You hit the nail on the head. I'll quote myself, "Anybody see this on the news?" Months before the media berated the President for "illegal wiretappings" but when the Senate Judiciary Committee exonerated the President the media remained silent.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
How is this an example of media bias? Where is the media? All you have is a quote by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and last time I checked they were in no way affiliated with the media.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Senate Judiciary Committee said, "If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now."
Also, just this week five former FISA judges said that Bush's actions were entirely appropriate and legal.
Anybody see this on the news? This is a perfect example of media bias. Anybody else have examples of bias towards the current administration?
Search
Search results: 566 found, showing up to 50
I have a newer study that states the opposite:Spark wrote:
Enough condescending, random posts Horseman.
Anyways. For a nice example of media bias, see this
http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664
I will be for abortion when the male has a right in the decision.
Quotes I agree with:
"In principle I want the twosome responsible for the biological fact of conception to resolve the fate of the fetus. It's my notion that men should help sweat the decision."
"My argument is that your body has in fact been altered by the product of two party behavior, a product that has genetic inheritance from a guy that just might care to petition for its bringing to term. You make the final decision, but to pretend that what has changed your body is the product of your own wish fullness is manifestly false. So I would like you to hear out the husband. Its not just notification of course, its also the idea that the husband can then plead.
We don't have a perfect world. Abortion is what is called a clash of faulty rights. When a man and woman disagree about the fate of the fetus there are faulty rights involved. That's a solemn doctrine in the law. Things are not neat and tidy, so if you require the woman to hear the man's plea it could be very painful to her. I think that pain is outweighed by what I regard as the legitimacy of the plea. We must come to the realization that this is not a women's issue and it is not a men's issue; this is a couple's issue."
Quotes I agree with:
"In principle I want the twosome responsible for the biological fact of conception to resolve the fate of the fetus. It's my notion that men should help sweat the decision."
"My argument is that your body has in fact been altered by the product of two party behavior, a product that has genetic inheritance from a guy that just might care to petition for its bringing to term. You make the final decision, but to pretend that what has changed your body is the product of your own wish fullness is manifestly false. So I would like you to hear out the husband. Its not just notification of course, its also the idea that the husband can then plead.
We don't have a perfect world. Abortion is what is called a clash of faulty rights. When a man and woman disagree about the fate of the fetus there are faulty rights involved. That's a solemn doctrine in the law. Things are not neat and tidy, so if you require the woman to hear the man's plea it could be very painful to her. I think that pain is outweighed by what I regard as the legitimacy of the plea. We must come to the realization that this is not a women's issue and it is not a men's issue; this is a couple's issue."
I'm just curious... Do you believe in ghosts, aliens (as in those who fly UFOs), and do you apply the same logic in those categories as well?ArMaG3dD0n wrote:
G3|Genius this is an attitude I can respect.
But for those people that still say there would be just as much !scientific! evidence that all bible stories are literally true.....I just can t stop laughing.
When I have the choice to explain things with natural processes that are mostly known with a few things we are still working on (why would you expect us to know everything by now) or to assume there is a supernatural being when I have not seen anything supernatural.....I ll think the first option is more likely.
I respect if someone believes in god or allah because one can not know for sure and it would give life a sense.
But taking the bible literally......come on.....
Sometimes I just think it s arrogant to think that we are any better than animals when the only difference is a bigger and better brain. Don t get me wrong I m not a vegetarian or sth.....
Currently the male has no rights to abort. Is that fair? What happens when the 'sperm donor' doesn't want anything to do with the child and the woman wants him/her and comes calling with legal documents stating the 'sperm donor' must pay child support?Kimosabe-sa wrote:
You guys can go on and on about this till the cows come home. However it isn't your choice to make. Its the womens choice, as she is the one that will forever be burdened by a child.
If a women wants to abort then let her. You should not have any say what so ever about what happens inside her.
So why dont u keep your opinions, your god and you politics out of it. Its a womens choice and thats the end of it. Its her body its her child.
There is a legal case I'm following that is testing the water on this issue. I'll find it and post it later. It's basically saying it's sexist to require the decision to rest solely on the female when it takes 2 to have a baby and the fact a woman can seek child support from a dad who wants nothing to do with the child.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_ColliderMarconius wrote:
wombat, the bible can be argued since it's a BOOK. You can believe it was written by god, but in reality, it was written just as all books today are written. By humans. Since no one can offer up any proof that god wrote the bible without having to rely on the suspension of disbelief that is faith, it obviously comes under much scrutiny as the more supernatural things that occur inside of it cannot be recreated.
The Big Bang Theory is still being tested, but it has come up with more conceivable and solid proof than just relying on a written passage that's meant to just be accepted. Obviously, the events creating the Big Bang cannot occur on our planet, though we can simulate said events on an extremely minor scale using the Large Hadron Collider at CERN and any of the cyclotron/particle accelerators in the world. We've been able to break the atom down into its components, and further down to the leptons and their structures. We've established and observed the existence of the 4 fundamental forces in this universe. We've constantly questioned, pushed, tested, experimented in order to gain more knowledge and understanding.
And rather than wanting to think of how utterly astounding that world is, you'd rather not think about it and just attribute it all to a few sentences in a book written over 2000 years ago, believe that as being solid and unquestionable fact, and go about your life.
The spleen produces and removes blood cells from our immune systems, if you wanted to know. If you feel that science is failing in fully understanding something, maybe you should look deeper into the causes, such as the beginning threads of science being held back by a dominant faith-based authority.
Marconius at it again.
"It is currently under construction, and scheduled to start operation in 2007, when it will become the world's largest particle accelerator."
Actually, "In contrast to the "pure issue message" an IRC 501(c)(3) organization may avail itself of the opportunity to intervene in a political campaign in a rather surreptitious manner. The concern is that an IRC 501(c)(3) organization may support or oppose a particular candidate in a political campaign without specifically naming the candidate by using code words to substitute for the candidate's name in its messages, such as "conservative," "liberal," "pro-life," "pro-choice," "anti-choice," "Republican," "Democrat," etc., coupled with a discussion of the candidacy or the election. When this occurs, it is quite evident what is happening-- an intervention is taking place."Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
First and foremost, you'll notice the article describes compaigns. This means taking sides to influence who gets voted for. Bush is already in office. I would also point you to the last couple of paragraphs in the article you linked.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
I'm afraid it's the other way around. He can't say that.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
You still don't get it. He can say that, just as many church leaders have said on news reports how they expect bush to make changes based on the conservative church goers they got to vote for him. However, they may not, and did not, utilize any NAACP resources to actually try and force such a thing to happen.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
The NAACP is registered as a 501(c)(3) corporation, which exempts it from paying any federal taxes.
Read the article titled 'NAACP Chair Calls For Bush Ouster'.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/ … 8254.shtml
A church congregation can hold a fund raiser for a political candidate, so long as they don't do it on church grounds, or utilize the churches tax excempt status to purchase items needed for said fund raiser.
Update: This is from a news story, but the quote is from an IRS official. While it doesn't state the verbatim language of the law as it sits on books, it gives a good outline of conduct for tax exempt groups.
http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable … 99,00.html
"In addition, it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate at all in campaign activity for or against political candidates."
In fact, they are being reviewed now to have their tax exempt status removed.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington … -irs_x.htm^^What I've been saying all along.Tax law prohibits charities organized under section 501(c)(3) from taking sides in political campaigns. The law restricts these organizations because donations are tax-deductible for the donor and in effect are subsidized by the government.Lastly, I would like to point you to part of your own quote. It says the entity may not attempt to influence legislation as substantial part of its activity. This means it isn't strictly prohibited, only that it can't the major function of the group. The only thing that is stictly prohibited is campaign activity.Frances Hill, an authority on non-profit groups at the University of Miami Law School, called it "amazing" that the IRS would audit a group based on a public speech.
"Usually you would look for some activity other than disagreeing with policies," she said.
His speaking out against current policy isn't influencing legislation any more than a church's preacher, priest, padre, pastor, etc. from speaking out against abortion or gay marriage.
-Judith Kendall and John Francis Reilly, two IRS representatives
And it is a case by case basis as an activity is a specific event. In this case, his speech.
I'm afraid it's the other way around. He can't say that.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
You still don't get it. He can say that, just as many church leaders have said on news reports how they expect bush to make changes based on the conservative church goers they got to vote for him. However, they may not, and did not, utilize any NAACP resources to actually try and force such a thing to happen.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
The NAACP is registered as a 501(c)(3) corporation, which exempts it from paying any federal taxes.
Read the article titled 'NAACP Chair Calls For Bush Ouster'.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/ … 8254.shtml
A church congregation can hold a fund raiser for a political candidate, so long as they don't do it on church grounds, or utilize the churches tax excempt status to purchase items needed for said fund raiser.
Update: This is from a news story, but the quote is from an IRS official. While it doesn't state the verbatim language of the law as it sits on books, it gives a good outline of conduct for tax exempt groups.Speaking only generally about IRS guidelines, Mr. Friedland said tax-exempt organizations, including charity groups, educational institutions and churches, are "prohibited from participating or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office."
The rules are based on a 1954 federal statute that allows such organizations to comment on political issues, but bars them from endorsing or raising money for a political party or specific candidate.
"Even activities that encourage people to vote for or against a particular candidate on the basis of nonpartisan criteria violates the political campaign prohibition," Mr. Friedland said.
http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable … 99,00.html
"In addition, it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate at all in campaign activity for or against political candidates."
In fact, they are being reviewed now to have their tax exempt status removed.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington … -irs_x.htm
Spark, answer one question for me and I'll believe in evolution. How did living organisms come from non living matter?kkolodsick wrote:
You mean we should just drop everything and take your word from it?Why is it so hard to believe, or at least entertain the though that there is a maker of the earth?
Creation is real my friends sorry to burst your bubble.
I hope (probably wrongly) that this is not a typical creationist response:
'Creation happened because I said so. I say so because the bible says so.'
Like a lot of rational, reasoning people are going to believe that.
--------------------
Come on Spark, you know that's now what I meant.
Everyone keeps talking about science vs. observation but at that time it was the cutting edge scientists so who is to say that cutting edge scientists are correct today?
I have still seen no concrete evidence of evolution. Please enlighten me. Is this survival of the fittest or evolution that you guys speak of?
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE do some research before making a claim.
sci·ence (sī'əns)Rygar wrote:
Someone decided to 'prove' observation to be science around here (on a thread, possibly this one) somewhere....vjs wrote:
This was not science it was observation.the world is flat
n.
1 The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2 Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3 An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4 Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
It's a part of science.
"Jeffrey Burton Russell is a professor of history at the University of California in Santa Barbara. He says in his book Inventing the Flat Earth (written for the 500th anniversary of Christopher Columbus's journey to America in 1492) that through antiquity and up to the time of Columbus, "nearly unanimous scholarly opinion pronounced the earth spherical."vjs wrote:
This was not science it was observation. Actually if you really want to do into it the world was flat b/c the church said it was flat. (This is where the church is yet again wrong)the world is flat
Catholics or the catholic church has actually set science back by about 400 years, look at the muslim religion. The muslium should be way way way ahead of us scientifically but their religion holds them back as does christianity, by the will of Allah. (Err, that's because you didn't understand or won't accept a scientific observation)
Fact, Leonardo Da vinchi was put in jail, a devote catholic, b/c his scientific observations. His actual purpose was to show the pope of the time that the church was wrong. The church being a very old organization which is reluctant to change, they don't want to admit fault or incorrect conclusions. So they won't accept scientific fact.
Why has christianity set us back 400 years? Well in the begining God created earth and said it was good. Then god created the (Sun, stars, sky) said it was good.
Later science proved that the earth revolved around the sun. This was contractory to religion at the time, how could the earth revolve around the sun when the earth was created first???
BURN HIM BURN THE WITCH
Well science didn't prove god wrong, not in the slightest, what it proved was man was wrong about the interpretation. They assumed since god said he created the earth first that later it couldn't rotate around the sun.
This one point stop science for 400 years, it wasn't until kepler that the church allowed science to let earth revolve around the sun. Shortly after that a numerous number of physical properties and scientific laws came about. Why b/c publishing this scientific commandments were previously held back by the church.
How can we man... expect to ever understand god. We should be smart enough to know that we can't interpret the word of god and must change our interpretation based upon observation.
The soul... yes it exists it's actually somewhat scientifically proven. The body once it dies takes some time before tit starts loosing heat. Well what is keeping the body warm? Also where does all the entropy go?
Is the ordering of energy in the universe simply the will of god/probablility chance? Absolutely...
If your scientific you are certainly religous, you take specific commandments and apply them to your observations. You also assume things that you can't explain and take them as the truth.
A good analogy is the agruement of good and evil vs darkness and light.
Perhaps does dark exist? no it's simply the absence of light.
Does evil exist? I say no it's simply the absence of good.
Major problem is it's difficult to keep light around it requires energy which wants to be distributed. Same goes for evil if things are left alone unfortunately they tend towards the absence of good.
If you want to get even more deep into this scientifically, what is containted in a bottle of nothing/vaccum/space etc. People say nothing... well this is and isn't true.
Between the earth and the sun, people think it's an vaccum with the odd atom running around. If this were true how does light propagate from the sun to the earth... there is no medium.
O.K. Light duality... non-sence... light waves are particles with wave a nature. What are they propigating through??? Dead non energetic light... Like religion science has yet to accept this, but we will and once we do we will understand alot more.
Religion should do the same, God is not against science, the church is against science. The church is people not god, science has never been against god only the churches interpretation of god. If religions can change rewrite the bible science should be able to continue without interference from the church.
How can we as people be so self centered as to actually believe that we can understand the will of the creator. I personally think this is blastfamy.
Sorry for all the spelling errors I'm a little pissed that the church can make it's way into a BF2 forum.
Screw the anti-darwin, screw darwinists, they are both wrong. It's puncated equilbrium!!! Call it spikes of creation followed by evolution of the creation. This goes with gods teaching, something is created then it evolves. Does man not do this himself, if you disagree don't bother typing simply throw your computer out the window and turn out the lights. Get a oil lamp and sit in your goat skin, since science must be a sin.
Russell says there is nothing in the documents from the time of Columbus or in early accounts of his life that suggests any debate about the roundness of the earth. He believes a major source of the myth came from the creator of the Rip Van Winkle story-Washington Irving-who wrote a fictitious account of Columbus's defending a round earth against misinformed clerics and university professors.
But Russell says the flat earth mythology flourished most between 1870 and 1920, and had to do with the ideological setting created by struggles over evolution. He says the flat-earth myth was an ideal way to dismiss the ideas of a religious past in the name of modern science."
Wrong. "Contrary to what most people think, the Earth was known to be spherical in ancient times. The ancient Greeks even calculated its circumferance with surprising accuracy."Marconius wrote:
Wrong. People initially believed the Earth was flat because of their lack of science, perception, and knowhow. Once a scientific study was performed by intelligent people, they determined the world was round. Science is engineered to be constantly questioned and subjected to the scientific process in order to determine the true understanding of a phenomenon or an observed event. Such as the recent uncovering of a 'transitional' fish fossil shows progress in the field regarding evolution, while creationists/bible literalists will not budge or think outside of what is written in their books.
Eratosthenes of Cyrene (276-200 B.C.).. Greek astronomer and mathematician. Calculated the circumference of the Earth and finds a figure of 46,000 km which is close to the present measured value. Also lays down the first lines of longitude on a map of Earth. He also developed a method for calculating all prime numbers: the sieve of Eratosthenes.
-The New Encyclopaedia Britannica (1985)
-Colliers Encyclopaedia (1984)
-The Encyclopedia Americana (1987)
-The World Book for Children (1989)
All state that Christianity did not invent or promote the myth of the flat Earth. Why do you do so?
You question Fox News as bias source and you post links to Jason Blair's home terf? Dishonesty!
The NAACP is registered as a 501(c)(3) corporation, which exempts it from paying any federal taxes.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
It's because of their tax exempt status. If a church wants to relinquish that status and pay taxes, they can be involved in politics all they want.kkolodsick wrote:
No one is forcing Christianity down this countries throat. Read my post, the government will not MANDATE a religion. Of course you have your right to believe or not believe anything you want. That is what makes this country great.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
That is where you are wrong, and one point that religious groups often don't understand. While you have freedom of religion, I do in fact have the right to not have religion forced on me, therefore freedom from religion. If I have a preference of no religion, it has as much right as you to have and practice your religion.
My point is that if someone thinks that Christian groups shouldn't lobby because of their $ or size it's absolutely crazy.
Read the article titled 'NAACP Chair Calls For Bush Ouster'.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/ … 8254.shtml
How much influence is there not to change the income tax laws?Marconius wrote:
The church is an extremely rich and well-backed organization that doesn't have to pay taxes, where very low-income families have no money to pay taxes with. A corporation that does not give back to the government that houses them in this country should NOT be influencing the legislative and political outcomes of the very same government. That means a powerful outside source is trying to force their lobbying ideals while the rest of tax-paying Americans may or may not agree with what is being influenced. You are ok with this type of lobbying?
How do archaeologists date their findings?Skruples wrote:
Archaeological evidence shows creationism to be completely wrong, but apparently that branch of archaeology is all bunk. You have to remember that while parts of the Bible may have been written before Jesus was born, it was edited for centuries afterword. I would be much more inclined to believe this 'God inspired people to write' story if Jesus' birth had been predicted in writing that had never been touched or edited after his birth. As it stands, there is no independent verification that anything in the bible is what was originally written. For all we know, the parts of the Bible that depict Jesus' birth were written in the early AD's.
Skruples, I challenged you to find a college and ask a liberal professor if he/she believes in the Christian God. Christian God defined - The God who sent His Son to attone for our sins.Skruples wrote:
And what are you basing this on? Have there been studies that show most liberals are not Christian? Has the U.S census bureau shown this to be true? Or is this simply based on your personal opinion? Show me the evidence and I might take you seriously.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Universities are quite liberal and most liberals don't believe in the Christian God. That better?
Now, show me the evidence of evolution as it 'explains' my questions in my previous post to topal.
I love how you request evidence from me yet fail to supply your own.Skruples wrote:
You can claim bias all you want. Of course most scientists are biased against the bible. Why? Because there is absolutely no evidence to support what the Bible says is accurate in any way. In fact, the staggering majority of evidence points to the bible being completely inaccurate.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
The reverse can be said about your sites. Do you think that scientist on your side will look at the Bible as a reputable source? So then, I can claim bias on your sources. But they wouldn't be 'our' sources for this debate if they weren't bias. I don't see why you can't comprehend that?
The same for your devout beliefs in evolution.Skruples wrote:
Should scientists be considering the holy texts of Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Sikhism and every other religion on Earth accurate sources too? Many of them contradict each other, it would be kind of hard to get any work done. What I can't comprehend is how you consider the Bible to be the foundation of all truth and knowledge on this Earth, but everyone elses religion is just a bunch of rubbish. You need to open your eyes.
Darwin never went out to disprove God did he? Oh yeah, he renounced his faith and then wrote The Origin of Species. Kind of odd it happened in that order wouldn't you say?Skruples wrote:
The difference is the scientists dont 'assume' anything, their lack of faith in the bible when it comes to scientific matters is based on decades of hard science, instead of just blind faith.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
And scientist at your sites assume everything in the Bible is false before they begin their research... so what's your point?
Skruples, the evidence is inconclusive.Skruples wrote:
Yes, and heres the difference: Evolutionary theory is supported by third party evidence, evidence that anyone can see for themselves. The Bible is not supported by anything but itself and the faith of its believerswannabe_tank_whore wrote:
So when debating evolution, what do you quote? Oh yes, the theory. Any difference in that logic?
Sure, but stop attacking the Bible and look at the scientific evidence presented. Or seek answers to my questions to topal.Skruples wrote:
You know what? I wouldnt have a problem with those sites if they didn't use the bible as a primary source. The bible is not a scientific work. It was not written with science in mind. It does not provide any evidence to support itself, other than saying that it is infallible. It cannot be used as a source of information on scientific matters. If you cannot understand this, you need to go to your local community college and take a critical thinking course.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Hmmm... are you not seeing similarities between your logic and mine? I guess not. Scientific evidence disputes a lot of evolution's claims and that evidence it picked up by those sites and likewise the evidence that supports evolution is picked up by your sites... it would make for a conundrum to discredit my sites by claiming bias and failing to point out your own.
Did I just not say that? Did we agree for once? I will play the lottery tonight if you confirm.Skruples wrote:
If every researcher followed the guidelines laid out in my quote, evolution wouldnt exist. Geology wouldnt exist. The sun would still revolve around the Earth. I could go on...wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Using science to disprove science is bad science? In that case the earth is still flat.
"If they become distinct enough, they become a new species." What is distinct enough? Who is to determine that?Skruples wrote:
You want an example of speciation? Here you go: http://www.wsu.edu/NIS/Universe/instant.htmlwannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Has anyone tried to combine an ape with a human? Why not? But again you fail to point out the obvious, none of these are examples of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. These are forced breedings and by them being sterile "natural selection" will take care of that.
"Currently it appears that the two new polyploid species are hybridizing with each other." According to the article it hasn't happened yet.
"Speciation refers to the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise." - WikipediaSkruples wrote:
and heres a list from talkorigins: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
In example one, the starting organism was a Drosophila paulistorum and the end result was a Drosophila paulistorum. In example two, the starting organism was a fireweed and the end result was a fireweed. In example three, the starting organism was a Faeroe Island house mouse and the end result was a Faeroe Island house mouse. In example four, the starting organisms were cichlid fishes and the end result were cichlid fishes.
Skruples, WAKE UP! You've been lied to and it wasn't Bush.
I will stop you here and ask, "where has macroevolution been observed?"topal63 wrote:
You missed the point. My personal beliefs have yet to enter the debate. But please show me where I stated that God & evolution are mutually exclusive ideas. The exclusion was mythical explanations provide no new information about the Universe & the processes therein. Evolution stands as is (as explanation of a self-evident process that is happening)wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Q. "What is the evidence of God and Creation?"
A. "EVERYTHING LIVING."
It describes "EVERYTHING LIVING."topal63 wrote:
- irregardless of I.D. non-theory - irregardless of any need to refine a theory further; or refinement due to new discovery. I.D. does not amount to anything at all; as it describes nothing;
oxymoron? What is science? How can science not be science?topal63 wrote:
it is not science; its conclusions are based upon the science & scientific discovery of real science/scientists;
Look at what you said and reverse it on evolution. Non-living chemicals transitioning to living organisms then complex organisms with the ability to reproduce. I see a tremendous "inability to actually explain a process or predict (like an actual scientific theory does) yields a non-scientific theory. "topal63 wrote:
it’s poor logic, sophistry, and inability to actually explain a process or predict (like an actual scientific theory does) yields a non-scientific theory. And by the way it is not pursued (in any real volume) by any credible scientists or Universities.
Now, define credible scientist.
Where has that been calculated? And how is it science?topal63 wrote:
The Universe appears to be self-contained. The physics of cosmology & quantum mechanics point to this conclusion accurately (to within a billionth of a second after the event named the “big bang”).
sci·ence (sī'əns)
n.
1 The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2 Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3 An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4 Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
You state this as if something has ever come out of nothing. What law did that break?topal63 wrote:
The process and theory of evolution properly fit this accurate model: that the Universe is self-contained and is subject to the laws; physics; processes therein. An external force is NOT acting upon the self-contained Universe. There is NO evidence for an external force acting upon the Universe; but there is (massive, directly & indirectly observable) evidence for all the many difference laws; theories; found in science.
How did non-living matter become alive? What law did that break?topal63 wrote:
EVERYTHING LIVING points to a common origin within this self contained Universe. The laws of physics; govern the electrons quantum state; which in turns governs the chemical properties of atomic/molecular structures; which in turn governs the FACT that life is a realized potential of chemistry; which in turn governs biologic change (evolution); and that has been governed by an (IMO) odd rule (the opposite of entropy even) that systems are tending towards a greater complexity as time goes by.
Where does bestiality come into play here?topal63 wrote:
That is hilarious(!) . . . and sad.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Has anyone tried to combine an ape with a human? Why not? But again you fail to point out the obvious, none of these are examples of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. These are forced breedings and by them being sterile "natural selection" will take care of that.topal63 wrote:
But rather maybe it is how long does it take (and EXACTLY how does it happen) for a much more complex organism such as a CAT for example to speciate and form a new species; or sub-specie variant. Don't know exactly how long, or the EXACT how, don't think there is definite answer for you (YET) - a how and how long exactly. But BIG-CATS are RIGHT NOW in the process of speciation. A tiger and lion and a leopard are very much the same animal and yet not. They can interbreed (forcibly; non-naturally that is) and a hybrid animal is the result - a Liger or Tigon (respectively speaking of Lions & Tigers). The males are always sterile but the females often are NOT. The reason this is possible is because they share the same origin; genetic heritage (in fact we all do as well, going back far enough); and they are in the process of divergence. And when the divergent process (specie interbreeding); and DYNAMIC (non-static) change, genetic change; has gone on long enough they will no longer be able to produce live young (through forced breeding techniques).
Horse; donkey = mule = same thing. In the process of divergence - doing that unambiguous changing thing - only it seems ambiguous to you.
Honestly you don’t understand the process. Obviously, humans and apes have diverged already as species. Big cats (horses & donkeys) are not completely diverged. Also you fail to understand the role of sexual-selection in the evolutionary process. Smell, size, nature (i.e. the fundamental character, disposition or temperament of thing), markings, etc; play an enormous role in the divergence process; and these features are often sexually selected.
Do you practice contradicting yourself in front of a mirror? How can "sexual selection based on smell, size, nature, etc" between two "nearly identical animals" breed "viable non-sterile young that can't breed" but eventually form a sub-specie? I'd like to see that.topal63 wrote:
The genetic code for any animal is subject to genetic expression & inherent non-uniformity within a population (meaning your genes are NOT in fact identical from sperm to sperm; egg to egg; individual to individual; they are only very similar; exact in some areas; and not in key areas that lead to the final expression of a genes potential). Sexual selection preferences are the most common reason for sub-specie divergence; the reason why nearly identical animals (that are the same and can breed viable non-sterile young) do not breed. If this process goes on long enough the accumulated changes both random & sexually selected will give rise to animal forms that cannot breed viable offspring. This (big-cat scenario) is an example of that exact process.
Listen to yourself, "they cannot breed fertile or viable offspring." Yet you claim we evolved from one celled organisms. How is that even possible?topal63 wrote:
And the example of the mouse & cichlid (provided below by skruples); more of the same. Interbreeding by sexual selection; or by isolation of a breeding population will produce the same result; diversity in animal forms that on the surface appear nearly the same, but at the genetic level are not; they cannot breed fertile or viable offspring.
I call it intellectual dishonesty to call my questions that evolution cannot explain absurd. Read the "Main Point for the creation of the FAQ":topal63 wrote:
Honestly your logic & requests are absurd to say the least.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
I'm looking forward to the "mountain of evidence" like the means by which a more complex organism arises from a simpler one. Stephen J. Gould from Harvard has termed "the trade secret of paleontology" as the fact that the transitional forms that you would expect to find in the rock record are systematically absent. Darwin admitted to the lack of intermediate types in the fossil record to be "the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against theory." David Kitts, a modern day evolutionist, writes "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has provided some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species, and paleontology does not provide them." How can a hypothesis be given scientific status if its claims are contradicted by observations?
By the Darwin wrote his famous work about a hundred years ago. . . obviously there was less evidence for transistional forms FOUND then - than there are NOW.
Back to the mountain:
Instead of posting the many transistional forms found in the fossil record here is some non-nonsense.
Transistional FAQ (a small summary of transitional forms):
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
The Main Point for the creation of the FAQ:
Creationists often state categorically that "there are no transitional fossils". As this FAQ shows, this is simply not true. That is the main point of this FAQ. There are abundant transitional fossils of both the "chain of genera" type and the "species-to-species transition" type. There are documented speciations that cross genus lines and family lines. The interpretation of that fact I leave up to you. I have outlined five possible models above, and have explained why I think some of them are better than others. You might disagree with my conclusions, and you can choose the one you think is best, (or even develop another one). But you cannot simply say that there are no transitional fossils, because there are.
1) "The interpretation of that fact I leave up to you." Does this mean they are conclusive?
2) "I have outlined five possible models above, and have explained why I think some of them are better than others." Conclusive? Biased? She doesn't even have a Ph.D.
3) "You might disagree with my conclusions, and you can choose the one you think is best," Conclusive?
4) "But you cannot simply say that there are no transitional fossils, because there are." Because she says so and her models explain so. You know better than that, topal.
Now answer my previous questions.
wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
I'm looking forward to the "mountain of evidence" like the means by which a more complex organism arises from a simpler one. Stephen J. Gould from Harvard has termed "the trade secret of paleontology" as the fact that the transitional forms that you would expect to find in the rock record are systematically absent. Darwin admitted to the lack of intermediate types in the fossil record to be "the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against theory." David Kitts, a modern day evolutionist, writes "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has provided some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species, and paleontology does not provide them." How can a hypothesis be given scientific status if its claims are contradicted by observations?
Allow me to explain. The purpose of Satan was to get Job to curse God.Tyferra wrote:
Quit putting words in my mouth. Did I ever say he cursed God? No I didn't but Job DID QUESTION HIM!wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Show me where he cracked and cursed God.
JOB 1:9 "Does Job fear God for nothing?" Satan replied. 10 "Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. 11 But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face."
So you see, it would be more than just question His actions for him to have failed this test.
Satan appears in the OT. Therefore, you are incorrect in your assumption. Unless you think Christians existed before Christ?Tyferra wrote:
You do like mentioning Hitler don't you. I argue that the Devil was made up by Christians as a scapegoat. Hitler was a living person and there is actually solid evidence that he existed. However there is NO evidence ANYWHERE of the Devil existing.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Hitler never existed. He was a made up piece of propaganda to rally Germans to the nazi party.
When you start to question like this it becomes the snowball affect downward where you have to question everything. You cannot pick and choose what to question and what not to question.
Yes you are wrong. There is one Christian faith but many sects.Tyferra wrote:
Now there you go putting words in my mouth again. You're the one who wanted to distinguish between the factions and go talking about "christians who arn't really christians" or whatever, I was simply saying that there are many different christian faiths. Am I wrong? Not all christian faiths worship in the same way but are they wrong for doing so? Anyway, this part of the argument is getting confusing so I'll move on.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
In your eyes there is no correct one. The Bible is clear, however.
