# Giving up Cubing for Lent



## ~Phoenix Death~ (Feb 18, 2010)

I'm giving up cubing for lent.
...
...
STARTING AFTER THE CALTECH COMPETITION!
What about u?
What are YOU giving up for lent?


----------



## RainbowBoy (Feb 18, 2010)

Computer games and meat.
No life without them but ah well...


----------



## Innocence (Feb 18, 2010)

Nothing, as I am not catholic. Something tells me that this thread isn't going to be all that productive as there are probably a lot of people with answers like mine.


----------



## aronpm (Feb 18, 2010)

What am I giving up for Lent? Nothing, because I don't believe in fairy tales.


----------



## Faz (Feb 18, 2010)

aronpm said:


> What am I giving up for Lent? Nothing, because I don't believe in fairy tales.



+1


----------



## Innocence (Feb 18, 2010)

aronpm said:


> What am I giving up for Lent? Nothing, because I don't believe in fairy tales.



What did I tell you? Counterproductive religious discussion begins.


----------



## Parity (Feb 18, 2010)

Nothing because I am baptist.


----------



## Innocence (Feb 18, 2010)

Parity said:


> Nothing because I am baptist.



Something like that is what I should've said, as I think it isn't just catholics that "celebrate" lent.


----------



## AndyRoo789 (Feb 18, 2010)

Mmmm.
I'm Catholic, but I don't think I'm gonna give up anything this year.


----------



## qqwref (Feb 18, 2010)

I'm giving up drinking/smoking, football, coffee, and Sport Stacking for lent.

(Actually... can I give up schoolwork? That'd be nice.)


----------



## RainbowBoy (Feb 18, 2010)

AndyRoo789 said:


> Mmmm.
> I'm Catholic, but I don't think I'm gonna give up anything this year.



After All Jesus has done for you!


----------



## Weston (Feb 18, 2010)

RainbowBoy said:


> AndyRoo789 said:
> 
> 
> > Mmmm.
> ...



I might go crazy soon.


----------



## aronpm (Feb 18, 2010)

Innocence said:


> aronpm said:
> 
> 
> > What am I giving up for Lent? Nothing, because I don't believe in fairy tales.
> ...



Counterproductive religious discussion, or relevant answer to the question providing a brief explanation of lent choice?

PS. Lent is basically a counter-productive religious act. Also, this thread is a counter-productive religious discussion as nothing of value will be achieved.


----------



## Edward_Lin (Feb 18, 2010)

im not catholic but if i were i would give up square-1  i almost never solve it


----------



## AndyRoo789 (Feb 18, 2010)

Edward_Lin said:


> im not catholic but if i were i would give up square-1  i almost never solve it



You're supposed to give up something you do regularly.


----------



## ~Phoenix Death~ (Feb 18, 2010)

Innocence said:


> aronpm said:
> 
> 
> > What am I giving up for Lent? Nothing, because I don't believe in fairy tales.
> ...



If you are not Caatholic/not celebrating Lent/not giving anything up, don't post it. No wars.


----------



## RyanO (Feb 18, 2010)

~Phoenix Death~ said:


> Innocence said:
> 
> 
> > aronpm said:
> ...



No offence, but surely you knew this sort of stuff would show up when you made this thread.


----------



## DavidWoner (Feb 18, 2010)

Lent is for quitters.


----------



## RainbowBoy (Feb 18, 2010)

AndyRoo789 said:


> Edward_Lin said:
> 
> 
> > im not catholic but if i were i would give up square-1  i almost never solve it
> ...



Like Cubing


----------



## aronpm (Feb 18, 2010)

~Phoenix Death~ said:


> Innocence said:
> 
> 
> > aronpm said:
> ...



I'm not allowed to post because I don't share the same religious belief as you? So you're discriminating against me. I WANT THIS THREAD LOCKED  I AM DEEPLY OFFENDED NOW


----------



## Faz (Feb 18, 2010)

wudawei said:


> [19:56] <DavidWoner> so does this mean they won't be posting on the forums as much either
> [19:56] * DavidWoner crosses fingers


----------



## RainbowBoy (Feb 18, 2010)

aronpm said:


> ~Phoenix Death~ said:
> 
> 
> > Innocence said:
> ...


I hope you are taking your post as a joke . Yes, you can post. Just no Wars.


----------



## Dene (Feb 18, 2010)

I'm giving up losing weight. I am now going to gain weight. This is not done for lent, but if you want to think that way then that's up to you.


----------



## Zubon (Feb 18, 2010)

This whole "lent" thing sounds pretty kooky. 

If you don't give up something, Allah (or is it Ganesha? Yahweh?) will get angry and torture you for eternity?


----------



## Weston (Feb 18, 2010)

aronpm said:


> ~Phoenix Death~ said:
> 
> 
> > Innocence said:
> ...



Would you want someone that doens't know how to solve a cube posting threads on this forum?


----------



## Parity (Feb 18, 2010)

Zubon said:


> This whole "lent" thing sounds pretty kooky.
> 
> If you don't give up something, Allah (or is it Ganesha? Yahweh?) will get angry and torture you for eternity?


