BTW I do have a religion, it is right in my hand right now *holds a figment of his imagination* See I posses it ^_^. I will sell it for five bucks to the next person who comes by!
BTW I do have a religion, it is right in my hand right now *holds a figment of his imagination* See I posses it ^_^. I will sell it for five bucks to the next person who comes by!
<s>Haha, God bless the person who didn’t post this in EoEO. This was SO hilarious to read. I like the way people can be complete and utter jerks here and no one can stop them (no sarcasm intended here, for those who seem to have an inability to pick it up…) .
I mean seriously, how the f@#$ did things get so out of hand? It started with one comment by Autumn Rain (who, it would seem, as since left this thread) and ended up with like….like this. </s>
I still can’t believe that people haven’t work out yet that no matter how much people debate this topic, NO ONE is going to change their stance.
<s>Anyway, don’t let me disturb you, go back to verbally abusing each other for no reason. Don’t worry; I’ll still be here, laughing at you all.
Now, back to debating serious topics, like how hot Tifa is in Advent Children….
EDIT:The people who came here just to post sarcastic comments are the intelligent ones…</s>
<B>EDIT: Is what you're doing much better than what they are? Nobody cares whether or not you are lauging at them, so next time please keep those comments to yourself. You actually posted something vaguely on topic, so I guess this post isn't completely worthless. Next time please just stick to the topic at hand. -Murder</b>
EDIT: Oh, alright then.
ON TOPIC:I am/am not religious, and that makes me better than everybody else. I’m not sure why, but I think it has something to do with me being a complete jerk who is intolerant of others beliefs.
Or at least that's the gist of what I would have posted...
Last edited by ThroneofDravaris; 10-01-2005 at 08:19 AM.
You're not an electronics engineer or a doctor! You can't be brown.Originally Posted by Pharoh Amon Khan III
I don't really like the idea of organised religion, it eventually harbors corruption, one should be able to believe what one wants without an athority figure there to tell you how to believe.
:joey:
i believe in reancarnation (i don't know how to spell it! :rolleyes2 )
i also believe that everything has a soul
it's wierd but that is what i believe!!!!
Christian.
Budhism?i believe in reancarnation (i don't know how to spell it! :rolleyes2 )
i also believe that everything has a soul
it's weird but that is what i believe!!!!
Hinduism and Shintoism also have the beleifs of reincarnation and souls, not just Buddhism. Not to mention many smaller, less well known religions. In fact, so did the ancient greeks, to some extent.Christian.
Budhism?i believe in reancarnation (i don't know how to spell it! :rolleyes2 )
i also believe that everything has a soul
it's weird but that is what i believe!!!!
EDIT:
Absolute nonsense. There may indeed have been this 'seventh layer' you talk about, but it was millions, if not billions, of years before the first man-ape walked around on his furry little legs. i.e. Pre-dates any human activity.Because, genius, it isn't there anymore. It already came down. So there was nothing that the space program had to get through, and it won't come down again. I'm sorry, I didn't know you would have this much difficulty understanding it.
Well, yes, sometimes. Though, they would have been wrong at the time. For example, a 13th century Polish monk once claimed that the mongols (which he called 'tartars') had 'the head of a dog'. This is of course, not true. Similarly, the creation story was based upon the limited knowledge of simple people, and bears no relevance today.It changed. That doesn't mean it became less true. Are history books any less true, because things have changed since they were written?
Again, incorrect. The mountains were far higher. For example, the range of mountains that runs down through scandinavia, and winds up in Scotland (across the sea due to variou geological events) were once much, much higher than the Himalayas are today. The reason they shrunk is because the tectonic forces acting on them ceased, so they were gradually worn down. I can indeed 'say that "continental shift" brought fossilized sea creatures hundreds of miles inland and thousands upon thousands of feet above sea level.' because that's what happened. I don't understand why that idea is so incredible.First of all, as I said before, the earth wasn't as shapely then as it is now. The mountains weren't nearly as high, the seas weren't nearly as deep. The weight of the water during the Flood pushed down the sea bed and pushed up the mountains. And you can't honestly say that "continental shift" brought fossilized sea creatures hundreds of miles inland and thousands upon thousands of feet above sea level.Actually, there isn't enough water in the ice-caps and the atmosphere for that. Even if all the water on earth was in liquid form, the sea levels would not rise by over half a dozen miles.
