Intelligent Design

[infidel]

http://www.venganza.org/

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

May you forever be touched by his noodly appendage

More info on Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (FSMism) http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

[EN[i]GMA]

I have posted it once, but it deserves posting again.

No theist can possibly refute that this should be taught alongside their lies.

[Funkaloyd]

In fact, it should be given preference wherever possible. No one can deny that America was founded by Monsterists, on Monsterist principals.

[racer5.0stang]

WOW

[EN[i]GMA]

WOW

The truth IS astounding.

[bb_bboy]

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory (http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2)

[sam i am]

It must really be hard to go through life without believing in anything you can't see, touch, feel, or taste.

If you've never seen, touched, felt, or tasted a tree frog, does that mean they don't exist? :rolleyes:

[QueenAdrock]

I can't see, touch, taste, or feel YOU, Sam.

You're not real. None of this is real. This is all a hallucination inside my brain. That's how everything REALLY works in my reality. (y)

[Echewta]

It must really be hard to go through life without believing in anything you can't see, touch, feel, or taste.

If you've never seen, touched, felt, or tasted a tree frog, does that mean they don't exist? :rolleyes:

What a horrible example. Sorry.

[EN[i]GMA]

It must really be hard to go through life without believing in anything you can't see, touch, feel, or taste.

If you've never seen, touched, felt, or tasted a tree frog, does that mean they don't exist? :rolleyes:

Holy shit you cannot be serious.

Oh wait, you are.

Tell me then sam, what is the litmus test?

Should we then believe in EVERYTHING we can't see, or only God?

Unicorns, elves, fairies, all of them?

Or just God?

There is absolute proof of tree-frog's existing, but ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF of God existing.

None whatsover.

It's not even up for debate.

Saying God exists is like saying elves exist.

Tell me this: If you've never seen, felt, heard of, or touched a tree frog, should you ASSUME it exists?

Is that what you're actually saying?

[EN[i]GMA]

Quite simply, you cannot believe in something without proof.

You do not have proof of God's existence.

[sam i am]

GMA']Holy shit you cannot be serious.

Oh wait, you are.

Tell me then sam, what is the litmus test?

Should we then believe in EVERYTHING we can't see, or only God?

Unicorns, elves, fairies, all of them?

Or just God?

There is absolute proof of tree-frog's existing, but ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF of God existing.

None whatsover.

It's not even up for debate.

Saying God exists is like saying elves exist.

Tell me this: If you've never seen, felt, heard of, or touched a tree frog, should you ASSUME it exists?

Is that what you're actually saying?

Sure I'm serious :rolleyes:

Believe in them all.

Or, don't.

It doesn't change me.

[EN[i]GMA]

Sure I'm serious :rolleyes:

Believe in them all.

Or, don't.

It doesn't change me.

That's the way to stand up for intellectual honesty!

"My views don't make the slightest bit of sense, but I'll persist in them!"

I'll be sure to play this card in any future debate we have, where I happen to lose.

"Yes, my views are wholly illogical and self-inconsistent, but your sound use of logic does nothing to dissuade me."

It will be fun.

[Ali]

I can't see, touch, taste, or feel YOU, Sam.Have you got him on ignore, too?

BTW if you taste a tree frog, you'll DEFINITELY see elves, fairies, goblins, Unicorns and, yes, even G :eek: D!

[sam i am]

GMA']That's the way to stand up for intellectual honesty!

"My views don't make the slightest bit of sense, but I'll persist in them!"

I'll be sure to play this card in any future debate we have, where I happen to lose.

"Yes, my views are wholly illogical and self-inconsistent, but your sound use of logic does nothing to dissuade me."

It will be fun.

One man's "proof" is another man's fantasy. You claim "proof," but you don't truly have any.

I know this veers into the philosophical, so see if you can follow along, being only able to see, touch, feel, or taste.

Do you ever dream? How do you make sense of these fantasies that swirl in your mind? Are they real? Are the part of a collective subconcious? What role do they play in the "real" world?

Can you answer these queries through your application of the scientific, "empirical," process?

[EN[i]GMA]

One man's "proof" is another man's fantasy. You claim "proof," but you don't truly have any.

Exactly!

There is no proof of God! Why believe?

My proof is your lack of it.


I know this veers into the philosophical, so see if you can follow along, being only able to see, touch, feel, or taste.

And think.


Do you ever dream?

Yes.


How do you make sense of these fantasies that swirl in your mind?

I don't. They are non-sensical.


Are they real?

No.


Are the part of a collective subconcious?

No.


What role do they play in the "real" world?

None.


Can you answer these queries through your application of the scientific, "empirical," process?

Yes.

[QueenAdrock]

Have you got him on ignore, too?

No, I like debating with him.

He's just not real, is all. :p

[WildBaldMonkey]

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory (http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2)


This story is obviously pretty funny, but as a Christian it sort of makes me mad because it just makes it sound like all Christians are just stupid and will believe anything.

The world and everything in it is just too complicated to be as simple as an accident or random chance. The world and all living things in it did'nt just create itself.

[STANKY808]

BLAH BLAH Fuckin' BLAH

[racer5.0stang]

GMA']The truth IS astounding.

In this case, it is not the truth that is astounding but the CRAP that people will believe in.

Sheep.

[EN[i]GMA]

This story is obviously pretty funny, but as a Christian it sort of makes me mad because it just makes it sound like all Christians are just stupid and will believe anything.

If the shoe fits..., as they say.


The world and everything in it is just too complicated to be as simple as an accident or random chance.

If you say so!


The world and all living things in it did'nt just create itself.

Of course it did.

[EN[i]GMA]

In this case, it is not the truth that is astounding but the CRAP that people will believe in.

Sheep.

I agree.

People will believe believe ANYTHING.

[Funkaloyd]

This story is obviously pretty funny, but as a Christian it sort of makes me mad because it just makes it sound like all Christians are just stupid and will believe anything.

The world and everything in it is just too complicated to be as simple as an accident or random chance.
Even from the title alone, you can see that it's targeted at Evangelicals.

The world and all living things in it did'nt just create itself.
They certainly (http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/solarsys/nebular.html) did not (http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Abiogenesis).



...Eerr, not that I'm disagreeing with EN[i]GMA. I think that we have different interpretations of that sentence.

[Medellia]

I can't see, touch, taste, or feel YOU, Sam.

You're not real. None of this is real. This is all a hallucination inside my brain. That's how everything REALLY works in my reality. (y)
So is this board the Matrix? :confused:

And who's Neo, Morpheous, Trinity, the Oracle and Elrond. Oops, I meant Agent Smith. No hobbits in the Matrix.

[QueenAdrock]

I call Trinity! That pleather suit is hot, and she can do wicked awesome things with guns. (y)

[sheesh]

Sure I'm serious :rolleyes:

Believe in them all.

Or, don't.

It doesn't change me.

I agree. I don't see why human evolution and/or creation has to be taught in school anyway. I wouldn't need to know how cars developed 100 years ago in order to be a good mechanic these days. Everyone can study human history. Knowing how we got here doesn't change what we did.

[Funkaloyd]

Evolution isn't historical. It's happening this very instant.