That is muslim **** like obama believes.


----------



## AndyRoo789 (Feb 18, 2010)

Zubon said:


> This whole "lent" thing sounds pretty kooky.
> 
> If you don't give up something, Allah (or is it Ganesha? Yahweh?) will get angry and torture you for eternity?



Nah, just for 40 years.


----------



## RyanO (Feb 18, 2010)

Parity said:


> Zubon said:
> 
> 
> > This whole "lent" thing sounds pretty kooky.
> ...



Wow, what an ignorant remark.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Feb 18, 2010)

Parity said:


> Zubon said:
> 
> 
> > This whole "lent" thing sounds pretty kooky.
> ...



lol


----------



## RainbowBoy (Feb 18, 2010)

AndyRoo789 said:


> Zubon said:
> 
> 
> > This whole "lent" thing sounds pretty kooky.
> ...



*Days


----------



## qqwref (Feb 18, 2010)

Parity said:


> Zubon said:
> 
> 
> > This whole "lent" thing sounds pretty kooky.
> ...


...


----------



## Kian (Feb 18, 2010)

Parity said:


> Zubon said:
> 
> 
> > This whole "lent" thing sounds pretty kooky.
> ...



Favorite. Post. Ever. So many levels, just...wow. Hilarious.


----------



## Innocence (Feb 18, 2010)

Kian said:


> Parity said:
> 
> 
> > Zubon said:
> ...



I don't know whether people are referring to the first quote or the second. I find it hilarious Zubon doesn't even know what god the catholics follow. >.<


----------



## shelley (Feb 18, 2010)

Innocence said:


> Kian said:
> 
> 
> > Parity said:
> ...



I find it hilarious his sarcasm has gone completely over your head >.<


----------



## Innocence (Feb 18, 2010)

Actually the quote was really aimed at everyone who was replying to Parity's quote.


----------



## Muesli (Feb 18, 2010)

I give up giving things up all the time.


----------



## shelley (Feb 18, 2010)

Can you give up Catholicism for Lent?


----------



## irontwig (Feb 18, 2010)

Zubon said:


> This whole "lent" thing sounds pretty kooky.



Welcome to religion.


----------



## DAE_JA_VOO (Feb 18, 2010)

fazrulz said:


> aronpm said:
> 
> 
> > What am I giving up for Lent? Nothing, because I don't believe in fairy tales.
> ...



Wow, you guys are cool hey?

If you're not a catholic, don't pass snotty comments. There's absolutely no reason to bash it. If you don't agree with it or don't believe in God, refrain from making silly comments about it. Why one earth would you go out of your way to offend someone?



Listen guys, if you're going to reply, do it in such a way that you don't offend someone. Have some respect and consideration for members of the forum. We're not all the same, and not all of us believe the same thing, so be a little more considerate. 

Anyway, I'm a Christian, so lent obviously doesn't apply to me, so I won't be giving anything up, but good luck to those of you who are giving something up, and don't forget why you're actually doing it


----------



## Escher (Feb 18, 2010)

aronpm said:


> What am I giving up for Lent? Nothing, because I don't believe in fairy tales.





aronpm said:


> Counterproductive religious discussion, or relevant answer to the question providing a brief explanation of lent choice?
> PS. Lent is basically a counter-productive religious act. Also, this thread is a coter-productive religious discussion as nothing of value will be achieved.


Telling the forum (in a thread based around a religious festival) you equate religion with fairy tales is obviously intended to insult, and don't give any ******** trying to avoid that.

Lent is not a counter-productive act for those who are concerned.
Nothing of value is achieved by about 99% of threads on this forum, and a good proportion of those aren't in off-topic like this is.

Re:OP: I'm not giving up anything because I'm an atheist.


----------



## Zane_C (Feb 18, 2010)

These threads can be interesting to watch, I think I'll just stay out of this one.


----------



## irontwig (Feb 18, 2010)

DAE_JA_VOO said:


> If you're not a catholic, don't pass snotty comments. There's absolutely no reason to bash it. If you don't agree with it or don't believe in God, refrain from making silly comments about it.



Comments that might make people reflect over their religion and why the believe in it doesn't seem to be too silly to me.


----------



## Zane_C (Feb 18, 2010)

I could post something so funny right now, but I don't think I should. 
So TEMPTING!


----------



## qqwref (Feb 18, 2010)

DAE_JA_VOO said:


> Anyway, I'm a Christian, so lent obviously doesn't apply to me



Wait, hang on, what? Catholicism is definitely a kind of Christianity, as are other Christian denominations which practice Lent (I'm not an expert, but apparently this includes the Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican, and Eastern Orthodox groups). In fact it seems that a majority of Christians practice Lent.


----------



## hyunchoi98 (Feb 18, 2010)

Is lent about giving something up?

If it is, (i'm not catholic)
and even if i was
i wouldn't give up anything except
maybe schoolwork and homework


----------



## DAE_JA_VOO (Feb 18, 2010)

irontwig said:


> DAE_JA_VOO said:
> 
> 
> > If you're not a catholic, don't pass snotty comments. There's absolutely no reason to bash it. If you don't agree with it or don't believe in God, refrain from making silly comments about it.
> ...



