Page 19 of 22 FirstFirst ... 913141516171819202122 LastLast
Results 271 to 285 of 324

Thread: Anyone have a religion?

  1. #271
    A Big Deal? Recognized Member Big D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    8,370
    Contributions
    • Former Cid's Knight

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sasquatch
    A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson. It deal with the whole subject, including the point that if it were not for plate tectonics, the whole earth would be worn completely smooth.
    Completely smooth by what? Because water doesn't have the power to influence the shape of the crust, right?
    Yes, water erosion would've completely smoothed out the planet's surface. Solid rock, even metal will gradually, inevitably be worn away by water action. Water erosion is ridiculously powerful, even though it takes time to act.

    I'm using dinosaurs that have been washed up on beaches.
    To my knowledge, there has never been a dinosaur or plesiosaur washed up on beaches anywhere. I'd love to see an article, photograph or report, since this would a particularly significant bit of info. Coelocanths are a common find, but they're merely an ancient fish species. The tuatara, similarly, is an ancient beaked lizard rather than a dinosaur.
    I'm using legends of interaction with creatures you say never co-existed with man. I'm using semi-accurate depictions of creatures which, according to you, nobody would have any idea what they looked like. I'm using depictions and stories from over a half-dozen cultures all over the world. But I guess you don't have any argument against it, so you'll attack it.
    Mythology has indeed given us a vast array of 'imaginary' creatures to admire... but again, many of these are based on other ideas. Chinese dragons were influenced by dinosaur bones, it is known that many of the world's greatest fossil fields are in China, and many fossils were ground up for use in medicines. Practically every culture has dragon myths, but with a few exceptions these creatures have no similarity to known dinosaur species. Strangely, none of the mythological entities resemble the truly great, fearsome dinosaur species. Rather than creating legends about the likes of archaeopteryx and plesiosaurus, why aren't there paintings and art depicting theriznosaurus, seismosaurus and quetzalcoatlus?

    As for the notion that materials can fossilise quickly... this is, in some senses, true. There's a cave in England which is famous for making porous materials petrify rapidly, due to the mineral content of the water that drips from its ceiling. Cloth, plants, even stuffed toys are turned into silicate 'fossils' in a relatively short time.
    However, this is utterly unrelated to vast geological strata of mudstone - the gunk from the sea floor - which has gone from being sand and mud, and truly become rock. Same's true for basically every other fossil-bearing stone.

    Another relevant issue is geological stratification itself. Places such as cliffs - where the strata are visible - can provide a useful 'timeline', of sorts. Every year, as the seasons pass, different kinds of residue are laid down in sediment and soil. Volcanic eruptions leave layers of ash; many volcanoes are known to erupt on a regular, predictable basis. What I'm saying is, there's simply too much rock with too many layers to account for a mere 7000-10000 year history. Unless, of course, things started off extremely fast, then slowed down exponentially - thus giving the impression of a steady, continual process. Plate tectonics also comes into it. Rather than being a far-fetched theory, it is known that the continents are drifting at a rate of approximately one centimeter per year. Modern technology has confirmed this. Also, at faults on the sea floor, volcanoes can be seen creating 'new' sea floor, where the continents meet. The theory of all continents having previously been joined is further reinforced by geological evidence, with ancient cliffs in completely separate locations - for example, Europe and the Americas - having exactly the same rock in their lower levels. Not just similar types of rock in similar patterns, but the same stone. Same composition, same thickness and depth of the strata. A geologist could give a better explanation than me, but that's the gist of it.

    Also, at the risk of causing my own death through sheer exhaustive repitition... I want to remind everyone, regardless of what "side" they're on, to try keeping this debate impersonal and at least superficially respectful. We're not going to change each others' minds anyway, so the best any of us can hope to accomplish is demonstrating that our own beliefs are justifiable. This isn't achieved by stating, "omgz u r rong cuz u r dum".

  2. #272
    Jäästä Syntynyt GooeyToast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Uzbekistan
    Posts
    2,397

    Default

    I never really understood the purpose of religion. :-\

  3. #273
    Original Gamer fantasyjunkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,590

    Default

    I never liked religion. I've had christians and buddists literally follow me down the street trying to convert me. I've had catholics tell me I'm going to hell because I'm not a Catholic and I've had Jehova's Witnesses knocking on my door saying the same thing. I'm quiet sick of people trying to force me to follow their beliefs. Thats why I can't stand religion. Hell, i've even had athiests trying to bring me to their ways of combating religion. In my book they are just as bad.

