Evolution Sucks!
POSTED BY: dougp59
UPDATED: Monday, July 27, 2026 16:36
VIEWED: 32434
PAGE 1 of 2
Please checkout my new website www.evolutionsucks.org
The war against evolution intensifies!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, you've shown the true colors "inteligent designerists": it's a "war on evolution". Thanks for confirming that.
So, your questions...
Hmmm... you're looking for fossils of bacteria? Trust me, you won't find them. Being soft critters, they don't fossilize too well.
Many of your questions have to do with transitional fossils. I'll address them all at once. It's likely that new species developed in geographically isolated areas undergoing intense environmental change. The selection process was accelerated. It wasn't until these geographic areas became united with other areas and the new species became establised that fossils were created. But specifically about dinosuars and birds: You haven't heard of archaeopteryx? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archeopteryx Also, some biologists are noew wondering whether dinosaurs weren't actually more bird-like that initally thought. Some recent finds that included details of dino skin show a "gooseflesh" -type pattern inidicating the possible presence of feathers.
What does the speed of light have to do with evolution? May as well ask about gravity, too while you're at it. Call it "intelligent falling". www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
I have some questions for YOU:
How do you explain the presence of fossils?
How do you explain genetic similarities between so many animals, including highly conserved sequences where chlorophyl looks a lot like hemoglobin?
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I do not doubt that fossils are real.
As to your post, you obviously are referring to punctuated equilibrium, an attempt to get around the fact that transitional fossils do not exist in the fossil record.
So for lack of physical evidence, you by faith, believe in something that can't be seen in the fossil record. That almost sounds religious. :)
Here's a question for you.
Evolution says simpler life evolved into more complex life via natural selection.
What biological evolutionary process has been shown to be able to INCREASE the information in the DNA molecule?
As to Archaeopteryx, well, allow me to quote
Dr. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself.
“Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”
Sorry, linking to a Wikipedia article is clearly trumped by Dr. Feduccia's quote. The link http://www.bio.unc.edu/faculty/feduccia/ clearly places him at the Univerisity and as an evolutionist to beat.
His quote is really quite damning.
As to the speed of light, well, isn't an old universe needed in a evolutionary cosmology?
Well, since you referenced Wikipedia, I will now...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light
If the speed of light has NOT been a constant since DAY ONE (irregardles of when that was), then the whole of evolutionary cosmology collapses!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Other than the title of your website (which I choose to take rather tongue-in-cheek), I like that your site attempts to rationally discuss the issue, rather than simply declaring that you are right and we are wrong. In that spirit, I will answer your questions from my point of view (that of an atheist who firmly believes in evolution):
Question #1 Can you show the transitional fossils that prove ANY of this? - I am not sure about the specific fossils in question (the Mesonychids to Whale), but there are loads of transitional fossils that show the transitions between fish and reptile, reptile and bird, apes to humans, etc. Just because we don't have a specific fossil for EVERY transition doesn't mean that the theory is invalid.
Question #2 If we are prepared to say that an inference of intelligence detected from far away originating radio waves must be proof of intelligent life (the designer of the radio signal), then why is an inference of intelligence in complex living systems here on earth not proof of an intelligent designer of that complex system? - A signal from an intelligent alien species would not be an inference of intelligence, it would be evidence of it. There is no evidence of an intelligent "designer" on Earth, or anywhere else in the universe as yet. I would define evidence of this as something which could not be explained through natural causes, which has not been found.
Does this sound like a double standard? - I would say no, because scientists are merely searching for signs of intelligence - they have not claimed to find it or know what it might be. Nobody is saying that ID proponents cannot search for evidence of their theory, either.
Question #3 Given the large numbers of species in the fossil record extant in Cambrian fossil beds, explain why fossil beds beneath them are devoid of transitional fossils? What mechanism was responsible for this vast array of species suddenly appearing in the fossil record? - a logical explanation would be that the primitive life had developed to a point where it became very efficient, through some leap in evolution. Having little or no predators and an abundance of natural resources, it is not difficult to assume that a life form could thrive exponentially.
Question #4 Can you show the transitional fossils for all THREE of these GIANT steps of evolution? As I mentioned before, there is a lot of evidence for these transitions, but possibly not every single organism between. (Another poster sited the archaeopterix above.) This is where thought and extrapolation comes in. A crime scene investigator does not need a videotape proving every crime he or she investigates, since they can make determinations based on DNA samples and carpet fibers. Same thing here. (Again, i would ask - can a proponent of ID show ANY evidence at all supporting their theory?)
Question #5 Can you prove empirically that the speed of light has remained constant since the beginning of time? - I am not sure if anyone can empirically prove this yet, although the majority of scientists agree on the general age of the universe. If scientific evidence is obtained that says the universe is the Biblical age of 5000 years, than this question may be relevent to the evolution debate. Currently, it is not.
Question #6 The theory of evolution says that less complex organisms evolved into more complex life forms. How could the Bacterial Flagellum have evolved from a lower life form? What is its' transitional fossil? - The scientific theory to explain this is that the flagellum may have evolved for a different purpose, and was merely co-opted into its current purpose. I'm sure you will admit that transitional fossils for small, squishy life forms like bacteria are difficult at best to obtain, so obviously it is difficult to find the exact fossil to prove every case. However, absence of a particular fossil by no means invalidates the theory, or lends any more weight to the Intelligent Design theory.It is just an area where speculation will have to do for now.
Qu
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Then they must be God's practical joke on us, eh?
I do not doubt that fossils are real.
Quote:There are several lines of evidence pointing to evolution. One is the fossil record itself. The other is the conservation of critical portions of DNA. In fact, I have thought about the evolution of humans specifically which illustrates the process of punctuated equilibrium. Some day, if you decide to open your mind, I'll take the trouble to type it up.
As to your post, you obviously are referring to punctuated equilibrium, an attempt to get around the fact that transitional fossils do not exist in the fossil record. So for lack of physical evidence, you by faith, believe in something that can't be seen in the fossil record. That almost sounds religious. :)
Quote:There are all kinds of ways that DNA can be expanded and modified. Some gets accidentally repeated. Viruses and stuff leave bits of their own DNA in ours. And then there are mutations. Bacteria actually exchange DNA. The process is most notable in drug resistance. But it has been re-created in computer simulations.
Evolution says simpler life evolved into more complex life via natural selection. What biological evolutionary process has been shown to be able to INCREASE the information in the DNA molecule?
Quote:Here is the latest:
“Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”
www.sciencenews.org/articles/20051015/fob1.asp
www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc98/6_27_98/fob1.htm
www.sciencenews.org/pages/search_results.asp
Just google up archaeopteryx.
Quote:Not really.
His quote is really quite damning.
Quote:There is probably something wrong in the theory of cosmology and the "big bang" theory. Not being a "big bangist" myself, I'm not troubled by inconsistancies but am really curious to see what new paradigm will emerge. Still, no matter how you look at the universe, if you take all of the evidence and put it together (you know, decay rates of radioactive elements, birth and death of stars, galaxy formation, evidence of billions of years of sedimentation on the earth) its really really old. Older than you can conceive. And since your mind seems to be rather limited, you would rather junk all of the data and simplify the universe to an easily-understood mantra: "God done it". Well, that's enough arguing for today. I have a busy real life.
As to the speed of light, well, isn't an old universe needed in a evolutionary cosmology?
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm really curious as to how anyone can justify believing an argument that sounds so stupid.
"The Invisible Space Wizard Did It!"
Of course!
That must be it!
How could we be so blind?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Erm, Natural Selection is a pretty firm theory. Evolution as a whole, not so much. But then it's still a hell of a lot firmer than intelligent design, as is VSL, yet most physicists discount that too. Mainly because it’s not as firm either in theory or experimental evidence as Relativity, I imagine.
Just one thing, you say evolution sucks because it has flaws, which it does, well done. But you seem to be suggesting we replace it with intelligent design, which is one big flaw with not even a scientific theory, let alone evidence to back it up.
It's a belief system, not a science.
Quote:
Originally posted by dougp59:
What biological evolutionary process has been shown to be able to INCREASE the information in the DNA molecule?
Firstly your making a big mistake there, more complex organisms don't necessarily have more DNA. An Onion has 12 times more DNA than you do, and amoebas have 200 times the Genome of a Human. So in order to get more complex forms of life you DO NOT need more DNA.
Secondly to answer your question bacteria increase their DNA all the time. When a cell dies it's cell wall becomes ruptured, and the cells contents is released into the environment. Nearby bacteria can absorb this DNA, thus gaining DNA.
Viruses that attack cells can also transfer DNA between cells. There's plenty of biological ways that extra genetic information can be incorporated into a cell.
Quote:
As to the speed of light, well, isn't an old universe needed in a evolutionary cosmology?
Yeees... Now prove the universe isn't that old.
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light
Nothing there that has anything to do with either the age of the universe or evolution.
Quote:
If the speed of light has NOT been a constant since DAY ONE (irregardles of when that was), then the whole of evolutionary cosmology collapses!