[QueenAdrock]

Yeah, well, so is creationism. God takes ribs out of men every day to create women, you just don't see it because he's magical and does it when you're sleeping. They left the latter part out of Genesis, though.

[Pres Zount]

I agree. I don't see why human evolution and/or creation has to be taught in school anyway. I wouldn't need to know how cars developed 100 years ago in order to be a good mechanic these days. Everyone can study human history. Knowing how we got here doesn't change what we did.

Knowing how we got here allows us to figure out where we are going.

[WildBaldMonkey]

GMA']I agree.

People will believe believe ANYTHING.


Including evolution.

[zorra_chiflada]

Including evolution.

*groan*

[WildBaldMonkey]

Knowing how we got here allows us to figure out where we are going.


If we were evolving, should'nt things be getting better?

[zorra_chiflada]

The world and everything in it is just too complicated to be as simple as an accident or random chance. The world and all living things in it did'nt just create itself.

oh then, it must have been created by a big man in the clouds :rolleyes:

[WildBaldMonkey]

*groan*


Is it really so inconceivable that there is a higher power?

If we evolved then should'nt we be physically better than any primate? We are mentally, but not physically.

[zorra_chiflada]

Is it really so inconceivable that there is a higher power?

If we evolved then should'nt we be physically better than any primate? We are mentally, but not physically.

forgive me, i come from a place that is primarily atheist (or religion does not play a part in many people's lives at all). if anyone suggested that we created by god and evolution didn't play a part at all, they would be laughed out of town.

[alruggs]

Give it a whirl. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0761519645/qid=1124588708/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-4217116-3562338?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) Pretty interesting read.

[EN[i]GMA]

Including evolution.

Yes, sometimes people are correct in their beliefs.

[EN[i]GMA]

If we were evolving, should'nt things be getting better?

No.

[EN[i]GMA]

Is it really so inconceivable that there is a higher power?

If we evolved then should'nt we be physically better than any primate? We are mentally, but not physically.

We adapted in a different manner.

Sharks are better swimmers than we are because they need to be.

We are better thinkers than apes because we need to be.

Apes are more physically adept than us because they need to be.

Animals adapt to fit their environment, not to 'get better'.

[infidel]

If we were evolving, should'nt things be getting better?We're not evolving at least not physically, in fact we are going backwards.
Modern medicine has allowed people to live and pass off their inferior genes when before they would have died before reproducing. Scientists even have a expression for it, polluting the gene pool.
Before some pro-lifer jumps in and says genocide, I don't feel anyone should have the right determine who should live to reproduce, just that passing on these inferior genes is ruining the human race. We're becoming a race of weaklings dependent on drugs to survive, bypassing natural selection.

[Funkaloyd]

If we evolved then should'nt we be physically better than any primate? We are mentally, but not physically.
You may want to give something like this (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html) a read before you continue to "makes it sound like all Christians are just stupid and will believe anything."

[Funkaloyd]

We're becoming a race of weaklings dependent on drugs to survive, bypassing natural selection.
Sexual selection still encourages some degree of fitness, and natural selection will catch up with us in the nuclear holocaust.

[WildBaldMonkey]

GMA']We adapted in a different manner.

Sharks are better swimmers than we are because they need to be.

We are better thinkers than apes because we need to be.

Apes are more physically adept than us because they need to be.

Animals adapt to fit their environment, not to 'get better'.


OK, so what decides which creature should evolve and in which way?

[WildBaldMonkey]

You may want to give something like this (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html) a read before you continue to "makes it sound like all Christians are just stupid and will believe anything."


Look at section 3. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html)

[Funkaloyd]

It's certainly true that the Theory of Evolution doesn't rule out the possibility of God. I, however, would argue that it invalidates Judaism and Christianity, and that logic invalidates those and all other religions.

[Medellia]

If we evolved then should'nt we be physically better than any primate? We are mentally, but not physically.
Erm, did you think this through before typing it? Because it seems to me an evolutionist could say the same about creationism or Intelligent Design. "If god created us, shouldn't we be physically superior to other primates?"

[WildBaldMonkey]

Erm, did you think this through before typing it? Because it seems to me an evolutionist could say the same about creationism or Intelligent Design. "If god created us, shouldn't we be physically superior to other primates?"

If we were created, then God created us to be a certain way, but if we evolved without any influence from a higher power, then what decides which part of which creature evolves? For example, who decided that man did'nt need to be as agile or strong as other primates.

[infidel]

For example, who decided that man did'nt need to be as agile or strong as other primates.Natural selection.
When man evolved to be smarter than the other animals he no longer needed to be stronger physically. The humans that were smart enough to climb a tree rather than try to outrun a lion were the ones who lived long enough to reproduce and add their higher brain power to the gene pool.

[EN[i]GMA]

OK, so what decides which creature should evolve and in which way?

The creatures offspring.

If you die, you dont reproduce, if you live, you do.

The creatures that live, evolve, the ones that don't, do not.

[100% ILL]

It's certainly true that the Theory of Evolution doesn't rule out the possibility of God. I, however, would argue that it invalidates Judaism and Christianity, and that logic invalidates those and all other religions.

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us whichare saved it is the power of God. For it is written I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

But God hath chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of this world to confound the things which are mighty; And the base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and thingswhich are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence.

I Corinthians 1:18, 19, 27-29

[WildBaldMonkey]

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us whichare saved it is the power of God. For it is written I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

(y)

[ChrisLove]

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us whichare saved it is the power of God. For it is written I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

But God hath chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of this world to confound the things which are mighty; And the base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and thingswhich are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence.

I Corinthians 1:18, 19, 27-29


And Lo, the Lord hath said " Thou shalt not thinketh about Religion too deeply for it does not stand up to logical examination, consider not the wonders of science for they deny faith without which I am nothing. Execpt all that you are told without question, lest I come down and smite yo ass through a table or smack you upside yo head with my most hoy steel chair"

[Funkaloyd]

...LA LA LA LA LA THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS NOT A CONSTANT LA LA LA LA LA SLAVERY IS ALRIGHT LA LA LA LA LA THE WORLD HAS FOUR CORNERS LA LA LA LA LA...

[zorra_chiflada]

using bible quotes is possibly the worst thing someone could do when in an argument. it completely undermines any point you're trying to make - it ain't fact just because it's in the book.

[WildBaldMonkey]

it ain't fact just because it's in the book.


From a creatonists point of view the same thing could be said about evolution.

[zorra_chiflada]

From a creatonists point of view the same thing could be said about evolution.

but just generally speaking in the political forum:
you know how posted before about an article that made all christians seem crazy? well, using and congratulating bible quotes as a point of fact does nothing to prove otherwise.

[QueenAdrock]

Yeah, I find it funny when Christians think that Bible quotes stand up as "evidence" when presented to non-Christians.

I believe in a book my invisible friend wrote when I was 5. I should start quoting that, because I believe it, so it's therefore evidence.

