|
Sweden33719 Posts
On August 15 2006 20:02 CaucasianAsian wrote:
So after I show to you practically my side of what I believe, you come in and say that I'm an idiot? Well i think your an "idiot" for believing in a holy power. What now?
You even proved my point saying that Athiests/Agnostics were the most ridiculed minority in america.
Edit: I never said praying works, I never said Chi, or PK works, it's just a belief. If you don't believe then so be it. There is no reason to be BM about it.
Eh, I'm agnostic/atheist. I don't personally believe in any holy powers, gigantic spaggethi monsters or hollow earths, however I acknowledge the possibility that I am wrong, that perhaps there is some creating force or what have you.
I apoligize for being bad manner but I think your logic was a bit, eh, contradictionary.
Ah yes, if you say I'm an idiot for believing in holy powers, I'd say damn straight =]
I don't.
Btw, if you never said PK etc works, then you might want to edit this to clarify. Honestly, you say you believe in it, if you don't think it works, if you are not saying it works.. how can you believe in it..? That's.. It's completely irrational.
No where in the Bible does it talk about the third-eye. Not once. Instead, the Bible says that there are no alternate abilities, such as alternating your surrounding. But if the Hindu's, and the Chinese who believed in the Chi, had practiced this for so long, and there are still today people who practice clairvoyances, study of Psi Energy, and Psychokinesis (PK) I myself believe in the ability of PK, and Clairvoyances, as I have had lost an object, and asked a student of Remote Viewing, where it was, and they gave it to me with almost exact precision, where we had no future contact, and were complete strangers.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the truly offensive statements are the idiotic ones, which are to be ignored anyways due to them being nonsensical. Look at the situation fairly, and there is nothing to get angry over.
I dont see much ridicuing of atheists really, some examples?
|
On August 15 2006 20:08 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Eh, I'm agnostic/atheist. I don't personally believe in any holy powers, gigantic spaggethi monsters or hollow earths, however I acknowledge the possibility that I am wrong, that perhaps there is some creating force or what have you.
You should. His Noodliness could do much with one such as you.
|
|
|
4492 Posts
You should have listened more carefully to the very first sentence in that video.
"Goats - the earliest known domesticated farm animal"
-Mynock
|
Please don't take that post seriously bud
|
4492 Posts
I'm sorry  Tired.
-Mynock
|
United States24664 Posts
HAHA that's hillarious thanks for pointing it out even if it didn't accomplish much.
|
On August 15 2006 17:39 aseq wrote:
Hot77.iEy: I'm not a christian, nor am i certain of either evolution or creation, but i do believe that a single flood COULD / MAY have created the grand canyon (this flood + the aftereffects of the erosion, formed rivers, winds etc. ). When you look at it from the evolution point of view, the grand canyon wasn't formed during or shortly after the big bang, so there must have been some forces involved after that (like a giant earthquake, a meteorite hit (possibly resulting in a massive flood) or stuff like that). It's not all that unthinkable imo.
I read a theoretical book about this supposed flood once, which was inspiring and a great read (but in dutch). I'm in favor of teaching creationism in schools too (flame me), but alongside evolution. To me, neither are proven, evolution is still a theory, as is creationism, so let's learn kids all there is to know and let them make their own decision.
Problem here mostly is that many amerakins do believe what they're taught and this depends highly on their location. I don't like zealous regilious ppl either, but i got no problem with someone who has looked at this from different points of view and has decided that creation is true. As long as he doesn't go try to convince everyone else (waving his holy book) its fine by me.
Well you see the problem with teaching creationism is....FOSSILS. Ok, theory destroyed; stop teaching it. If you knew anything about the subject of modern biology and anthropology then you would never have posted this. Remember the Avian bird flu? Maybe not, but in the United States there was a big deal made about it possibly becomming a strain that would infect humans and the question was whether or not we were prepared for it. However, if evolution didn't exist (ITS JUST A THEORY!!!) there would be no need for concern. It's impossible for diseases to evolve into new diseases right? Please Sir, don't ever compare evolution to creationism as equal theories. That's like comparing the theory of relativity to that of Scientologists (Aliens "planted" life on earth long ago). The fact is evolution is NOT a theory anymore. Biologists have witnessed bacteria evolve in a labortory study many times. The only aspect of it that is a theory is whether or not evolution is the source of life on this planet.
Side note: It is a fact that the Grand Canyon was carved of millions of years by the now named Colorado River. If you want to argue that the source of the Colorado river is a flood than be my guest. It could just as easily be argued to be rain.
I'm sorry sir but you are a moron, have a good day
|
On August 15 2006 17:41 jkillashark wrote:
Well America IS a nation with Christian roots, you friggin pagans.
So your point is Christians are ignorant? Thanks for that...
|
On August 15 2006 17:47 ApollyoN wrote:
Well you dont really 'believe' in evolution. Thats like saying you dont 'believe' in gravity.
Exactly.
|
On August 15 2006 18:07 Mynock wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2006 17:54 Jathin wrote:
The problem with teaching creationism in schools is how you present it.
Do you present it from a Christian standpoint?
A Buddhist standpoint?
How about Hindu?
It's very difficult to approach it because each religion has its own explanation for how humans came about. Evolution, on the other hand, is a theory that's very consistent and has ample evidence to support it. Creationism isn't science, evolution is. There is data supporting evolution. We have witnessed descent with modification with our very own eyes (in the 80's-90's there is decades of data on bird beak length increasing throughout generations to adapt to the strain of harder-to-obtain food) However, we've gotta be honest. There is 0 data of a species evolving into another species. No data. No proof. That is the main reason evolution theory is still just a theory. Now it could "easily" be proven otherwise if only we could observe the rainforests' abundant wildlife a bit closer. New species emerge on a daily basis in there, but it's virtually impossible to actually catch one changing into other due to the sheer amount of population of one species. Also, when do you consider a species evolved into another? So it's really not that "easily" proven... Oh, still better than creation tho. -Mynock
Not entirely new species no but most certainly sub-species. In humans even. You should watch the piece on the history channel...I forget the name. It's kinda dumbed down for the masses but it has a lot of really interesting information none the less.
|
On August 15 2006 18:41 gameguard wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2006 18:36 warding wrote: On August 15 2006 17:22 gameguard wrote:
Basically I agree with micronesia and believe that God guided the evolutionary process. Seriously? Do you really understand the concept of evolution? And you still think it needs some sort of illuminated guidance? :| Show nested quote +On August 15 2006 18:09 gameguard wrote:
there is plenty of measurable data supporting evolution. However, there is also areas that are kind of grey.
think about the very beginning of life. The general concensus is that lightning in the pre-oxygenated atmosphre caused the formation of simple molecules like ammonia. Simple molecules aggregate to form more complex molecules such as RNA. Lipids and such form globules that have an internal invironment. RNA is incorporated and voala - the primitive cell is born.
There has been experiments to prove some of these could happen, but its hard to say that all of these processes came together to form the cell. Now if there was some supernatural guidance.....
One thing is believing that God created life, another is believing he guided evolution. I assumed you were referring to the latter. Which you were, but apparently you weren't.
The first one is indeed an attempt at explaining a kind of grey area in biology. But saying A started B without having a clue of how A started is not really explaining anything. That and the obvious lack of any evidence that A exists really undermine that hypothesis.
|
On August 15 2006 18:18 Mindcrime wrote:I really wish people would quit saying that. Gravity is also "just a theory." Yes, gravity is a theory. But gravitational forces are directly observable, theorized with great accuracy by equations you learned in high school (hats off to Newton).
We have never seen one species mutate into another. The theory of evolution is derived from an extrapolation of observable data. This is the basis of doubt (for those who doubt). Let's be reasonable without the false analogies, please. You wouldn't want to lower yourself to the ignorant, despicable, idiotic, motherfucking american christians, would you?
|
ASDFASDFASDF, I have always been immensely satisfied when teachers basically said to religious students "fuck you retards, evolution is clearly plausible and you're retarded for believing otherwise", not in those words of course.
|
We have never seen one species mutate into another. The theory of evolution is derived from an extrapolation of observable data. This is the basis of doubt (for those who doubt). Let's be reasonable without the false analogies, please. You wouldn't want to lower yourself to the ignorant, despicable, idiotic, motherfucking american christians, would you?
There is very convincing evidence of the evolution of a species into another through the analysis of DNA and by merely looking at skeletons and fossils. There is also the easily observable evolution of viruses and bacteria. What more evidence is really needed?
|
4492 Posts
On August 15 2006 21:05 warding wrote:Show nested quote +We have never seen one species mutate into another. The theory of evolution is derived from an extrapolation of observable data. This is the basis of doubt (for those who doubt). Let's be reasonable without the false analogies, please. You wouldn't want to lower yourself to the ignorant, despicable, idiotic, motherfucking american christians, would you? There is very convincing evidence of the evolution of a species into another. There is also the easily observable evolution of viruses and bacteria. What more evidence is really needed?
People tend to think there is but the fact is there isn't. If you can find any documented change of a species into another however, please be my guest. At the time even the best specialists wouldn't argue with the fact that there is no such documented proof, "merely" tons of supporting evidence.
And it's virii btw.
-Mynock
|
On August 15 2006 21:01 HeadBangaa wrote:
Yes, gravity is a theory. But gravitational forces are directly observable, theorized with great accuracy by equations you learned in high school (hats off to Newton).
Too bad Newton's laws fall apart at the quantum level.
We have never seen one species mutate into another. The theory of evolution is derived from an extrapolation of observable data. This is the basis of doubt (for those who doubt). Let's be reasonable without the false analogies, please. You wouldn't want to lower yourself to the ignorant, despicable, idiotic, motherfucking american christians, would you?
Yet again, I would like to point out the fact that we've witnessed nylon-digesting bacteria evolve.
|
On August 15 2006 21:05 warding wrote:Show nested quote +We have never seen one species mutate into another. The theory of evolution is derived from an extrapolation of observable data. This is the basis of doubt (for those who doubt). Let's be reasonable without the false analogies, please. You wouldn't want to lower yourself to the ignorant, despicable, idiotic, motherfucking american christians, would you? There is very convincing evidence of the evolution of a species into another through the analysis of DNA and by merely looking at skeletons and fossils. There is also the easily observable evolution of viruses and bacteria. What more evidence is really needed? You have as much faith as the christians, my friend. 
EDIT: my posts are rendered useless by further reading of the thread, Mynock already handled these basic misconceptions.
I am compelled to mention that I'm a fundamentalist Christian (surely a derogatory characterization, but I hate playing semantics let's call it what it is) who believes in creationism. Almost didn't mention it, but I see that a lot of posters are trying to distance themselves from their beliefs because they don't want to be ridiculed.
I guess I should also mention that I support evolution being taught in public schools. I've had Biology professors who do/and don't believe in macroevolution, though most have been great teachers, remaining objective and presenting facts about the theory's strongest points.
One more thing, I sincerely believe as humans, we want to learn about our roots, and this is why people accept pre-packaged ideologies without researching them much. It annoys me when people stand rock-hard on a subject they are grossly uninformed about, and I enjoy arguing with "weak" (ignorant) christians just as much as "weak" (ignorant) evolutionists. On both sides of the fence, you have the ignorant. There is a leap of faith made on both sides (albiet seemingly moreso with creationism). An educated Christian (such as myself) chooses the larger leap, for many many reasons. But that would be totally off-topic...
Good thread so far, if you sift through all the loud people who think they know more than they do (well, I guess that's typical of this forum though. Even I'm the loud idiot sometimes hahaha) :D
If there are any Christians here who feel feel that their faith has been defeated by the arguments made in this thread, PM me! You are defeated because you are ignorant, but I can refer you to excellent scientific readings on the subject.
|
On August 15 2006 19:09 gameguard wrote:
well i guess the example i gave is not really evolution (it just deals with origin of life). What im trying to say is what started the whole thing? It is easy to look back and study how thing work. But can we know how or why the current system was favored? Was it all totally random? How did we end up with the genetic code that is the basis for all the diversity?
can you imagine what the world would be like if, at the beginning, some other form of molecular infrastructure took precedence? Perhaps it would be equally viable. Or maybe we would be zergs. Who knows.
Think of how many random events had to happen in succession to get to where were at right now.
Im not denying the scope of the universe. Sure, Earth could just be one of the billions of stars with habitable conditions that just happend to go through all the right turns in the random series of events, but I just believe God had something to do with it :0
It appears to be random, its all about molecular thermodynamics and such
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