How on earth did that comment cause me (or anyone religious) to "reflect over my religion and why I believe it"?! 



qqwref said:


> DAE_JA_VOO said:
> 
> 
> > Anyway, I'm a Christian, so lent obviously doesn't apply to me
> ...



No no no. Catholicism and Christianity have quite a few differences. Christians (read: non-catholic) generally don't take part in lent.


----------



## irontwig (Feb 18, 2010)

DAE_JA_VOO said:


> irontwig said:
> 
> 
> > DAE_JA_VOO said:
> ...



I'm just saying that someone presenting a different world view might make you reflect on your own.



> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > DAE_JA_VOO said:
> ...



Yes, but your statement is like me saying "I'm a European, so I'm not French.".


----------



## Innocence (Feb 18, 2010)

DAE_JA_VOO said:


> irontwig said:
> 
> 
> > DAE_JA_VOO said:
> ...



Well actually Catholicism is a part of christianity. What you may be referring to is protestantism, which is the "rival" of catholicism, but both are definitely christian, as they both have the same underlying beliefs that Jesus was the messiah.

Edit: What irontwig said.


----------



## Bryan (Feb 18, 2010)

DAE_JA_VOO said:


> Catholicism and Christianity have quite a few differences. Christians (read: non-catholic) generally don't take part in lent.



No, Catholicism is a subset of Christianity. Christianity is believing in Christ's teaching.

And non-Catholics do take part in Lent, but they do it differently. "Giving stuff up" is normally a Catholic thing, and perhaps a few other groups do it. But other groups do have Lenten services and things.

I don't give stuff up. Basically, imagine if I came to your house and said I got you a gift. It's a brand new car. I also paid off your house, gave you money for college, gave you an all-expense paid trip to worlds, and got you a bunch of new cubes. You're really glad and you say, "Here, wait, I got you something too." And you go to your shelf and grab a candy bar.

Doesn't that seem odd? To try and repay me with something small for how much I've done is kind of an insult. 

I think of Lent like that. You can't repay Jesus for dying for you by doing something small. He gave His life for you. The best way to repay that is giving your life to Him. Not by dying, but but living according to His Word. If you're Christian, you're already doing that, whether you're cubing or not.


----------



## Innocence (Feb 18, 2010)

Bryan said:


> DAE_JA_VOO said:
> 
> 
> > Catholicism and Christianity have quite a few differences. Christians (read: non-catholic) generally don't take part in lent.
> ...



+43!^8!


----------



## 4Chan (Feb 18, 2010)

Hallo, am/was/is Catholic.

I only like the moral aspects, and stopped attending Mass when my family broke up. Because my dad wasn't around to force me.

I was raised in Catholic private school, and was part of a Catholic youth group for many years.




Something I figured out, is that asceticism (Giving something up in pursuit of metaphysical benefits), is just self-mutilation.
Feels bad, man. ):

Maybe, Lent would lead you to the same conclusion I did.


----------



## DAE_JA_VOO (Feb 18, 2010)

Bryan, you're right. Well said


----------



## skarian (Feb 18, 2010)

im orthodox, im giving up sweets for lent!!


----------



## JeffDelucia (Feb 18, 2010)

I'm not catholic so I don't participate in lent but I'm assuming the idea is to give up something bad to better yourself not just to give something up for the sake of giving something up. (I could be wrong) I personally wouldn't give up cubing. I would give up something thats bad for me like eating hot pockets.


----------



## 4Chan (Feb 18, 2010)

Most Catholics do Lent because it's said that Jesus spent 40 days in the desert praying, with minimal food or water.

Thus, the 40 days of sacrifice is the supposed to be similar to what Jesus did.


----------



## JeffDelucia (Feb 18, 2010)

4Chan said:


> Most Catholics do Lent because it's said that Jesus spent 40 days in the desert praying, with minimal food or water.
> 
> Thus, the 40 days of sacrifice is the supposed to be similar to what Jesus did.



Jesus did it once so catholics must do it once every year? yeah thats fair..


----------



## 4Chan (Feb 18, 2010)

Hahahahahaha, you're funny. (x

You have a point.


----------



## skarian (Feb 18, 2010)

from what i have been taght, im not catholic, lent is made so that the time you spent doing something every day, for example cubing, is spent to further develop your relationship with God. and my denomination does it for 50 days


----------



## Ryanrex116 (Feb 18, 2010)

I'll give up what I gave up last year. 

I give up taco bell, which I never go to. I give up alcohol, which I am too young for. I think I gave up spitting while running last year, because I almost hit a hobo.


----------



## RyanO (Feb 18, 2010)

Innocence said:


> Kian said:
> 
> 
> > Parity said:
> ...



Actually, Yahweh and Allah are just different names for the same God Christians worship. Ganesha is notably different though. Yes, I realize the comment was meant to be sarcastic.


----------



## Lofty (Feb 18, 2010)

I'm Southern Baptist so I don't do lent. I've thought about doing it before because its supposed to be about reflecting on what Christ has done for us by giving up something that you normally do. You can't really go wrong pondering Christ can you? 
When does lent start? I may give up cubing too. 
Also thank you to all the people who kept it civil.