[Humiliation]

If we were created, then God created us to be a certain way, but if we evolved without any influence from a higher power, then what decides which part of which creature evolves? For example, who decided that man did'nt need to be as agile or strong as other primates.
It just happened. If we were as strong other primates wouldn't exist. There's probably trillions of speicies that just didn't cut it and died out. Example say gorillas were getting all the food and humans were slowly dying out. Then suddenly one gets intelligence and it can get food with tools etc. It's genes pass on because it survives long enough to reproduce and the others don't because they can't compete. It is really quite simple if you look at it long enough. It still doesn't disprove a god. That's why i consider myself religionless but i still believe in a higher being. Even if it is a planet somewhere...

[Ali]

This story is obviously pretty funny, but as a Christian it sort of makes me mad because it just makes it sound like all Christians are just stupid and will believe anything. and it proves that Christians seriously lack a sense of humour.

The world and everything in it is just too complicated to be as simple as an accident or random chance. The world and all living things in it did'nt just create itself.But God just created Himself, right? Or somebody else created God... who was that? Man, perhaps?

Face it, Creation is about as plausible as Evolution... neither can explain the Beginning, so why say that one is better than the other?

[100% ILL]

And Lo, the Lord hath said " Thou shalt not thinketh about Religion too deeply for it does not stand up to logical examination, consider not the wonders of science for they deny faith without which I am nothing. Execpt all that you are told without question, lest I come down and smite yo ass through a table or smack you upside yo head with my most hoy steel chair"



http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp

Evolutionists will often argue that allowing for the supernatural in general—or God in particular—opens “science” up to all kinds of potential crackpot notions. But it is not actually genuine science that is threatened by the prospect of God—the only threat is to a “science” strictly dominated by philosophical naturalism. The evolutionist is invoking an arbitrarily modified definition of “science” to imply that naturalistic philosophy is entitled to exclusive domination of the“ scientific community.” [It’s no surprise that these same evolutionists keep their reasoning in a tight circle by defining the “scientific community” exclusively as those persons involved in science who also subscribe to philosophical naturalism—the only religious framework they’re willing to tolerate!]

Nuff said

[Funkaloyd]

Science (even as commonly defined) doesn't inherently exclude the notion of deities. However, the scientific method doesn't allow for blind faith, and no religion has been validated through it.

You could certainly argue that the scientific method is biased against your God, but it would be rather hypocritical to do so using any electronic device.

[racer5.0stang]

Yeah, I find it funny when Christians think that Bible quotes stand up as "evidence" when presented to non-Christians.

What is funny is when people see bacteria "evolve" into bacteria that should stand as evidence for evolution.

well, using and congratulating bible quotes as a point of fact does nothing to prove otherwise.

Nor does stating theories as fact prove otherwise.

But God just created Himself, right? Or somebody else created God... who was that? Man, perhaps?

Why would you question who created God? If God is in fact God, then He would have no beginning and would have no end.

[ChrisLove]

Why would you question who created God? If God is in fact God, then He would have no beginning and would have no end.

I think I rasied this before - but how does the earth get created in an infinite time scale (with no beginning and no end). Ie at what point in time does God create Earth? any point on an infinite timeline is an infinite amount of time from the start (because there isnt one) and therefore can never occur.

Surely God therefore can not be inifinte in time which means he was either created by the same process that created time or exist independently of time and space? yet this would make it very difficult to have an image that man is made in (because such an image requires three dimensional space).

[Funkaloyd]

What is funny is when people see bacteria "evolve" into bacteria that should stand as evidence for evolution.
Firstly, that's got to be the most illogical sentence I've seen for a long time. "Just because we've observed evolution happening, doesn't mean evolution happens."

Now, hypothetically speaking, what would you accept as evidence of evolution?

Nor does stating theories as fact prove otherwise.
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

Really basic stuff.

[racer5.0stang]

I think I rasied this before - but how does the earth get created in an infinite time scale (with no beginning and no end).

What makes you think that the earth has an infinite time scale?

any point on an infinite timeline is an infinite amount of time from the start (because there isnt one) and therefore can never occur.

Exactly, which is why there is no beginning nor end concerning God. But, if the universe was created, then it now has a beginning and an end.

If God is a line then we are a point on that line.

[racer5.0stang]

Now, hypothetically speaking, what would you accept as evidence of evolution?

Micro or macro evolution?

[ChrisLove]

What makes you think that the earth has an infinite time scale?



Exactly, which is why there is no beginning nor end concerning God. But, if the universe was created, then it now has a beginning and an end.

If God is a line then we are a point on that line.


First part - I dont think the Earth has an infinite time scale, thats the problem. Something like the Earth with a finite history encounters logical problems when you try to place it on a inifinte timeline - like it can have no logical beginning because you can not define when the beginning is - The creation of the Earth could never occur because it occurs only after an infinite anmount of time has elapsed.

The universe or the earth or anything created by God suffers the same problem on the inifinite God timeline I.e. it cant exist. Nothing can exist in an infinite timeframe because it can not be created. You could argue that God - the Earth and the Universe etc have all always existed but the evidence contradicts that (and so does Genesis).

[EN[i]GMA]

First part - I dont think the Earth has an infinite time scale, thats the problem. Something like the Earth with a finite history encounters logical problems when you try to place it on a inifinte timeline - like it can have no logical beginning because you can not define when the beginning is - The creation of the Earth could never occur because it occurs only after an infinite anmount of time has elapsed.

The universe or the earth or anything created by God suffers the same problem on the inifinite God timeline I.e. it cant exist. Nothing can exist in an infinite timeframe because it can not be created. You could argue that God - the Earth and the Universe etc have all always existed but the evidence contradicts that (and so does Genesis).

I've wondered the same thing.

It makes no sense.

Why would God 'make' the Universe at a particular 'time'?

[WildBaldMonkey]

The one thing about evolution that makes no sense to me is how come there aren't living creatures that are halfway evolved, like a half monkey half man.

[QueenAdrock]

What is funny is when people see bacteria "evolve" into bacteria that should stand as evidence for evolution.


No, I find quoting a fake book funnier, just because there's more evidence in the real world to support evolution, than there is to support creationism.

Tell me, when's the last time god's removed a rib bone to make a woman? And can you tell me where you can witness such things? I'd like to believe in creationism, if you can provide something of substance, unrelated to some thousands-of-years old book.

[QueenAdrock]

The one thing about evolution that makes no sense to me is how come there aren't living creatures that are halfway evolved, like a half monkey half man.

He's called gmsisko.

[ChrisLove]

The one thing about evolution that makes no sense to me is how come there aren't living creatures that are halfway evolved, like a half monkey half man.


This is a flaw in your understanding of evolution and not a flaw in the theory itself. If you want to find out why these monkey men arnt running around it would be prudent to do some research into it. Im not saying this to be a dick but I have encountered this argument many times and really it suggest a fundamental non understanding of the theory.

[EN[i]GMA]

Micro or macro evolution?

There is no difference between the two.

Scientists make no distinction, only theists do.

The former can be proven so easily they have to accept it and that latter is a logical consequence of the first.

[EN[i]GMA]

The one thing about evolution that makes no sense to me is how come there aren't living creatures that are halfway evolved, like a half monkey half man.

What do you mean?

'Half-monkey men' would be cro-magnons or neanderthals.

They evolved into us/died out.

There is no such thing as 'halfway evolved, as evolution is a continual process.

