has been around, especially in the last 500 million given the fossil record.

You disagree with Evolution, which 96% of scientists consider to be irrefutable fact, proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The only doubts to it, are completely unreasonable.

Science doesn't understand how we came to be, but they're trying to figure it out. Religion, on the other hand, pretends to know exactly how it happened, and the explanation is worse than something I'd explain to a 4 year old.



Could life have come from life (IE one animal became another?) Perhaps "God" used existing creatures to build new life. After all, he used a rib of man (sufficient DNA to clone and genetically alter a human) to create a woman. There would be plenty of science to support a sentient race creating man, but man, in all his arrogance, would rather claim we got here all on our own, and don't need any help with anything.

And then where did this sentient race of which you speak come from?



"Man will dominate man to his own injury, and will continue ruining the earth". "Who is earthly man to direct his own steps?" Words spoken thousands of years ago. Do they ring true? Yes, just look around. The selfish/haughty nature of man will not allow him to accept he may have been created, and that there may be someone/thing out there who "owns" him.

Man is what man is; a creature stumbling around in the darkness trying to find out what's around him, and occasionally banging his head against something. If you feel you need to delude yourself into believing there is a higher purpose for everything to give your life meaning and structure, so be it. Just don't get the notion in your head that the rest of us should be subjected to your self-imposed moral strictures.

Not everyone feels the need to have a cosmic mommy/daddy to sanction their existence... just those who are afraid of the dark.

I'll give it to you though, you're definately "owned" in this discussion. I wouldn't go so far as to call me your "god" though.

Sithray
29th June 04, 06:14 PM
...seriously, I am the king of circular logic.

Round and round we go, where we land no one knows.

Are you a fucking retard Phrack? I know you are smarter than this? A few posts you just made prove my point that:

A: You have never read the bible
B: You refuse to question your own beliefs
C: Your debating skills (if you ever had any) are below par for the course
D: You have never read a post I have made in the past concerning my beliefs or scriptures I have used that support science.
E: You attack what you think are wrong beliefs, when in fact I think they are wrong beliefs as well, then you try to act like I am teaching said beliefs.

Conversations with you are no longer about religion and science, but instead they are about how much can Phrack talk before people just give up and actually think he is the meat head he proffesses to be.

You yourself said religous people back then though the earth was flat. I quoted you! Memory banks running low on memory?

Read the book of Job. The circle of the earth, the movement of the earth (rotation? orbiting?) It is all there. Long before science proved Job right he said it. Even in Genesis it called the earth a circle. The Hebrew word for "circle" can be translated into ball as well or sphere if you will.

The bible is scientifically accurate in all accounts. From the order of life coming to the planet, to the formation of the planet itself. Science that wasn't proven for thousands of years, including the idea that the mind controlled the body and not the heart, the earth being circle, the earth moving (be that rotation or orbiting) is all documented in a book THOUSANDS of years old.

I base my belief in the bible on Science, and that there is NO WAY the scribes of the bible could have known such things without a higher intelligence.

Prophecies foretold hundreds/thousands of years in advance that we can see came true.

I am not going to waste any more time on you Phrack, as debating with you has become completly boring. You use the same material over and over and over, even though it never applies.

When it comes to insults and tounge lashings, sure, you have an edge, but when it comes to religion and science you are far worse than any extreme creationist could ever hope to be.

Andorion
29th June 04, 06:27 PM
Sithray, I understand you and Phrack live in the LA area? Lets hook up for some beers sometime :)

/derail

Phrost
29th June 04, 06:30 PM
Round and round we go, where we land no one knows.

Are you a fucking retard Phrack? I know you are smarter than this? A few posts you just made prove my point that:

A: You have never read the bible
B: You refuse to question your own beliefs
C: Your debating skills (if you ever had any) are below par for the course
D: You have never read a post I have made in the past concerning my beliefs or scriptures I have used that support science.
E: You attack what you think are wrong beliefs, when in fact I think they are wrong beliefs as well, then you try to act like I am teaching said beliefs.

Conversations with you are no longer about religion and science, but instead they are about how much can Phrack talk before people just give up and actually think he is the meat head he proffesses to be.