Would you admit that the black race is inferior to the white race? Darwin did:Tyferra wrote:
I'm glad we can agree on something. Yes christianity remains the same no matter how much hard evidence or common sence slaps it in the face. A christian ignores it - they cannot admit they are wrong about anything, because if they did, EVERYTHING they believe in would be compromised. If a Christian admitted that Homo Sapiens evolved from apes then they'd also be admitting that there was no creation. It's all linked.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
You said it best on this one in that Christianity "remains the same".
At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla (The Descent of Man 1874, p. 178).
So why haven't evolutionist admit he was wrong and stray away?
"but the thing is it's giving more and more believable answers that God does not exist."Tyferra wrote:
Also, I detect a hint of cinicism regarding things staying the same and things constantly changing. Yes, evoloutionary therorists - scientists - do change their opinions. They have to, constant new evidence leads them on and on to discover some kind of truth. If it is true that God exists and the world is only 6000 years old, I'm sure scientists will discover it, but the thing is it's giving more and more believable answers that God does not exist.
Chirstianity offers solid answers, science offers believable answers that can change. Honestly, I'd rather be told by someone that they're not sure about something than be lied to.
What has proved this?
Good list.Marconius wrote:
Yes, once again, I will hold everyone to the same standards. Yes, I am intolerant of most christians due to my point up there...while they aren't the only religious group in America that is trying to gain political power, they are by far the richest, largest, and most outspoken faith-based group in this country, therefore I can use them as a prime example. If you don't like it because you happen to fall under that blanket, so be it.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
You said, "Anyone is allowed to believe in anything they want, as LONG as it is not forced onto others or used as a mass organizational rally point to serve another form of agenda".
Again, you make blanket statments towards Christians yet fail to berate other groups that your blanket statement covers. But I posed the question, "Will you hold these and others like these to the same standards as you hold Christians?" And again you fail to answer it because I called you on your intolerance.
-gay marriage
-abortion
-prayer in publics schools
-"under god" in the pledge of allegiance
-10 Commandments and other judeo/christian icons in public areas
-"in god we trust" on our currency
-tax breaks for churches/faith-based groups that show political agenda videos to their parishes
...all of these only some of the points I've debated ad nauseum to prove the religious influence on today's legislation in the State and Federal congresses. If I find others for other faiths, I will post those as well. Currently, these are the most well-known cases, so I stick with them for discussion.
Now my list:
-Gay lifestyle crammed down my throat
-Pro abortion
-removal of my right to pray when I want
-muslim call to pray allowed but not Christian church bells
-removal of Christ from Christmas holidays because someone might get offended
-the removal of American heritage to appease those other groups who come to America yet do not want anything to do with American way of life
Last time I checked we were a republic and the majority rules.
Irrelevant? Have you seen posts in these threads?Marconius wrote:
Going to keep hindering the current debates with your out of context and irrelevant posts, wannabe?
Why do certain 'rules' apply to one group but not others? Why can't you answer that?
"Anyone is allowed to believe in anything they want, as LONG as it is not forced onto others or used as a mass organizational rally point to serve another form of agenda."Marconius wrote:
I've done what I can legally. I've voted, I've written to my governor, to my senator, to our house reps. I've been arrested in anti-Bush/anti-war protests to at least get my voice heard. I've done everything short of hopping the White House fence and running towards the place screaming my head off in absolute rage (we all know how that goes). I'm keeping informed of all the events and am looking towards this November, helping to get the rest of Americans informed of the proper issues rather than just doing a whole lot of knee-jerk voting when the time comes.Erkut.hv wrote:
And now that you know all this, you are doing what exactly to make a change? If you believe you are being lied to, mislead, and bullshitted, what exactly are you doing to make sure it doesn't happen again?Marconius wrote:
Sure, but the rest of his administration is on there. All of the actions he's been taking have coincided with what the PNAC dictates, so there you go.
Matter of fact, to everyone that hates W (I dislike, hate is too strong of a word), what are you doing to change it? Sitting at the local starbucks with the rest of the hippies, talking about how bad things are, while refusing to do anything to change the climate you live in? Or do you merely spit talking points amongst your friends to feel intellectually elite?
Moveon.org drones unite! Keep spouting the same bullshit rhetoric. You all work for the same political party. The only diference is the animal you bow down to.
This the right thread?
You said, "Anyone is allowed to believe in anything they want, as LONG as it is not forced onto others or used as a mass organizational rally point to serve another form of agenda".Marconius wrote:
Wrong thread, tank_whore. Stay on topic. Note what I said about the major christian groups advancing a political agenda constantly (even if other christians say otherwise, the fact still remains that they are a pretty big political constituency). This tends to break down the separation of church and State, or blur the line between the two. My political point was religious agendas, and you are just bringing up irrelevant topics.
So who else here has ever doubted their faith?
Again, you make blanket statments towards Christians yet fail to berate other groups that your blanket statement covers. But I posed the question, "Will you hold these and others like these to the same standards as you hold Christians?" And again you fail to answer it because I called you on your intolerance.
Agreed.XstrangerdangerX wrote:
Unless you were Lutheran. Or a seventh day adventist. Your view of God's acceptance is puerile and according to many branches of religion, catastrophically incorrect.
Belief? What about non-belief? Does that make you weak too? How is it compared to other philosophies? The same savage past that had cannibalism, prostitution, wars, murders, rapes, homosexual behavior, etc? What's different today?XstrangerdangerX wrote:
Anyway people, I think your belief makes you weak.
God is a crutch, a relic from our savage past. We fear death, we fear being alone, worst of all we are frightened to our core that our lives, our actions, our very existence is meaningless.
No purpose whatsoever and that's not a bad thing. Please elaborate.XstrangerdangerX wrote:
So what did we do when we were cavemen and we started to wonder why the world was, who we are, what is our purpose? We created a creator.
Complex thoughts being beyond us we build a God into a burning bush and from there every facet of our life is tainted by this prejudiced notion of a higher being, a higher order to things. Our lives are linear, they go from start to finish, so even by medieval times the notion that things simply are was anathema to our perspective. We cannot picture a story without a beginning, and just as much we cannot picture something being made without an intelligence behind it.
You are meaningless, your existence has no purpose. 'Humanity is a successful virus clinging to the face of a speck of brown mud, suspended in infinite nothingness'. And that's not at all a bad thing.
Did you know Darwin was not a trained scientist? Yet people cling to his 'observations' or lack there of. At what point does a lie become truth? Read Marconius' sig.XstrangerdangerX wrote:
Cast off this superstition, take some responsibility for your actions. Take some responsibility for your fucking life! Think of this; a child is born into a religious family, it is taught from birth that God exists (by whatever name) and that eternal peace waits if it just toes the line/tithes its salary/ goes to church. Now take that same child at birth and put him into a family that is not religious. Is he going to live the same life? Isn't the concept of a God and the idea of religion simply something inculcated into our children, and never giving them any other option that to believe? I know of no concept more pervasive, more absolute in its requirements of your faith than that of religion. Take away that training, take away that influence and you have an individual who through rational thought can make decisions. Too many people arguing for the existence of God are coming from a standpoint that can honestly and without malice be described as brainwashing. You may think you have excercised your free will, but your very decisions have in a way been pre-determined by your upbringing and you cannot surely deny that?
Can a non-purposed life be held accountable for his/her actions?XstrangerdangerX wrote:
So give me your watchmaker arguments, enlighten me with your philosophies. Tell me how you believe the absence of a God means there is no right or wrong, preach to me your absolutes. I have never yet seen an argument over God end in a satisfactory resolution. You are arguing from a standpoint of faith, I from reason.
Shed your chains, live your life without fear of this threatening parental figure. Take a deep breath and caste aside the wager that maybe there is a God and therefore you should play it safe. Innovate, fuck (guys girls who cares), live!
What about the chains of sin?
What about the parades/protests for illegal mexicans?Marconius wrote:
Alrighty, another settling point to hopefully round this thread back to the OP...
Anyone is allowed to believe in anything they want, as LONG as it is not forced onto others or used as a mass organizational rally point to serve another form of agenda...for instance, the christian coalition and catholic groups paying off and lobbying for a ban on all abortion, since they feel it is wrong. Or the concept of the christian coalition itself working as a political machine to back the right wing of our government.
Believe, but enact the freedom of religion and the freedoms FROM religion at the same time...at least in the U.S. Getting politics out of the way, the rest of it is just encouraged philosophic discussion to hopefully get people to think more.
What about protests against the war?
Will you hold these and others like these to the same standards as you hold Christians? Or is it still going to be the intolerance you've shown before? "I will only tolerate a Christian if..."
Universities are quite liberal and most liberals don't believe in the Christian God. That better?Skruples wrote:
You have yet to rescind your statement about liberals and God, so I'm assuming you still believe it. You didn't really define 'bleeding heart' either, so I'm not sure where I should go looking for a christian one.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Did I not clarify it after you asked me and yet you still went on saying I said I should be more specific? http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pid=259889#p259889
I'll quote again, 'Read it again, "universities are quite liberal and most liberals don't believe in God." Show me a bleeding heart that believes in the Christian God.'
The reverse can be said about your sites. Do you think that scientist on your side will look at the Bible as a reputable source? So then, I can claim bias on your sources. But they wouldn't be 'our' sources for this debate if they weren't bias. I don't see why you can't comprehend that?Skruples wrote:
If you do not understand why Answersingenesis is not a scientific source at this point then I am wasting my time. There may be some reasonable arguments presented there, but it's so mixed up with the Creationist myth that its unreliable. For God's sake the motto of the site is "upholding the authority of the bible from the very first verse." You really think they're going to look at evidence that doesn't support the bible? (I mean seriously look at it, not just consider it long enough to force it to fit into their little creationist universe.)wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
The sites are based on religion, yes. But the content on the sites is scientific. The scientist that came up with the arguments could or could not be Christians (or any religion for that matter) but it doesn't change the fact that the arguments are there and oppose evolution's "evidence".