We aren't the end product, we are segway to a different species, which is in turn, the predecessor of yet another species.

Ad infitum.

[Funkaloyd]

If God is a line then we are a point on that line.
How far are we from the start of that line?

Micro or macro evolution?
Considering that macroevolution is speciation (e.g. one species of bacteria evolving into another species of bacteria), and that microevolution is observed so frequently that even Intelligent Designers accept that it happens, you can answer for either.

What would you accept as evidence that speciation happens, if not the observation of speciation?

[Funkaloyd]

He's called gmsisko.I've got a cold, and this made me shoot boogers from my nose.

[Ali]

Why would you question who created God? If God is in fact God, then He would have no beginning and would have no end. :rolleyes:

Like any argument about Religion.

[Ali]

I've got a cold, and this made me shoot boogers from my nose.More information than I needed right now.

Maybe God created Time? So there was a Time before he created it, when there was no time.

Hey, God is no more or less Plausible than the Big Bang, is it? We accept the Big Bang but try not to think about what there was before it. We know that the Universe is expanding outwards from a Central Point, which we take to be the location of this Beginning and can prove that there was a big bang because we can measure the speed at which it expands, but we're at a loss to explain what was there before... so it takes just as much faith to believe in Evolution as it does to believe in God, doesn't it?

[racer5.0stang]

First part - I dont think the Earth has an infinite time scale, thats the problem. Something like the Earth with a finite history encounters logical problems when you try to place it on a inifinte timeline - like it can have no logical beginning because you can not define when the beginning is - The creation of the Earth could never occur because it occurs only after an infinite anmount of time has elapsed.

The time before the earth was created is represented as infinite only because we cannot determine an exact amount of time.

Time, as we know it, came into existance when the universe was created.

God exists outside of our time.

Nothing can exist in an infinite timeframe because it can not be created.

True which means that God was never created but was and is always there.

Tell me, when's the last time god's removed a rib bone to make a woman?

When the first woman was created was the only time that this occured. Genesis does not tell how long Adam and Eve were in the garden before they fell. It does however state that Adam lived for nine hundred and thirty years.

I'd like to believe in creationism, if you can provide something of substance, unrelated to some thousands-of-years old book.

Like what?

There is no difference between the two.

If there were no difference between the two, then only one would exist. Micro being more of an adaptation and macro being a complete change from one species to another. There seems to be little similarity.

How far are we from the start of that line?

The line never had a start nor will it have an end.

so it takes just as much faith to believe in Evolution as it does to believe in God, doesn't it?

I would say that it takes more faith to believe in evolution.

[QueenAdrock]

When the first woman was created was the only time that this occured. Genesis does not tell how long Adam and Eve were in the garden before they fell. It does however state that Adam lived for nine hundred and thirty years.


The fact alone that Adam lived for 930 years should make one question the truthfulness of this book. Either that, or the writer forgot an important decimal point.

So if creationism took place one specific time and no one was there to witness it, how can you say that evolution is the one that's harder to believe?


Like what?

Like anything you can see, touch, smell, taste, in the real world, our world. Something along the lines of the "Jesus, brother of Joseph" on a gravestone. Though, that has been since proven false.

I refuse to believe in a magical mystery book that happened many years ago, unless there is proof in our world nowadays that will support it. I believe in faith, but as long as there's something there to bridge the gap somewhat. I have faith in evolution now, because I see natural selection all the time, and make the small leap of faith to believe what scientists theorize. The gap between Bible and any sort of fact is a large, glaring chasm, and I don't think I want to make that jump...ever.

[WildBaldMonkey]

Like anything you can see, touch, smell, taste, in the real world, our world. Something along the lines of the "Jesus, brother of Joseph" on a gravestone. Though, that has been since proven false.

I refuse to believe in a magical mystery book that happened many years ago, unless there is proof in our world nowadays that will support it. I believe in faith, but as long as there's something there to bridge the gap somewhat. I have faith in evolution now, because I see natural selection all the time, and make the small leap of faith to believe what scientists theorize. The gap between Bible and any sort of fact is a large, glaring chasm, and I don't think I want to make that jump...ever.


As far as what I would consider proof, (as far as Jesus goes) have you ever read this (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=isa%2053&version=31)? According to carbon dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls it was written at least 100 years before Jesus was born.

[racer5.0stang]

The fact alone that Adam lived for 930 years should make one question the truthfulness of this book. Either that, or the writer forgot an important decimal point.

Or that he really did live to be that old and man has lived less and less for each generation there after. Keep in mind that today no one would live past 40 if not for our technology and medicine.

I refuse to believe in a magical mystery book that happened many years ago, unless there is proof in our world nowadays that will support it.

No one has been able to disprove the bible only refuse to believe it.

The gap between Bible and any sort of fact is a large, glaring chasm, and I don't think I want to make that jump...ever.
I believe in faith, but as long as there's something there to bridge the gap somewhat.

Faith is the bridge that connects what we understand and what we don't understand.

[Funkaloyd]

As far as what I would consider proof, (as far as Jesus goes) have you ever read this (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=isa%2053&version=31)? According to carbon dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls it was written at least 100 years before Jesus was born.Hah, is this the same carbon dating that shows that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old?

That proves that there were prophecies before Jesus' time, not that he fulfilled them, performed any miracles, or even existed. Remember that the authors of New Testament would have had access to those predictions. It certainly doesn't prove that Jesus was right about anything.

You've also ignored the messianic prophecies of the Tanakh that Jesus didn't fulfill.

[Funkaloyd]

No one has been able to disprove the bible only refuse to believe it.
Most of that which hasn't been disproved isn't falsifiable anyway. If I were to say that Allah is the one and only true god and there's an invisible monster in my closet, you can't disprove either proposition, but that doesn't make them true.

Faith is the bridge that connects what we understand and what we don't understand.
Faith is a poorly constructed bridge (http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/gaps.html) which is rebuilt every few years.

[QueenAdrock]

Or that he really did live to be that old and man has lived less and less for each generation there after. Keep in mind that today no one would live past 40 if not for our technology and medicine.



Umm, exactly. We're living longer and longer because our technology and medicine and knowledge of science keeps getting better and better. So how could he have lived to 930 years old without the same luxuries we have today? How does man keep living "less and less"? A few centuries ago, the average age to live to was 40. Now it's 100, with our medical expertise. 60 year difference, going UP with the years. You're telling me that there was a drastic spike from 930 years to 40 years, and now back up to 100 years because of medicine, with no proof as to how man would lose so many years naturally?


No one has been able to disprove the bible only refuse to believe it.

That's because you can't disprove something that no one can prove. Take my example I keep using. My invisible friend wrote a book that I follow, that tells me that stealing is okay as long as I don't do it that often. He also had friends who could turn mud we found in our backyard into delicious fudgesicles. Can you disprove that he wrote it? Can you disprove that he was able to make us scrumptious popsicles? It was when I was 5, and my friend is dead now, so can you prove that it's false? No, you can't. But you'd have to be a pretty dumb to believe what I said, because it sounds ridiculous.


Faith is the bridge that connects what we understand and what we don't understand.


I'd like to hear what you DO understand, as opposed to what you don't.

[Funkaloyd]

my friend is dead nowI'm sorry.

[racer5.0stang]

I'm sorry.

How is that her imaginary friend died?

[QueenAdrock]

It's okay. He lived to the ripe old age of 930. He had a good life.

*pours out liquor*

[ChrisLove]

The time before the earth was created is represented as infinite only because we cannot determine an exact amount of time.

Time, as we know it, came into existance when the universe was created.

God exists outside of our time.

[QUOTE=Ali]Maybe God created Time? So there was a Time before he created it, when there was no time.


Aha now we are getting somewhere, From general reletivity we learn that time and space themselves were created at the big bang (this is how physics gets over the infinite problem mentioned earlier) so there was no 'before' the big bang.

But as you both pointed out, at the creation of the universe, God could also have created Time as well as space just like physicists say the big bang did. So we have physics and religion kind of in agreement - ie the conception of the universe includes the creation of both time and space.

I find this really interesting. It says something about God (if there is one). It says he exists outside of time - he is a non temporal pan dimensional being! cool. but it suggests to me that the way a lot of people think about God is wrong (lets assume there is one for a minute).

If God does is not subject to time then he would exist as a constant unchanging force in our universe (right?) so this would maybe explain why God does allow natural disasters and so on because as a non temporal being he would have no control over these things cos he is not a being that makes 'decisions' or responds to requests or 'punished' he is just a constant? The popular image of God as some kind of either vengeful or loving wizard handing out rewards and punishments as he sees fit seems way off the mark (I know for a fact that this is how a lot of religious people view God).

I find this to be a really interesting line of thinking, it probably bores a lot of people.

By placing God outside of the universe and taking away the requirement for infinite time, you get a God who is an unchanging (and infinite) constant (in keeping with many biblical and other religious teachings) and whos existence fits nicely within the most advanced scientific creation thoeries (No wonder Einstein, Hawking etc believe in God).

I quite all this - sorry for rambling

[maddoctorx]

Aha now we are getting somewhere, From general reletivity we learn that time and space themselves were created at the big bang (this is how physics gets over the infinite problem mentioned earlier) so there was no 'before' the big bang.





Well here is what I know about the big bang theory. It is derived from Einsteins General Relitivity theory. Einstien actually didn't like the term relativity theory because it was his view that certains things within the theory where relative space by itself was relative and time by itself was considered to be relative but the entirity of spacetime was considered to be a whole something. A benchmark by which accelerated motion could be determined. General realitvity explains gravity as ripples within the geometry of space time. It was Hubble and others who realized that if mass and energy affected the structure of spacetime that the size and structue of the universe must be changing and dynamic not whole and eternal. Einstien actually inteially resisted this idea and added the cosmolical constant to his equations to balance out the dynamic effect of general relativity. However the astronmer Hubble went on to search the skies and found direct evidence for a dynamic and expanding universe. When direct evidence of an exanding universe was found Einstien accepted it and said that his cosmolical constant or antigravity was his worst blunder. Ironically it has now been resaurected in another form to explain the ever increasing expansion of the universe. Now one thing many people may ask themselves is if time is realtive for each person based on there intrinsic motion how is that we can have a definitive age for the universe to be about 15 billion years. Well the answer to that is that every point in the universe can be considered to be the center of the universe. When you play the cosmic tape loop backwards you see all objects and points of space rushing toward each other. You play it back long enough and you have all spacetime mass and energy consintrated into a point, the singularity. Within the structure of our univese today the point of this explosion can not be found. Every point in space is that exploding point of the singularity. The expansion of spacetime we have found has accelerated at a constant rate through out its entire evolution. That means that everything has been moving at the same avergage speed and has been aging at about the same rate. However if you where to zip along in a rocket ship you would be free to get out of synch with the constant accelrated motion of the universe and have a diffrent equally valid perspective on time. Another thing about the big bang theory is that the theory only explains what happened after the bang. It says nothing about what banged, how it banged , or even why it banged. In fact there are many theories involving a before the big bang. If you where to try to use the current theory of general realitivty to play the story of spacetime backwards the theory would break down before the whole story could be told. The equaitons produce a singulairty of infinite mass and infinite density. Could this mean that the start of spacetime is infinite. Maybe or it could mean that we do not have a complete and adequate model of the unvirse. No one nows at this point. There is also the issue of general realtivity and quantum mechanics not getting along but I wont even get into string theory right now.

[ChrisLove]

There should be a Physics forum on this board. Thats a pretty good summery of BB right there! I was with you most of the way a part from the bit about Spacetime being infinite - I thought it constantly (or maybe exponentially expanded if you bring back the cos constant) expanded from a fixed zero point but I dont really know (well I mean I dont know what Physicists/cosmologists say - obviously I dont know shit about this!)

But anyway - I was trrying to think what all this means about a theoretical God figure at the moment - trying to see what a God would be like if we assume there is one and try to fit him into current understanding of the universe - any thoughts on that.

And you can bring the string theory anytime (y) Ive read shit about that yo.

[EN[i]GMA]

God's atemporality is meaningless.

It's a useless distinction.

Remember, non-existence is also atemporal.

[WildBaldMonkey]

Hah, is this the same carbon dating that shows that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old?

That proves that there were prophecies before Jesus' time, not that he fulfilled them, performed any miracles, or even existed. Remember that the authors of New Testament would have had access to those predictions. It certainly doesn't prove that Jesus was right about anything.

You've also ignored the messianic prophecies of the Tanakh that Jesus didn't fulfill.

The writters of the New Testament were Jews who ended up getting beaten, tortured and murdered for their faith that Jesus was the Messiah. They were eyewitnesses of his life and saw Him after the resurrection. So It really doesn't make sense that they would have made it up or tried to get Jesus to fit into some prophetic mold, if they knew it was a lie. Because like I said before, they paid for it with their lives. As for unfulfilled prophecy (http://www.amfi.org/mailbag/unfulfilled.htm).

[QueenAdrock]

I don't believe the "eyewitnesses" for a second. No one knows what was said back then, what was edited, or what truly happened. And seeing as how there were only 500 people who were "eyewitnesses"...that's not strong evidence. That's about the size of my graduating high school class. You can get 500 people nowadays to say anything you want them to, if the price is right. I mean, I'm sure I could find 500 people that would be willing to say and do what I wanted if I told them they'd go down as martyrs in history, or told them they'd be a part of a revolutionary new religion.


I just don't think it's a good argument to say "500 people saw Jesus rise from the dead thousands of years ago" as "proof," just because it's in one religious text, that happened so long ago. Are there supporting texts that say people actually saw Jesus rise from the dead, outside of the Bible? The whole Bible revolves around the fact that Jesus was messiah, so the writers could have just as easily made up the fact that people saw him rise, to further support their message.

[Funkaloyd]

Exactly. According to the Bible, there are eyewitnesses who can confirm the Bible. So what?


It really doesn't make sense that they would have made it up or tried to get Jesus to fit into some prophetic mold, if they knew it was a lie. Because like I said before, they paid for it with their lives.
The Cathars were persecuted for their beliefs, so surely they were right too?


As for unfulfilled prophecy (http://www.amfi.org/mailbag/unfulfilled.htm).
Don't you think that's a bit of a lame excuse? What's to stop people from worshipping Errol Flynn as the Messiah? No, he didn't perform any miracles, or fulfill any prophecies, but he'll do those things when he comes back from the dead! I'm sure of it.

[racer5.0stang]

I don't believe the "eyewitnesses" for a second. No one knows what was said back then, what was edited, or what truly happened. And seeing as how there were only 500 people who were "eyewitnesses"...that's not strong evidence.

Thats funny because in court it usually only takes four or five to convict someone. I guess if ONLY 500 people told you something that you would need stronger evidence. :rolleyes:

That's about the size of my graduating high school class. You can get 500 people nowadays to say anything you want them to, if the price is right. I mean, I'm sure I could find 500 people that would be willing to say and do what I wanted if I told them they'd go down as martyrs in history, or told them they'd be a part of a revolutionary new religion.

I'm sure those same people would risk being whipped with a cat of nine tails, beaten with a rod, stoned, and eventually crucified or beheaded and still maintain the lie. And all to become part of a new religion who most people don't believe in anyways. Man, I bet they're disappointed.

Get real.

The mere threat would turn most of them to telling the truth. Besides, what good is the bribe if you aren't alive to use it?

If God does is not subject to time then he would exist as a constant unchanging force in our universe (right?) so this would maybe explain why God does allow natural disasters and so on because as a non temporal being he would have no control over these things cos he is not a being that makes 'decisions' or responds to requests or 'punished' he is just a constant?

I would say that if God has the ability to create the universe, He should be able to control natural disasters, even cause them. Just because He may exist outside our time does not mean that he cannot interact with it or in it.

I think that most people have God labeled as just a loving God. But he being God must be more than that. He must be Holy above all. I believe that He is a God of love but also a God of grace, wrath, and justice. There is a verse in the bible which states that He causes it to rain on the just and the unjust.

[QueenAdrock]

Thats funny because in court it usually only takes four or five to convict someone. I guess if ONLY 500 people told you something that you would need stronger evidence. :rolleyes:

Just because they convict someone, doesn't make it true. It makes it ruling opinion. And yes, if only 500 people told me that the greatest miracle known to man that is physically impossible by all scientific laws happened, I'd need more evidence. I'd like to hear each of their stories, individually, rather than just some person say "500 people saw it". That's what I like to call "sketchy," at best. If I heard more evidence of "This is exactly what happened, and here are each of their perspectives" it is much more credible than just some writer telling me that it happened. And even then, who's to know they didn't collaborate?



I'm sure those same people would risk being whipped with a cat of nine tails, beaten with a rod, stoned, and eventually crucified or beheaded and still maintain the lie. And all to become part of a new religion who most people don't believe in anyways. Man, I bet they're disappointed.

Get real.

I'm saying that you don't KNOW what happened. The Bible gives its accounts, and to use that as "evidence" of the Bible being true is bullshit. Duh, of course they're going to put shit like that in there, doesn't mean it's true. You can't say "Hey, these stories are proven to be true because there's a story about how it is true."

There could have been NO beatings. It could be all a great exaggeration. And there's no way to prove that there were beatings, because the only "proof" you have is the book itself.

And true, "most" people don't believe in it. Just 2 billion people, out of 6 billion in the world. :rolleyes:

[Funkaloyd]

Most of them are Catholics though. They don't count.

[D_Raay]

The media should be ashamed of themselves, and BTW it proves their compliance with the current administration, that they are even equating "intelligent design" with evolution. It's like saying a ziploc bag keeps things fresh therefore it must be a god.

[Ali]

Just because He may exist outside our time does not mean that he cannot interact with it or in it. Actually, it does. :rolleyes:

[bb_bboy]

I don't understand why people come here and have intense theological and scientific debates when they have such loose grasps upon either of the subjects. Misunderstandings of ideas in both fields and on both sides of the argument make the discussions nothing if not pointless.

There have been many times when I've wanted to address particular points I’ve seen made here, typically when noticing flaws in logic, misinterpretations of generally held or fundamental religious concepts, or the misunderstanding of generally accepted scientific ideas and theories. However, trying to do so by presenting any idea that would be "fresh" (or more often "correct") to the addressee would be futile, as no one wants to hear anything other than what they've prematurely convinced themselves to think.

Debates about science and religion have gone on in circles far greater than that of the BBMB. And this is not to say that I don't respect the opinions of the posters here, but to see the same or slightly varied groups dancing in circles around the same topic and presenting the same clichéd arguments, about which there is only a vague collective understanding, is frustrating.

Just because gmsisko, racer-stang, et. al. can' t convince non-believers that there is a god, does not mean that compelling arguments for this point-of-view don't exist.

Just because no one can have an intelligent conversation about theories involving space-time does not mean that intelligent discourse on that subject has not taken place.

Here, people from the same sides of either argument can’t even agree to accept the same sets of basic facts, even though accepted sets of truths exist for either group. People think that their opinions alone are valid enough to carry on complex debates that hybridize scientific and theological ideas that have developed over hundreds and thousands of years, without ever consulting the hundreds and thousands of brilliant minds that have spent lifetimes mulling over these kinds of ideas.

To come here and inanely debate either of these really seems like a means or a cop out for avoiding real, potentially perspective changing discussions or texts that are abundantly available for both topics. Or at least it seems as a way to avoid having to give either any substantial amount of insightful thought.

[Funkaloyd]

Constructive criticism would be most welcome. "It's all been done before; you all have no idea what you're talking about; you should all go and read" are all pretty unspecific.

[Ali]

hybridizeis that a word?

[ms.peachy]

is that a word?
yes.

although you would probably spell it hybridise. :)

It refers to pairing complementary sequences of DNA.

[racer5.0stang]

Just because they convict someone, doesn't make it true.

So if your boyfriend were murdered and there were 5 eyewitnesses that would testify against the supposed murderer, you would need more evidence? I guess those 5 people just had it in for the guy.

But if 500 people where to testify that wouldn't change matters?

I don't understand why people come here and have intense theological and scientific debates when they have such loose grasps upon either of the subjects. Misunderstandings of ideas in both fields and on both sides of the argument make the discussions nothing if not pointless.

So, what other topic should we discuss in hopes to have a firmer grasp on the subject?

[Funkaloyd]

So if your boyfriend were murdered and there were 5 eyewitnesses that would testify against the supposed murderer, you would need more evidence? I guess those 5 people just had it in for the guy.
But if 500 people where to testify that wouldn't change matters?
if only 500 people told me that the greatest miracle known to man that is physically impossible by all scientific laws happened, I'd need more evidence.
Her emphasis.

[bb_bboy]

Constructive criticism would be most welcome. "It's all been done before; you all have no idea what you're talking about; you should all go and read" are all pretty unspecific.

That was my constructive criticism. If I thought that anything beyond that would help, then I would try to do it. I feel that to interject with something specific would appear to most as an argumentative statement, and would be dismissed in the way that most arguments here are.

The thing that comes to mind the fastest, as a specific way to show what I am talking about, would be to introduce a show that I watched on PBS this weekend. It is called “The Question of God,” and discusses the disparate opinions of Sigmund Freud and C.S. Lewis concerning religion, faith, etc. And after they present the ideas of each man vis-ê-vis one another, they have a panel of people from varied backgrounds and with varied religious beliefs discuss the ideas as they relate them to themselves and one another.

They carry out both very logical and rational and very ethereal and philosophical discussions about these ideas. And the strikingly different thing is that during these discussions, you see these people with very strong and long held convictions re-evaluating themselves and actually testing the nature of their beliefs through introspection, rather than holding onto them steadfast and without regard for the points of others.

Here is a link to the main page:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/index.html
(There are many interesting points of view here if you follow some of the links around.)

My point is that the debates held here (on the BBMB) go so far as to actually negate the fact that there are intelligent conversations such as those on this show even taking place. And while my criticism may sound like “you people should just go read more,” what I actually mean is that you should become informed of and learn to not only tolerate but more importantly appreciate the opinions of those far different than your own.

If you’re engaged in the discussion with no intention of learning anything, then why even participate? At that point the forum merely becomes a sounding board that is incapable of listening. Furthermore, singling out people who possess poor judgment and are filled with misinformation is not a way to make your points of view any stronger. Finding those with their own strong points of view, and then seeing how your own look in light of those, is one of myriad ways of actually developing well informed of such complex issues.

[bb_bboy]

But if 500 people where to testify that wouldn't change matters?

I think the point is that you don't have the testimony of 500 people. You have someone stating that five hundred people testified. I think that that is called or is akin to "hearsay".

To use your example, I couldn't be a witness in the trial and say "five other people said that they saw this murder happen." It's not considered legitimate.


is that a word?

Main Entry: hy·brid·ize
Pronunciation: 'hI-br&-"dIz
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -ized; -iz·ing
transitive senses : to cause to produce hybrids : INTERBREED
intransitive senses : to produce hybrids
- hy·brid·iza·tion /"hI-br&-d&-'zA-sh&n/ noun
- hy·brid·iz·er noun

I thought it might appear obvious in the context and with the root.

[bb_bboy]

The laws of science do not apply to God Allmighty!!

Yet.

However, if "god" is anything more than mental manifestation, then the laws governing science should eventually allow for us to describe or explain the fundamental nature of "god" itself.

(I guess, that even if "god" is only a mental manifestation, then it could eventually be explained through biochemistry and psychiatry.)

[QueenAdrock]

So if your boyfriend were murdered and there were 5 eyewitnesses that would testify against the supposed murderer, you would need more evidence? I guess those 5 people just had it in for the guy.

But if 500 people where to testify that wouldn't change matters?


No, like I've SAID, if they all had different eyewitness accounts in detail, that would lead to credibility. Say that Wayne was murdered 2 months ago, these people saw it, had it fresh in their minds, and all came out with their individual stories, and testified to what they saw and it all matched up pretty well, THAT is credible. However, if someone went up to the witness stand and said "Um, 5 people saw this guy do it," and then leave...yeah, that's NOT credible.

Those 500 witnesses have no accounts, am I right? It just says that those 500 people saw Jesus be resurrected, which could have been easily fabricated by the writer for his own purposes, seeing as how there are not any other details.

[QueenAdrock]

You make great points!! If people don't want to believe, they won't.


Sorry, racer. I thought we were having intellegent debate until this came up. ;)

[yeahwho]

Here is a Flash (http://www.markfiore.com/animation/super.html) explanation of Intelligent Design.

[Abe Froman]

So yea, why isn't god coming around and putting an end to all of this doubt and questioning?

[ChrisLove]

My point is that the debates held here (on the BBMB) go so far as to actually negate the fact that there are intelligent conversations such as those on this show even taking place. And while my criticism may sound like “you people should just go read more,” what I actually mean is that you should become informed of and learn to not only tolerate but more importantly appreciate the opinions of those far different than your own.

If you’re engaged in the discussion with no intention of learning anything, then why even participate? At that point the forum merely becomes a sounding board that is incapable of listening. Furthermore, singling out people who possess poor judgment and are filled with misinformation is not a way to make your points of view any stronger. Finding those with their own strong points of view, and then seeing how your own look in light of those, is one of myriad ways of actually developing well informed of such complex issues.

You say this but IMO this is exactly what I was trying to achieve in the conversation I was having with racer - I was in the discussion as someone who does not believe in God trying to engage someone with a completely different view point in a conversation that, to me, brought some interesting angles to the issue of the nature of God.

Im not here to change the world - Im just looking for some thought provoking discussion on topics that interest me, personally I was enjoying that particular discussion - Im sorry it frustated you so.

[Funkaloyd]

They carry out both very logical and rational and very ethereal and philosophical discussions about these ideas.
Of course I'm biased, but I would say that you don't need any "ethereal" arguments to disprove either the existence of deities or the validity of the Bible — that it can be done with very basic logic. But I will check out the PBS link.

I'm rushed for time, so sorry for the short reply. I definitely see where you're coming from.

[Ali]

yes.

although you would probably spell it hybridise. :)

It refers to pairing complementary sequences of DNA.Does it also refer to "scientific and theological ideas"?

I would spell it c o m b i n e

but, hey.

[Ali]

... singling out people who possess poor judgment and are filled with misinformation is not a way to make your points of view any stronger.But if somebody makes a comment, based on what one of us believes to be poor judgement or misinformation, are we not allowed to point this out, thereby opening ourselves up to the same treatment by another?
This is a crucial part of the learning process, IMHO, because you might think that somebody's told a Porker, go off and research a rebuffal and discover that s/he was right - hence learning something. If you didn't do your research properly and still attack somebody's assertion, because you believe it to be so patently false, then they are likely to go off and find evidence to defend their position and you and/or they learn something.
Questioning someone is not necessarily a means of making your argument stronger, it's part of the dialogue. I agree with you, supporting your ego by stomping all over an obviously weaker opponent is not going to get you any respect from anybody, it just makes one look like a bully, but sometimes people have to be corrected... for their own good, and the corrector had better have their ducks in a nice, straight stripe, because there will be somebody else only too willing to nail them, especially if they are making somebody else look bad.

Finding those with their own strong points of view, and then seeing how your own look in light of those, is one of myriad ways of actually developing well informed of such complex issues. Somebody can have a strong point of view and still be wrong, in your opinion. Having a strong point of view and making the same point more and more vehemently doesn't make someone any more correct, does it?

I believe that there are a lot of intelligent people who post here and I enjoy reading what they have to say and arguing with them when I think they're wrong (when I have enough time and patience ;) ). I've learned a lot here and look forward to learning more. Sometimes I have a stupid argument with someone and act like a jerk, trying to annoy them, because I'm in a nasty mood and just want to be mean to someone, I admit it... but I'm not always in such a nasty mood and I do try to have intelligent discussions from time to time. That's the nice thing about a message board, you can be lots of different things, depending on how you are feeling at the time.

So, why not let "people come here and have intense theological and scientific debates when they have such loose grasps upon either of the subjects. "

If "misunderstandings of ideas in both fields and on both sides of the argument make the discussions nothing if not pointless." and you've
"wanted to address particular points <you've> seen made here, typically when noticing flaws in logic, misinterpretations of generally held or fundamental religious concepts, or the misunderstanding of generally accepted scientific ideas and theories. " then why don't you?
Why would "trying to do so by presenting any idea that would be "fresh" (or more often "correct") to the addressee" "be futile," Why do you think that "no one wants to hear anything other than what they've prematurely convinced themselves to think."
You are duty bound to educate these people - and in the process you might discover that you, too, have premature convictions, when they are pointed out by another member who's noticed flaws in your logic or misunderstandings... but if you don't present them, then you and we will never know. I seriously doubt that most of the folks here are resistant to "fresh" ideas, what give you the idea that we are?

[D_Raay]

I agree Ali, well said... also bb it comes off as a bit condescending. If you can enlighten us on our errors and misconceptions, then by all means, have at it. I do not claim to be the pillar of intelligence on this board, and I may be wrong from time to time. If so an intelligent, coherent correction would be most welcome.

[bb_bboy]

I appreciate the responses to my posts - I didn't expect most of them to be favorable because we're talking about people's opinions and almost all people tend to take such criticism personal. I didn't intend to sound as though I was discouraging a free exchange of ideas - and I apoligize since it must have appeared that way - and I will claim up front that I by no means have any "definitive" answers to the questions that are being asked here.

I think that I reached the point, after following this thread for a couple of days, that I could no longer tolerate reading the same people trying to make the same points over and over and those on the other side responding with "you're wrong, because I'm right" and presenting some insignificant piece of data to accompany that theory. Maybe I was overwhelmed at not beign able to repsond to all of the points I wanted to, so I took a more childish approach by calling everyone names instead.

Perhaps, in hindsight, I should have kept my frustrations to myself. I do believe that there are significant ideas being bandied about here, and I am always amazed by the freedom granted to us by the internet for being able to corral such a diverse group of people to talk about things that matter to them. That is not to say that anyone here needs me to validate or invalidate their own points of view, but rather to say that I keep coming back primarily for the interesting banter.

If I have time then I might try to organize some thoughts about the topic itself rather than belittling everyone who is actually contributing. Again, my apologies for sounding like an ass - my only defense is that I might have misdirected a desire to be involved in the discussion.
:o

I beseach you to look at the PBS discussion about Frued vs. Lewis (the link is in post #109) if you are interested in looking at how debates very similar in nature to those happening here have developed previously.

[Ali]

I think that I reached the point, after following this thread for a couple of days, that I could no longer tolerate reading the same people trying to make the same points over and over and those on the other side responding with "you're wrong, because I'm right" and presenting some insignificant piece of data to accompany that theory.I can see how that can happen ;)

[bb_bboy]

Of course I'm biased, but I would say that you don't need any "ethereal" arguments to disprove either the existence of deities or the validity of the Bible — that it can be done with very basic logic.
Just as an introduction, I was raised as a Christian, at one time considered myself an Atheist, but more often would classify myself (since classifications are fasionable) as Agnostic. I have (admittedly) superficially studied most of the world’s major religions, but do not consider myself well versed in most of their doctrine to quote any of it readily or even confidently recount their basic tenets without some reference material. I think we all are biased - its good to at least think that to ourselves, as a quick reminder, before we begin typing posts. ;)

I oftentimes find myself among people who like to think, “I’m a logical rational person, educated in the sciences and mathematics - of course there are no gods, higher powers, supreme beings, etc,” and that’s where they conclude their train of thought (with some more detailed reasoning along the way). But the people who I find most interesting are those who - despite a grounding in science, math, logic, and reasoning - continue to ask questions far beyond the point when one particular conclusion could have been reached.

Of course the Bible can be “disproved,” I think that that possibility exists with any of the texts incorporated into the world’s major religions, especially hen they are taken entirely literally (which I also believe is a mistake). But to me, the fact that any of those books can be disproved does not mean that the possibility of a higher order/parallel universe/whatever you want to call it type of nature does not exist.

When we talk about science, we talk about a field that has continually evolved since its conception, because those who whole heartedly believe in it continue to ask questions and test ideas. Because of this questioning, testing, and reassessing, we have a body of knowledge among the scientific community that continues to grow even exponentially.

Now considering this, why not give spirituality, faith, and the human philosophical engine that drives these two a chance to continue to question, test, and reassess. If there is are things such as god or gods, when would we be most likely to form an informed understanding of them – at the very beginning of civilization as we know it, or throughout it as we continue to explore the evidence (or lack thereof) and make new determinations? To assume that any ancient religious text is the end-all be-all, especially from the perspective of one who seeks to disprove divinity, does a disservice to conversations and thoughts about the relationship between mankind and god(s) that are presently evolving under their own volition.

Please don’t misinterpret my comparison of these two things – science and religion – as an attempt to combine (Ali ;) ) them into an entirely new field. That would be very bad, and would really go back to address the broader point of this thread. My summary to that point would be that these two need to remain available to students but separated. I would love for my future children to be able to take courses on world religions and then go take separate classes in biology – as long as they are becoming informed about as many areas as possible before drawing their own conclusions about the world. But to bring a philosophy course into a science course would require an entirely separate and identifiable course that would make it clear that its point was to look at the two together and see what correlation there is between the two, both historically and contemporarily.

I’ve typed so damn much that I’ve lost my place. I guess that’s it for now. Peace.

[Ali]

God wants us to have free will. You can do what you want, and believe what you want. There are consequences to almost all actions though.Free to choose to have an abortion?

Didn't think so.

[WildBaldMonkey]

Speaking of abortion, are evolutionists against it? I'm not trying to get into whether it's morally wrong or not, but it seems to me that it would seriously interfere with natural selection.

[Abe Froman]

I choose to have an abortion.

Ahh, I selected!

[Abe Froman]

God wants us to have free will. You can do what you want, and believe what you want. There are consequences to almost all actions though.

He wants us to have free will but do this and don't do that? If certain things are so imporant and such a big deal, you would think he would intervine and say look people, you've got it all wrong instead of having people quote an old book.

[infidel]

Exactly.
When was the last time you heard of someone getting turned into a pillar of salt?

[Ali]

He wants us to have free will but do this and don't do that? If certain things are so imporant and such a big deal, you would think he would intervine and say look people, you've got it all wrong instead of having people quote an old book.GOD may want us to have free will, but His Servants sure as hell don't! God's not the problem, God doesn't really care whether we believe in him or not. Why should He? He gave us Free Will, did he not? The problem for those of us who don't want to believe in a god is that there are plenty of people who do who really, really want us to, too.

Why can't Christians just leave the rest of us alone? Just because your preists want more people to control doesn't mean that you have to go out and recruit people. Leave them alone. They are free to come to church or stay at home, if you try to make them come, then you are interfering with the Free Will that God gave us and I'm sure you wouldn't want that.

[catatonic]

He wants us to have free will but do this and don't do that? If certain things are so imporant and such a big deal, you would think he would intervine and say look people, you've got it all wrong instead of having people quote an old book.

In my religion, God does intervene. He intervened and gave us a modern eating guide in the 1830s http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/89. It's right on the money with today's science, with things that were hard to know about then. He also intervenes and gives personal advice. But He hasn't intervened on the topic of organic evolution to our church. People can believe what they want about it.