We can all make nonsensical post hoc comments.
If I had a penny god doesn't exist.
Oh look, a penny.
If blue is a colour then Turnips are triangles.
See?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
ID a belief system and not a Science?!
What do you do for a living? Are you a scientist?
If not, than how can you refute what all the scientists involved in ID research are doing?!?!
Talk about a closed mind!
Yikes!!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A variable speed of light (VSL) is the concept that the speed of light may not be constant over time. This has several implications for physics. [1] This concept is used by VSL cosmologies to explain observations usually explained by the inflationary models, but they can also explain other cosmological problems. [2] A changing speed of light and our current view of relativity are not compatible.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dougp59:
ID a belief system and not a Science?!
What do you do for a living? Are you a scientist?
If not, than how can you refute what all the scientists involved in ID research are doing?!?!
Talk about a closed mind!
Yikes!!!
You say this, but do not respond to any of the points raised above, and do not offer any evidence to support your claims.
I agree. Yikes!
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nice response. Though I disagree with your answers. Your post was the first that did not contain an insult of some kind.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Not at all.
Intelligent Design is a reworking of creationism pre-supposing the existence of a deity or creator for which there is no proof, for which there CAN be no proof. Intelligent Design is based on something that can not be proved, scientific theories are based on something that may be proved or disproved.
To say Intelligent Design is a science is indicative of someone who doesn't really understand 'science', nor really understands the underlying theories of evolution.
Oh, and I've never actually seen anyone with real scientific credentials advocate ID.
ID has no supporting evidence, and for all your attacks on evolution it is far better supported by demonstrate able evidence. I've certainly seen nothing in the way of a workable real world theory for ID.
Unless modern scientific theory is along the lines of "yeah, we can't explain that bit, so god did it.".
I basically answered your question about how genetic material can be added, how a DNA strand can grow as you put it and you ignore it. Maybe that passage didn't register because it ran contrary to the doctrine you've had ingrained on you since birth.
You pick one tiny part of my post and rubbish the rest on the flimsy proposition that scientist are involved in ID, ergo it is science, ergo my entire post is wrong.
Nice reasoning there, would you like me to explain the meaning of Post Hoc analysis?
Quote:
A variable speed of light (VSL) is the concept that the speed of light may not be constant over time.
Thank you I know what the VSL theory is, and if I didn't I can read, quite well actually, and I did read the link you provided.
Quote:
This has several implications for physics. [1] This concept is used by VSL cosmologies to explain observations usually explained by the inflationary models, but they can also explain other cosmological problems.
So? What does that have to do with evolution or ID? How does this prove that VSL is correct?
Quote:
[2] A changing speed of light and our current view of relativity are not compatible.
No, really? I probably know that better than you, since I actually understand Relativity. The difference is that Relativity is supported by experimental and observable evidence. VSL isn't. Oh but we aren't supposed to go with evidence, right? We want to go with the theory that most closely fits our preconceived notions. That's what’s being 'open minded' is all about, huh.
Quote:
Talk about a closed mind!
Yikes!!!
Let me get this straight. I'm close minded because I think a theory with a fair degree of evidence is more reasonable than one with none? So you are open minded because you ignore the facts and jump on the bandwagon of an unsupported baseless theory because it fits the bible better?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Nice response. Though I disagree with your answers. Your post was the first that did not contain an insult of some kind.
I can only assume your refering to SPIKEANDJEZEBEL here.
Just remember you've not been polite to anyone here who dares to have a different point of view to you're ideas. Take a look at your responce to Signym after his reasonable post.
If you're getting insults maybe you want to look to your own responces.
But you carry on playing the victim card, there's a good brave little Christian soldier.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, I'll take some of the blame for degenerating this conversation. I'e been through this more than once, and it gets old fast. The purpose of science is to be able to explain observed phenomena. But 'intelligent explains' nothing. Not only that, it requires that a great deal of obervation be chucked out the window. I haven't heard Doug's explanation for how fossils came to exist, or how light travels through the universe. All I hear is a lot of whinging about gaps. And you know what? Science will ALWAYS be incomplete. Until we know everything about everything (doubtful) science will always have gaps, unexplained facets, inconsistancies. It merely tells us our knowledge is incomplete and that we need to look further or imagine more brilliantly. That is its strength not its weakness.
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And for more enlightenment:
http://www.venganza.org/
'Nuff said.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"That's what governments are for, [to] get in a man's way." -- Malcolm Reynolds
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Arguing with a Fundamentalist is like wrestling in the mud with a pig. You can never pin down the slippery little feller. All you get is dirty and the pig enjoys it.
Jaytee
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I will never understand Intelligent Design because when I try to think of what an intelligent designer would do, if making a world with life on it, I come up with the following:
The designer would make a world in such a way that life would arise on it (why make a world and life when you can just make the world and have it make life?) and have that life exist in such a way that it adapted to changes in its surroundings and bettered itself with each passing generation. What's more this process, let's call it "evolution," would be seamless in that it would never show the hand of the designer because doing so would mean shoddy workmanship and the need for last minute repairs.
The problem is that this goes contrary to everything the Intelligent Design advocates say, they think that their Intelligent Designer made the world, and made life, but did such a bad job that he, she or it had to go back and fix things thus leaving empirically detectible evidence. Why not just make a good world on the first try? Why not make it so that the life you want will be created on its own within the rules you already set up? Why make things twenty steps more complex than they need to be?
I have no problem with people believing in god, I have no problem with people not believing in god, and I have no problem with people being undecided. But why believe in a god who can't work within his own rules? If god made the laws of physics why break them? And if the type of god these people believe in does not break the laws of physics there can be no evidence for god's existence because everything would be in accordance with nature. No evidence means no place in science be it real or not.
I get that there is a place for faith, the truth is you need faith for everything, even science requires faith. But after you take that leap of faith, in this case, "There is a god," I think you should use logic to evaluate what to believe about it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JayTee:
Arguing with a Fundamentalist is like wrestling in the mud with a pig. You can never pin down the slippery little feller. All you get is dirty and the pig enjoys it.
Jaytee
Yeah, but if you keep your sense of humor arguing with a fundamentalist can be a reminder of what a hoopy frood you are.
[Edited to add:] I should point that this is purely hypothetical for me, I am neither hoopy nor a frood.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
""The Invisible Space Wizard Did It!"
Blasphemy! We all KNOW it was the flying spaghetti monster!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
www.vengaza.org
~~~~~
"Funny and sexy. You have no idea. And you never will."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I am of course assuming this is a joke, and Doug is intentionally cruising for a bruising. So I won't bother, but this I thought was interesting.
Quote:
What biological evolutionary process has been shown to be able to INCREASE the information in the DNA molecule?
I know the answer to this one, and I'll get back to it in a second.
This, on the otherhand, is patently false:
Quote:
If the speed of light has NOT been a constant since DAY ONE (irregardles of when that was), then the whole of evolutionary cosmology collapses!
The speed of light is only marginally variable, the larger flucuation is in the energy of light, but neither one impact the idea of scalar evolution at all. They cause big bang theory to collapse, but so what, big bang theory is flawed. The degree to which scientists want to see big bang as impacting our universe is at least quasi-religious if not totally deist. In reality, bangs can occur, but the all of existance does not owe itself to a big bang.
But back to the question, to which I know the answer. Random amino acids bond to form random strings, which started the first self-repicating strands. Lifeforms evolve, strands grow, and get clipped, and in time have become stored in large databanks, microorganisms which themselves contain absurd quantities of DNA.
The specific mechanism by which new genes are added to an extant strand of DNA is reverse transcription, which is carried out by an enzyme called reverse transcriptase. Signym and Citizen already alluded to this. Half of the rest of you out there already knew this, and are kicking yourselves for not having said it first :)
But here's something you may not know: Micro-organisms and some simple parasites and insects can inject vectors for reverse transcription of gene sequences, and in so doing, alter the genetic code of other organisms. This is more than likely a far more powerful influence on the development of species than random mutation.
It DOES NOT, however, in any way alter the fact of natural selection. Those coded sequences, whether pre-written, stolen from other organisms or randomly assembled from spare parts - must compete through natural selection for dominance.
An interesting side note. This closely resembles the way a true free-market capitalist system would work, therefore it is an immitation of nature. By contrast, socialism is the top down introduction of a set of utopian solutions dreamt up by groups of intellectuals latey called 'think tanks.' Ergo, socialism is Intelligent Design economics.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dougp59:
Evolution says simpler life evolved into more complex life via natural selection.
Just thought I'd throw this little tidbit into the fray:
The theory of evolution does not state that a simple lifeform will evolve to become more complex via natural selection. Natural selection results in selective pressure that will favor the survival of one trait over another. This trait could however be something we might consider simpler or more primitive. Evolution is a pretty random process that sometimes -appears- to be fairly directed due to natural selection (e.g. becoming more complex often is advantageous).
- JIB
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have to point out that the flying spaghetti monster page contains a drastic innaccuracy:
Good old fashion piracy on the high seas is actually at an all time historical high. Furthermore, it's highest where the water is warmest.
Think about it, far more wealth is being shipped over seas by boat than ever has been before, this should hardly be a surprise, but the logical conclusion.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My question is this. If the argument is that nothing as complex as the universe could exist without a designer, who designed the designer, since he must be at least as complex as his creation and nothing that complex can "just happen?"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sorry, but I guess I don't get out much anymore and I live under a rock. Could you possibly enlighten me as to what the heck a "hoopy frood" is?
Jaytee
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Then they must be God's practical joke on us, eh?
I do not doubt that fossils are real.
Most of the science here discussed is somewhat over my head (or, at the least, yawn-inducing). But I would like to point out that creationist is not necessarily young-earth creationist. They are two different camps of the creation theory split largely on philosophical/hermeneutical lines (vs scientific ones). Being that I find the case for old-earth creationism much more compelling, I just wanted to make sure that the difference is respected.
________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by UnregisteredCompanion:
""The Invisible Space Wizard Did It!"
Blasphemy! We all KNOW it was the flying spaghetti monster!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
www.vengaza.org
~~~~~
"Funny and sexy. You have no idea. And you never will."
the sad part is that the spahetti monster guys are kidding.
the space wizard guys aren't
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
My question is this. If the argument is that nothing as complex as the universe could exist without a designer, who designed the designer, since he must be at least as complex as his creation and nothing that complex can "just happen?"
Ahh, the old "infinite regress" theory.
The mistake here is to take as axiomatic that everything in the universe is contigent (that is, causally explained). If that's the case, than we can go on forever. Who designed the designer? Oh yeah? Well who designed the designer of the designer? And who designed the designer of the designer of the designer? Ad infinitum. And therein lies the problem. To posit an infinite regress forces one to posit the existence of an actual infinite. But an actual infinite is impossible, rationally speaking, for any number of reasons. Chief among these is the notion that we reckon time sequentially. So if there's an actually infinite number of total days leading up to this day, it stands to reason that there is a day positioned an actual infinite number of days before today. Confusing? It should be. Because it's irrational. There's no way to cross the actual infinite, since time is only ever reckoned sequentially. Interestingly, Hubble's discovery of red-shifted galaxies proved that time did indeed have a beginning at the Big Bang. So it is not the case that there is an actually infinite past. If that's the case, then the only rational explanation left to explain the existence of--well, everything--is to posit the existence of some necessary thing, something that exists not in the chain of causal events, but that stands either outside the chain or acts as the impetus for the inauguration of the chain. The necessary event posited by astronomers is the necessary-but-un-created Big Bang. Old-earth creationists take a step back from that and posit the existence of a necessary being who caused even that. Basically, the answer to the question is that God didn't "happen". That makes the mistake of putting God in the chain of causal events. He is not a contingent being, who depends on something for his existence. He is, rather, a necessary being, on whom all else depends for its existence.
Basically your whole question "begs the question" in that you presuppose a philosophy of causality which doesn't admit the existence of any necessary thing, only contigent things. This takes as axiomatic some kind of extreme Newtonian mechanism by which no appeal can be made to the essence of the thing or the purpose of the thing, because such things don't exist in a strictly material-monist worldview. The only avenue of inquiry left is causality.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited to add: I'm really not all that interested in the science of the thing, so please don't attack me with scientific examples, as they will only make my head hurt. My chief interest in this type of debate is philosophical, and since Fletch went there, I went, too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited to add: I am neither Fundamentalist nor young-earth creationist, though I am a theist, and am attract to I.D. from a philosophical perspective. Please, oh, please, do not lump me in with the "man-and-dinosaurs-lived-at-the-same-time" crowd.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited to add:
Just one more, I swear! My apologies to anyone who knows the Kalam and Thomist arguments better than I. I'm drastically foreshortening those arguments, I know, but golly--I gotta sleep some time tonight.
________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JayTee:
Sorry, but I guess I don't get out much anymore and I live under a rock. Could you possibly enlighten me as to what the heck a "hoopy frood" is?
Jaytee
I can, but it would be better if you listened to the radio series Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, I think it's mentioned in episode 10, but I'm not sure. It's in the books too.
Someone who is hoopy is a really together guy, and a frood is a really amazingly together guy. "Guy" is gender inspesific in this case.
But when I actually say the definitions they sound so bland.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes I believe that covers it. If you presuppose that I was at all interested in the answer 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Yes I believe that covers it. If you presuppose that I was at all interested in the answer
Well, in that case, why ask the question? I mean, if your mind is made up, why not just state your beliefs and have done with it? Because the way it comes across is something like, "I'm asking a rhetorical question because anyone who disagrees with me is dumb." Hardly the stuff of civil discussions. I realize I'm getting into this conversation late, but hell's bells, I wish for once we could all talk about these things calmly and rationally.
________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A hoopy frood is one who knows where his towel is
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't think there is an answer to the question, because no answer you can give is provable in the slightest. There can be no "answer" it's contemplating the implications of the question that is interesting.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Technically we were all designed by worms, but not intelligently, we were patched together in a psuedo random fashion by parasites, but it is the competition of natural selection which was the guiding force that led to evolution.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I don't think there is an answer to the question, because no answer you can give is provable in the slightest. There can be no "answer" it's contemplating the implications of the question that is interesting.
But what's interesting is that people say "It's unprovable!" all day long when it comes to some things (e.g. ID or the existence of God) but swear up and down that it is in fact provable when it comes to other things (e.g. evolution as origin of man). I think that if someone actually embraced the notion that nothing is provable, that there is no answer, then he would commit himself to a kind of radical skepticism and would, as a professor at my university once did, conclude that he himself did not exist. After all, if nothing is provable, how do you know you exist?
If on the other hand, you're positing that no statements about God are provable, then the statement "There is no God" must certainly fall into that category. If that's the case, why conclude, out of hand that He doesn't exist? Or that He didn't create the universe? In addition, restricting "it's not provable" to God betrays deeply seated ontological presuppositions (the above mentioned material-monism).
________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Good old fashion piracy on the high seas is actually at an all time historical high. Furthermore, it's highest where the water is warmest.
Think about it, far more wealth is being shipped over seas by boat than ever has been before, this should hardly be a surprise, but the logical conclusion.
Indeed or should I say Yarrr!
Cheers to all those who fly the Jolly Roger
EV Nova Firefly mod Message Board:
http://s4.invisionfree.com/GunRunner/index.php?act=idx
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually if we follow through on that argument the only thing I can state with certainty is that *I* exist. I think, therefore I am. I cannot prove that you exist any more than I can prove that God exists. All I have is slightly more evidence that you exist, but even that could be self delusion.
In practice your answer rested on the contention that causality can be violated, that you can have an effect ie the existence of God without there being a cause -- a progenitor of some kind. Right there we hit a problem because causality is a foundation of our perception of the universe and of the scientific method. Effect follows cause, not the other way around, Newton was not struck by an apple before that apple fell. If the argument for God is that he exists outside of causality then that is an argument that you can’t address through science, because you immediately take God out of science’s frame of reference. Therefore I don’t see that you can apply science to the existence or otherwise of God at all. They operate in different spheres.
Evolution and science in general has never been a threat to the existence or otherwise of God, neither can it prove or disprove the existence of God. In fact the whole creationist argument doesn’t even involve God directly, it hinges on one question, the primacy of the Bible. If the Bible is the absolute word of God, and if God is infallible, then by definition the Bible must be absolutely and literally true. If on the other hand the Bible is an historic document, an oral tradition eventually committed to blocks of wood sometime in the iron age, and selectively edited, translated and modified since then, well then there is the possibility of human error.
Those fundamentalist types that want it to be literally true are the ones that have a problem with evolution. I have a problem with them not because I think evolution is anything more than a theory but because of the real reason these people are pushing so hard. If the Bible is literally true, then you can use it, or sections of it to provide divine justification for any prejudice, crime or outright evil that you want to inflict on your fellow man. You can use it in the same way that OBL uses the Koran to justify the killing of children, it allows you to claim an absolute unchallengeable authority over your fellow man in the name of a God you can’t appeal to. It is in short arbitrary authority of the worst kind.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
I think that if someone actually embraced the notion that nothing is provable, that there is no answer, then he would commit himself to a kind of radical skepticism and would, as a professor at my university once did, conclude that he himself did not exist. After all, if nothing is provable, how do you know you exist?
General mathematics would disprove the unprovable theory (pardon the unintentional bad joke), owing to the simple fact that one plus one does equal two.
"Serenity is knowing your worst shot is still pretty good."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by DreamTrove:
The specific mechanism by which new genes are added to an extant strand of DNA is reverse transcription, which is carried out by an enzyme called reverse transcriptase. Signym and Citizen already alluded to this. Half of the rest of you out there already knew this, and are kicking yourselves for not having said it first :)
Thanks DT, I'm better with the physics than the genetic biology
Quote:
An interesting side note. This closely resembles the way a true free-market capitalist system would work, therefore it is an immitation of nature. By contrast, socialism is the top down introduction of a set of utopian solutions dreamt up by groups of intellectuals latey called 'think tanks.' Ergo, socialism is Intelligent Design economics.
You just couldn't resist could you
Now when are people going to realise that I created the universe, if you've got a problem with that, prove me wrong.
I started the second big bang with the jump-leads from starbug.
Ironic really, the ultimate Atheist turns out in fact to be god.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Why can't the creation of the Universe (or multiverse or whatever) be 'the necessary thing'? Why can't the universe itself be necessary? Can't everything in the universe be contingent on the universe existing, rather than the universe and everything in it being contingent on God existing?
So what I'm asking, genuinely because I'm not too knowledgeable on philosophy, is:
Doesn't the idea of God just push the chain back one further?
...................
Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood
.................
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
You just couldn't resist could you
Oh, that was a great open shot to attack socialism.
Quote:
Now when are people going to realise that I created the universe, if you've got a problem with that, prove me wrong.
Ah, deflecting with humor
Muahahahahahaha
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Heb,
Well put.
But God doesn't exist, which is why I'm ducking the whole conversation. The whole argument for the existance of God is a loaded one, because it exists simply to back up the equally absurd claim that "God said this" by which I mean the bible, or some similar text, thus making it the indisputable truth. I guess what I'm saying is the whole point is to back what is really a socio-political agenda, and to exhault said agenda to a monopolistic state of unchecked power. Contributing sincerely to the debate forwards that agenda, so I'll stop now.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Oh, that was a great open shot to attack socialism.
There's plenty of avenues for attacking the free market, and ways I can make an argument out of the socialism thing, but that's not why were hear...
(I wasn't being particularly serious though
)Quote:
Ah, deflecting with humor
Well, reason wouldn't work with this clown...
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
After all, if nothing is provable, how do you know you exist?
In philosophy, science, and most other things, "I think therefore I am," remains one of the strongest arguments ever, but even it is not flawless. For example do you really think? If nothing is provable you can't exactly prove it. Also how do you define "am"?
I mean what if I was a character in a dream of a ten year old kid, but I was indeed thinking? Obviously I exist, but merely as temporary electrical and chemical signals in someone else's mind. Some people would say that allows me to say, "I am," others would say it does not.
-
I maintain that all things rely on faith, for example you can not prove that events have causes. It simply can not be done, nor can you prove that events do not have causes. The second is because finding an event with no cause, if such a thing exists, can be dismissed as simply finding an event with an as yet unknown cause, the first is because correlation (no matter how strong) does not mean causation.
But if we take on faith that events have causes than we can use it to do incredible things. For example the computer I am typing on was built using science that took as a basic tenet the unprovable idea that there is such a thing as cause and effect. (Of course if there is no cause and effect that is not true, it was just a random coincidence.)
What separates science from fundamentalist religion is that in science you take your leap(s) of faith and then base all other things on evidence. If you take the idea that there is a god on faith than I think you should then look at it logically, if the evidence points to evolution creating people, and you believe on faith that god created people the logical conclusion is that god created people by means of evolution.
The logical conclusion is not that the theory of evolution should be discarded because it disagrees with other things that you believe with no evidence that are not part of your initial leap of faith.
The belief that there is a god can not be proven, the belief that there is not one can not be proven, but other things can. I think people should choose their stance on god via faith, but not everything else surrounding god.
I mean if every person on earth had a vision of the exact same god saying, “I exist,” in their language of choice at the exact same time that would hardly prove the existence of god, it could just as easily be explained by a remarkable example of the statistical phenomena of grouping. Meeting god is hardly grounds to believe that he or she exists, a lot of people have called themselves god over the years and even if they display seemingly unnatural powers those would eventually be explained by science.
Similarly if you were to definitively prove that everything in the universe followed the laws of physics strictly and there was no place for god in the universe at all that would not disprove god, it would probably just further the belief in predestination oriented religions.
But like I said, you can prove other stuff, if you take certain things for granted, casualty being one of them. IDers take causality for granted, and as such they should at least strongly lean towards the idea that evolution is the force of god, it meshes with what they take on faith and it matches the evidence.
Yet they don’t. Why? Because they want to prove the existence of something that can’t be proved? Because their translation of their book says something that their interpretation believes is incompatible?
I lost track of where I was going with this a long time ago.
So, to sum up:
I believe that faith is needed for all things, science included, but I think once you take something on faith you should start looking at evidence and using logic, and rather than rule out evidence based on belief shape beliefs based on evidence.
Why I decided to say that is something I have forgotten.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
DOUGP59:
Two things--
1) You can't prove one theory by disproving a competing theory... Give me a few reasons for believing yours..
2) Don't bring the speed of light into this. It's got nothing to do with it. The countless biologists, archaeologists, and the like, that study and prove evolution most probably don't have a clue about the speed of light. It's Physics, not Biology, and that's why they don't care. It has absolutely no basis on evolution. The prove they have for evolution has nothing to do with how fast light travels... It -does- have a basis about how old the Universe is, but that's about it, it doesn't even have any bearing on how old the Earth itself is.
/rant over
But, really, I have no problem with rejecting evolution theory, if I had a reason to do so. I'm not religious, but if I were.. I wouldn't see evolution theory as something that couldn't exist /with/ my religion.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:By faith I think you mean a priori assumptions. I'm not a philosopher, but I think every philosophy has one. My guess is the a priori assumptions of science would be:
I believe that faith is needed for all things, science included, but I think once you take something on faith you should start looking at evidence and using logic, and rather than rule out evidence based on belief shape beliefs based on evidence.
a) There is an objective universe and we are part of it. (That eliminates the I am but a part of someone else's-God's perhaps?-dream subjectivity.)
b) We come to know that universe through our senses.
c) Effect follows cause.
The problem that I have with fundamentalists is that they keep rejecting their own assumptions over and over again: "God did it (faith) and I can demonstrate it scientifically". Articles of faith, by definition, can't be thrown against evidence for validation. If they could, it would be science not faith. The only thing that anyone can say about their faith is "I believe that flying spaghetti monsters created the universe" and then just SHUT UP.
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Samsa:
General mathematics would disprove the unprovable theory (pardon the unintentional bad joke), owing to the simple fact that one plus one does equal two.
I was under the impression that 1+1=2 has never been successfully proven.
Knowledge is sorrow; they who know the most
Must mourn the deepest o'er the fatal truth,
The Tree of Knowledge is not that of Life.
-- Byron
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The only thing that anyone can say about their faith is "I believe that flying spaghetti monsters created the universe" and then just SHUT UP.
Alas, a major problem with fundamentalist beliefs is that, like a particularly insidious computer virus, they come with built-in imperatives to go forth and infect others with their superstitions. If we could selectively edit out that offensive trait, methinks the vast majority of the problems we have with these people would quietly evaporate.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"That's what governments are for, [to] get in a man's way." -- Malcolm Reynolds
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I find it sad, really, that all you atheists from your perspective, are on the same plain as the Hitlers and the Stalins of history.
You see, from your worldview, there is no punishment for evil. There is just the same ol' nothingness upon death irregardless of your behaviour in this life.
How sad.
I thank God that the truth of His world view, is that the Hitlers, the Stalins etc. of history are being justly punished for their evil.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dougp59:
You see, from your worldview, there is no punishment for evil.
Absolutely false statement, just like everything else you've spewed. There's plenty of punishment for evil, and it's adjudged and meted out by people, for people, against people. Your silly little made-up god didn't stop Hitler, the combined military might of several countries did.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"That's what governments are for, [to] get in a man's way." -- Malcolm Reynolds
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I always assumed that 1+1 equalled 2 by definition but apparently here is the proof for it:
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/51551.html
Regarding the whole debate over whether ID is science:
The definition of science, as defined by Richard Feynman, is that the only test of knowledge is experiment.
...................
Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood
.................
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm a scientist and I'm trying to keep an open mind. Everything I read about either Creationism or Intelligent Design is usually all about perceived problems with evolution, with very little support for ID. The absence of information about the theory of Intelligent Design has left me with some questions.
1) What is the difference between Intelligent Design and Creationism (assuming there is one)? The only way I can see a difference is if Intelligent Design does not depend upon a religious text. In this manner, one is not constrained by Genesis when trying to determine the age of the earth or the origin of fossils. Intelligent Design could then be fully compatible with evolution, supposing the Designer(s) set evolution in motion. Under this definition, I find Intelligent Design a very cool philosophical question. However, since only Creationism is inconsistent with evolution, why would supporters of Intelligent Design be so anti-evolution?
2) What is the evidence in support of Intelligent Design? Note, problems with the theory of evolution are not support for Intelligent Design. Something like a ten foot wide thumb print in the Grand Canyon would be nice evidence of a Designer, but I suspect we're not going to find it. Would we recognize the thumb print of the Designer even if we saw it? I guess that's another question.