And scientist at your sites assume everything in the Bible is false before they begin their research... so what's your point?Skruples wrote:
And if you need another reason, the 'scientists' at those sites assume that everything in the bible is true before they even begin their research. Lets look at some quotes from their site:
So when debating evolution, what do you quote? Oh yes, the theory. Any difference in that logic?Skruples wrote:
So we shouldn't try and interpret the bible in anything but the most literal sense, and to prove this... they quote the bible! This logic is astounding: the bible is infallible, because the bible says so.
source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0404order.asp
Hmmm... are you not seeing similarities between your logic and mine? I guess not. Scientific evidence disputes a lot of evolution's claims and that evidence it picked up by those sites and likewise the evidence that supports evolution is picked up by your sites... it would make for a conundrum to discredit my sites by claiming bias and failing to point out your own.Skruples wrote:
I see, so if we start with the bible and assume its God's infallible word, then we can also assume that anything that doesnt agree with it is wrong. Some more excellent logic.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs200 … theory.asp
Using science to disprove science is bad science? In that case the earth is still flat.Skruples wrote:
This is not good science. In fact, I think this mindset (excluding the first point, which is actually sound advice) would get you thrown out of any respectable research institution. It seems you would make a good answersingenesis scientist though, maybe you should apply.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar … part11.asp
So why can't you answer it? Yesterday you posted and I saw what you posted and quoted it and went afk for a few minutes while i was still answering your post. I posted and saw that you had edited your post and added about 4 more sentences and another quote. I looked at my quote and it wasn't there. I went afk again to reply to it and your added sentences were in my reply. I ask again, did you edit my post to include what you had edited.Skruples wrote:
Don't beat around the bush; if you're going to accuse me of something, do it. If you really think I'm editing your posts, ask another moderator to check, though I find it sad that you are reduced to insulting my honesty and integrity.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Did you edit my post to include what you edited in the previous one that I quoted before it was there?
Don't quote out of context... it's not being truthful.Daysniper wrote:
You are an idiot. Hitler did exist! How did Chamberlain meet with him if he was air?????wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Hitler never existed. He was a made up piece of propaganda to rally Germans to the nazi party.
idiot
Oh, and sorry to flame. I just thought this was the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.
Q. "What is the evidence of God and Creation?"topal63 wrote:
Warrants another you're joking right - you must be!wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
You hopped in a debate Skruples and have been having across multiple threads on the 'same' subject. I accept microevolution but not macroevolution. Example, name a single unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations.
A short answer to your question is (what example?) = EVERYTHING LIVING.
A. "EVERYTHING LIVING."
Yep! Good point.
Dogs still chase their tails right? Do they believe it's chasing them? Or do they know it's chasing them? Are they comfortable in not-knowing? But then of course, "what is truth"?topal63 wrote:
God and knowing God are two different things - with belief & faith falling into the absurd 2nd category. Of course transcendent and greater being is possible - but that does not amount knowing. Belief is not a substitute for knowing - it is not interchangeable with the concept of truth. Belief is in fact a self-annihilating concept. When one knows believing is NOT-KNOWING and that certainty is an absurdity when associated with NOT-KNOWING; all that is left for those who can accept the simple truth is that: belief amounts in actuality to uncertainty and not-actually-knowing.
To go from a bacterium, built from about 1,000 different kinds of genes, to a mammal, built from about 100,000 different kinds of genes, somewhere in an evolutionary path some new genes surely need to be added. How does this happen? Where do the blueprints for new genes come from?topal63 wrote:
So back to the quest for an up to date, utterly complete explanation of everything that lives. . .
How long does it take for a virus to become a NEW one - an unambiguously NEW form? Almost no time at all - at least in geologic terms. So your question must not be "does it happen?" But how long does it take for any organism to evolve or speciate.
Apples are oranges in your case.
Has anyone tried to combine an ape with a human? Why not? But again you fail to point out the obvious, none of these are examples of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. These are forced breedings and by them being sterile "natural selection" will take care of that.topal63 wrote:
But rather maybe it is how long does it take (and EXACTLY how does it happen) for a much more complex organism such as a CAT for example to speciate and form a new species; or sub-specie variant. Don't know exactly how long, or the EXACT how, don't think there is definite answer for you (YET) - a how and how long exactly. But BIG-CATS are RIGHT NOW in the process of speciation. A tiger and lion and a leopard are very much the same animal and yet not. They can interbreed (forcibly; non-naturally that is) and a hybrid animal is the result - a Liger or Tigon (respectively speaking of Lions & Tigers). The males are always sterile but the females often are NOT. The reason this is possible is because they share the same origin; genetic heritage (in fact we all do as well, going back far enough); and they are in the process of divergence. And when the divergent process (specie interbreeding); and DYNAMIC (non-static) change, genetic change; has gone on long enough they will no longer be able to produce live young (through forced breeding techniques).
Horse; donkey = mule = same thing. In the process of divergence - doing that unambiguous changing thing - only it seems ambiguous to you.
And yet, how did the first living cell arise spontaneously from nonliving chemicals?topal63 wrote:
Maybe it's an eyeball that's got you confused? Gee that's complicated how could something so purposeful & complex just happen by random occurrences? Maybe you just can’t grasp the time involved or the fact that (disregarding the meaningless anthropic principle) we live in a Universe where life has happened based upon the physical laws of that Universe.
What are the physical laws?topal63 wrote:
Mutations & random change - is not as random as you might believe; or have been led to believe. In interdependent systems, environments & the life forms within it are quite dynamic. So where did you get the idea that all is random (maybe you don't think that is what the science of evolution is teaching, maybe you do - well it isn't exactly). The chemistry of genetics is based upon physical laws that are REAL physical laws (not random, not only would life not possible, nor would water, or a star, or for that matter anything). The FACTS are not misleading either. The MOUNTAIN of evidence for common genetic heritage is overwhelming; from the vast variants of specie & sub-specie forms; to blood chemistry; to DNA itself; the fossil record; the ability for HUMANS to even alter genes, by splicing, interchanging genes from a THAT into A THAT over there (Doing even what micro-tuner ID-God supposedly does)!
Compare the DNA of a human to bacteria.
So, if it took millions of years for humans to evolve from a common ancestor, where is the fossil record you claim exists?
A lab is completely different than a open system.
I'm looking forward to the "mountain of evidence" like the means by which a more complex organism arises from a simpler one. Stephen J. Gould from Harvard has termed "the trade secret of paleontology" as the fact that the transitional forms that you would expect to find in the rock record are systematically absent. Darwin admitted to the lack of intermediate types in the fossil record to be "the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against theory." David Kitts, a modern day evolutionist, writes "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has provided some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species, and paleontology does not provide them." How can a hypothesis be given scientific status if its claims are contradicted by observations?topal63 wrote:
The structure of life is a common thread pointing back to one origin in this apparently self contained Universe. The common origin may even be God? But that is not a scientific explanation of a process - and the processes here in this Universe are obeying the law quite well. Science is not concerned with mythical definitions of processes - it yields no NEW information about the actual workings of the Universe. Truth & scientific discovery are the result even of a certain Christian respect; and quest for the truth. Science does NOT disprove the God concept. They simply render the God as explanation in an apparently self-contained Universe - as nothing more than an (uncertain; don’t really know) BELIEF system unique to a religious (or more aptly mythological) mindset; or mem.
The reason evolution is attacked by the Christian-right it is not because it is a bad flimsy scientific theory lacking in fact; documention; or evidence (on the contrary it is massively documented and the mountain of evidence is getting larger every day). But rather because it further points towards a Universe that is apparently self-contained - placing God as a “hands-off” transcendent being (maybe God is the prime; or first movement; after that it; the Universe; apparently has all it’s physical laws and proceeds on its own) - and that is in direct opposition to the myth of the Jesus, and the conception; belief; in a personal God (which I might point out is subject to the self-annihilating; don't actually know; uncertainty problem)
1st, are all religions created by God?Spark wrote:
Please leave before my desire to shoot you gets too large.|CCCCCDark_Helmet wrote:
Yeah he would. You don't get to heaven by being good or doing good stuff.
YOU HAVE NOT THOUGHT ABOUT THIS, YOU IGNORANT, CONTEMPTOUS PIECE OF SHIT! GOD COULD NOT CARE LESS WHAT RELIGION YOU FOLLOW, AS LONG AS YOU DO GOOD WORKS! WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T HEARD OF CHRIST? WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE FORBIDDEN TO FOLLOW CHRIST? THEY GO TO HELL TOO? WHY? LUCK? SOME GOD THAT IS.
Thankyou. Rant over.
2nd, why would all religions lead to Heaven?
3rd, define good works from God's perspective.
4th, if you are a Christian, read the Bible.
5th, who are you do judge God for His actions.
You hopped in a debate Skruples and have been having across multiple threads on the 'same' subject. I accept microevolution but not macroevolution. Example, name a single unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations.topal63 wrote:
You are joking right? You must be - why are you doing it?
Evolution is a FACT! The theory of evolution is misnomer (now) - because it contains both FACT and theory. Fact simple organisms have been documented to have changed. Crap(!) virus's, bacterium & insects breed so quickly that a thousand generations can happen in very short period of time; and thus their genetic code becomes different making them resistent to drugs, pesticides, etc.
Also the dynamic nature of genes and gentic expression is self-evident - just look at dogs (bred by monks), plant variants, etc.
Evolution HAPPENS, genetic forms are NOT STATIC, they are DYNAMIC, and they do change. The genetic heritage is not a TABLET written in STONE by GOD. The forms are not created then that is it and that is the way they shall always be. Honestly even creationist have delegated the GOD creator theory to a micro-tuner of physical properties. Creationist have acknowledged evolution happens, but when the really important changes happen it is due to magic, micro-tuner God steps in makes it happen by divine intervention. Have you read or looked and the evidence presented by creationist - guess what it is non-existent. There is no proof of micro-tuner God intervention, because God keeps doing that space-time transcendent trick. The theory amounts to a wedge and belief. The wedge is an idea, if we can get this wedge of God back into the public school system we can defeat the evil (this is the belief part); the evil caused by secular humanism and scientific thinking.
It was deliberate to show that the question itself does not make logical sense. And I was not referring to an I.Q. test... any test that successfully passed that would qualify a genius as an idiot.topal63 wrote:
One word answer: NO. They have a test for I.Q. it is called an I.Q. test, and NO(!) genius's do not PASS (which constitutes a verification of a level of education, combined with abstract reasoning skills, you're simply being semantically ignorant here, I assume it's deliberate or due to laziness); so they don't get verified (pass) this test at a level equal to an Idiot - they PASS (get verified) at a level equal to a genius.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Ok... I'll try, but I can't give a smart answer to a dumb question. So I'll ask you a question.Tyferra wrote:
What a Burrito is dosn't matter, the point is it's microwavable and is tasty when heated.
Debate and Serious talk? Honestly Spark...