----------



## iasimp1997 (Feb 18, 2010)

aronpm said:


> ~Phoenix Death~ said:
> 
> 
> > Innocence said:
> ...



Damn.....


----------



## Parity (Feb 18, 2010)

Lofty said:


> I'm Southern Baptist so I don't do lent. I've thought about doing it before because its supposed to be about reflecting on what Christ has done for us by giving up something that you normally do. You can't really go wrong pondering Christ can you?
> When does lent start? I may give up cubing too.
> Also thank you to all the people who kept it civil.



Today is the day to give up something,


----------



## gamemeister27 (Feb 18, 2010)

fazrulz said:


> aronpm said:
> 
> 
> > What am I giving up for Lent? Nothing, because I don't believe in fairy tales.
> ...



Make that a +2


----------



## Kirjava (Feb 18, 2010)

I'm giving up YOUR MOTHER. OHO.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Feb 18, 2010)

Innocence said:


> Bryan said:
> 
> 
> > DAE_JA_VOO said:
> ...


Ok Bryan you are amazing xP 
Are you a youth pastor? just curious



RyanO said:


> Innocence said:
> 
> 
> > Kian said:
> ...


Ermm Yahweh and Allah are not the same, and Christians dont worship Allah. While i do understand Allah is basically a diffrent language for God they are still not the same in fact they are fundamentally different. Not once in the Koran is Allah refered to as a loving God, also Allahs attitude is more or less, No matter what a person does let him do it, because if Allah didnt want him to he wouldnt do it. Allah is the God muslims worship.

God or Yahweh is the God christians worship.

I might edit this later its passing period..


----------



## Muesli (Feb 18, 2010)

Arguing about religion on the internet is like smashing your face against a wall, then going to the hospital to get patched up, only to come back and begin again.


----------



## d4m4s74 (Feb 18, 2010)

I'm giving up Christianity for lent
But seriously after the Benelux open I'm going to try to give up smoking


----------



## RyanO (Feb 18, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> Ermm Yahweh and Allah are not the same, and Christians dont worship Allah. While i do understand Allah is basically a diffrent language for God they are still not the same in fact they are fundamentally different. Not once in the Koran is Allah refered to as a loving God, also Allahs attitude is more or less, No matter what a person does let him do it, because if Allah didnt want him to he wouldnt do it. Allah is the God muslims worship.
> 
> God or Yahweh is the God christians worship.
> 
> I might edit this later its passing period..



Christianity and Islam can both be traced back to Abraham. Yahweh/Allah is the God of Abraham; they are different interpretations of the same God. Arabic Christians refer to God as Allah. Also, Allah is portrayed as a loving God in the Qur'an.


----------



## Feryll (Feb 18, 2010)

Okay, this thread is just pointless. It's super off-topic, and only making people angry. The line seperating religons and cubers is only going to get darker the longer this is open. This is an impending closed thread, as I see it.


----------



## RyanO (Feb 18, 2010)

Feryll said:


> Okay, this thread is just pointless. It's super off-topic, and only making people angry. The line seperating religons and cubers is only going to get darker the longer this is open. This is an impending closed thread, as I see it.



+1


----------



## Dene (Feb 18, 2010)

RyanO said:


> jms_gears1 said:
> 
> 
> > Ermm Yahweh and Allah are not the same, and Christians dont worship Allah. While i do understand Allah is basically a diffrent language for God they are still not the same in fact they are fundamentally different. Not once in the Koran is Allah refered to as a loving God, also Allahs attitude is more or less, No matter what a person does let him do it, because if Allah didnt want him to he wouldnt do it. Allah is the God muslims worship.
> ...



I'm going to have to agree with jms_gears1 on the fundamental issue here. Of course I have not read the Quran, nor will I ever. However the god in the Quran is indeed a different god to the Christian god. The Muslims sidetracked from the Christians with different values in mind. The god they worship is a god of different values.


----------



## Kirjava (Feb 18, 2010)

Feryll said:


> Okay, this thread is just pointless. It's super off-topic










At least it's posted in the right forum


----------



## Lofty (Feb 18, 2010)

Threads like this would be a lot better off if the people who post that the thread should be closed and that its going to turn into a flame war just didn't post.


----------



## Owen (Feb 18, 2010)




----------



## Caedus (Feb 18, 2010)

Back to the original question, I'm giving up sweet drinks. Goodbye morning Coke, lunch Monster and after school Coke.


----------



## qqwref (Feb 18, 2010)

Dene said:


> I'm going to have to agree with jms_gears1 on the fundamental issue here. Of course I have not read the Quran, nor will I ever. However the god in the Quran is indeed a different god to the Christian god. The Muslims sidetracked from the Christians with different values in mind. The god they worship is a god of different values.


There's one big thing here that confuses me. The Muslim god (Allah) seems to be quite similar to the Old Testament god; apparently Muslims consider Mohammed to be a prophet in the same vein (and the same faith) as many of the earlier prophets who are mentioned in the OT. Christians say that they generally follow the teachings of Jesus, whose values are *radically* different from that of the OT god, and yet I still see many Christians quoting the OT. So I'm not completely sure exactly what many Christians are worshipping - the loving god of the NT, or the wrathful and ancient god of the OT (=? Allah).


----------



## Lofty (Feb 19, 2010)

qqwref said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > I'm going to have to agree with jms_gears1 on the fundamental issue here. Of course I have not read the Quran, nor will I ever. However the god in the Quran is indeed a different god to the Christian god. The Muslims sidetracked from the Christians with different values in mind. The god they worship is a god of different values.
> ...


I don't think there is such a huge distinction as you are making. In the OT God may have had a lot of wrath on a lot of different people but He also displayed mercy a lot. Constantly the main characters of the Bible mess up but they are offered forgiveness. David has plenty of sins, murder, adultery etc, yet still receives and has a long prosperous reign, his son Solomon also falls in many areas but has a long prosperous reign. So yes there is a lot of wrath but that doesn't mean that there is never mercy...
And then the NT isn't all flowers and rainbows... Jesus talked a good deal about hell and condemnation is still said to be over all of those who don't repent. And then you have the book of Revelation that I don't know well containing the end of the world that will be very bloody and terrifying.
So I think the Bible is always a mix of wrath and love.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Feb 19, 2010)

Lofty said:


> And then the NT isn't all flowers and rainbows... Jesus talked a good deal about hell and condemnation is still said to be over all of those who don't repent. And then you have the book of Revelation that I don't know well containing the end of the world that will be very bloody and terrifying.
> So I think the Bible is always a mix of wrath and love.



Don't forget how Jesus destroyed the marketplace at the temple practically with his bare hands.


----------



## 4Chan (Feb 19, 2010)

I believe he used a whip made of cords.

(I was raised around biblical history, sorry for being a nitpicker. D: )


----------



## miniGOINGS (Feb 19, 2010)

4Chan said:


> I believe he used a whip made of cords.



John 2:14-16. Yes it said he made a whip out of cords, and that he drove out the people, but it doesn't actually say he used it. He did however throw the tables and scatter coins on the ground. Good call though.

EDIT: Hey, there is no reason to be sorry.


----------



## 4Chan (Feb 19, 2010)

Nice argument based on semantics there. >.>


----------



## miniGOINGS (Feb 19, 2010)

Thanks.


----------



## Bryan (Feb 19, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> Ok Bryan you are amazing xP
> Are you a youth pastor? just curious



No, I'm a software engineer. I help out with the youth group though when I can. And I teach Sunday school.



RyanO said:


> Christianity and Islam can both be traced back to Abraham. Yahweh/Allah is the God of Abraham; they are different interpretations of the same God. Arabic Christians refer to God as Allah. Also, Allah is portrayed as a loving God in the Qur'an.



But it doesn't matter if they can be traced back to the same source or not. It's just like if someone said that God (the Christian God in this sense) approved of murder (usually it'll be something else, but I figured this would have the least amount of argument). By changing who God is to match what you want, you're making an idol. Sure, you can trace that God back to Abraham, but it's not the same God. The only difference between the murder-loving God and Allah (in the Islam sense) is number of followers.


----------



## iasimp1997 (Feb 19, 2010)

gamemeister27 said:


> fazrulz said:
> 
> 
> > aronpm said:
> ...



Make that a -6.
We really don't need another thread war here, like the "Teen Problems" thread. Mods, shut this thread down, please.
EDIT: Also, keep your opinions to yourself, guys. Help keep the forums a peaceful place.


----------



## Tortin (Feb 19, 2010)

Bryan said:


> But it doesn't matter if they can be traced back to the same source or not. It's just like if someone said *that God (the Christian God in this sense) approved of murder *(usually it'll be something else, but I figured this would have the least amount of argument). By changing who God is to match what you want, you're making an idol. Sure, you can trace that God back to Abraham, but it's not the same God. The only difference between the murder-loving God and Allah (in the Islam sense) is number of followers.



Wait...are you say that he does or does not approve of murder?


----------



## masterofthebass (Feb 19, 2010)

iasimp1997 said:


> gamemeister27 said:
> 
> 
> > fazrulz said:
> ...



sorry, but your reply is about 3 pages too late... If you read the rest of the thread, its being quite productive.


----------



## Lofty (Feb 19, 2010)

Thank you Dan.
Like I say in all the religion threads its very possible for us to discuss religion civilly. People just assume that its going to turn into a flame war before it even does. Or people just straight up bashing religion...
On topic:
Murder is not the same thing as killing.


----------



## SkateboardingCuber (Feb 19, 2010)

Musli4brekkies said:


> Arguing about religion on the internet is like smashing your face against a wall, then going to the hospital to get patched up, only to come back and begin again.



+ 500!


----------



## CL_Pepsi (Feb 19, 2010)

I'm 14 and there are too many people who are atheist around my age.


----------



## iasimp1997 (Feb 19, 2010)

masterofthebass said:


> iasimp1997 said:
> 
> 
> > gamemeister27 said:
> ...



Oh. Well, I just don't have time to read through all of it.


----------



## ElderKingpin (Feb 19, 2010)

im not giving up cubing for lent. Because i am also Baptist. You can self-denial yourself by fasting. But giving up cubing? No.

Will it kill you to not cube? Not really. Its not really worthy enough for a religious experience, if you can call it that.


----------



## anythingtwisty (Feb 19, 2010)

iasimp1997 said:


> Oh. Well, I just don't have time to read through all of it.


Then don't waste our time by posting.


----------



## 4Chan (Feb 19, 2010)

anythingtwisty said:


> iasimp1997 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh. Well, I just don't have time to read through all of it.
> ...



Ouch. 
+1


----------



## RyanO (Feb 19, 2010)

Bryan said:


> RyanO said:
> 
> 
> > Christianity and Islam can both be traced back to Abraham. Yahweh/Allah is the God of Abraham; they are different interpretations of the same God. Arabic Christians refer to God as Allah. Also, Allah is portrayed as a loving God in the Qur'an.
> ...



Wait, are you saying that all Muslims are idol worshipers?


----------



## ElderKingpin (Feb 19, 2010)

everyone has a different view on religion. Its just another reason for people to hate each other >.<

If people just didnt try to disprove another person or whatever. Then people wouldnt be so sensitive about it


----------



## DavidWoner (Feb 19, 2010)

Lofty said:


> Murder is not the same thing as killing.



The distinction is lost on me. Explain please.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Feb 19, 2010)

DavidWoner said:


> Lofty said:
> 
> 
> > Murder is not the same thing as killing.
> ...



How do you pronounce your last name?


----------



## Muesli (Feb 19, 2010)

DavidWoner said:


> Lofty said:
> 
> 
> > Murder is not the same thing as killing.
> ...


You "kill" hundreds of thousands of amoebas, bacterium and fungi every day by just living. That isn't murder.


----------



## dannyz0r (Feb 19, 2010)

I'm a bacteria lover. What if I don't want them to die?


----------



## Muesli (Feb 19, 2010)

dannyz0r said:


> I'm a bacteria lover. What if I don't want them to die?


Then you're screwed.


----------



## dannyz0r (Feb 19, 2010)

Musli4brekkies said:


> dannyz0r said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a bacteria lover. What if I don't want them to die?
> ...



I needa go to jail


----------



## Lofty (Feb 19, 2010)

You go to jail for murder not necessarily for killing. 
If I'm in the army and kill the enemy that's trying to kill me thats not murder. Most people aren't pacifists and think that thats morally justifiable.
If I shoot my neighbor because I'm crazy and think he insulted me or something thats murder and I'm going to jail/will get the death penalty.


----------



## 4Chan (Feb 19, 2010)

Kinda like in Deuteronomy 7? 
When the enemy tribes/cultures were at war with the jews of the old testament.

The Jews were fighting in defense, so it's about the motive?


----------



## RyanO (Feb 19, 2010)

Lofty said:


> If I shoot my neighbor because I'm crazy and think he insulted me or something thats murder...



God certainly does things very similar to this in the Bible.


----------



## Muesli (Feb 19, 2010)

God does a lot of things that aren't particulary nice in the bible.


----------



## Lofty (Feb 19, 2010)

RyanO said:


> Lofty said:
> 
> 
> > If I shoot my neighbor because I'm crazy and think he insulted me or something thats murder...
> ...



I'm not God and God isn't crazy. 
The rules are different between a perfect being and ones that constantly sin against Him and between two messed up people. 
If you think humans are more important than God or somehow the creator is equal to the creation than it might not be fair, but thats not the case in the Bible.


----------



## Muesli (Feb 19, 2010)

Lofty said:


> RyanO said:
> 
> 
> > Lofty said:
> ...


God created us in his image. Why would he do that if he didn't want us to compare ourselves to him?


----------



## Lofty (Feb 19, 2010)

Musli4brekkies said:


> Lofty said:
> 
> 
> > RyanO said:
> ...


Why does in His image mean that we are equal to or greater than Him? We have similar qualities to God in that we have a certain intelligence and creativity and can form complex relationships and can look ahead on the F2L but I know I can't speak anything into being, and I don't know everything and all of time. 
Image doesn't imply equality. A picture might be in the image of a person but the picture doesn't get citizenship for being born here when I draw it...


----------



## RyanO (Feb 19, 2010)

Lofty said:


> RyanO said:
> 
> 
> > Lofty said:
> ...



I wasn't trying to imply that God is crazy, just that he has killed people for insulting him. I find it interesting that religions assign God human characteristics, particularly negative human characteristics such as jealousy, hate, and vanity.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Feb 19, 2010)

RyanO said:


> I find it interesting that religions assign God human characteristics, particularly negative human characteristics such as jealousy, hate, and vanity.



Maybe humans just have some of God's characteristics.


----------



## metal_cuber (Feb 19, 2010)

I have to many problems believing in god I'll pass


----------



## Lofty (Feb 19, 2010)

RyanO said:


> Lofty said:
> 
> 
> > RyanO said:
> ...



There are somethings that are bad when humans have them because they don't deserve to have them. I am not supposed to be jealous because I don't deserve anything from anyone. God can be jealous because He deserves everything from everyone. 
God can be vain because if He wasn't vain He'd be putting something above Himself and be breaking the first commandment and God would be an idolater. Plus man is most satisfied when He is serving God so if God denies us that then He is cruel for keeping from us the most satisfying thing. 
As for hate that one is more confusing. Because Yes there are a few verses that say that God hates those who sin. We all sin. But also then there are verses that say God loves everyone and sent His Son to die for us. I tend to think that since He's God He can do both at the same time even if it seems contradictory to a human mind.


----------



## MichaelP. (Feb 19, 2010)

I'm jewish and what is this?


----------



## Weston (Feb 19, 2010)

MichaelP. said:


> I'm jewish and what is this?



THIS IS SPARTA!


----------



## 4Chan (Feb 19, 2010)




----------



## Dene (Feb 19, 2010)

I think people forget that it is God who has the sole choice as to when to take someones life. This is not murder.


----------



## ~Phoenix Death~ (Feb 19, 2010)

How did we get from just simply giving something up for Lent to MURDER? Really???
I gave up cubing because my friends say I'm addicted to them. And I need breaks. 
But guess what happened? My LanLan 2x2 arrived! Right after Ash Wednesday! Couldn't the timing have been BETTER? (sarcasm)
...Caltech Open will be an exception. Uh, God? Can you excuse me for the next week? Please? C'mon, my man...


----------



## Innocence (Feb 19, 2010)

~Phoenix Death~ said:


> How did we get from just simply giving something up for Lent to MURDER? Really???
> I gave up cubing because my friends say I'm addicted to them. And I need breaks.
> But guess what happened? My LanLan 2x2 arrived! Right after Ash Wednesday! Couldn't the timing have been BETTER? (sarcasm)
> ...Caltech Open will be an exception. Uh, God? Can you excuse me for the next week? Please? C'mon, my man...



I did warn you that there aren't enough lent celebrants to keep this thread 100% on-topic. But at least we aren't talking about our favourite pizza flavours.


----------



## aronpm (Feb 19, 2010)

Innocence said:


> ~Phoenix Death~ said:
> 
> 
> > How did we get from just simply giving something up for Lent to MURDER? Really???
> ...



I really like Ham, Cheese and Egg, that's my favourite topping. I don't like Pineapple because it tastes like crap. Also, Meat-lovers pizzas are usually pretty nice. Curiously, I've never tried anchovies; some people say that are way too salty to taste nice, but I'd rather make my own decision.


----------



## ~Phoenix Death~ (Feb 19, 2010)

Well, I find it hard to not see the way I said "No Religion wars". Seriously. The thread with "Bringing people back to life" by giving new blood and stuff didn't have a war. does this thread have some kinda CURSE in it??
Oh and more news. My 4x4 has arrived. GREAT. I told everyone in class what i was giving up and everyone was like ":O WTF"


----------



## Innocence (Feb 19, 2010)

No matter what you say, if there isn't sufficient interest, it isn't going to happen, and when a thread doesn't happen, it needs a new topic, so people fill it with whatever.

Aronpm: Anchovies ARE too salty for most people. When I was told about it I was like yeah, whatever, but then I tried them. >.<


----------



## Ranzha (Feb 19, 2010)

aronpm said:


> What am I giving up for Lent? Nothing, because I don't believe in fairy tales.



A bit late, but that offends some people. Some people don't think Lent is a "fairy tale". In reality, Lent *exists*, so how can something that exists be a fairy tale?

The disbelief in something does not give you, nor anyone the right to offend someone.
If there was a right for that, people would have wars about 3x3 methods and flaming and trolls, et cetera.

Don't be a douchebag. Too late.


----------



## trying-to-speedcube... (Feb 19, 2010)

He never said Lent was a fairy tale.


----------



## Ranzha (Feb 19, 2010)

trying-to-speedcube... said:


> He never said Lent was a fairy tale.



It Shirley was implied.


----------



## ~Phoenix Death~ (Feb 19, 2010)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> aronpm said:
> 
> 
> > What am I giving up for Lent? Nothing, because I don't believe in fairy tales.
> ...


+Infinity minus 1. So that there is a number.


----------



## RyanO (Feb 19, 2010)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> trying-to-speedcube... said:
> 
> 
> > He never said Lent was a fairy tale.
> ...



I think you missed the implication. He was implying that religion is a fairy tale. Also the idea of a right to not be offended is kind of silly. That being said, I agree that intentionally stirring up the pot isn't very productive.


----------



## Innocence (Feb 19, 2010)

Ya Ranzha, anyway, you may have realized you were too late but the issue had already been dealt with .

anyway. Athiests, there is logically no way there can not be a God. And now please allow me some time to gather my rebuttal.


----------



## shelley (Feb 19, 2010)

Innocence said:


> anyway. Athiests, there is logically no way there can not be a God.



Seriously? You're really going to go there?

On topic: I'm giving up giving up things for Lent for Lent. Now what?


----------



## aronpm (Feb 19, 2010)

Innocence said:


> anyway. Athiests, there is logically no way there can not be a God. And now please allow me some time to gather my rebuttal.