  4. #274

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fantasyjunkie
    I never liked religion. I've had christians and buddists literally follow me down the street trying to convert me. I've had catholics tell me I'm going to hell because I'm not a Catholic and I've had Jehova's Witnesses knocking on my door saying the same thing. I'm quiet sick of people trying to force me to follow their beliefs. Thats why I can't stand religion. Hell, i've even had athiests trying to bring me to their ways of combating religion. In my book they are just as bad.
    Amen, brother.
    Formerly: Autumn Rain

  5. #275

    Default

    I'm in atheist myself, as some of you may know, if any of you remember me from my previous arguements. And, by some cruel twist of fate, I was torn from California and placed with in the south, where many people wish to mug me for not believing in God. I was actually raised a Christian, but, like Autumn Rain, I found things about the religion that I did not like, as well as things that made no sense. I have not researched it to a great extent like Autumn Rain, but if left up to my neighbor, that will soon change. Still, I doubt this research will sway me. In fact, I believe it will only make it worse. But really, I can find no solid evidence to suggest that God exists, and unlike some, that is something I need. I'm just not capable of believing something without real evidence, which evolutionist have far more of. Now, if God came down and said "Sup, I'm God, believe in me." then that would be decent evidence. Until then, I remain atheist. Unless I join the Pastafarians...

  6. #276
    Sky Blue Sky Recognized Member Trumpet Thief's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Cutest Place in the World
    Posts
    4,917
    Contributions
    • Contributions to Eizon project

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Faris
    I don't take part in religion, but I'm not atheist.
    Trowa: I couldn't say it any better.

  7. #277

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour_Guado_Goth
    I am Christian and proud of it
    me too.

  8. #278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Traitorfish
    Actually, the debate was on creationism vs evolutionism (evolutionism wins).
    It's already been established that wether or not the concept of God is valid, is far too deeply philosophical too discuss here. It would just go badly.
    hmm... i dont think anyone addressed the issue of the bacterial flagellum. how'd evolution happen to mutate one of those?
    m'yes...

  9. #279
    A Big Deal? Recognized Member Big D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    8,370
    Contributions
    • Former Cid's Knight

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by annslow41
    hmm... i dont think anyone addressed the issue of the bacterial flagellum. how'd evolution happen to mutate one of those?
    Random outcropping of additional protein that eventually proved useful? Could be. Selection pressures are a wonderful thing...

  10. #280
    Quack Shlup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    California
    Posts
    34,993
    Articles
    14
    Blog Entries
    37
    Contributions
    • Former Administrator
    • Former Cid's Knight

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by annslow41
    Quote Originally Posted by Traitorfish
    Actually, the debate was on creationism vs evolutionism (evolutionism wins).
    It's already been established that wether or not the concept of God is valid, is far too deeply philosophical too discuss here. It would just go badly.
    hmm... i dont think anyone addressed the issue of the bacterial flagellum. how'd evolution happen to mutate one of those?
    How did evolution happen to mutate anything? How did it mutate eyeballs? How did it mutate blonde hair? How did it mutate legs? The same way it mutates everything. That's what evolution is. It's not wonder you don't believe in evolution if you don't understand the very basics of it. xP

  11. #281

    Default

    so explain.. you asked all those questions. if you "understand" evolution, enlighten me..

    "How did evolution happen to mutate anything? How did it mutate eyeballs? How did it mutate blonde hair? How did it mutate legs?"

    how exactly is "The same way it mutates everything," hmm?

    something i dont get, is that if you're saying over time bits and pieces are put together and eventually, after some millions of years, make something useful, what's happened to the whole idea of "natural selection" over that time that the pieces do not make a whole? i mean, natural selection doesnt just allow random useless pieces to lie arround. if it's of no use, it dies off and doesnt get passed on. it isnt contributing to "the fittest" so it's getting eliminated. and if that's the case, nothing would ever get accomplished thru evolution. see my point? it's not very logical...

    plus, doesnt evolution totally go agains the 2nd law of thermodynamics? there's a little fact that is that "devices always move from order to disorder" ... but it seems that evolution pretty much goes in dirrect violation of this fact. while evolution is just a theory, the other's a law -- a tested fact.

    the main mutations i've heard of make people die, and that's called cancer. i mean sure, i've heard stories and seen pictures of turtles w/ 2 heads, or a cow w/ an extra leg, but that extra leg.. i mean look at it. it's not in a useful place. it's all weak and sickly looking. and usually those special animals' life expectancy is less than a normal one's. w/ all the creatures that live on this planet, it's strange that none of them have evolved during the existance of man.

    and at least check out my earlier post before commenting -- i could repost it, but it'd be a waste of space
    Last edited by annslow41; 10-08-2005 at 08:26 AM.
    m'yes...

  12. #282
    A Big Deal? Recognized Member Big D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    8,370
    Contributions
    • Former Cid's Knight

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by annslow41
    so explain.. you asked all those questions. if you "understand" evolution, enlighten me..