3) What do Intelligent Design scientists research? The core of science is hypothesis testing. Pose a question, suggest an explanation, and test your theory. If you cannot empirically test your theory you are dealing with philosophy or theology, rather than science. Intelligent Design cetainly poses all sorts of nice questions (who is the Designer? is there more than one? is creation a single event, or a controlled, interactive scenario? what was the Designer's purpose? where is the Designer now?), but I cannot figure out a way to test a hypothesis based on any of these questions. Do ID scientists perform research seeking incosistencies in evolution? If so, they studying evolution and are in truth evolutionary scientists.
My unoriginal inclination is to say Intelligent Design is a transparent attempt to disguise Creationism, and since neither theory can ever be tested, they are not science. But I'm trying to keep that open mind.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, its' just that we take on the responsibility for defining evil and then for figuring out what to do about it. Most Xtains I know just leave it up to "God" and "his" ministers to do the heavy lifting -and thinking- for them.
I find it sad, really, that all you atheists from your perspective, are on the same plain as the Hitlers and the Stalins of history. You see, from your worldview, there is no punishment for evil. There is just the same ol' nothingness upon death irregardless of your behaviour in this life. How sad. I thank God that the truth of His world view, is that the Hitlers, the Stalins etc. of history are being justly punished for their evil.
The Bible says something like "By their works you shall know them". So, how do you account for the fact that atheists are generally more moral (lie, cheat, steal, and divorce less) than "believers"?
Quote:www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
Barna's results verified findings of earlier polls: that conservative Protestant Christians, on average, have the highest divorce rate, while mainline Christians have a much lower rate. They found some new information as well: that atheists and agnostics have the lowest divorce rate of all.
And what about those Founding Fathers? They must have been Godly men, to devise such a worthy system! Well, not quite:
Quote:
“Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, ‘this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.’”- Adams
"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear" - Jefferson
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise"- Madison
“...the arguments of the Deists, which were quote to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations, in short, I soon became a thorough Deist"- Franklin
Here are more quotes so you can verify that I didn't take a sentence of phrase out of context:
www.deism.org/foundingfathers.htm
Evil Uncle Chuckles (Pat Robertson) calling for various assassinations and Dubya himself are certianly NOT good advertising for religious morality!
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To all the atheists and evolutionists here regarding your various posts.
I have presented a website with a series of questions. MOST of the posts in this thread to date contain no attempts to answer my questions, but instead contain insults or attempts to put me on the defensive. There have been a few exceptions, even some good philosophical questions, but most have contained neither.
To those that have actually taken the time to go through my site and to actively explore the links presented there, cudos. Even if you don't agree with me, at least you have broken with the herd and have shown some real independence.
With free minds such as yours, there is still hope for civil discourse.
I would point out that many of the posts here could not have possibly been as a result of a thorough investigation not into just my questions, but the links I present as well. Why the knee jerk reaction?
I have not endeavoured to insult individuals, if I have errored, than you have my apologies. I will continue however, to knock this silly big theory called evolution.
The ID movement will grow for many reasons, not the least if which is the sound science and intelligent reasoning being applied by well educated and credentialed minds.
It is my fervent hope that many will come to know the truth and be set free.
Yes, I believe in God and in His Son. I believe that the heavens declare His glory. The whole panorama of the heavens and of life here on earth is simply to complex to have had any other origin.
I hope one day you will find that truth.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I found it amusing how quickly our superstitious friend demonstrated the power of Godwin's Law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"That's what governments are for, [to] get in a man's way." -- Malcolm Reynolds
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dougp59:
all you atheists
I've avioded saying this becasue I believe that whether or not one believes in god should have no bearing on their view of science, and thus it evolution, but I am not an atheist.
Quote:
You see, from your worldview, there is no punishment for evil.
Laws are made to punish just that. Evil is defined differently in different places, but the idea, if not the word, is the grounds for punishment in all non-utilitarian socities.
Quote:
There is just the same ol' nothingness upon death irregardless of your behaviour in this life.
There is more to life than what comes after. Tell me, if you knew that when you died you would not face punishments for your sins would you act like Hitler? If you would than I find you sad. I really do, and I do not mean it in a derogitory way, I just feel deep pity for you.
Quote:
I thank God that the truth of His world view, is that the Hitlers, the Stalins etc. of history are being justly punished for their evil.
And what of the Pauls of the world, Paul the one who went into Christian homes and dragged them to imprisonment and concented to their deaths? Is he being punished for his evil? Or did he get forgiven for his sins?
Is Lot, who offered his two virgin daughters up for gang rape, being punished? Lot who Saint Peter calls a model of peity.
What if Stalin repented? Have you thought of that? I mean Paul targeted Christians, Stalin didn't do that.
And what of the people who have good in them, but also do evil? Is the good part of them being punished along with the bad, or are they split in two upon death?
Justice is a slippery thing.
And what of you? You strike me as a Christian, as you might have noticed, so I've just picked up a copy of the bible. Tell me, are you loving your enemies? Can one of your enemies, say a Samaritan for those were the enemies of Jesus' people in the time of your Christ, be good?
Have you given your money to the poor? And when you did your charitable deeds did you "sound a trumpet before you like the hypocrates" or did you "take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men"? When you pray do you pray in churches like hypocrates, or do you "go into your room, and when you have shut your door pray to your Father in the secret place"?
Do you judge not?
Are you without sin that you may cast these stones?
Perhaps you are, but when I read your words I am reminded of the Gospel of Mathew:
"Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying:
'These people draw near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.'"
-
I feel better.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I find it sad, really, that all you atheists from your perspective, are on the same plain as the Hitlers and the Stalins of history.
You see, from your worldview, there is no punishment for evil. There is just the same ol' nothingness upon death irregardless of your behaviour in this life.
How sad.
I thank God that the truth of His world view, is that the Hitlers, the Stalins etc. of history are being justly punished for their evil.
The truth is that Hitler was an avid and devout christian, and a die hard creationist. This is why the accusations made by eurocollectivists that social darwinism eventually led to the holocaust don't hold water. The truth is that social darwinism is a theory about how societies evolve, and the collectivists were afraid that this would ultimately lead people to support the idea of a meritocracy, and so conveniently blamed them for WWII. To the best of my knowledge, none of the people involved in the planning of the Third Reich were social darwinists, and a great number, if not all, were creationists.
As a Taoist, my faith doesn't call for, or perhaps allow, the existance of an omniscient sentient, just living forces in natural progression. If this seems like fringe wackoness to the Xtians, I would offer that my chosen faith has a following comparable to that of Christianity, Islam, Buhddhism and Hinduism. Just saying, not a fringe belief, but also not atheism.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey Doug,
I just realised you only joined the site yesterday.
Welcome to the board!
So how did you get into firefly?
Heb
...................
Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood
.................
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And what about those Founding Fathers? They must have been Godly men, to devise such a worthy system! Well, not quite:Quote:
"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear" - Jefferson
I just want to point out that it is my understanding Jefferson was actually a devout Christian, he simply believed that god wanted people to use their brains. I agree with that belief, and I believe every religion should agree.
Many (but not all) of the other founding fathers were alike in that view. The things quoted were against blind or irrational faith, not against god.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There's no such thing as a scientist who believes in "intelligent design," nor one who buys into ignorant spewings about "problems" with evolution.
From the official 2004 position paper of the Society for the Advancement of Real Science:
Quote:
Intelligent Design is the latest attempt by creationists to force God into science and destroy evolution. It is the most dangerous form of creationism to date because it self-consciously avoids reference to God. Nevertheless, its creationist agenda bleeds through its empty rhetoric at every turn. It is in fact a politico-religious movement that masquerades as science and attempts to force a wedge between the scientific community and the wider culture. Its ultimate goal is to establish a theocracy in which the Bible becomes federal law and Genesis is taught as fact.
Although some details about evolution remain to be worked out, there is no debate among real scientists about the fundamental facts of evolution. Evolution is as well established as the Earth being spherical or going around the Sun. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and to reject or challenge it is not just to abjure science but to place society at grave risk. Many diseases are the result of natural selection in action, and those who minimize or question evolution are endangering public health and, in all likelihood, are already complicit in the deaths of countless people.
The Society for the Advancement of Real Science therefore urges all genuine scientists to use all legal means to oppose and overthrow this creationist pseudoscience. Although some Intelligent Design practitioners have advanced degrees in the sciences, in every known case they obtained those degrees for the express purpose of inveigling themselves into the academic and scientific communities to subvert science.
To give "ID" the stature of something worthy of serious debate is to raise the childish imaginings of a six-year-old to that of a learned scholar.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"That's what governments are for, [to] get in a man's way." -- Malcolm Reynolds
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dougp59:
I find it sad, really, that all you atheists from your perspective, are on the same plain as the Hitlers and the Stalins of history.
You see, from your worldview, there is no punishment for evil. There is just the same ol' nothingness upon death irregardless of your behaviour in this life.
How sad.
I thank God that the truth of His world view, is that the Hitlers, the Stalins etc. of history are being justly punished for their evil.
Lovely. People present well reasoned and documented responses to your points, and not only do you ignore them, but you claim they're avoiding the questions.
And having no response to their arguments, you call them all atheists just because they don't subscribe to the EXACT same view you hold, and then you compare them to Hitler. Very mature.
Now, according to Godwins Law as linked above, you have just implicitly lost the debate (thanks to whoever posted that - hadn't heard it before). Personally, I'd give you the benefit of a doubt, and let you stay in the game. But you have to actually address the points raised to you (which now include scientific, philosophic, and theologic points - just pick one), without namecalling, or loopy comparisons to despots. If you can do that, great - it's a debate. A matter of civil discourse.
Otherwise, you're just a fundamentalist nut who only hears what they want to hear.
And for the record, my view is a mix of both. I believe the theory of evolution is sound. But I also believe that evolution was kick-started by a higher being.
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dougp59:
To those that have actually taken the time to go through my site and to actively explore the links presented there, cudos. Even if you don't agree with me, at least you have broken with the herd and have shown some real independence.
I have in fact journeyed to your site, and followed many of the links there, but I have not yet built up a coherent picture of exactly what it is you believe.
For example one of your links leads me to a site with the sentence:
The question we’re concerned about here is not whether we can rule out every conceivable naturalistic theory, but whether scientists have shown that biological systems evolved naturalistically.
A noble goal, to be sure, but hardly and argument for your side. If it has not been conclusively shown it only means that we need not take it as solid fact, it hardly means that we need to accept the next theory in line, it doesn’t even mean we need to reject it.
Your sites show nothing that even implies scientific research of the point at which specified complexity is indicative of intelligence. It does say that things that exist now are extremely unlikely as a result of random choice, but it does not deal with directed non-intelligent choice from random occurrence.
The current theory of evolution is refuting the idea that life is random, rather it states that life changed randomly, but evolved by directed by choice based on survival.
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
The truth is that Hitler was an avid and devout christian, and a die hard creationist.
While this is (more or less) true I think his point was that all of us dirty heathens believe that when we die we will receive the same treatment as the Christian who was Hitler.
For those amoung us who do not believe in an afterlife that is completely true, however it is hardly an argument for his case.
Quote:
Originally posted by heb:
So how did you get into firefly?
Something we all want to know, I'm sure, but I figured I'd give him the benifit of the doubt and assume he simply wants to bring other fans "to the light," and therefore respect his right to have an off topic thread.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Something we all want to know, I'm sure, but I figured I'd give him the benifit of the doubt and assume he simply wants to bring other fans "to the light," and therefore respect his right to have an off topic thread.
Hmm, how Doug got to the site...
Search for a site with a high hit rate, has a forum and a user base that is intelligent, and unlikly to believe drival like ID is 'science' and post.
This brings us to the conclusion that doug is a what?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, come on, Doug had the T-word written all over him right from the get go, but there are way too many intelligent, well-informed people on this site not to have a discussion about something as philosophically and scientifically interesting as evolution. I only wish Doug really supported Intelligent Design instead of closet-Creationism. Then we could have a real discussion with him. You can't discuss anything fundamentalists.
In reality, we are enjoying a stimulating discussion with eachother while laughing at the sillies. 
Jayne: I once hit a guy in the neck from 500 yards with a bent scope. Don't that count upstairs?
Book: Oh, it'll be taken into consideration.
Jayne: You made that sound kind of ominous.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I and others HAVE gone to your website and, by golly, we answered your questions about DNA (thanks DT for making that explicit) and transitional fossils (punctuated equilibrium, the speed of light (altho irrelevant to this discussion), SETI (improper analogy), and the amopunt of DNA (not necessary for complex creatures to have more DNA).
To those that have actually taken the time to go through my site and to actively explore the links presented there, cudos. Even if you don't agree with me, at least you have broken with the herd and have shown some real independence.
However, you haven't provided us any reasoning or evidence as to why we should consider your... umm... theory. How do you account for fossils? What is the role of DNA and heritability in your...um.. theory? How do you account for the apparent age of the universe? I think it's time that you answered ours.
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah, Just wanted to dispel the myth the Dougy-boy could be anything but a certain under bridge dwelling anthropomorphic...
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It's my understanding that many Founding Fathers were deists and some were agnostics. In their view god should be discovered through nature. Christian religion, the Bible, and the clergy were all pretty much looked on as something between quaint and dangerous.
I just want to point out that it is my understanding Jefferson was actually a devout Christian, he simply believed that god wanted people to use their brains. I agree with that belief, and I believe every religion should agree.
Quote:www.religioustolerance.org/deism.htm As such, they were not Christian although many of them would come close to Intelligent Designists (if indeed IDists were not simply Fundamentalist Xtians in disguise). The Founding Father's outlook wasn't derived from Christianity as much from the French Enlightenment. Don't forget that the Founding Fathers weren't backwoods hicks. They knew of Rousseau, Voltaire, and other Enlightenment figures.
Deists do not accept the belief of most religions that God revealed himself to humanity through the writings of the Bible, the Qur'an or other religious texts.... They regard their faith as a natural religion, as contrasted with one that is revealed by a God or which is artificially created by humans. They reason that since everything that exists has had a creator, then the universe itself must have been created by God. Thomas Paine concluded a speech shortly after the French Revolution with: "God is the power of first cause, nature is the law, and matter is the subject acted upon."
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Saying intelligent design is christianity in disguise is like saying that this guy, who actually wore this while robbing a bank, was travelling in cognito:
Also, those founding fathers were masons, and modern day, well 18th century rather than 14th, illuminati, which means they did not believe in the power of the church, or the church-state which is why we have separation of church and state.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
An interesting article about the founding fathers and deism:
http://www.lawfulgov.org/deists.htm
Many insightful quotations and factoids, from numerous sources, bearing on how the founding fathers, clearly and explicitly, do NOT endorse christianity as the basis for American law, and indeed clearly speak of the need to prevent such endorsement:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_buckner/quotations.html
Any fundamentalist christian who pretends the founding fathers envisioned a christian nation is either ignorant of the facts, or baldly lying. There is no middle ground there.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"That's what governments are for, [to] get in a man's way." -- Malcolm Reynolds
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they endorced any religion. It is merely my understanding that Jefferson and others believed in Jesus as the Christ, that fact did not stop them from useing their brains and saying that others should do the same. Jefferson was (obviously) very clear on his belief that people should question everything.
-
I will look into your links later, but I don't think a couple of web pages can fully capture the situtation. (I think that is true regardless of which of us is right.)
-
-
My view is that god, who I do believe in, would not have put millions of years of evolution into giving us brains if we were meant to defy all logic in an attempt to blindly follow those who claim to know his will.
(If you are right than my views are, apparently, closer to the founding fathers than I thought.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think you'll enjoy the links, actually. In many of the lengthy quotes contained there it's clear to me some of them were definitely christians; it's also clear to me they were dedicated to not letting that belief system become enshrined as the law of the land. I have no problem with christians, muslims, wiccans, even discordians. I only take issue when a member of any faith attempts to push laws or teachings on non-believers; if you're not specifically asked, you keep your religion to yourself. It's that simple.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"That's what governments are for, [to] get in a man's way." -- Malcolm Reynolds
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I wouldn't go that far. I think every faith has the right to advertise itself, just as companies, non-profit organizations and governments routinely do. The problem for me comes when a religion makes itself law, thus enforcing the rules of their own theological doctrine on those who have not yet willing accepted the faith.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You do have a point. My attitude comes from some overzealous followers of certain faiths and their demonstrated inability to stay within the bounds of what I consider acceptable behavior. The "give them an inch, they take a mile" syndrome. Evangelists must either learn to keep from being obnoxiously forward, or their behavior must be moderated by outside control. Freedom of religion does include freedom FROM religion, and my right to be free of it is a Constitutionally protected one.
ETA: I should clarify: by freedom from religion I don't mean I should never have to see a church, or someone wearing a star of David, or get offended if someone says, "god bless you" when I sneeze. That would be excessive. What it does mean is I have a Constitutional right to be free of laws imposed on me which are based on someone else's religion. For example, in New York I can't buy a beer before noon on Sunday. Why? Sure, buying a beer at 10AM on Sunday morning is far from a critical need, but there should be no law preventing me, unless that law serves a demonstrable public need and has no basis on religions which hold Sunday to be different from other days of the week. To me it's just a day off from work, and that's all it should be. If someone wants to honor their faith by abstaining until the sun's over the yard-arm, that's wonderful--just don't force (or even expect) me to do the same.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"That's what governments are for, [to] get in a man's way." -- Malcolm Reynolds
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Jefferson was NOT a Christian. Altho he believed that a moral teacher named Jesus existed, he stripped away all miraculous attributions in his own "corrected" version of the Bible. He thought the Bible was written by men and that it justified willful ignorance, charlatanism, bigotry, and tyranny.
Quote:www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm
Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Interesting. That seems to jibe with the way he references Jesus in this quote:
Quote:
But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer {Jesus} of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State. (Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Samuel Kercheval, 1810; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 370)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"That's what governments are for, [to] get in a man's way." -- Malcolm Reynolds
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ultimately we're all in search of the truth right? Some choose to Evolution, and some choose Religion....
Fact is it's all acquired knowledge therefore equal leaps of faith in light of insuffiecient evidence.
The
Somnambulist
www.cirqus.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by heb:
I always assumed that 1+1 equalled 2 by definition but apparently here is the proof for it:
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/51551.html
No mathematician, but I find it odd that if the complete proof for 2+2=4 involves 2,109 subtheorems and 22,607 steps that 1+1=2 would be so short and succinct. I was under my assumption because when I was in college (over a decade ago), my calculus teacher mentioned the proof being hundreds of pages long and disputed.
Gödel supposedly showed that it is impossible to prove consistency of Peano arithmetic while assuming the axioms themselves.
As I am not mathematically inclined the arguments themselves go over my head, but I think the proof you linked assumes Peano's axioms to be a given and that may account for its brevity.
It is possible that it has not only been solved but that an easy solution was discovered (the universe was only 5 billion years old when I was in college, now its 10) and it is possible that I am mixing up recollections, cause I am almost as old as the universe (Ok, maybe not that much).
Quote:
Regarding the whole debate over whether ID is science:
The definition of science, as defined by Richard Feynman, is that the only test of knowledge is experiment.
From Wiki:
"Empiricism is therefore the philosophical doctrine (-ism) of "testing" or "experimentation," and has taken on the more specific meaning that all human knowledge ultimately comes from the senses and from experience. Empiricism denies that humans have innate ideas or that anything is knowable without reference to experience.
It is generally regarded as the heart of the modern scientific method, that present theories should be based on our observations of the world rather than on intuition or faith; that is, empirical research and a posteriori inductive reasoning rather than purely deductive logic."
Knowledge is sorrow; they who know the most
Must mourn the deepest o'er the fatal truth,
The Tree of Knowledge is not that of Life.
-- Byron
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No idea about the 1+1 thing sorry. I just googled it. Whoever's original point it was though is still valid seeing as you can prove 2+2= 4 even if you can't yet prove 1+1=2.
Sorry I'm not sure I follow what your view is on the science thing?
...................
Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood
.................
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Origianlly posted by Dreamtrove:
I wouldn't go that far. I think every faith has the right to advertise itself, just as companies, non-profit organizations and governments routinely do. The problem for me comes when a religion makes itself law, thus enforcing the rules of their own theological doctrine on those who have not yet willing accepted the faith.
Just because it's gettin' all philosophical:
What makes a religion forcing its rules on other people any different to a Government forcing its laws on people?
Smoking in public places is illegal in some places, what's the difference between forcing a smoker not to smoke and forcing someone to adhere to another religions rule?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think I can defer to Thomas Jefferson to answer that one, citizen:
Quote:
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." (Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987, pp. 42-43. )
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"That's what governments are for, [to] get in a man's way." -- Malcolm Reynolds
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'd agree, but Governments don't just enforce laws that are about injury to others, and religous laws aren't solely about only worshipping that religion.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Also true; I was focusing on your example of smoking. Smokers do measurable, demonstrated harm to the health of non-smokers near them when they smoke.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"That's what governments are for, [to] get in a man's way." -- Malcolm Reynolds
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
But the people nearby have the option of removing themselves from that situation...
If you can't smoke anywhere you have no option.
But then let's look at the beer example of yours. Drinking often harms others around you, in many ways, including anti-social behaviour. I'd also make the leap to saying that it does more damage on the whole than smoking. So...
How about recreational drugs? Many of those only directly harm the user, yet most governments make their use highly illegal.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't know about not being able to smoke anywhere. All the places where I work, shop and eat have designated smoking areas designed to keep the resulting smoke away from others. It might not be convenient for the smoker to have to go to a removed location to indulge, but the health of non-smokers who don't want to be harmed by tobacco smoke has been determined by lawmakers to outweigh the rights of smokers to have a convenient place to light up. Smoking is a choice. Having someone walk up to you and blow smoke into the air you breathe isn't, and having to remove yourself because someone else decided to "light up" next to you is no more fair than having to surrender your seat on a bus because some obese (or smelly, or otherwise unpleasant) person just decided to sit in your lap rather than stand.
As for buying a beer on Sunday mornings, it comes down to what purpose was the law forbidding it enacted to serve? If, for example, studies show that a majority of drinking/driving accidents were caused by people who bought beer on Sunday mornings, the law is demonstrably designed to reduce accidents caused by drunken drivers and it's obvious it serves the public welfare. If there are no data showing that such accidents resulted from buying beer at that specific timeframe as opposed to any other, then laws prohibiting beer sales as a way to reduce drunken driving accidents don't have any cause to be linked to specific days. The simplest approach would to be banning sales of beer completely, though of course history has demonstrated that Prohibition isn't workable in America. The aim of protecting the public welfare, then, gets served by laws designed to restrict people from drinking and then driving, through education, programs to assist drunken people in getting rides, and punishment of offenders.
Where, then, the Sunday morning prohibition? Rumor has it the law was designed as an incentive to get men into church services, rather than dropping off the wife & kids and congregating at the local pub. In any rate, the specific target of Sunday morning is quite suspicious in the light of that time being traditionally connected to christian church services, and I can't see any way the law serves any compelling public need. It smells like a law based entirely on some religious pretext, and hence it's one to which I object. If such a public need is ever demonstrated to me, I'll be satisfied and will drop my objection. If I'm right, if it has only a religious basis, then it impels me to ask: what religious observance will be forced on me next? Will it eventually become illegal not to be in church on Sunday mornings, or will they just try to abridge my right to marry someone of my own gender if I so desire, based on writings in a book that means nothing to me?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"That's what governments are for, [to] get in a man's way." -- Malcolm Reynolds
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Citizen,
Theoretically, a govt. imposes laws because it answerable to the people, and therefore represents their collective will. It is the right of everyone to have no one go into the center of town and set off a nmuclear device. The right of the one person to set off the bomb does not supercede this. This is the structure under which government exists.
This is not just the structure of democracy, it is the structure of government. Even monarchies are supposedly acting on behalf of the will of the people, and if they fail to do so can usually be held accountable through some process and forced to resign.
If a govt. feels that no person can be accorded any freedom for fear that to allow them such freedom would allow the possibility of wrongdoing, then what you could have is a statist entity. I refrain here from saying socialist because I get so much flack for it, so I'll say it's only socialist if it follows the two founding principles of socialism (ie 1. favoring general welfare of the individual and 2. based on cooperation rather than competition) *AND* if it openly calls itself 'socialist.'
But even if it's not socialist, it can still be statist, giving most power to the govt to control things, and limiting personal freedom to only that which could not by some stretch of the imagination be used to harm anyone else. This is sometimes refered to derogatorily as the 'Nanny state.'
A statist regime is NOT by definition totalitarian. It may in fact be directly accountable to its people, may have elections with different socialist candidates or may have the rule of a consortium. But socialism in particular does not *lend* itself to the process because of a tendency to rely on cooperation rather than competition, and democracy is a competitive process.
Still, all forms of govt. tend to in some way be accountable to the people, or in the absense of a mechanism of accountability, have the people's sworn interests at heart. If the govt. should completely fail to meet these criteria, then the people will rise up to overthrow the govt.
All of that said, I agree, govt. sometimes legislates things it shouldn't. I believe in a minimalist govt. in which the only responsibility of govt. is to ensure that the rights of the people (to swing their arms as long as they don't connect with someone else's nose) are protected. This includes the rights of the people to be free on unjust rule (the right not to be bashed in the nose by the long arm of the law or any other unjust entity, corporate, religious, etc.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In a brief aside, I'd like to say how pleasant I find it when a troll's thread is hijacked into something even remotely interesting/constructive.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"That's what governments are for, [to] get in a man's way." -- Malcolm Reynolds
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:
Ultimately we're all in search of the truth right? Some choose to Evolution, and some choose Religion....
Fact is it's all acquired knowledge therefore equal leaps of faith in light of insuffiecient evidence.
I'm paraphrasing here but as someone once said "They used to think the world was flat and that was wrong. They used to think the world was spherical and that was wrong. But if you think they were both equally wrong, then you're more wrong than both of them put together."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:
Ultimately we're all in search of the truth right? Some choose to Evolution, and some choose Religion....
Fact is it's all acquired knowledge therefore equal leaps of faith in light of insuffiecient evidence.
I'm paraphrasing here but as someone once said "They used to think the world was flat and that was wrong. They used to think the world was spherical and that was wrong. But if you think they were both equally wrong, then you're more wrong than both of them put together."
and if you think they are both correct?
www.cirqus.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
DT, Spinland:
Good answers.
Quote:
Originally posted by Spinland:
In a brief aside, I'd like to say how pleasant I find it when a troll's thread is hijacked into something even remotely interesting/constructive.
It bet Dougy-boy's real upset that we're not tearing strips off each-other...
Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
I'm paraphrasing here but as someone once said "They used to think the world was flat and that was wrong. They used to think the world was spherical and that was wrong. But if you think they were both equally wrong, then you're more wrong than both of them put together."
and if you think they are both correct?
To them I say, I have a time-share in the Maldives, great price...
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This thread is far too long for me to catch up on right now, but I wanted to express my opinion on this:
Quote:We can conceive of a hell on earth that has nothing to do with eternal flame. The war of all against all. Endless effort without rest or reward, the treadmill of survival. No place of trust. Watching our children die.
You see, from your worldview, there is no punishment for evil. There is just the same ol' nothingness upon death irregardless of your behaviour in this life.
We create that hell through our beliefs, and we can relieve that hell through our beliefs.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In regards to the variable speed of light issue. I actually examined this in data analysis in college. When you look at the results of the various experiments throughout the ages that have measured the speed of light using a weighted regression, you get a perfectly flat line. A weighted regression means that the more accurate measurements (i.e., the ones with the smallest standard errors) are given more weight. When that is graphed it shows the speed of light to be constant. The speed of light is not changing and has not changed.
In regards to how DNA can increase in a species, mutations. Entire sections of DNA or entire chromosomes can be duplicated through what is essentially an error. Most times this will cause a diasadvantage and the creature will die. Some times it will have no effect and the change might or might not be passed on. Rarely, it will prove to be beneficial in some way (making protein better or faster for example) and will be passed on to offspring.
I will probably respond to other stuff when I get further through this discussion.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have nothing intelligent to add to this discussion.
I was not, however, when I clicked on the link with the title 'evolution sucks' prepared to actually encounter an actual debate about evolution. I was more prepared for a comment about the friendliness of orang-utans, or the idiocy of many supposed intellectuals, both of which topics I feel I could discuss more freely.
I have enjoyed reading other people's posts.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
If on the other hand, you're positing that no statements about God are provable, then the statement "There is no God" must certainly fall into that category. If that's the case, why conclude, out of hand that He doesn't exist? Or that He didn't create the universe?
I don't think science argues that God doesn't exist. Science (real science anyway) ignores the question of God because it is inherently unscientific. It can't be proven or disproven. It's a matter of faith or belief (to use Book's word). If you believe in God, that's fine. I have no problem with that. Personally, I'm agnostic. I don't know if there's a God, but I'm not arrogant enough to say there's not. I have a problem with people trying to put discussion of God in a science classroom. God is not science. God is faith.
Also, evolution is actually provable, but only if you're talking micro-evolution. That is, a lizard evolving into a different lizard species. It's just that a lizard changing to a bird that can't be DIRECTLY seen. That's because it would involve many more adaptations which are slow to arise.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Minime:
Welcome to fireflyfans.net...
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by WorkerOfEvil:Quote:
Science (real science anyway) ignores the question of God because it is inherently unscientific. It can't be proven or disproven.
Actually, I think that strictly speaking, we should say that science ignores the question of the existence of God, because it's unscientific. But it would be difficult to deny that the strict material monism (even it's a methodogical monism) has ramifications for the question of God's existence. If each and every physical phenomenon (past and present) is assumed to have been part of a random causal chain operating according to deterministic laws, then there is no place for God. Either he can't act in the physical world, or he can but doesn't. Either way, the net effect is the same. God winds up as some kind of impotent transcedent spiritual entity, and I don't know about any other theist, but that's not a very compelling vision of God.
Quote:
I have a problem with people trying to put discussion of God in a science classroom. God is not science. God is faith.
I have a problem with God being discussed in the classroom, too. As I understand it, though, the statement that was to be read in the Delaware classroom didn't reference God or religion in anyway. It's easy to merely assume that Intelligent Design is God in science's clothing, but as I understand I.D., it's not religion as such; it's philosophy (which incidentally doesn't have a place in the science classroom, either).
________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I didn't get this earlier. I thought someone was saying c isn't really a constant, which it isn't, it depends on the medium. But no, it doesn't change steadily through time. If it did, it would not produce the results we see.
The more plausible tired light hypothesis is about wavelength and frequency and not about speed. Light may lose energy as it passes through space over extremely long distances. If this is true it obviates but does not preclude a big bang.
I particularly think that tired light is more important than big bang, but I also think that big bang is viewed incorrectly, in a pseudo-religious manner. The universe is far larger than the one we see, and any past big bang is likely to be far smaller. Little bang, as it were, but pretty big if you were standing right next to it.
Also, the universe by necessity would expand as it feeds off of the outer larger universe it lives inside, which it virtually must do since our universe is a black hole. But again, this expansion, addition to our local area of space or universe is not necessarily what we are seeing when we see doppler shifts. That may be, and I suspect is, just a reflect of the lifespan of the energy of a photon before it is reduced to its zero quantum state, which is about 16 billion years.
Final note, if you doubt this, the light sky paradox is in error, because eventually all radiation would be absorbed deflected or might even possibly expire after an extrodinarily large amount of time. Still, we should see a perpetual 21cm glow, which we do. This is a sign of an, if not infinite, an extremely large universe. I've seen nothing that strongly supports the idea that this is looking back into time into a big bang.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
DreamTrove:
c IS a constant. It doesn't change. c is not the speed of light, c is the speed of light in a vacuum.
Quote:
Also, the universe by necessity would expand as it feeds off of the outer larger universe it lives inside, which it virtually must do since our universe is a black hole. But again, this expansion, addition to our local area of space or universe is not necessarily what we are seeing when we see doppler shifts.
Huh? There's nothing to suggest there's any 'larger' universe. Or that our Universe is a singularity within it?
Where did you get this from, just curious?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Spinland:
I only take issue when a member of any faith attempts to push laws or teachings on non-believers; if you're not specifically asked, you keep your religion to yourself. It's that simple.
I agree with you about pushing laws or teachings, but as for keeping it to one's self:
I don't see the problem with believers of a faith, whatever it may be, trying to "spread the word." I just think when it becomes clear someone doesn't want to hear it they should shut up.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My sister in law is the head optic engineer of laser diagnostic inc., she says the speed of light is not a constant, so I accept that. But it's not unconstant in an ever diminishing way that would explain the astrological anomolies we see in space.
I read a lot about this stuff at some point. The dean of my college was the astronomy professor and we got into a long debate and I read lots of stuff, and it eventually ended with no conclusion, but there's enough evidence to suspect that the universe is in fact a black hole within a larger universe. Also, there's no such thing as a singularity, that's an illusion. Most probably matter within the event horizon is a mixture of highly compressed particles and plasma orbting a central focus, but not actually *in* the center. The external illusion is more or less the same.
About faiths, I agree. I think the limit should be the same as the limit to which people can advertise political parties, action groups, charities or other organizations.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Interesting thread. All I have to say is this: if you really think evolution sucks, you only get one flu shot.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
If each and every physical phenomenon (past and present) is assumed to have been part of a random causal chain operating according to deterministic laws, then there is no place for God. Either he can't act in the physical world, or he can but doesn't. Either way, the net effect is the same. God winds up as some kind of impotent transcedent spiritual entity, and I don't know about any other theist, but that's not a very compelling vision of God.
I have to disagree with you on this, science will arrive at one of two conclusions in the end (tell me if there are more.)
1 Everything in the universe is determined, there are no random events therefore everything follows a strict sequence of cause and effect such that what happens tomorrow was determined the instant the universe was created. (Classical physics advocates this.)
Several religions believe this is the case, telling them that they are correct about everything that can be tested is hardly going to convince them that they are wrong, nor should it. The place for god is the place that these religions have been advocating from day one.
This is not to say that there necessarily is a god in this case, merely that one has in no way been ruled out nor are his powers less than believed by many today.
2 Not everything in the universe is determined, some things are random. (I believe quantum physics currently holds to this, but I’m a bit behind the times.)
In that case when a pair of particles is created, like they are, and one falls into a black hole (colloquial description I know) instead of annihilating the other that was a function or random chance, not deterministic forces. When the surviving one, unaffected by other random events, eventually bashes into a DNA molecule and causes a mutation that is caused by deterministic forces set in motion by random chance. A few million years later when that mutation results in a human being having a psychotic episode, influenced by her experiences and teaching, which includes a vision of god that is an effect of random chance.
If random chance also caused many other events associated with god perhaps it isn't random after all. Science can not prove that something is random, only that it can not be proven to be non-random, so whether or not it is random is a matter of faith. (Assuming I am up to date.) If seemingly random chance causes people to have visions of Bob the god of haircuts perhaps Bob really is pulling the strings.
If random chance somehow resulted in the birth of a male child to a female virgin (totally physically possible, just damn near impossible thrice over) why couldn't the "random chance" actually be non-random and controlled by the god of the Christians?
The power of god remains possible in this case, and again god's existiance is left to faith.
-
I'm not defending god, I'm not defending religion. I'm just saying that science, even if it finds a grand theory of everything that is totally correct in all ways, will not effect the question of god's existence.
I made these same arguments when I was an atheist and when I was agnostic, if I become either again I'm sure the arguments won't change because thus far no one has pointed out a flaw in them (though more often than not my presentation did have several flaws which took some time to correct, so I apologize if there are any this time around.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME