yes they *almost* managed to undo all the bad that they caused/was carried out in their name...Originally Posted by SiM
Evolution = unproven "best hypothesis" Theory we have.
Genesis gets disproven by the Dino babies, thus reducing the actual credability of the big book to less than Zero.
Once Zero is attained, you see how utterly pointless everything carried out in my first line of this post becomes.
asside from the lack of understanding of mathametical and logical proof (hence see hte induction method linked).
Guppys are very similar to angel fish, they both evolved, sorry blinked into existance, in the same lake (boy is it a big lake) they're freshwater fish, and rather amazingly diverse. I've some angels in my tank that are about 8 times the size of the little ones, in all sorts of colours.
but the funny thing is, they're very very similar biologically to the guppies. They're both in the Cichlid family. So is that not cross specie? i guess you could argue not and it would just be a colour/size change.
but where do you put these goal posts?
did god design just the basic cichlid and let them elvolve upto the mirriad we have today?
I think you'll agree a neon tetra and a glowlight tetra have evolved from the same tetra ancestor, but why then is it not possible that that ancestor evolved from one basic cichlid?
Why must there be a line that evolution can not cross? There isn't any evidence to say there is one? I've got a very tangable fishtank that shows this.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
You know what the problem is, when you get right down to it, when you get right into the heart of the matter.
The problem is this, and this is it - it is:
Fuddam, KoolPC and 'them' deep down, deep, deep down, know that the athiests are correct. Or, more correctly, they know that in the cold light of day, the athiest viewpoint, such as no afterlife etc, are 99.99% likely to be true.
This nugget of information lives inside them, in much the same way as the nugget of info that says 'you are going to die someday' lives inside us athiests. They hates it. They can't stands it.
It is always there, growing, like a cancer or a Yukka plant, and nothing can be done about it. 99.99% chance that there is no God, no afterlife. But to admit this is to face death in the... well in the face, and given the choice of a quick trip to heaven to play blow football with Laurel and Hardy, or the rest of time as nothing... which would you choose?
Fuddam knows he will die, be buried, and decompose. I know this as well. I can handle this, Fuddam cracked under the pressure and his mind went wondering, looking for a sort of cosmic get out of jail free card.
Praise the Lord, its a miracle! I'm going to heaven!
Of course you are mate, of course you are...
yes that was a lot easier to convince people back in the stick shaking days, when the World was a basin, when the Sun revolved around the world, and the ability to love thy neighbour through tolerating their ideals vs your own was simply not a palatable idea....
Do you not think it exceptionally, and i do mean extremely strange that there was such a MASSIVE hive of activity 2000-3000 years ago, you know, the Burning Bush, a Son of ***, so many stories, prophets, actions, plagues, etc all direct handywork of ***
Yet since then he has abandoned all humans without regard?
Explain to me why, a loving *** would set out some rules, for only his chosen people, hang around, and then disappear never to be heard of again?
Why has there has been such a time lapse? Why the secrecy? why not update the rules to live by? and why not get the world to obey the same rule set (all powerful knowing then how disparate different sects would become if they were allowed to run by differet rules, which could be used to attack each other, to shame the name of their lords?
to me that seems a little crazy? because as i alluded to, it was easier to convince people of what was, and seemingly, what was not very easily, using freak natural occurances and attributing them to nothing other than their sects particular lord!
You have not supplied my any evidence for any of these assertions, your just saying the same thing over and over. Your argument hinges on your own personal unverifiable experience which is really convenient for you but you know which kind of path I will take to challenge this issue and involves your own mental health. As we have covered that one several times I will leave it there.
Hummm, I disagree in fact. I know that everything I feel is just a result of chemicals and hormones in my brain. If I were to create a 'voodoo love doll' I would simply need to create it with the right mix of brain chemicals and bob is your uncle, its exactly the same! That was kind of my point, if your omnipotent you can arrange anything any way you want and it would be exactly the same as if they decided it. That's kind of the point in omnipotence isn't it?creating a utopia? well, see below, seeing as it's related to your subsequent question:
it does, IF you consider that the reason for creation is relationship. It's all about relationship. If you made the hamsters and made them love you, what kind of relationship would that be? Would you appreciate it? I know a lotta peeps make endless 3D virtual girlfriends in 3D apps, with perfect proportions to their taste, but somehow I'm sure they find them somewhat....lacking
likewise, if you could MAKE your perfect partner love you, would you want that? i.e. you could flick a switch / use some voodoo love doll, and he/she would love you instantly and forevermore, would that be as good as if he/she CHOSE to love you?
there you have it. God is not and has never been lonely. He was in perfect relationship in his trinity before he made us/everything, but for reasons that are only given as love, he chose to make us, to love him. And we have to be able to choose otherwise.
[/quote]
Right, again, where is your evidence that there is an afterlife at all? I just hear you asserting that there is an afterlife but there is no way you can prove that there is. I however can explain that all of your thoughts and mental process occur in the brain and that when you die your brain will rot and all the connections and chemicals and brain cells that make you 'you' will be gone. Your idea requires some sort of invisible lifeforce that is impossible to detect on any MRI, CAT-scan or just good old dissection. In light of the fact that no such lifeforce has been observed I will go with the more plausible explanation that there isn't one. The fact that there is no afterlife, kind of makes your second and third statements pointless doesn't it?
HEXUS FOLDING TEAM It's EASY
Most ironic comment I have read all week!
HEXUS FOLDING TEAM It's EASY
when he died, he was separated from God. For someone who is God, to be separated from God (as crazy as it sounds), is the worst thing imaginable. That is why Christ 'sweated blood' in the garden of Gesthemane, NOT because He was scared of the physical suffering to come. He spent His 33 years preparing for His crucifixition. He asked for the cup to be passed from his lips (if you know the scriptures) because the spiritual torment to come was so terrifying. Was one reason Gibson's POTC was so much better than the BBC Passion showed this last week - the BBC version had no spiritual depth, whereas Gibson's Christ was determined, during the pain and torment, to see it through.
Why is God a trinity (not just a father & son)? No-one can answer that, but millions can testify to its reality.
understood and appreciated, but at the same time, I have *plenty* of evidence for God's existence, but seeing as skeptics don't accept the evidence (it threatens their worldview), we're talking them apples and oranges again.
I did go back and have a look but the thread is moving fast. I'll try my reading skills again.
Edit: Yes on post #26. Do you have any comment on how they are teaching and the environment they are in?
The guppy and the angel fish will share a common ancestor some time in the past (how far back I don't know). If you think like you have stated then you are misunderstanding a basic principle of evolution. I think of it a a huge tree, the trunk being the "first organism" and the branches being the "sub-species" and the leaves being what we have today. They are all connected to the trunk but some come from different branches and some from twigs of branches.
Remember that it is the environment which dictates which random mutations will be of benefit to the organism in that environment. Take organism A. Shove it in two slightly different environments and organism A will adapt to each of the two environments. Over a huge period of time each organism adapts to each environment to such an extent that the two become new species and not able to breed with one another.
Last edited by iranu; 25-03-2008 at 06:28 PM. Reason: Edit - to find fuddams post.
"Reality is what it is, not what you want it to be." Frank Zappa. ----------- "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." Huang Po.----------- "A drowsy line of wasted time bathes my open mind", - Ride.
depends on your interpretation of Genesis. Just like evolution, there are many viewpoints......
Fuddam,
I'd love to hear your response to my last post further up.
The thing with Religion/Science, which just hit me is this:
You have a group of people, who dedicate their life to Religion, be it Hindu, Christinaity or whatever else. They will obviously back Religion.
You have another group of people, who dedicate their life to Science. They research and prove their work the best they can. They will obviously back Science.
Then you have people like me, who isn't religious and doesn't partake in experiments or know a huge amount about science of religion.
You know what I back? Science. As I imagine most other people do who don't know much about either. Why? Because Science makes sense. Religion may as well be part of a Harry Potter novel.
I understand the theory well enough, as you have explained it. However, the missing linkage is the problem. Between all species, in fact........
No, evolution is very simple, and everyone agrees with the 'rules'.
The fittest specicies prosper.
no one ever tries to doubt that, only change the definition of fittest etc.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
hear hear.
science (along with most things) should be taught, full stop, not taught as right, wrong, or according to the teacher's opinion.On the actual topic: What do you think of the video, should the most basic of science be taught to kids as 'wrong' by a creationist?
& here's where i say pity they don't get to appreciate their lot more, what with us humans having them for dinner (well the pigs, anyway, & I suppose the snails - the dolphins mostly just have to put up with people wanting to swim with them.)
*it's what we're programmed for, but what the ultimate point of that is, escapes me.. (quick cross-topic quote)that's what i say.
Last edited by sammyc; 25-03-2008 at 06:47 PM.
will get around to it as soon as I have time
you forgot the others: people who back science AND Christianity (I purposely did not say religion)Then you have people like me, who isn't religious and doesn't partake in experiments or know a huge amount about science of religion.
You know what I back? Science. As I imagine most other people do who don't know much about either. Why? Because Science makes sense. Religion may as well be part of a Harry Potter novel.
eg: Answers for Atheists and Agnostics
nope, we have to take it down to the nitty gritty: when one species changes to another, not simply that one species triumphs over another
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
