oh, and also... to catholics I must say this... read the book of Romans! it was from the aposlte paul to the Christians in Rome... and isn't rome like the capital of catholicism... so basically that whole book of the bible is against what catholics believe... sorry, it just had to be said
Guitarist Brian Welch leaves koRn
# 1
Cant argue with logic:
From http://www.christianburner.com/v1/reality.html
Introduction
When Christians ask me to examine the possibility of their god existing, I do - just as I always have. As a child, when I was Christian, I examined other possibilities out of curiosity. Now I examine other possibilities for consistency. What if the Christian god is real? Loosely, I have arrived at these possibilities:
- god is limited
- god is evil
- god is perfect
- god is false
For the short attention spanned, I give a summary of these conclusions: god cannot be limited, or he would not be god by his own definition; god cannot be evil as evil is a product of limited perspective - again, meaning god is limited and thus cannot be god. If god does exist as a perfect and unlimited being, he would not fit the biblical profile in any way, and he wouldn't even be a "he" (as gender is a physical biological property for purposes of procreation). The only reasonable conclusion would be that the Christian god is false.
I understand for many the above summary is not good enough. If you are a Christian, your calculations are in error. I will now go into greater detail and discipline your feeble mind.
In the beginning...
If god has always existed, what did he do during the eternity before the creation accounted in the bible? If god were perfect and complete, why would he have a need or desire to create anything? For god to do anything during the eternity of nothingness would not be out of need but out of desire. Why would god possess the property of desire? First we must examine the definition of desire.
Noun: desire
1. The feeling that accompanies an unsatisfied state
2. An inclination to want things
If god were complete, why would he experience an "unsatisfied state"? Why would god have an "inclination to want things"? Desire is a product of limitation, "unsatisified" implies limitation, and to want is to lack. For god to have desire would make him limited, and therefore not god by definition.
Possible Christian retort:
-"Desire does not make god limited". I just explained how it does - I suggest you reread it.
-"God can do anything, even have desire while remaining unlimited". I suppose god could do anything, but god cannot have desire by definition. Just as a chair cannot have four legs and three legs simultaneously, god cannot be unlimited and have desire simultaneously. Perhaps god is emulating the properties of desire, and for what reasons are unknown. But for the feeble mind, I will explore the possibility of god having desire.
Heaven
So a complete god who has existed for an eternity finally becomes bored and gets the desire to create. The first of his creations are angels, which are his helpers according to the bible. Why god would need any help is unclear, but who said the bible is logical? God makes the angels limited in perspective but expects them to perform justly as they would if they had unlimited perspective - already god is exercising demand and challenge. For reasons unclear, one-third of god's angels rebel against him. If a modern day corporation had one out of three employees leave for a competitor, this would be considered a horrific turnover rate. One could either interpret this as god making a mistake, or the angels miscalculated god's plans. Since god is perfect, he cannot make any mistakes. The angels were perfect but limited in perspective next to god, and therefore miscalculated god's plans - but by god's design only. Thus, god is responsible for this turnover. Why would god create unnecessary complications? I suppose boredom could be responsible, relieving god of responsibility - and the title of god.
Possible Christian retort:
-"God gave angels free will." Angels cannot exceed god's design, or they would be more powerful than god; hence god designed them to do as they did.
-"God did not need any help, he was just lonely." Lonely means one "lacks" companionship, and a complete god lacks nothing.
-"God was bored". If god were bored by definition he would have a "lack" of interest and experience mental weariness. Boredom is a result of limited perspective; uninterested because of frequent exposure or indulgence. If god possesses all faculties of consciousness simultaneously, knows all future and past, boredom would not be experienced, nor would desire - he would know what to expect, eventful or not. But for the mentally inferior, I will ignore such logic.
Earth
For some reason, according to the bible, god creates the earth, plants, and daytime before he creates the sun. I understand the writers of the bible did not have a full understanding of photosynthesis and such, but god did - who supposedly directed their writings. When the sun is finally created it is suggested that the sun exists for calendar purposes, not necessarily for day and light as it was already created (at this point, one must resist the temptation to think that the creation story is a primitive human perspective on reality, or maybe god created our beginnings in a chaotic and illogical fashion, perhaps to trick us into believing by means of faith only). Finally, after everything was finished, god rested. His error producing blueprints were set into motion.
From http://www.christianburner.com/v1/reality.html
Introduction
When Christians ask me to examine the possibility of their god existing, I do - just as I always have. As a child, when I was Christian, I examined other possibilities out of curiosity. Now I examine other possibilities for consistency. What if the Christian god is real? Loosely, I have arrived at these possibilities:
- god is limited
- god is evil
- god is perfect
- god is false
For the short attention spanned, I give a summary of these conclusions: god cannot be limited, or he would not be god by his own definition; god cannot be evil as evil is a product of limited perspective - again, meaning god is limited and thus cannot be god. If god does exist as a perfect and unlimited being, he would not fit the biblical profile in any way, and he wouldn't even be a "he" (as gender is a physical biological property for purposes of procreation). The only reasonable conclusion would be that the Christian god is false.
I understand for many the above summary is not good enough. If you are a Christian, your calculations are in error. I will now go into greater detail and discipline your feeble mind.
In the beginning...
If god has always existed, what did he do during the eternity before the creation accounted in the bible? If god were perfect and complete, why would he have a need or desire to create anything? For god to do anything during the eternity of nothingness would not be out of need but out of desire. Why would god possess the property of desire? First we must examine the definition of desire.
Noun: desire
1. The feeling that accompanies an unsatisfied state
2. An inclination to want things
If god were complete, why would he experience an "unsatisfied state"? Why would god have an "inclination to want things"? Desire is a product of limitation, "unsatisified" implies limitation, and to want is to lack. For god to have desire would make him limited, and therefore not god by definition.
Possible Christian retort:
-"Desire does not make god limited". I just explained how it does - I suggest you reread it.
-"God can do anything, even have desire while remaining unlimited". I suppose god could do anything, but god cannot have desire by definition. Just as a chair cannot have four legs and three legs simultaneously, god cannot be unlimited and have desire simultaneously. Perhaps god is emulating the properties of desire, and for what reasons are unknown. But for the feeble mind, I will explore the possibility of god having desire.
Heaven
So a complete god who has existed for an eternity finally becomes bored and gets the desire to create. The first of his creations are angels, which are his helpers according to the bible. Why god would need any help is unclear, but who said the bible is logical? God makes the angels limited in perspective but expects them to perform justly as they would if they had unlimited perspective - already god is exercising demand and challenge. For reasons unclear, one-third of god's angels rebel against him. If a modern day corporation had one out of three employees leave for a competitor, this would be considered a horrific turnover rate. One could either interpret this as god making a mistake, or the angels miscalculated god's plans. Since god is perfect, he cannot make any mistakes. The angels were perfect but limited in perspective next to god, and therefore miscalculated god's plans - but by god's design only. Thus, god is responsible for this turnover. Why would god create unnecessary complications? I suppose boredom could be responsible, relieving god of responsibility - and the title of god.
Possible Christian retort:
-"God gave angels free will." Angels cannot exceed god's design, or they would be more powerful than god; hence god designed them to do as they did.
-"God did not need any help, he was just lonely." Lonely means one "lacks" companionship, and a complete god lacks nothing.
-"God was bored". If god were bored by definition he would have a "lack" of interest and experience mental weariness. Boredom is a result of limited perspective; uninterested because of frequent exposure or indulgence. If god possesses all faculties of consciousness simultaneously, knows all future and past, boredom would not be experienced, nor would desire - he would know what to expect, eventful or not. But for the mentally inferior, I will ignore such logic.
Earth
For some reason, according to the bible, god creates the earth, plants, and daytime before he creates the sun. I understand the writers of the bible did not have a full understanding of photosynthesis and such, but god did - who supposedly directed their writings. When the sun is finally created it is suggested that the sun exists for calendar purposes, not necessarily for day and light as it was already created (at this point, one must resist the temptation to think that the creation story is a primitive human perspective on reality, or maybe god created our beginnings in a chaotic and illogical fashion, perhaps to trick us into believing by means of faith only). Finally, after everything was finished, god rested. His error producing blueprints were set into motion.
# 2
Hell
Why does god choose negative reinforcement as part of his strategy - because he lacks control, or because he is cruel by nature? With proper deduction there are only two reasons why negative reinforcement is used, 1- the issuer lacks control, 2- the issuer is cruel. To answer this, first I must prove that god uses negative reinforcement. Hell, if your version of Christianity happens to believe in it, is a good example of negative reinforcement. Hell is not a facility to rehabilitate, enlighten, or correct but a platform to punish various sinners for eternity. Let us examine the definition of negative reinforcement.
Noun: negative reinforcement
1. A reinforcing stimulus whose removal serves to decrease the likelihood of the response that produced it
Example: A child wants to play in the street. A parent puts restrictions on such actions as the parent understands the danger, and the child does not. If the parent had the option to enlighten the child (as opposed to punishing), they would certainly choose to do so. However, the parent does not possess such powers, as where god does.
God's options are not limited, suggesting he chooses them out of desire. If god truly wanted to protect us, certainly he would enlighten us as opposed to simply punishing us, which has no productive or positive results. One could reasonably conclude that the only purpose of hell or punishment is a consequence to persuade, or ultimately, negative reinforcement.
Possible Christian retort:
-"God is love, not cruel." God restricts knowledge and cripples understanding purposely, thus creating the variable for struggle, pain, and punishment. Would a father with a family keep his front door open all night (maybe with a sign posted that reads "Strangers: rob me and rape my daughters") increasing the variable of negativity, and exposing his family to danger? Sure, if he was cruel or insane. So, why would our heavenly father increase the variable of negativity, exposing his earthly family of humans to danger? Not out of love.
-"Negative reinforcement isn't bad or exclusive to 1) limitation or 2) cruelty." Wrong. 1) A parent lacks the ability to enlighten a child to certain logic, but children understand negative feelings - hence often respond to negative reinforcement. In this case, the issuer lacks control. 2) However, if the parent had the power to enlighten the child and chose not to, the parent must resort to exerting negative reinforcement - or more simply put, negativity. Since making the child understand would result in safety, and negative reinforcement may result in safety (or danger), the positive result is compromised and variable for negativity become present. In this case, the issuer is cruel.
-"Hell was created for Satan and his demons." Regardless of who hell was created for, it does not negate the policy of humans receiving it.
-"You and the entire christianburner.com staff are going to hell." Where is hell located? I cannot seem to find it on my map - perhaps I need a map of fantasyland.
-"Hell is received by choices of free will." If a robber points a gun at me and gives me a choice to comply or suffer accordingly, he is using negative reinforcement - and ultimately has given me options. By such logic, the robber is using free will. If you disagree, then you agree that god does not issue free will - god gives us a choice to comply or suffer accordingly, and if you do not like either option it becomes a matter of which suffering is lesser, much like the options a rapist would give. If you disagree, then you believe that if a woman is in the process of being raped, refuses, and is beaten and stabbed - she was stabbed by choice. Rapist: "My way or the die way." Robber: "My way or the die way." Yahweh: "My way or the die way."
Why does god choose negative reinforcement as part of his strategy - because he lacks control, or because he is cruel by nature? With proper deduction there are only two reasons why negative reinforcement is used, 1- the issuer lacks control, 2- the issuer is cruel. To answer this, first I must prove that god uses negative reinforcement. Hell, if your version of Christianity happens to believe in it, is a good example of negative reinforcement. Hell is not a facility to rehabilitate, enlighten, or correct but a platform to punish various sinners for eternity. Let us examine the definition of negative reinforcement.
Noun: negative reinforcement
1. A reinforcing stimulus whose removal serves to decrease the likelihood of the response that produced it
Example: A child wants to play in the street. A parent puts restrictions on such actions as the parent understands the danger, and the child does not. If the parent had the option to enlighten the child (as opposed to punishing), they would certainly choose to do so. However, the parent does not possess such powers, as where god does.
God's options are not limited, suggesting he chooses them out of desire. If god truly wanted to protect us, certainly he would enlighten us as opposed to simply punishing us, which has no productive or positive results. One could reasonably conclude that the only purpose of hell or punishment is a consequence to persuade, or ultimately, negative reinforcement.
Possible Christian retort:
-"God is love, not cruel." God restricts knowledge and cripples understanding purposely, thus creating the variable for struggle, pain, and punishment. Would a father with a family keep his front door open all night (maybe with a sign posted that reads "Strangers: rob me and rape my daughters") increasing the variable of negativity, and exposing his family to danger? Sure, if he was cruel or insane. So, why would our heavenly father increase the variable of negativity, exposing his earthly family of humans to danger? Not out of love.
-"Negative reinforcement isn't bad or exclusive to 1) limitation or 2) cruelty." Wrong. 1) A parent lacks the ability to enlighten a child to certain logic, but children understand negative feelings - hence often respond to negative reinforcement. In this case, the issuer lacks control. 2) However, if the parent had the power to enlighten the child and chose not to, the parent must resort to exerting negative reinforcement - or more simply put, negativity. Since making the child understand would result in safety, and negative reinforcement may result in safety (or danger), the positive result is compromised and variable for negativity become present. In this case, the issuer is cruel.
-"Hell was created for Satan and his demons." Regardless of who hell was created for, it does not negate the policy of humans receiving it.
-"You and the entire christianburner.com staff are going to hell." Where is hell located? I cannot seem to find it on my map - perhaps I need a map of fantasyland.
-"Hell is received by choices of free will." If a robber points a gun at me and gives me a choice to comply or suffer accordingly, he is using negative reinforcement - and ultimately has given me options. By such logic, the robber is using free will. If you disagree, then you agree that god does not issue free will - god gives us a choice to comply or suffer accordingly, and if you do not like either option it becomes a matter of which suffering is lesser, much like the options a rapist would give. If you disagree, then you believe that if a woman is in the process of being raped, refuses, and is beaten and stabbed - she was stabbed by choice. Rapist: "My way or the die way." Robber: "My way or the die way." Yahweh: "My way or the die way."
# 3
http://www.christianburner.com/v1/reality.html
Garden of Eden
For unknown reasons, god decides to create animals and humans: inferior creatures extremely limited both mentally and physically (especially in comparison to god). Much like the angels, god expects humans to perform just as they would if they had unlimited perspective and full understanding of everything, when clearly they do not. Now that these limitations and challenges lay in front of humans, god puts restrictions on desires that he has given them. This may seem cruel and unfair, but who said god was fair? God designs humans with desires to have sex but forbids fornication. God designs humans with the capacity to reason and be independent thinkers, but god does not explain sufficiently and demand we ignore our reasoning and rely on his commands alone. God designs Adam to be innocent, naïve, and curious... and god forbids Adam to eat from a fruit yet does not explain why, only that he will die if he does. Christians will argue that this is not an act of cruelty, but love. God is only testing Adam. Let us examine the definition of "test".
Verb: test
1. Put to the test, as for its quality, or give experimental use to
2. Examine one's knowledge of something
3. To determine a previously unknown outcome
Why would god test Adam? According to definition, god was limited in knowledge so conducting a test was necessary for god to understand what he did not previously. God was examining Adam's knowledge or trying to determine an outcome that was previously unknown - but if he is god, wouldn't he know everything to begin with? Then why was a test given if not necessary? With god, if something is not done out of need, it is done out of desire. One might conclude that god was testing Adam not for new knowledge, but perhaps out of a desire to throw hoops and hurdles in front of him to watch him struggle - but who wants to believe in a cruel god? If there is another reason, god has not made it clear - and it does not seem like love. Using the brain he has given me, I see no other options. The brain he designed for me thinks he is a bastard. But I digress.
The serpent, which Christians presume to be Satan (although it is not specified anywhere in genesis who or what the serpent is other than a serpent), supposedly tricks Adam and Eve into eating the fruit of knowledge, which god forbids. Why would god forbid knowledge? Why would god put restriction on information and experience? It is bad enough that he has limited our mental and physical states to that of a rotting animal, hosting parasites and pain. It seems odd that god would design us to crave knowledge and information and then restrict it - it becomes clear that god is the source of sin and designed us to do precisely that. But let us move on.
So Adam eats from the fruit, as god plans, resulting in their ejection from Eden. When you have a probability greater than zero, the longer time goes on the more highly probable that variable becomes. God created the variable for sin to exist. One could conclude that humans could only delay the inevitable. Just before they are ejected, Adam is walking in the garden and god asks him where he is. God knows very well where Adam is, and Adam should know this. Perhaps god had not honestly communicated the nature of Adam's own creator to him. When god asks Adam where he is, he suggests he lacks knowledge of Adam's location, clearly tricking Adam - or more accurately, attempting to deceive Adam.
In short, we have determined:
- Communication between god and Adam is lacking, enough for Adam to believe god does not know where he is.
- God did not give Adam sufficient information about anything, and then restricts other possible knowledge by forbidding the fruit - and without explanation.
- God attempts to deceive Adam by asking where he is (then later calls Satan the father of the lie - the nerve!).
Possible Christian retort:
-"God is not the source of sin." On the one hand god must be in complete control, as he is god. On the other, he cannot be in complete control, or he would be responsible for sin. If god is not the source of all, he is limited and not god by definition.
-"God is merciful, not cruel." Consider these three aspects. 1) The wages sin pays is death. 2) God chose death as the consequence for sinning. 3) God is under obligation to no one. Therefore, god chooses violence and death as a solution out of pure desire.
-"God is not deceiving Adam, but teaching him a lesson". Verb: deceive - Cause someone to believe an untruth. Did god cause Adam to believe that he did not know his location? Yes. Is it truth that god really did know where Adam was? Yes. By definition, god deceived Adam.
Garden of Eden
For unknown reasons, god decides to create animals and humans: inferior creatures extremely limited both mentally and physically (especially in comparison to god). Much like the angels, god expects humans to perform just as they would if they had unlimited perspective and full understanding of everything, when clearly they do not. Now that these limitations and challenges lay in front of humans, god puts restrictions on desires that he has given them. This may seem cruel and unfair, but who said god was fair? God designs humans with desires to have sex but forbids fornication. God designs humans with the capacity to reason and be independent thinkers, but god does not explain sufficiently and demand we ignore our reasoning and rely on his commands alone. God designs Adam to be innocent, naïve, and curious... and god forbids Adam to eat from a fruit yet does not explain why, only that he will die if he does. Christians will argue that this is not an act of cruelty, but love. God is only testing Adam. Let us examine the definition of "test".
Verb: test
1. Put to the test, as for its quality, or give experimental use to
2. Examine one's knowledge of something
3. To determine a previously unknown outcome
Why would god test Adam? According to definition, god was limited in knowledge so conducting a test was necessary for god to understand what he did not previously. God was examining Adam's knowledge or trying to determine an outcome that was previously unknown - but if he is god, wouldn't he know everything to begin with? Then why was a test given if not necessary? With god, if something is not done out of need, it is done out of desire. One might conclude that god was testing Adam not for new knowledge, but perhaps out of a desire to throw hoops and hurdles in front of him to watch him struggle - but who wants to believe in a cruel god? If there is another reason, god has not made it clear - and it does not seem like love. Using the brain he has given me, I see no other options. The brain he designed for me thinks he is a bastard. But I digress.
The serpent, which Christians presume to be Satan (although it is not specified anywhere in genesis who or what the serpent is other than a serpent), supposedly tricks Adam and Eve into eating the fruit of knowledge, which god forbids. Why would god forbid knowledge? Why would god put restriction on information and experience? It is bad enough that he has limited our mental and physical states to that of a rotting animal, hosting parasites and pain. It seems odd that god would design us to crave knowledge and information and then restrict it - it becomes clear that god is the source of sin and designed us to do precisely that. But let us move on.
So Adam eats from the fruit, as god plans, resulting in their ejection from Eden. When you have a probability greater than zero, the longer time goes on the more highly probable that variable becomes. God created the variable for sin to exist. One could conclude that humans could only delay the inevitable. Just before they are ejected, Adam is walking in the garden and god asks him where he is. God knows very well where Adam is, and Adam should know this. Perhaps god had not honestly communicated the nature of Adam's own creator to him. When god asks Adam where he is, he suggests he lacks knowledge of Adam's location, clearly tricking Adam - or more accurately, attempting to deceive Adam.
In short, we have determined:
- Communication between god and Adam is lacking, enough for Adam to believe god does not know where he is.
- God did not give Adam sufficient information about anything, and then restricts other possible knowledge by forbidding the fruit - and without explanation.
- God attempts to deceive Adam by asking where he is (then later calls Satan the father of the lie - the nerve!).
Possible Christian retort:
-"God is not the source of sin." On the one hand god must be in complete control, as he is god. On the other, he cannot be in complete control, or he would be responsible for sin. If god is not the source of all, he is limited and not god by definition.
-"God is merciful, not cruel." Consider these three aspects. 1) The wages sin pays is death. 2) God chose death as the consequence for sinning. 3) God is under obligation to no one. Therefore, god chooses violence and death as a solution out of pure desire.
-"God is not deceiving Adam, but teaching him a lesson". Verb: deceive - Cause someone to believe an untruth. Did god cause Adam to believe that he did not know his location? Yes. Is it truth that god really did know where Adam was? Yes. By definition, god deceived Adam.
# 4
Well let the chair throwing commence !
Please keep it clean and above the belt and I see no reason why this should not be a very interesting and informative argument !!
PLEASE READ THE GT RULES and don't make us shut this thread down 'cos this looks like a good one !!
Please keep it clean and above the belt and I see no reason why this should not be a very interesting and informative argument !!
PLEASE READ THE GT RULES and don't make us shut this thread down 'cos this looks like a good one !!
My instructors page and www.studiotrax.net for all things recording.
my toons Brought to you by Dr BadGAS
my toons Brought to you by Dr BadGAS
# 5
Originally Posted by: chucklivesoninmyheart
On a completley different note...I'm seeing Cryptopsy tommorow!Anyone else catching the show?
Son of a bitch... Eat a worm for if you get the chance. Do it for me because I don't have the luck you have.
The Gods Made Heavy Metal, And They Saw That It Was Good
They Said To Play It Louder Than Hell, We Promised That We Would
Hulk Smash!!
Whatever you do, don't eat limes. A friend of mine ate a lime once and BAM!! Two years later. Herpes.
They Said To Play It Louder Than Hell, We Promised That We Would
Hulk Smash!!
Whatever you do, don't eat limes. A friend of mine ate a lime once and BAM!! Two years later. Herpes.
# 6
Originally Posted by: 3rd_degreeburnhttp://christiananswers.net/menu-at1.html
Very good site that uses science, logic ect to explain christianity, God, Jesus ect
Please check it out
I'm looking through it right now and it seems to be openminded and interesting for a christian site, thought the logic used is often roundabout (answering one question with another) and sometimes very humouress. Especially the bible section and other religions. Conveniently picks and chooses its issues. A lot of hypocrisy. But a good read all together
Thanks
# 7
Originally Posted by: Dr_simonWell let the chair throwing commence !
Please keep it clean and above the belt and I see no reason why this should not be a very interesting and informative argument !!
PLEASE READ THE GT RULES and don't make us shut this thread down 'cos this looks like a good one !!
I agree, I think we're all mature enough here. I would enjoy a good debate
:)
# 8
Well its obvious you wont get far in trying to convert an athiest using the bible...thats not their 'ground'.
I think most that claim to be athiest are really agnostic...they arn't sure if god exists or not but take the latter as the most likley...ive never met a 'true' athiest.
I think most that claim to be athiest are really agnostic...they arn't sure if god exists or not but take the latter as the most likley...ive never met a 'true' athiest.
Try once,fail twice...
# 9
Originally Posted by: chucklivesoninmyheart...ive never met a 'true' athiest.
oi... I live like less than a mile away from a government laboratory, actually where my dad works, but anyways, a lot of scientist-type people that believe heavily on evolution live around here... but there's a lot of christians here too... and I'm positive there is at least one catholic church... and I don't quite know where I was going with that one....
# 10
Evolution is not something that requires belief or faith or any sort of design.
If you dont understand that then you dont really understand evolution.
If you dont understand that then you dont really understand evolution.
My instructors page and www.studiotrax.net for all things recording.
my toons Brought to you by Dr BadGAS
my toons Brought to you by Dr BadGAS
# 11
Originally Posted by: PonyOnei don't know if that was directed at me but... sorry...
No it wasn't Pony, if I have an axe to grind I dont beat about the bush !
My instructors page and www.studiotrax.net for all things recording.
my toons Brought to you by Dr BadGAS
my toons Brought to you by Dr BadGAS
# 12
Evolution isn't conclusive enough for me.If it was somehow proven as absolute fact,then I would still attribute human origin to God by means of evolution.
The fact we havn't been obliterated by a cataclysmic cosmic event is itself reason to believe in another 'higher' existance that is running the show.
The fact we havn't been obliterated by a cataclysmic cosmic event is itself reason to believe in another 'higher' existance that is running the show.
Try once,fail twice...
# 13
Ok so Im not after upsetting anyone so please don't take this as personally.
However....
Can you prove the moon is not made out of green cheese ? How do you know, have you been there ?
How do you know the earth is not flat, have you ever seen the edge ?
How do you know the Earth orbits the Sun ? Have you seen it ?
People have been incarcerated (Galileo Galilei 1564—1642) or even killed as heretics for saying less !
Im not sure I understand what an "absolute fact" is, something is either a fact or it is not.
Absolute is also not a word I would attribute to a concept like "truth" either as one mans "freedom fighter" is another mans "terrorist". Or to use a less abrasive example, the question "Is a table a table if you use it as a foot stool ? Or is it then a foot stool ?" begs the question was the person who called the table a table telling the truth ? Truth is (IMHO) relative (que OBI Kanobi jokes).
However evolution can be observed on may levels and it is occurring every day. Look at the acquisition of bacterial antibiotic resistance (i.e. MRSA) or the change in color of moths as a result of living in an industrial climate or the radial evolution of the pentadactile limb.
Evolution can also be modeled using computers. Here time is speeded up allowing the viewer to watch a process that would normally occur over a very long time happen quickly which makes it more dramatic and noticeable.
Have a look at a couple of (IMHO) very well thought out books. One by Douglas Adams called "The Salmon of Doubt" and the other by a guy called Richard Dawkins called "The Selfish Gene".
Both are well written and in "non-scientific" english.
However....
Can you prove the moon is not made out of green cheese ? How do you know, have you been there ?
How do you know the earth is not flat, have you ever seen the edge ?
How do you know the Earth orbits the Sun ? Have you seen it ?
People have been incarcerated (Galileo Galilei 1564—1642) or even killed as heretics for saying less !
Im not sure I understand what an "absolute fact" is, something is either a fact or it is not.
Absolute is also not a word I would attribute to a concept like "truth" either as one mans "freedom fighter" is another mans "terrorist". Or to use a less abrasive example, the question "Is a table a table if you use it as a foot stool ? Or is it then a foot stool ?" begs the question was the person who called the table a table telling the truth ? Truth is (IMHO) relative (que OBI Kanobi jokes).
However evolution can be observed on may levels and it is occurring every day. Look at the acquisition of bacterial antibiotic resistance (i.e. MRSA) or the change in color of moths as a result of living in an industrial climate or the radial evolution of the pentadactile limb.
Evolution can also be modeled using computers. Here time is speeded up allowing the viewer to watch a process that would normally occur over a very long time happen quickly which makes it more dramatic and noticeable.
Have a look at a couple of (IMHO) very well thought out books. One by Douglas Adams called "The Salmon of Doubt" and the other by a guy called Richard Dawkins called "The Selfish Gene".
Both are well written and in "non-scientific" english.
My instructors page and www.studiotrax.net for all things recording.
my toons Brought to you by Dr BadGAS
my toons Brought to you by Dr BadGAS
# 14
I don't understand why science and religion have to be a loggerheads.
Science is all about gathering data and analyzing it.
Pre Big Bang, there is no data, so science has to shut up really and then well I guess it is really a matter of faith !
I also don't understand why religion has to be so intolerant over a theory as blatantly "in your face" as evolution. It is not like it proves there is no God (see above).
You would have thought that after the old "world being flat" or the "sun revolving round the earth" which were also religious doctrine at various points in time, that were just wrong, the church would have the good sense to at the very least moderate its teachings about the world around it.
If a God it telling man how it all happened why would they tell him / her stuff that was wrong ? What about dinosaurs ? You would think such impressive creatures would warrant a mention ?
Science is all about gathering data and analyzing it.
Pre Big Bang, there is no data, so science has to shut up really and then well I guess it is really a matter of faith !
I also don't understand why religion has to be so intolerant over a theory as blatantly "in your face" as evolution. It is not like it proves there is no God (see above).
You would have thought that after the old "world being flat" or the "sun revolving round the earth" which were also religious doctrine at various points in time, that were just wrong, the church would have the good sense to at the very least moderate its teachings about the world around it.
If a God it telling man how it all happened why would they tell him / her stuff that was wrong ? What about dinosaurs ? You would think such impressive creatures would warrant a mention ?
My instructors page and www.studiotrax.net for all things recording.
my toons Brought to you by Dr BadGAS
my toons Brought to you by Dr BadGAS
# 15
Originally Posted by: Dr_simonHave a look at a couple of (IMHO) very well thought out books. One by Douglas Adams called "The Salmon of Doubt" and the other by a guy called Richard Dawkins called "The Selfish Gene".
Both are well written and in "non-scientific" english.
WARNING: If The Selfish Gene is anything like The Blind Watchmaker or The Ancestors' Tale, you'll have to take your time with it. Very good, very informative, but written by a stuffy British dude with absolutely no sense of humor.
The Salmon of Doubt kicks ass, though. I'm especially fond of tormenting the Brits on the RBF board with the footnote in his instructions on making a good cup of tea.
Raskolnikov
Guitar Tricks Moderator
Careful what you wish for friend
I've been to Hell and now I'm back again
www.GuitarTricks.com - Home of Online Guitar Lessons
Guitar Tricks Moderator
Careful what you wish for friend
I've been to Hell and now I'm back again
www.GuitarTricks.com - Home of Online Guitar Lessons
# 16
Dude, Richard Dawkins is a hoot !! You just have to understand the very dry sense of humor
I also still owe you one for turning me onto the the Salmon of doubt.
I also still owe you one for turning me onto the the Salmon of doubt.
My instructors page and www.studiotrax.net for all things recording.
my toons Brought to you by Dr BadGAS
my toons Brought to you by Dr BadGAS
# 17
Originally Posted by: Dr_simonI don't understand why science and religion have to be a loggerheads.
Science is all about gathering data and analyzing it.
Pre Big Bang, there is no data, so science has to shut up really and then well I guess it is really a matter of faith !
I also don't understand why religion has to be so intolerant over a theory as blatantly "in your face" as evolution. It is not like it proves there is no God (see above).
You would have thought that after the old "world being flat" or the "sun revolving round the earth" which were also religious doctrine at various points in time, that were just wrong, the church would have the good sense to at the very least moderate its teachings about the world around it.
If a God it telling man how it all happened why would they tell him / her stuff that was wrong ? What about dinosaurs ? You would think such impressive creatures would warrant a mention ?
I COMPLETELY AGREE!
I have my doubts towards the validity of INTERSPICIES evolution not due to religious background, but due to scientific infirmities. INTRAspecies is undeniable, but science has yet to find a real interspecies link. However, I see absolutely NO qualms with a not-so literal interpretation of the Bible where evolution is possible.
Oh, Sclorch, I forgot to mention a flaw in your logic. If God is perfect (one of the four possible outcomes) then it might be impossible for imperfect beings, such as ourselves, to comprehend his purpose or logic in making this world. Thus we cannot deny the possible validity of that outcome. I'm not saying that they're undeniably is a God (although I believe that). I'm just saying your method of disproving His existence is not entirely valid.
# 18
Originally Posted by: Dr_simonDude, Richard Dawkins is a hoot !! You just have to understand the very dry sense of humor
When four or five hundred pages into The Ancestor's Tale, I laughed at his comment about What's-his-face's Monster being "brilliant at infecting test tubes," I had to put the book down and shoot some bourbon to get that uncomfortable "smart" feeling out of my head.
Raskolnikov
Guitar Tricks Moderator
Careful what you wish for friend
I've been to Hell and now I'm back again
www.GuitarTricks.com - Home of Online Guitar Lessons
Guitar Tricks Moderator
Careful what you wish for friend
I've been to Hell and now I'm back again
www.GuitarTricks.com - Home of Online Guitar Lessons
# 19
Originally Posted by: Jolly McJollyson
I have my doubts towards the validity of INTERSPICIES evolution not due to religious background, but due to scientific infirmities. INTRAspecies is undeniable, but science has yet to find a real interspecies link.
Please don't think Im being rude but I think you have missed the point. Speciation, divergence and survival are byproducts of genome plasticity and that my friend, in conjunction with a selection pressure is what it is all about !
Can you imagine what the advantages are of a relatively genetically plastic genome over a rigidly stable one in a constantly changing and hostile environment ? One bad thing is cancer however that is by the buy !
As for the missing link, I think this is another misnomer.
It is like looking for a link between a Saturn 5 moon rocket and a Palm pilot ! The link as we both know is the humans mind not a Texas Instruments Scientific calculator from the mid 80s !
Speciation is a radial process involving common ancestors and as far as philogenetics are concerned the common ancestor between a primate and a dog may not look anything like what we are expecting to see. And it certainly wont have hung about for a hundred million years without evolving its self !!
Not so much missing as overlooked !
Give it 10 years and with the speed of genome sequencing I may even be proved, empirically, to be right !
My instructors page and www.studiotrax.net for all things recording.
my toons Brought to you by Dr BadGAS
my toons Brought to you by Dr BadGAS
# 20