Besides, Everest fossils are due to continental shift. There is no way that the rock they are buried in could have floated up there.
The sub-continent of India is part of the Australian-Indian continetal plate. This plate is quickly (by geological standards) moving into the eurasian plate, creating the himalayas. Fossils, which once lay at the bottom of the indian ocean, are dragged up with the rocks. Simple.
The weight of water would not, I repeat, NOT cause mountains to rise. Water is not nearly as heavy as rocks. The himalayas, for example, were created by two continetal plates, weighing hundreds of billion sof tonnes, smashing into each other. Water is just something that goes on top of the rocks, it doesn't move them about.
1.Evolution is not rascists. Only if the outdated and unproven idea of 'parrallel evolution' is meant. An idea which can also be, and often is, applied to creationism.I expected better from at least you, Raistlin.
1. Evolution is as fact as fact can be, while still being unproven, disproven, contradictory...and, well, even racist, and we all know how much the PC movement, while supporting Evolutionism, hates racism.
2. Since Evolutionism has not been proven, it requires faith to believe. Just like I have faith that my truck is still out in Lot Q since I parked it there twenty minutes ago. Unless I can see my truck, I don't know. Unless and until Evolution is proven -- which it will never be -- it requires faith to believe. But I guess that's hard for most anti-religion types to stomach.
3. Intelligent Design, while not supported (or, really, objected) by as much scientific evidence as Evolutionism, is still a valid theory in the same sense of the word. The problem is that most people are too set in their beliefs that nothing involves a god to listen to anything to the contrary -- just like they accuse Christians of being set in their beliefs. An even greater problem is that all too many people, in all beliefs, don't know why they believe what they do. Most Evolutionists believe it because it's what they were taught in school and doesn't involve god, and most Creationists believe it because it's what they were told to believe in church.
4. Evolution is a semi-valid theory. If it was so far proven right, there wouldn't be any evidence disproving it, or supporting any other theory.
5. If it was fact, it would be law. Or at least wouldn't have nearly as many arguments against it.
Like what? How about the link (or lack thereof) between micro- and macro-evolution? How about the "fact" that the earth is billions of years old?Creationists say "most parts of the evolutionary theory are unproven." Like what?
2. There is a difference between 'faith' in the religous sense, and believing a scientific theory. Indeed, we can't definitely prove evolution, but we can't definitely prove anything. Including creationism. The idea that religous convictions and scientific beleifs are one and the same is insulting to both religion and science- they just aren't.
Religous beleifs are based on not knowing- they try to explain what science can't. They're not meant ot explain what science can.
3. Intelligent design is not a credible scientific theory. And, even if it were, that does not mean, under any circumstance, that creationism would be. They're not nessecarilly the same- intelligent design just means the idea of a higher, controlling power, and the theory of evolution can be beaten into shape, so that it fits in with this. Creationism, on the other hand, is over 6,000 years out of date, and makes no sense (if god only created Adam & Eve, where did the people of Nod come from?).
4. There is no real anti-evolutionary evidence. Most, if not all, evidence can only be found to support it, or is so inconclusive that it means nothing.
5. People argued against the world being round- that wasn't in the bible. So, now they argue against evolution- as it is not in the bible. The bible is gradually losing all importance when it comes to explaining the physical universe.
What, 3,500,000,000 years? Sounds like a hell of a time to me... There was plenty of time for evoultion to take place. Plenty of time.You can't. Microevolution exists, yes, but would require much more time than the already outrageous amount of time some "scientists" say the earth has been able to sustain life. Not to mention, it's contradictory."You can't prove macroevolution from microevolution." Why not?
I wasn't intolerant. I simply object to others stating un-proven and nonsesical ideas as facts. I have nothing against people's religion, but sometimes they need to think about what they're saying.
Last edited by Traitorfish; 10-01-2005 at 12:33 PM.
That was mainly to the one that started it all, and just commentary on the basic undertone of this thread.
Bill Bryson mentioned this point in The Short History of Nearly Everything (a fantastic book, but a general overview rather than a deep analysis). As he put it simply, "no amount of water will make boulders float."
Also worth noting: If not for tectonic forces pushing land higher and higher, then the entire surface of the globe would've been eroded smooth by now. Our world would be a marble-like sphere covered all over with 4 km of water.
I'm a self confessed atheist and I can tell you I live my life perfectly fine It does'nt make me a bad person.......there are a lot of people who say they believe in god and never even pray or think of him... I am not pretentious .......I have the most respect for people who really and honestly believe in their faith not hypocrites who go on like they do and never even mention God or go to church
I stopped caring, really. That and I went out of town yesterday. This thread was never about arguing beliefs, it was just stating what you believed. I follow no religion. But through years of following Christianity and studying the Bible, it has too many contradictions and I found some of the basis of their beliefs to be apalling IMHO. I'm not going into details on this or how I feel about Christians that don't research their beliefs, lest anyone claim that I'm oppressing them or their faith.
Ahem. Anyway... Reading through most of the posts, I see why I didn't want to be apart of such an argument to begin with. No side could possibly when in such an argument as facts has no room for faith and vice-versa. It's pointless and pety. No one can win such an argument, as you both will refuse to see the other's side. Such an argument serves no purpose, but to piss each other off. Except those members who can find the humor in it, of course. nik0tine cracks me up.
You hater person, you.
Formerly: Autumn Rain
Yeah, I've read A Short History of Nearly Everything. Brilliant book.
I recommend that all creationists should read it. In fact, everyone should read it. It's brilliant.
Isn't the Pharoh the IV'th yet?
I read a good part of it, but then stopped...Yeah, I've read A Short History of Nearly Everything. Brilliant book.
I recommend that all creationists should read it. In fact, everyone should read it. It's brilliant.
According to some, sure. Of course, it would be perfectly convenient for it to have been there only thousands of years ago...but that would support Creationism, so we can't have that now, can we?
Unfortunately for your argument, Mongols have since been proven not to have heads of dogs, whereas Creationism has not been proven untrue.Well, yes, sometimes. Though, they would have been wrong at the time. For example, a 13th century Polish monk once claimed that the mongols (which he called 'tartars') had 'the head of a dog'. This is of course, not true. Similarly, the creation story was based upon the limited knowledge of simple people, and bears no relevance today.
If that were true, there would be fossils of land animals -- especially those that dwell in higher altitudes -- deep into the sea. Which there's not. Also, if they were extremely high and only erosion has "shrunk" them, they would have steeper sides and duller peaks.Again, incorrect. The mountains were far higher. For example, the range of mountains that runs down through scandinavia, and winds up in Scotland (across the sea due to variou geological events) were once much, much higher than the Himalayas are today. The reason they shrunk is because the tectonic forces acting on them ceased, so they were gradually worn down.
Because for one thing, the fossils are of sea creatures that supposedly hadn't "evolved" yet at the time some "scientists" would have estimated the area they're in would have still been underwater. As in, if bass evolved a million years ago, you're only going to find fossilized bass in places that there could have been bass a million years ago -- not places that have been out of water for many million years. Unless, of course, they were carried high out of the water by some type of freak "flood", deposited, and fossilized since.I can indeed 'say that "continental shift" brought fossilized sea creatures hundreds of miles inland and thousands upon thousands of feet above sea level.' because that's what happened. I don't understand why that idea is so incredible.
So you're saying water doesn't change terrain. Nice. Try again.The weight of water would not, I repeat, NOT cause mountains to rise. Water is not nearly as heavy as rocks. The himalayas, for example, were created by two continetal plates, weighing hundreds of billion sof tonnes, smashing into each other. Water is just something that goes on top of the rocks, it doesn't move them about.
Water has more than enough weight to form bowls and push up peaks. They're called seas/oceans and mountains. Here's to hoping you can't be so ignorant as to deny this.
All of Evolution is unproven, what's so special about "parallel evolution"? From quite a bit of what I've heard, racism fits right in -- sure, most people won't come out and describe it (hell, most people don't realize it's racist), but it's in there, alright. Even from what they teach in public schools.1.Evolution is not rascists. Only if the outdated and unproven idea of 'parrallel evolution' is meant. An idea which can also be, and often is, applied to creationism.
And since science can't yet explain how we got here, what is so wrong with a religious belief in the same subject? Faith is faith -- whether it's having faith that there is a god, or having faith that we evolved from lesser primates (and them, from multi-cellular organisms, from single-celled organisms, from "primordial ooze", whatever), or having faith that this world is not the Matrix. What you may think requires little faith -- say, Evolutionism, or the idea that we're not in the Matrix -- another may see it as a belief that requires just as much faith as theirs do/does.2. There is a difference between 'faith' in the religous sense, and believing a scientific theory. Indeed, we can't definitely prove evolution, but we can't definitely prove anything. Including creationism. The idea that religous convictions and scientific beleifs are one and the same is insulting to both religion and science- they just aren't.
Religous beleifs are based on not knowing- they try to explain what science can't. They're not meant to explain what science can.
Again. Just because you haven't seen much evidence for Intelligent Design (because you haven't been fed it like you have Evolutionism, and of course you can't go research anything contradictory to your own preset beliefs) doesn't mean it's not a credible theory.3. Intelligent design is not a credible scientific theory. And, even if it were, that does not mean, under any circumstance, that creationism would be. They're not nessecarilly the same- intelligent design just means the idea of a higher, controlling power, and the theory of evolution can be beaten into shape, so that it fits in with this. Creationism, on the other hand, is over 6,000 years out of date, and makes no sense (if god only created Adam & Eve, where did the people of Nod come from?).
Adam lived 800 years, and had many more children than only Cain and Abel. It's extremely likely that Cain married one of his sisters. The laws forbidding "incest" weren't given for another two thousand years, and they wouldn't have had to worry about any of the genetic disorders we have today.
Again, wrong. There is plenty of evidence that goes against Evolutionism. And most of the evidence that can be interpreted(/manipulated) to support Evolutionism could just as easily (with a little more knowledge and background) be interpreted to support Creation. In fact, much of the evidence used to support Evolution has been discredited (can we say Nebraska Man?), and is still being used, as a precedent if nothing else.4. There is no real anti-evolutionary evidence. Most, if not all, evidence can only be found to support it, or is so inconclusive that it means nothing.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say the world is flat. The Bible includes nothing contradicting the idea that the world is round. That was the Catholic Church -- and let's face it, most Christians don't take pride in the Catholic Church. Whereas it does indeed have an alternate theory to Evolutionism.5. People argued against the world being round- that wasn't in the bible. So, now they argue against evolution- as it is not in the bible. The bible is gradually losing all importance when it comes to explaining the physical universe.
When it supposedly takes hundreds of millions of years for variations in geni to seperate, dozens of billions of years would have been needed to get anywhere close to the development of humans.What, 3,500,000,000 years? Sounds like a hell of a time to me... There was plenty of time for evoultion to take place. Plenty of time.
...which is exactly what you're doing. A little hypocritical?I wasn't intolerant. I simply object to others stating un-proven and nonsesical ideas as facts.
Posting Permissions