You yourself said religous people back then though the earth was flat. I quoted you! Memory banks running low on memory?

Read the book of Job. The circle of the earth, the movement of the earth (rotation? orbiting?) It is all there. Long before science proved Job right he said it. Even in Genesis it called the earth a circle. The Hebrew word for "circle" can be translated into ball as well or sphere if you will.

The bible is scientifically accurate in all accounts. From the order of life coming to the planet, to the formation of the planet itself. Science that wasn't proven for thousands of years, including the idea that the mind controlled the body and not the heart, the earth being circle, the earth moving (be that rotation or orbiting) is all documented in a book THOUSANDS of years old.

I base my belief in the bible on Science, and that there is NO WAY the scribes of the bible could have known such things without a higher intelligence.

Prophecies foretold hundreds/thousands of years in advance that we can see came true.

I am not going to waste any more time on you Phrack, as debating with you has become completly boring. You use the same material over and over and over, even though it never applies.

When it comes to insults and tounge lashings, sure, you have an edge, but when it comes to religion and science you are far worse than any extreme creationist could ever hope to be.

I was the Bible Trivia champion at age 12 of a certain Methodist church in central Texas, thank you very much.

I like how you disregarded everything I said and went straight for an ad hominem, attacking how I posted rather than what I posted.

Again, I'm asking you to address my specific questions. I'll repeat them here so you don't get lost:

1. What possible evidence do you have to support this?


The universe was created by a sentient being/race of sentient beings who created all life in what WE UNDERSTAND to be the known universe using scientific method.

2. You're fucking joking, right?


The new testament also called for a stop to animal sacrifice, and animal sacrifice was only done with the parts of the animals that would not be eaten. The priests cut the bulls and burned the fatty parts, head etc. Then the priests would eat and the leftovers would be given to the people. The same was done for lambs etc. The only animals that were totally devoured by flame were turtle doves. It's not like pagan rituals where all the people would stand around and chant and kill crap. Most Jewish people probably only witnessed a few of the thousands of saccrifices that happened. If anything, the rituals of the priest class kept fresh cooked meat on the people of Isreals table.

3. Where then did this sentient race of which you speak come from? Did they have a creator as well?


There would be plenty of science to support a sentient race creating man, but man, in all his arrogance, would rather claim we got here all on our own, and don't need any help with anything.

All I want is answers to questions about things YOU said. What is so hard about this?

And since we're making neat little lists:

Sithray, apparently:

1. Holds the Bible as scientifically accurate.

2. Believes in a bastardized form of Christianity unique to himself and/or possibly his homeschooled tribe of relatives.

3. Flirts with the idea of Science being a good thing up until the point where it starts to intrude on his beliefs.

4. Stared dumbfounded as my overesimplified car analogy flew well over his head.

But hey, if you want to ask the Amish for advice about cars, it's your right to do so.

Amish lover.

Phrost
29th June 04, 06:31 PM
Sithray, I understand you and Phrack live in the LA area? Lets hook up for some beers sometime :)

/derail

I live in the KC area. I used to live in the Bay circa 2001 though.

Sithray
29th June 04, 06:32 PM
Sithray, I understand you and Phrack live in the LA area? Lets hook up for some beers sometime :)

/derail

I live in the LA area and would LOVE it if Phrack lived here too :( But I think he lives in KC, MO. I am being serious too. Phrack is the kind of person I like hanging out with. I am all about having "leader" friends. "follower" friends suck ass.

Drink on me tomorrow night if you want to hook up in LA somewhere.

Phrost
29th June 04, 06:35 PM
If I'm ever in LA again I'll hook up with you guys. Just keep me away from tequila and everything will be fine.

Chantress
2nd July 04, 09:25 AM
heh, hehehehehehe, hehe.

You know, I can think of one or maybe two posts where I actually initiated this type of conversation. In the VAST majority of threads that I post in I am correcting errors or inaccuracies that other people post to start these types of dicussions. The funny thing is, I become the scapegoat for these kinds of discussions, and I RARELY start them.