    "How did evolution happen to mutate anything? How did it mutate eyeballs? How did it mutate blonde hair? How did it mutate legs?"

    how exactly is "The same way it mutates everything," hmm?

    something i dont get, is that if you're saying over time bits and pieces are put together and eventually, after some millions of years, make something useful, what's happened to the whole idea of "natural selection" over that time that the pieces do not make a whole? i mean, natural selection doesnt just allow random useless pieces to lie arround. if it's of no use, it dies off and doesnt get passed on. it isnt contributing to "the fittest" so it's getting eliminated. and if that's the case, nothing would ever get accomplished thru evolution. see my point? it's not very logical...
    It makes perfect sense, when you take a different look at things: For example, the evolution of the eye. Imagine, if you will, a small multi-cellular organism with no eyes at all. An utterly blind, primitive organism living among other blind, primitive organisms. It may be eyeless, but there are plenty of stimuli out there. Then, by fluke chance, this organism's distant descendent gains a cell or two that are just a little more sensitive to heat and light. Not much, just enough that this creature's slightly more capable of determining whether the sun's directly over its head. This mutation adds a very slight bit of extra survival value, since sunlight is a key factor for primitive organisms. This critter's chances of reproducing go right up, as do any of its kin with a similar chance mutation. Soon (i.e. after many hundreds of generations), the slightly-light-sensitive organism is doing much better than it's not-at-all sensitive forebears. It's become the dominant species of its kind. Then, by further chance, some more of these guys develop just a little more photosensitivity in their photosensitive cells. More survival, more mutation, with each 'improved' version gaining more sensitivity to light. Given enough time, you get more complex multicellular organisms. A single over-developed cell which functions as a nerve allowing, for the first time, some perception of light and dark. Lo, the sense of sight is born - in a rudimentary fashion. In the eons that follow, more improvements take place: organisms with slightly convex photosensitive cells are better able to distinguish light and dark; this trait is 'selected' by natural processes since it improves the odds of survival, however infinitesimally. Over time, these convex cells give rise to the first lens - a clear shell of protein covering photosensitive cells, which can help to focus and deliver information to the first central nervous system.
    And so on, until you get to the more complex, fully-developed organ we now call an eye.
    plus, doesnt evolution totally go agains the 2nd law of thermodynamics? there's a little fact that is that "devices always move from order to disorder" ... but it seems that evolution pretty much goes in dirrect violation of this fact. while evolution is just a theory, the other's a law -- a tested fact.
    Evolution follows a certain amount of logic - traits that improve an organism's chances of survival are likely to be passed on to future generations, because that organism is more likely to breed. It happens around us today - big, strong, healthy animals in the wild are more likely to breed than weak, sickly variants of the same species.
    the main mutations i've heard of make people die, and that's called cancer. i mean sure, i've heard stories and seen pictures of turtles w/ 2 heads, or a cow w/ an extra leg, but that extra leg.. i mean look at it. it's not in a useful place. it's all weak and sickly looking. and usually those special animals' life expectancy is less than a normal one's. w/ all the creatures that live on this planet, it's strange that none of them have evolved during the existance of man.
    Ah. I see there's a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of evolution, here. Evolution isn't about a new creature simply being born with a new organ or a new ability. It's an incredibly incremental process, dependent on miniscule mutations taking an effect over countless generations. One species can't simply "evolve" into another species in the space of a single generation. The 'mutations' we know as cancer and other deformities aren't part of the evolutionary process because they're radical, often actively harmful, mutations. Evolution involves tiny mutations, often of a single base in the DNA sequence. You never hear about this kind of mutation, because it's such an immeasurably small change that it's scarcely noticeable.
    "In shocking news, a child has been born with a brain that's 0.002% larger than predicted!"

  13. #283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by annslow41
    w/ all the creatures that live on this planet, it's strange that none of them have evolved during the existance of man.
    Well, some have evolved during man's existance, you just weren't around to witness it. After all, 3,000,000 years is a long time. Horses, for example, have only been around for about 4,000,000 years. Slightly longer than man, but still not very long.
    No major new speices have appeared, but there has been considerable evolution still. Horses, again, were very different 4,000,000 years ago- they were much smaller, and not nearly as big as the shire horses that you see today.

  14. #284
    Banned Sasquatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    The Seventh Circle of Hell
    Posts
    1,760

    Default

    I noticed Traitorfish has conveniently passed over my last post debating him... not much of a surprise there. I went camping last night, and I'll probably be gone tonight, but don't worry, I'll add my two cents to the rest of this. Seems some interesting -- and some illigical and irrational -- topics have come up, I'll have plenty to add.

    Especially on the oft-used concept of single mutations becoming new traits for a species -- and how Big D contradicted himself on this very topic, which nearly his entire last post was about.

    On a non-related note. Did y'all know there's a town in Wisconsin called Nutbush? That's right. "Now entering Nutbush". Nice.

  15. #285
    Banned ThroneofDravaris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    What? Right now?
    Posts
    1,687

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sasquatch
    I noticed Traitorfish has conveniently passed over my last post debating him... not much of a surprise there.
    Oh wow, could it be that he doesn’t care anymore?

    I knew this thread was more about being right than it was anything else…

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •