Tue Mar 02, 2004 4:51 pm
Originally posted by Tyrel
Agent-Commando, as I stated before, no I am not a believer. I have been an atheist since the age of 11 and find no practical use for organized religion in today's modern world. To me, religion was a useful invention to explain certain phenomena that was otherwise impossible to understand in the past. Today, modern science eleminates the purpose of religion, to me at least.
Agreed!
I was thinking about talking to a fundamentalist about evolution, but i changed my mind
Tue Mar 02, 2004 6:50 pm
Originally posted by Jeffro
Agreed!
I was thinking about talking to a fundamentalist about evolution, but i changed my mind
Why do you want to talk to a fundamentalist?
Tue Mar 02, 2004 8:31 pm
Originally posted by RCglider
Why do you want to talk to a fundamentalist?
Attempt at humor...
Tue Mar 02, 2004 8:33 pm
Can we revoke Jeffro's right to speak?
Tue Mar 02, 2004 8:37 pm
Originally posted by Kurith
Can we revoke Jeffro's right to speak?
Why do you have to be so fucking critial of me all the time...
stfu...
Tue Mar 02, 2004 9:06 pm
Come on guys, let's not start bashing each other over our varying views. I have seen this movie being talked and debated about on other forums and it usually turns ugly, let's keep this threat civilized!
On another note, I saw the movie again today with a different group of friends who did not see it before. I noticed some interesting things the second time again. The cloth that has the visage of Jesus on it is portrayed in this film, something I did not notice at first.
On another note, I saw the movie again today with a different group of friends who did not see it before. I noticed some interesting things the second time again. The cloth that has the visage of Jesus on it is portrayed in this film, something I did not notice at first.
Tue Mar 02, 2004 9:12 pm
Originally posted by Tyrel
Come on guys, let's not start bashing each other over our varying views. I have seen this movie being talked and debated about on other forums and it usually turns ugly, let's keep this threat civilized!
On another note, I saw the movie again today with a different group of friends who did not see it before. I noticed some interesting things the second time again. The cloth that has the visage of Jesus on it is portrayed in this film, something I did not notice at first.
The shroud of Turin. Interesting.
Tue Mar 02, 2004 11:22 pm
Originally posted by C. Murgatroyd
Also, it's a low blow to bring up the whole slavery thing just because an American said something you didn't agree with.
I didn't mean for it to be a low blow, for that I apologize. The point I was trying to get across is that laws of men are flawed and only applies to those who fall into a specific catergory. Back then, in Jesus' time there was many laws that only applied to a specific race, and the fact that Jesus rose above it all and did what He came to do allows us to do what we are able to do today.
The laws of God will one day fall upon you, that is one thing I think everyone agrees right... like the Earth did not appear out of nowhere, even if you were to say and believe in the big bang theory, how did it all start? Who created everything, nothing comes out of nowhere. It was Albert Einstein, an atheist who said the more he studied the universe, the more he believed in a higher power.
Tue Mar 02, 2004 11:50 pm
From what I remember, Albert Einstein was not an atheist, he just did not believe in a personal god.
Tyrel, you make a good point about religion not being necessary to explain reality, but religion has two other historical functions: one, to provide a sense of ritual and commonality that bonds communities together, and two, to provide a basis for morality. This is the challenge of atheism, to provide a scientific basis for morality, and a secular social construction. As with all traditions, a materialist (in the sense of reality, not greed) basis can have both good and evil results. (ie. Good - US Constitution / bad - Marxism - both are based on "rational," not religious, deductions.)
As for me, I am "still searching..."
Back on topic, my point about the movie was that it didn't follow the gospels, as it was marketed to do. Whether the gospels are fact is another point of debate--and I would support the argument that they are historical documents like any other, written by a human, transmitted through time and translation, with some basis in fact and some in the author's perspective of events. That Jesus, the person, existed has been backed up by Roman documents from the era.
Agent Commando, perhaps you would be surprised to learn that not everyone thinks that the existance of God is proved by the existence of reality, or put another way, that God is necessary to explain our existence. The big bang may just be the big bang, and the fact that we can't explain it now does not necessitate God. There was a time when people could not explain the sun. I think religious people misunderstand that science is not a search for truth, but instead a search for theories that accurately and consitently predict observations. So while science may arrive at a theory that more consistently describes the behavior of a phenomenon than saying "God did it," it does not prove or disprove God's action. It just makes it unnecessary.
Tyrel, you make a good point about religion not being necessary to explain reality, but religion has two other historical functions: one, to provide a sense of ritual and commonality that bonds communities together, and two, to provide a basis for morality. This is the challenge of atheism, to provide a scientific basis for morality, and a secular social construction. As with all traditions, a materialist (in the sense of reality, not greed) basis can have both good and evil results. (ie. Good - US Constitution / bad - Marxism - both are based on "rational," not religious, deductions.)
As for me, I am "still searching..."
Back on topic, my point about the movie was that it didn't follow the gospels, as it was marketed to do. Whether the gospels are fact is another point of debate--and I would support the argument that they are historical documents like any other, written by a human, transmitted through time and translation, with some basis in fact and some in the author's perspective of events. That Jesus, the person, existed has been backed up by Roman documents from the era.
Agent Commando, perhaps you would be surprised to learn that not everyone thinks that the existance of God is proved by the existence of reality, or put another way, that God is necessary to explain our existence. The big bang may just be the big bang, and the fact that we can't explain it now does not necessitate God. There was a time when people could not explain the sun. I think religious people misunderstand that science is not a search for truth, but instead a search for theories that accurately and consitently predict observations. So while science may arrive at a theory that more consistently describes the behavior of a phenomenon than saying "God did it," it does not prove or disprove God's action. It just makes it unnecessary.
Wed Mar 03, 2004 12:45 am
Agent Commando:
I'm on your side, but you're fighting an uphill battle. I don't think you're going to convince anyone here. It's kinda like the Liberals vs. Conservatives. I don't think either side will ever convince the other that they're right.
That being said, I believe you probably have a chance to convince some of your friends that Christianity is the true religion. (As I understand you are a Christian)
This is a bit off topic.. but as I understand the evolutionist thinking...
First there was nothing... and then it exploded... Ok. that's a theory... not a logical one, but a theory that has yet to be disproved. For the sake of argument, lets assume it's true. At what point do you have an inanimate object come alive? I mean.. I don't care how long a period of time passes, how much moisture/heat/pressure/whatever you want to apply, non-linving matter does not become living.
Even the father of evolution, Charles Darwin (1809 -1882) has never had his claims of evolution proven. Once again theories. At the time of his death (over 120 years ago), he felt the the "Missing Link" would soon be found. Here we are in 2004.... no missing link, in fact no links have ever been found showing one species evolving into another.
Once again for the sake of arguement, lets say man did evolve from apes. I will agree I have many things in common with apes. I have many things in common with pigs, dogs, cats, even mice. I don't find many things I have in common with a fish, but maybe it's possible I evolved from a fish. What about a plant? I don't think I have that much in common with a plant. Yet evolutionists say all life evolved from a single organism.... Come on.. There is WAY to much diversity for this to happen, even after millions of years.
So, I would suggest to any open minded people that my theory (creationist theory), God created everything, is equally as valid as the evolutionist theory.
(Ok go ahead and flame me.. I'm wearing my asbestos suit):D
I'm on your side, but you're fighting an uphill battle. I don't think you're going to convince anyone here. It's kinda like the Liberals vs. Conservatives. I don't think either side will ever convince the other that they're right.
That being said, I believe you probably have a chance to convince some of your friends that Christianity is the true religion. (As I understand you are a Christian)
This is a bit off topic.. but as I understand the evolutionist thinking...
First there was nothing... and then it exploded... Ok. that's a theory... not a logical one, but a theory that has yet to be disproved. For the sake of argument, lets assume it's true. At what point do you have an inanimate object come alive? I mean.. I don't care how long a period of time passes, how much moisture/heat/pressure/whatever you want to apply, non-linving matter does not become living.
Even the father of evolution, Charles Darwin (1809 -1882) has never had his claims of evolution proven. Once again theories. At the time of his death (over 120 years ago), he felt the the "Missing Link" would soon be found. Here we are in 2004.... no missing link, in fact no links have ever been found showing one species evolving into another.
Once again for the sake of arguement, lets say man did evolve from apes. I will agree I have many things in common with apes. I have many things in common with pigs, dogs, cats, even mice. I don't find many things I have in common with a fish, but maybe it's possible I evolved from a fish. What about a plant? I don't think I have that much in common with a plant. Yet evolutionists say all life evolved from a single organism.... Come on.. There is WAY to much diversity for this to happen, even after millions of years.
So, I would suggest to any open minded people that my theory (creationist theory), God created everything, is equally as valid as the evolutionist theory.
(Ok go ahead and flame me.. I'm wearing my asbestos suit):D
Wed Mar 03, 2004 12:52 am
Originally posted by PudriK
Tyrel, you make a good point about religion not being necessary to explain reality, but religion has two other historical functions: one, to provide a sense of ritual and commonality that bonds communities together, and two, to provide a basis for morality. This is the challenge of atheism, to provide a scientific basis for morality, and a secular social construction. As with all traditions, a materialist (in the sense of reality, not greed) basis can have both good and evil results. (ie. Good - US Constitution / bad - Marxism - both are based on "rational," not religious, deductions.)
Very good point Pudrik. Again, refering to previous times, religion did serve as a tool to keep order in an otherwise primitive society. However, when major religions have followers in the millions as they do today, there tends to be a decline in divine interest. This can be explained by the fact that we live in such a modern and technologically advanced world and also because the larger a religion gets, the less appealing and particular in seems (at least to me).
Wed Mar 03, 2004 12:57 am
Originally posted by Major SONAR
So, I would suggest to any open minded people that my theory (creationist theory), God created everything, is equally as valid as the evolutionist theory.
The fact of the matter is, it makes more physical and scientific sense that we evolved from something (be it apes, single-celled organisms, etc) versus appearing one day by the will of a divine superior power. Now what it basically comes down to is, how strong is your belief? Some will prefer to go with a more religious approach while others, like myself, will look more to empirical evidence, verified theories, etc.
What it comes down to, in it's most basic form, is do you need to see or at least understand something to believe it or can you just skip that whole process and believe without actually knowing for sure?
Wed Mar 03, 2004 1:07 am
__________________________________________________________like myself, will look more to empirical evidence, verified theories, etc.
__________________________________________________________
Take a look at Pascal's wager. And no theory can disprove god. Being an atheist is just as illogical as not being one. Your betting the odds here. Better hope your right.
__________________________________________________________
Take a look at Pascal's wager. And no theory can disprove god. Being an atheist is just as illogical as not being one. Your betting the odds here. Better hope your right.
Wed Mar 03, 2004 1:09 am
SONAR. Define living? Is a virus living? All it consists of is DNA and a protein shell. How about bacteria. They are made of inanimate stuff--DNA, cytoplasm, etc. (my bio is very rusty). Any living organism (you and I included) is a collection of inanimate chemicals and substances interacting in a complex system which enables it to reproduce. What science has not figured out yet is how the first self-reproducing chemical reactions came about, and how they became bacteria and Archaea.
The concept of evolution is very simple. Over many generations, small changes from one generation to another can result in large changes for a species. If two separate populaitons evolve under differing circumstances, then they may eventually evolve apart into separate species. Repeat this over eons and you can get from bacteria to protozoans to multi-cellular organims to small animals to larger animals to apes to humans. Remember, we did not evolve from chimps. Chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor.
Like any scientific theory, one "proves" it by experiment or observation. To date, the paleontological record and DNA regression studies have demonstrated a progression that matches the predictions of the evolution theory. Furthermore, in recent studies with insects which produce rapidly, scientists have seen evolution in action, as two separate populations kept under different environments adapted to their environment over generations.
Scientific creation, as a theory, is not useful, because it cannot provide accurate prediction. For example, if I discover a fossil of a small lizard, and in younger strata a fossil of a similar but larger lizard, I can predict by evolution that I should be able to find in an inbetween strata a similar lizard of intermediate size. That is useful--I know what to look for, and if I find it, I have validated my theory. Creation science would say God created small lizard, then later God created big lizard. In between he could have created anything else. So it provides no useful theory upon which to base or predict the results of searches.
This also works into the future... evolution provides a construct by which we can understand how species react to their environment over many generations. If I was running an experiment with two fruit fly populations, to which I apply an environmental force, I can predict how they will develop. Add heat, I expect fruit flies of later generations to be better adapted to warm climate. By creation, I may as well expect to get a population of cats.
As a scientific theory, creation is baseless and useless.
PS Evolution does not have anything to do with the existence of god. See what I said earlier about the difference btw science and religion. And all theories are only 99%. After all, we thought time was const. until Einstein came along.
PPS As for the big bang, it has nothing whatever to do with evloution, they are two entirely separate theories used to explain completely different observations (one cosmological, the other paleontological).
The concept of evolution is very simple. Over many generations, small changes from one generation to another can result in large changes for a species. If two separate populaitons evolve under differing circumstances, then they may eventually evolve apart into separate species. Repeat this over eons and you can get from bacteria to protozoans to multi-cellular organims to small animals to larger animals to apes to humans. Remember, we did not evolve from chimps. Chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor.
Like any scientific theory, one "proves" it by experiment or observation. To date, the paleontological record and DNA regression studies have demonstrated a progression that matches the predictions of the evolution theory. Furthermore, in recent studies with insects which produce rapidly, scientists have seen evolution in action, as two separate populations kept under different environments adapted to their environment over generations.
Scientific creation, as a theory, is not useful, because it cannot provide accurate prediction. For example, if I discover a fossil of a small lizard, and in younger strata a fossil of a similar but larger lizard, I can predict by evolution that I should be able to find in an inbetween strata a similar lizard of intermediate size. That is useful--I know what to look for, and if I find it, I have validated my theory. Creation science would say God created small lizard, then later God created big lizard. In between he could have created anything else. So it provides no useful theory upon which to base or predict the results of searches.
This also works into the future... evolution provides a construct by which we can understand how species react to their environment over many generations. If I was running an experiment with two fruit fly populations, to which I apply an environmental force, I can predict how they will develop. Add heat, I expect fruit flies of later generations to be better adapted to warm climate. By creation, I may as well expect to get a population of cats.
As a scientific theory, creation is baseless and useless.
PS Evolution does not have anything to do with the existence of god. See what I said earlier about the difference btw science and religion. And all theories are only 99%. After all, we thought time was const. until Einstein came along.
PPS As for the big bang, it has nothing whatever to do with evloution, they are two entirely separate theories used to explain completely different observations (one cosmological, the other paleontological).
Wed Mar 03, 2004 2:22 am
Originally posted by Major SONAR
Agent Commando:
I'm on your side, but you're fighting an uphill battle. I don't think you're going to convince anyone here. It's kinda like the Liberals vs. Conservatives. I don't think either side will ever convince the other that they're right.
That being said, I believe you probably have a chance to convince some of your friends that Christianity is the true religion. (As I understand you are a Christian)
ff topic.. but as I understand the evolutionist thinking...
First there was nothing... and then it exploded... Ok. that's a theory... not a logical one, but a theory that has yet to be disproved. For the sake of argument, lets assume it's true. At what point do you have an inanimate object come alive? I mean.. I don't care how long a period of time passes, how much moisture/heat/pressure/whatever you want to apply, non-linving matter does not become living.
Even the father of evolution, Charles Darwin (1809 -1882) has never had his claims of evolution proven. Once again theories. At the time of his death (over 120 years ago), he felt the the "Missing Link" would soon be found. Here we are in 2004.... no missing link, in fact no links have ever been found showing one species evolving into another.
Once again for the sake of arguement, lets say man did evolve from apes. I will agree I have many things in common with apes. I have many things in common with pigs, dogs, cats, even mice. I don't find many things I have in common with a fish, but maybe it's possible I evolved from a fish. What about a plant? I don't think I have that much in common with a plant. Yet evolutionists say all life evolved from a single organism.... Come on.. There is WAY to much diversity for this to happen, even after millions of years.
So, I would suggest to any open minded people that my theory (creationist theory), God created everything, is equally as valid as the evolutionist theory.
(Ok go ahead and flame me.. I'm wearing my asbestos suit):D
Agreed, on all accounts of what you said... for the sake that evolution did exist, who or what created DNA? Who or what thought up everything that started life, both animate and inanimate? All signs point to divine intervention.
But yeah, I don't think this thread will ever end if people keep inputting arguments and opinions, it's one of those great debates things that has been going on even before all of us here were ever born..
(except Harry Canyon, he's been around since the dinosaurs...hahaha I just had to...things are getting too serious around here.)