I would have put it in the "Not" section, but it has potential... yes it has potential.
Bible-bashers, take your marks... GO!
I'm looking forward to some comment at some time from JaMDuDe.
Edit: Spark, it's good to see you made sure that I was responsible for this. Nice to see yourself keeping out of trouble if this blows up in our face - much like an over-microwaved burrito. As for me, this type of behavior is expected
Can a genius successfully pass a test that would qualify him as an idiot?
Did I not clarify it after you asked me and yet you still went on saying I said I should be more specific? http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pid=259889#p259889Skruples wrote:
You still havent shown me where I gave "false information, half truths, or misrepresent[ations]" on purpose. Heres the original quote where you accused me of lying, in case you've forgotten.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
If one gives false information, half truths, or misrepresents (on purpose) data what is that called?wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Do you purposely lie or is it a gene?Skruples wrote:
Did I misread you? Was I in error? Lets check what you wrote here
"Most liberals don't believe in God." Perhaps you should have been more specific.
"Show me a bleeding heart that believes in the Christian God."I understand the point you're trying to make, except that you forget evolution is not predicated on supernatural beliefs. That is the difference. That is why intelligent design should not be taught in schools. If you don't agree with that, send your kids to private schools, where they can be taught whatever you feel like.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
So now you see my point on evolution. Or do you not?
I'll quote again, 'Read it again, "universities are quite liberal and most liberals don't believe in God." Show me a bleeding heart that believes in the Christian God.'
The sites are based on religion, yes. But the content on the sites is scientific. The scientist that came up with the arguments could or could not be Christians (or any religion for that matter) but it doesn't change the fact that the arguments are there and oppose evolution's "evidence".Skruples wrote:
I believe I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Those sites are not based on science, theyre based on religion. They begin with the firm belief that life began 6000 years ago when god created the universe and humans, and they believe in the global flood. They believe these things as absolute truth before they even begin research. THAT is why they cannot be trusted as a primary source. If their research was independantly corroborated by neutral sources, then I would be more inclined to believe them, but as it stands all I see are a bunch of self indulgent christians who happen to hold degrees.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
It is also intellectual dishonesty to call the other side of the argument unreliable. Those sites pick up the scientist that speak their side of the argument as you too have done. Remember, there would not be two sides in the scientific community on the topic if everything were known
Those "neutral" sources who try to disprove Creationism, are they self indulgent non-Christians? Like for instance, Darwin?
Did you edit my post to include what you edited in the previous one that I quoted before it was there?
If one gives false information, half truths, or misrepresents (on purpose) data what is that called?Skruples wrote:
Because A. you already mentioned it, B. I was pointing out that carbon dating was not even related to the methods I was talking about, and C. I dont know how much zircon is in rocks, but I would assume its enough to run tests on.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Skruples, why do you not correct those who agree with you? Tyferra stated that a match would contain carbon and therefore carbon dating cannot be used to date rocks is false. A match is made of wood and therefore contains organic carbon. It is intellectual dishonesty to side with those who speak for your argument without pointing out their errors.
How much zircon is in rocks?
I would also point out that it is 'intellectual dishonesty' to accuse your opponent of flat out lying, as you have done to me at least once (and I suspect twice, when you said 'Hmmm... did you know that 73.4% of all statistics are made up on the spot.')
Get your own ducks in a row before you criticize mine.I believe I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Those sites are not based on science, theyre based on religion. They begin with the firm belief that life began 6000 years ago when god created the universe and humans, and they believe in the global flood. They believe these things as absolute truth before they even begin research. THAT is why they cannot be trusted as a primary source. If their research was independantly corroborated by neutral sources, then I would be more inclined to believe them, but as it stands all I see are a bunch of self indulgent christians who happen to hold degrees.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
It is also intellectual dishonesty to call the other side of the argument unreliable. Those sites pick up the scientist that speak their side of the argument as you too have done. Remember, there would not be two sides in the scientific community on the topic if everything were knownplease tell me you're joking. Perhaps we should stop teaching math too.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Using the 4th definition of religion, evolution fits: A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Why then must evolution be taught if congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion?
So now you see my point on evolution. Or do you not?
Ok... I'll try, but I can't give a smart answer to a dumb question. So I'll ask you a question.Tyferra wrote:
What a Burrito is dosn't matter, the point is it's microwavable and is tasty when heated.
Debate and Serious talk? Honestly Spark...
I would have put it in the "Not" section, but it has potential... yes it has potential.
Bible-bashers, take your marks... GO!
I'm looking forward to some comment at some time from JaMDuDe.
Edit: Spark, it's good to see you made sure that I was responsible for this. Nice to see yourself keeping out of trouble if this blows up in our face - much like an over-microwaved burrito. As for me, this type of behavior is expected
Can a genius successfully pass a test that would qualify him as an idiot?
But we came from common ancestors, right? Shouldn't everything be almost identical in genetic structure? Let me ask you, what do you know about evolution? And where is Skruples to point out his incognizant of evolution?Spark wrote:
What, pray, do you understand by evolution?wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Read this.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB … 20MainPage
Summary: Darwin talked out of his butt.
"Darwinian evolution is plainly unavailing in this exercise or that era, since Darwinian evolution begins with self-replication, and self-replication is precisely what needs to be explained."
"If chemistry is unavailing and Darwin indisposed, what is left as a mechanism? The evolutionary biologist’s finest friend: sheer dumb luck."
"Was nature lucky? It depends on the payoff and the odds. The payoff is clear: an ancestral form of RNA capable of replication. Without that payoff, there is no life, and obviously, at some point, the payoff paid off. The question is the odds."
Do you understand the concept f natural selection?
Do you understand that most organisms are not identical? (except bacteria, which are ALMOST always identical)
Name, I pray, one example of a beneficial mutation.Spark wrote:
Do you understand how one of those mutations could give an organism an advantage?
Is that last comment a joke?Spark wrote:
If evolution is not correct, why do we have so many different NEW strains of bacteria, viruses coming up?
Do you celebrate Christmas? Does the government observe Christmas holidays?Daysniper wrote:
Why?
1st amendment, that's why! (disregarding private schools.)
The 1st amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
key phrase: no law respecting an establishment of religion
http://www.opm.gov/Fedhol/2006.asp
Using the 4th definition of religion, evolution fits: A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Why then must evolution be taught if congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion?
Will you admit evolution is flawed? I'll cease my posts if you do so.Spark wrote:
Well for my part my main 'attacks' have been on extremely flawed creationist arguments.
Skruples, why do you not correct those who agree with you? Tyferra stated that a match would contain carbon and therefore carbon dating cannot be used to date rocks is false. A match is made of wood and therefore contains organic carbon. It is intellectual dishonesty to side with those who speak for your argument without pointing out their errors.Skruples wrote:
Carbon dating may not be accurate when looking geologic time, but other radiometric dating techniques are not constrained by the relatively short life of carbon-14. This was taken from the wikipedia page on radiometric datingwannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Is the match made of wood or rock?
"Carbon-14 is not appropriate for rocks because it must involve organic carbon. Rocks are made of minerals that are by definition inorganic.
"With 14C, we can only calculate the age of something that was once living (contains organic carbon). Since (most) rocks were never alive, we can't use this to date a rock.
"The half life of 14C is geologically short -- 5730 years -- and is therefore not useful for materials older than about 35,000 years. That's well over 4 billion years of geologic history that we can't touch."
From:
http://serc.carleton.edu/quantskills/me … Decay.htmlI read some pages denouncing radiometric dating as unreliable, but suprise suprise they were all written by creationists. Besides which, even if the dating techniques are unreliable, they would have to be unreliable by a factor of a few thousand to account for a Creationist timeline. After all, any date older than 6 or 7 thousand years directly contradicts Creationist doctrine, unless of course God has just arranged for things to look older than they really are, which cannot be discounted.Uranium-lead dating is usually performed on the mineral "zircon" (ZrSiO4), though it can be used on other materials. Zircon incorporates uranium atoms into its crystalline structure as substitutes for zirconium, but strongly rejects lead. It has a very high blocking temperature, is resistant to mechanical weathering and is very chemically inert. Zircon also forms multiple crystal layers during metamorphic events, which each may record an isotopic age of the event. These can be dated by a SHRIMP ion microprobe.
One of its great advantages is that any sample provides two clocks, one based on uranium-235's decay to lead-207 with a half-life of about 700 million years, and one based on uranium-238's decay to lead-206 with a half-life of about 4.5 billion years, providing a built-in crosscheck that allows accurate determination of the age of the sample even if some of the lead has been lost.
I'm glad to see you're using reliable sources though.
How much zircon is in rocks?
It is also intellectual dishonesty to call the other side of the argument unreliable. Those sites pick up the scientist that speak their side of the argument as you too have done. Remember, there would not be two sides in the scientific community on the topic if everything were known.
So now you would agree that a rock cannot be carbon dated?Tyferra wrote:
Secondly, some quickfire responses to wannabe_tank_whore.
-Wood.
Show me where he cracked and cursed God.Tyferra wrote:
- Read the Bible. He did crack. He questioned God's judgement and God told him not to. He got everything back kind of because of course, God had murdered his family. They didn't come back from the dead, Job just got himelf a new one.
Hitler never existed. He was a made up piece of propaganda to rally Germans to the nazi party.Tyferra wrote:
- Just because a Devil entity is mentioned in the Bible does not mean it wasn't created by some sly christian folk to defend their interests. Your argument is lacking.
When you start to question like this it becomes the snowball affect downward where you have to question everything. You cannot pick and choose what to question and what not to question.
Why did you change your argument? First it was ' they try to blame the devil' and now it is because 'they say it was God who made it so'.Tyferra wrote:
- Yes, that's much like ol' Job isn't it? Bad things happen don't question it. People are inquisitive and christianity is there to offer answers, but people arn't dumb. Christian answers are like "It's like that because God made it so." That's not enough I'm afraid.
In your eyes there is no correct one. The Bible is clear, however.Tyferra wrote:
- I'm sorry what's this? If I truely sought the truth you suggest that I read? Read what huh? Christian books that slowly bend your mind, ("The Dream Giver,") or perhaps The Bible again? I am well read I assure you, and with 200 hours in eight months is a lot less than most people here with Battlefield 2.
- Christianity and Catholism are different things you're right, but on the point I made they are the same.
- Sly isn't an insult. Christianity teaches lies as facts in my opinion too by the way.
- The faith I talk about is very much a Christian faith. There are so many branches of Christianity that there is no sure-fire correct one. Anglicans and Catholics for example are both Christian groups, but they are different.
You said it best on this one in that Christianity "remains the same".
Read this.Spark wrote:
You would be suprised. You would be very suprised.JaMDuDe wrote:
You can say anything isnt true. Theres not point to arguing it cause after i reply youll say another thing that "proves" them all wrong. I doubt your a scientist and have studied all of these things and know them all by heart, your probably a normal person who doesnt want to admit a young earth so u use anything u can find against these things.
You explained how the sea salt was cleaned out of the ocean, they studied the rate the salt entered and escaped from the ocean, not just how much was going in.
They wouldnt put things that scientists proved wrong years ago on their site as proof.
Can you give me a reference to this study? I want to see that it was carried out by SCIENTISTS.
You have not answered any of my arguments.
You simply brush them off and assert your dominance.
IF I AM WRONG, SHOW ME HOW!
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB … 20MainPage
Summary: Darwin talked out of his butt.
"Darwinian evolution is plainly unavailing in this exercise or that era, since Darwinian evolution begins with self-replication, and self-replication is precisely what needs to be explained."
"If chemistry is unavailing and Darwin indisposed, what is left as a mechanism? The evolutionary biologist’s finest friend: sheer dumb luck."
"Was nature lucky? It depends on the payoff and the odds. The payoff is clear: an ancestral form of RNA capable of replication. Without that payoff, there is no life, and obviously, at some point, the payoff paid off. The question is the odds."
Is the match made of wood or rock?Tyferra wrote:
[boring]They have it wrong on the site. You can date Volcanic rocks and the like, it's not just from livng things. Carbon is in everything, if you burn a match the left-over black stuff is carbon. carbon is not simply Carbon-Dioxide.
"Carbon-14 is not appropriate for rocks because it must involve organic carbon. Rocks are made of minerals that are by definition inorganic.
"With 14C, we can only calculate the age of something that was once living (contains organic carbon). Since (most) rocks were never alive, we can't use this to date a rock.
"The half life of 14C is geologically short -- 5730 years -- and is therefore not useful for materials older than about 35,000 years. That's well over 4 billion years of geologic history that we can't touch."
From:
http://serc.carleton.edu/quantskills/me … Decay.html
He didn't crack... he never wavered either. And for that, God gave him more than he had.Tyferra wrote:
He 'tested' Job until he cracked, and it took a lot of punishment.
Other people say that God was influenced by the Devil, and I tend to agree but if an all powerful divinity can be influenced so easily by evil, than I'm going to start being a bloody Satanist!
MT 4:1 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil.Tyferra wrote:
It is one of my own theories however, that in Christianity there is no Devil. I think that he was created by dissatisfied Christians who forced themself to refuse the fact that God wasn't the nice guy we're all supposed to believe He is.
For a moment there I thought you'd be a good god. But then I found:Tyferra wrote:
When Athiests like myself like to say to Christians things like "If God is so great why did He kill all those people in the Tsunami," or "If He's so great why is there still hunger in Africa?" A Christian brushes these remarks off with "That was the work of the Devil, not God."
ISA 55:8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,"
declares the LORD.
ISA 55:9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Why do you insist that God has to do your will? Why do you assume that the people you talk to know the answers without reading the Bible. It's like saying 'yes evolution is real' without looking at any of the evidence... oh wait.. you do that too. You're consistent at least. And it is clearly written that God punishes those who refuse to obey Him. Jews into exile, Egyptians first born killed... etc.
If you truly sought the truth you will find it. Stop asking others and seek for yourself. It does, however, require putting down BF2 and a lot of reading.Tyferra wrote:
It's obvious to me that this is simply another block that Christians have put up to protect themselves and their interests. I suppose you wouldn't get to be a 2000 year old faith if you wern't smart enough to do this. Who would want continual worship of a God that likes using his divine magnifying glass on all the little people to make that popping noise that's so cool when they explode? So we have Satan, and God is left with an untarnished reputation. It's like a murderer accusing his imaginary twin brother Stan of committing the murder he is charged for.
Don't confuse catholism with Christianity. Catholism added the priest structure and the like. In the Bible, Christ is head of the Church and not the pope.Tyferra wrote:
Because, of course, faith was to priests and whatnot, an income. In the pre-modernist period, the Church ruled. It was the first international corporation, and like a present corporation, it had ways of protecting it's interests.
I'll tell what is 'sly', teaching evolution as fact. I've heard that Hitler sent his propagandist to the US to learn how to indoctrine their population with lies. They found the answer in our schools.Tyferra wrote:
THAT'S why it's impossible to win a debate with a christian, (not for want of trying,) because they hold all the cards and have done so for 2000 years. If there is anything, like independant thought differing from the Bible, to tarnish that reputation there is a way to stop it. It's what I like most about Christianity, they're sly bastards, and yes I do think that quite a few church leaders did not believe in God and were only in it for the power and money.
Groundless they are. Not everybody who claims to be a Christian is one. For example, read about the Pharisees and Sadducees and see how they put on a show for the people and didn't really follow Judaism.Tyferra wrote:
My accusations arn't groundless, My Aunt, Uncle and three Cousins are born-again christians. They are in this kooky faith where they go to one of those places and throw your hands up in the air and shout 'AMEN' after the guy up front yelling at you pauses to take a drink of water. It's the stuff you see on TV, REALLY in to it with christian music and pyrotechnics - showcasing in short. The money involved in that as you can see is incredible, and it is funded by the faithful.
I spoke with the guy who runs my Aunt and Uncle's service. He has basicly set up a church all by himself. I told him it was amazing that his faith could do so much.
"Oh I don't believe," he said, "I just find happiness giving faith and hope to others."
Yeah fucken right, and the $100 you get from each of them with the collection plate and the 10% you dock off the household income has nothing to do with it does it you bastard.
So forgive me for being cynical, but I have my reasons.
It is you who has been busted. Mishkan with a 'k'. Or is that just another nit? Or does they're, there, and their mean the same thing?Vic42 wrote:
Dude! You are so BUSTED!
JaMDuDe said "Dont forget that prophets knew about jesus coming hundreds of years before he came." That is clearly not correct, and I've cited chapter and verse from Prophets that contradict that claim. The best answer you can come up with is that Jesus is coming back to finish the job some day. "The check is in the mail".
So you look for nits.
"Mishcan" means dwelling or sanctuary. I figured you were going to argue that Ezekiel did not mean sanctuary as a physical building, so I pointed out a cosistent pattern in the Bible where "Mishcan" referrs to a physical building. Ezekiel is clearly talking about a physical building in Jerusalem. The Temple has many names, and what I actually said was "the first Temple was built to take the place of the portable Mischan". So your nit about my using the term "Mishcan" to refer to the Temple isn't even an accurate quote.
Search for mishkan and mikdash for your answer since you speak fluent hebrew.
http://www.cohen-levi.org/temple_studie … temple.htm
To answer your question I'll ask you one... Where does it say the Messiah will do this? Can you post the verse that says the Messiah will do this?
Nit-pick accurately... you misspelled the word... you stated that the misspelled word meant all temples when it refers to only the portable one. You provide no evidence to your points... hmmm.Vic42 wrote:
You were wrong, because your linked quote did not support your argument; and you are wrong, because you can't even nit-pick accurately.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
How was I wrong about Ezekiel when you were the one who can't even get the Hebew correct?
Do you have kids? If so, how should you as a father punish your children who disobey? Time-out? A good life? Describe a 'good life' to me.Vic42 wrote:
Yes, there are quotes from the Koran all over the map, but I wasn't suggesting that we take them as a model of how to treat others.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Second, Islam is very clear on what to do to Jews and Christians:. . .
Other major religions don't portray God as being a cruel SoB, with an eternity of torture in store for all non-believers. But Christianity holds as a central tenet that everybody else gets unending grief after death, no matter if they lived a good life.
With that in mind, what are the chances of evolution? And plausible? Give me a break... you later refute your own point by saying God could have done it and erased all evidence yet call evolution more plausible than intelligent design? Talk about double standards.Skruples wrote:
This has been the view of religion for millennia. If we can't explain how it happened, God must have done it. I believe someone else has pointed out that the chances of something being fossilized, and then our scientists coming across it today are astronomical. And yes, those 'liberals' did tell me, and I still find evolution to be more plausible than intelligent design.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
I remember looking at skeletons of all the different species of humans that we evolved from... oh wait! There aren't any... But I guess those liberals forgot to tell you that. .
Do you purposely lie or is it a gene?Skruples wrote:
Did I misread you? Was I in error? Lets check what you wrote herewannabe_tank_whore wrote:
But you again misrepresent what I said... most are liberals that don't believe in the Christian God. But then again, the truth is not what you're after..."Most liberals don't believe in God." Perhaps you should have been more specific.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Actually, universities are quite liberal and most liberals don't believe in God
"Show me a bleeding heart that believes in the Christian God."
No, because of your inability to acknowledge arguments from the opposite side.Skruples wrote:
Why's that? Because I don't let my religious convictions cloud my judgement and my perception of reality? I agree.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
you'd make a good professor.
What does 'no comparison' have to do with the fact that it happened and it had a significant impact of most of the northern hemisphere. "there's still no way animals repopulated the Earth after the flood." And you can claim this based on what scientific facts?Skruples wrote:
I'm not sure if you actually read that wikipedia article you linked, but the 'little ice age' is no comparison to 'THE ice age'. The little ice age caused abnormally cold winters, and caused glaciers and icepacks to advance slightly. THE ice age lasted thousands of years and effected most of the Earth. There's something of a difference there. I'm not sure what this has to do with anything anyway, there's still no way animals repopulated the Earth after the flood.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
I guess if 350 years ago is a 'long time ago' then yes you are correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_ice_age
Sure... so what you've posted is not rhetoric designed to A) reinforce the theory of evolution and B) prove Intelligent design wrong? I guess you made a good point, no?Skruples wrote:
Facts? I haven't seen any facts yet, just a bunch of rhetoric designed to reinforce religious convictions. I also never called all Christians hypocrites, I just think they're wrong (in the scientific, not philosophical sense).wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
So, the position of those opposing your view is laughable but the site that you have found is reasonable? And Christians are called hypocrites... ?? I'm amazed at the fact that you avoid facts on the opposite side and claim you're honest.
But no one has ever sided with me... ever. That's like saying "all my friends like me".Skruples wrote:
And I never said viewpoints opposing my own are laughable, just that website and others like it. Others seem to agree with me.
Did you read the entire article?Skruples wrote:
From that article:wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
For salt to remain it would have to be replenished. Water flows to the lowest point. Rivers (eventually) flow into the ocean... the lowest point. Amazing how science works.
http://www.abc.net.au/learn/silentflood/faqs.htm
This talks about salt on land in Australia vs New Zealand. Very interesting.Yes, the salt in Australia is very interesting, but has nothing to do with this discussion. I'm referring to salt everywhere, or at least traces of it everywhere. If saltwater had truly covered the entire globe, then some of it should have been left on every land body. And no, the salt would not just have been deposited in the lowest areas, because some of the water would have evaporated and left the salt behind everywhere. I also find it amusing that the lack of evidence supporting your viewpoint in this case is meaningless, but we havent found a few fossilized remains and thus evolution is bunk. A nice double standard for you.We think most of it has come in from wind blown accession from the oceans. Something like 20 to 200 kilograms per hectare per year. Because Australia wasn't swept clean by the ice sheets 10,000 years ago like in the northern hemisphere, we've had soils that have been accumulating salts for hundreds of thousands of years. If you do your sums you can soon account for a lot of the salt that's in the Australian landscape simply from wind blown accession from the oceans.
If God really wanted to flood the Earth, he could damn well do so. He could have done so last week and subsequently erased all evidence of it along with our memories.
"New Zealand has no problems with salinity because its rivers take the salt off the land and back out to sea. Why doesn't that happen here?
"Australia is so different from any other land. Rivers normally build on high ground and run briskly down slopes and disappear into the sea. When rivers behave like that around the coastal parts of Australia any excess salts that get into river systems is carried back into the sea. However most of our major rivers rise on the western flanks of the Great Dividing Range and they don't run briskly down slopes and into the sea, they run into a very flat landscape. In the case of the Murray Darling it's our major river system and it travels mainly westward and then it has one very small exit to the sea. So you've got inward flowing rivers in a continent with a sunken centre. You end up with a very flat land, it gets flatter and flatter retaining its sediment and it becomes a land of flood plains and at the same time of course it is retaining its salt."
Looks like water does flow down and thus taking the salt with it. Since the flood, has it ever rained? And considering that there was enough water to cover the entire planet, don't you think the salinity would be diluted?
I find it 'laughable' that you said my viewpoint was a double standard yet claim humans evolved from a common ancestor with no evidence.
Here is an example of a miracle that was stated by doctors and attributed to God by the recipients. Quite the conundrum for Marconius' definition.siciliano732 wrote:
my dad was diagnosed with cancer in 98....did not recieve one bit of treatment, and was prayed over in my church and for 6 years now, he has gone back for check up and there is not one bit of cancer to be traced....what do you call that....
....that is a miracle and a blessing for God.
sorry if you cant accept that.
HTH = hope this helps.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
So you are saying this topic is about science and religion...I agree. I simply couldn't find your argument. I can read and comprehend, therefore figured there was no argument over the topic. You need not explain that to me. I believe JamDuDe was talking about religious miracles, judging from his posts in this forum. Do you disagree?
Edit: What is HTH?
Marconius said, ""Miracle" is a term applied by faithful to a prosperous event that they cannot explain, so they naturally try to attribute it to a god for their own reaffirmation in times of doubt. "
JamDuDe said, "Billions of people have seen miracles, demon possesions, and have seen what God can do in life." He didn't say religious miracles but Marconius chose to say in his definition that miracles were all religious.
I stated, "Explain when a doctor claims "miracle" when a patient recovers after doctors say they will most certainly die." In other words, a doctor who could or could not be religious states that an event which he/she has witnessed is a miracle because he/she can't explain how it came about. Under Marconius' definition the doctor wouldn't fit.
Marconius later said, "we've only been discussing religion for the past 18 pages...so it would be pretty safe to assume that I was talking about religious miracles ."
He only recanted when I brought up the idea of a medical miracle that didn't fit his definition. I then said, "I seem to remember the topic of science and how it has debunked religion... I could be wrong." I posted the topic of the idea of science debunking religion and said, "Looks like I was right."
Was it that hard to follow? HTH.
I'll hold your hand through this one, ken.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
What were you right about? I can't find an argument in your latest post.
Marconius said, "we've only been discussing religion for the past 18 pages".
I said, "I seem to remember the topic of science and how it has debunked religion."
I posted what the original topic was about and if you would go through all the pages you would see that it has in fact been about science and religion.
Then I said, "Looks like I was right."
Now I know simple reading comprehension is hard for some of you but you should be able to see it clearer now. HTH, Ken.
I thought good ole Ted would have left you to die in his submerged car by now.=DBD=TITAN126 wrote:
I'm one of the few conservatives in Massachusetts.
I seem to remember the topic of science and how it has debunked religion... I could be wrong.Marconius wrote:
Gee, tank_whore...we've only been discussing religion for the past 18 pages...so it would be pretty safe to assume that I was talking about religious miracles (plus, I was addressing the issue of religious miracles brought up and asked by both JamDude and siciliano).
Medical miracles, as defined, are highly improbable and extraordinary events that bring welcome consequences. They only become religious/faith-based miracles when someone starts attributing divine intervention to it rather than using a scientific investigative process to understand Why the miracle happened.
It's just simple reading comprehension and semantics...
OP: "Havent u ever doubted your faith? with science proving more and more things like the big bang theory and finding more and more evidence its hard not to quesiton your faith. "
Looks like I was right. Remember, Marconius, it's just simple reading comprehension and semantics.
I'd like for you to recant calling me a racist.jonnykill wrote:
Ok so your all pissy about affirmative action - BOO FUCKING HOO ! Cry me a river , build a bridge and get the fuck over it .
What color is the sky in your world? I'd say you were the racist since affirmative action doesn't exclusively apply to black minorities yet you seem to believe so. Your statement leads me to believe that *you think* black minorities are incapable of finding jobs so affirmative action was created solely for 'them'. A friend of mine is from Jordan and was hired without being interviewed at a government position. In your own words, "just stfu and move on".jonnykill wrote:
Ummm yeah pretty much kido . I never said nor implied anything about race . You did . I mean WTF fuck am I supposed to think now "incompetent people get into positions I'm a racist? " lol you just implied all black people are incompetent once again . If I were you I follow my first advice ....... just stfu and move on .wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
So you can call him an idiot lacking common sense and not be called a racist. But when I explain how incompetent people get into positions I'm a racist?jonnykill wrote:
My defination is someone who would bring up affirmative action because some black guy had an accident .
Just stfu
I kind of can see your point. "This concept allows imbeciles to be hired in place of the person who should have received the job." In other words, the concept of affirmative action allows for the hiring of incompetent people. Imbecile was to describe the DEA. I used an example of it in my work place as told by the VP of Academic Affairs to the department chair (who happens to be from Turkey) to hire a black minority.Kung Jew wrote:
Sorry, got to butt in here. Your statement allows for misinterpitation.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
....was told to hire a black minority no matter what. This concept allows imbeciles to be hired in place of the person who should have received the job.
Wannabe_Tank_Whore (W_T_W)- You start by identifying the black minority, then you use the word imbeciles. This implies that only black minorities (out of all minorities) are imbelciles. Had you mentioned that other minorities have the potenial for imbecilism you'd have been free and clear of racism. By singling out black minorities, you leave the door open for someone to shout racism and be correct in doing so.
Please reread what you originally posted and think about the possible comprehension of the phrasing used.
I've read your posts before W_T_W, and I don't think you are racist, but this post can be construed as such.
Hope I help to make all understand.
KJ
He didn't make the distinction so you can't argue your 'point'. A blanket statement that all miracles are how religious people 'attribute it to a god for their own reaffirmation in times of doubt' can't be used in a debate because there are more than just 'religious miracles'. Unless I'm correct in that he doesn't think otherwise.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Well, there are religious miracles, which refer to the ones JamDuDe is talking about (I think), and there are medical/social/ miracles, in which the odds heavily favor a certain outcome, and the opposite occurs. Seeing as this is a thread about religion, which one do you think he is talking about? I may be mistaken, but it happens sometimes when you use critical thinking to comprehend what people are saying.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Explain when a doctor claims "miracle" when a patient recovers after doctors say they will most certainly die.
It sounds like you have intrepreted miracles as only those confirmed by the catholic church.
Edited for punctuation
So you can call him an idiot lacking common sense and not be called a racist. But when I explain how incompetent people get into positions I'm a racist?jonnykill wrote:
My defination is someone who would bring up affirmative action because some black guy had an accident .
Just stfu
Explain when a doctor claims "miracle" when a patient recovers after doctors say they will most certainly die.Marconius wrote:
"Miracle" is a term applied by faithful to a prosperous event that they cannot explain, so they naturally try to attribute it to a god for their own reaffirmation in times of doubt. When 'miracles' arrive, they are quickly debunked if given the chance...most religious people tend to look down on the debunking since it then destroys their assurances about any sort of divine intervention. The term "miracle" is too widely used, anyways. A statue crying blood or Mary appearing in a piece of half-eaten toast is not a miracle. The cure for cancer suddenly appearing in front of every hospital in the world in a golden tin would aptly be a miracle.JaMDuDe wrote:
Id like to see you explain miracles. The ones where they know werent hoaxes or just an accident. How about demon possesions? People with no mental issues at all or on any drugs...you explain that.JaMDuDe wrote:
No its because ive looked at other religions and none of them compare to what Jesus did, the prophets who knew of him hundred of years before he came, America was based on christianity and it is now the richest, happiest, and most powerful country in the world. Billions of people have seen miracles, demon possesions, and have seen what God can do in life. And christians go to heaven in most other major religions.
Miracles remain unexplained if no one allows the scientific process to come near them.
It sounds like you have intrepreted miracles as only those confirmed by the catholic church.
According to jonnykill, by making this comment you're a racist too.Erkut.hv wrote:
34,000 is it huh? Well, off to a good start at least. Can you post some data that confirms your claim please?
Furhter edited.... look at causes of deaths for most of those civilians. Garroted, executed, roadside bombs....
Nice website. I can look and see exactly how many civilians were not killed by US personnel.