Please explain. 

If I may raise the 'irrelevant authority' problem. Quoting my philosophy textbook:


> People often refer to authorities to support their arguments. For example, when trying to prove that the universe is not infinitely old, someone might point out that the Bible says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth." Would this information be relevant in deciding for yourself what to believe? Philosophers don't think so. Appealing to an irrelevant authority is a fallacious form of reasoning. Look on the Internet and you'll find an "authority" swearing to any number of false claims. [*examples*]. Because it's hard to know which authorities to trust, philosophers turn to reason and evidence to support their arguments.



Therefore, you cannot use the Bible as a source of evidence as it is an irrelevant authority and it begs the question (see below!)



Spoiler






> "Begging the question" is another name for circular reasoning. Your opponent commits this fallacy when he uses in his argument the very thing you want him to prove. *Suppose you challenge your opponent to provide a good argument for believing in God. He says that you should believe in God because the Bible says that God exists, and that you should believe the Bible because it is the word of God. His proof will only work if you grant that God exists. But that's exactly what he's supposed to prove! So, he has taken you in a circle of reasoning.*



Emphasis mine


----------



## RyanO (Feb 19, 2010)

Innocence said:


> Ya Ranzha, anyway, you may have realized you were too late but the issue had already been dealt with .
> 
> anyway. Athiests, there is logically no way there can not be a God. And now please allow me some time to gather my rebuttal.



You can't prove/disprove the existance of a higher power. I believe that there is a God, but I'm pretty skeptical of religious atempts at understanding God. I think if God wanted us to understand his will he would give us something better to go off of than a book written by humans. I find it more satisfying to follow my own personal beliefs rather than blindly follow what organized religion preachs.

I'm not trying to assert that my beliefs are more valid than anyone else's, infact I'm pretty sure I'm wrong about some aspects of God and his intentions for the human race. I find it far more likely that everyone is wrong about God than one group having it right.

While I personally don't see the need for religion, I do see the benefit of religon for some people regardless of it's correctness/incorrectness. However, I'm not sure that outways the negative side effects of religion such as manipulation, discouragement of independent thought, and misguided justification for intolerance.


----------



## Dene (Feb 19, 2010)

aronpm said:


> Innocence said:
> 
> 
> > anyway. Athiests, there is logically no way there can not be a God. And now please allow me some time to gather my rebuttal.
> ...



How is God an irrelevant authority in a debate about God himself?
Don't try to argue bad philosophy with me please. Yes it does beg the question, though.


----------



## Tim Major (Feb 19, 2010)

Atheist means you don't believe in anything. I'm not atheist, but I don't believe in any God. I'm completely unsure what to believe in. Evolution has it's arguments, and they are quite strong, but I don't believe that there was "a big bang". What existed before that? It can't just suddenly appear. Using this logic, the universe has been here for ever, or there was at least something else, before the "big bang".


----------



## RyanO (Feb 19, 2010)

Dene said:


> aronpm said:
> 
> 
> > Therefore, you cannot use the Bible as a source of evidence as it is an irrelevant authority and it begs the question (see below!)
> ...



God may not be an irrelevant autority in a debate about God, but the Bible certainly is.


----------



## qqwref (Feb 19, 2010)

ZB_FTW!!! said:


> Atheist means you don't believe in anything. I'm not atheist, but I don't believe in any God.


Atheist means you don't believe in any deities (a- [without] + theos [God(s)] + -ist). So it sounds like you in fact are an atheist.



ZB_FTW!!! said:


> I'm completely unsure what to believe in. Evolution has it's arguments, and they are quite strong, but I don't believe that there was "a big bang". What existed before that? It can't just suddenly appear. Using this logic, the universe has been here for ever, or there was at least something else, before the "big bang".


1) Evolution (as understood by scientists, of course) has absolutely nothing to do with the big bang (or abiogenesis, for that matter). The current theories of abiogenesis and the big bang could both be completely wrong and it wouldn't even be any evidence against evolution.
2) We can't detect what happened before the big bang, so it's not possible (so far?) to provide any evidence for/against any particular theory. Some 'possibilities' I've heard are: there was a universe before ours that ended in a "big crunch" and then started expanding again; the universe is part of some larger system, which creates or contains the seeds that develop into universes; the big bang was somehow a singularity and our universe is contained in a black hole; and (most counter-intuitive of all) time only exists in our universe, with the big bang just being the boundary at one end in the time dimension, and thus the concept of "before the big bang" is meaningless.


----------



## Zubon (Feb 19, 2010)

ZB_FTW!!! said:


> Atheist means you don't believe in anything. I'm not atheist, but I don't believe in any God. I'm completely unsure what to believe in. Evolution has it's arguments, and they are quite strong, but I don't believe that there was "a big bang". What existed before that? It can't just suddenly appear. Using this logic, the universe has been here for ever, or there was at least something else, before the "big bang".



Sorry, but this whole statement is quite wrong on many levels. What do you mean when you say Atheists don't believe in anything? The word atheist simply means that you reject the idea of a supernatural deity. Being an Atheist is just like being an 'a-flat-eathist' (rejecting the idea that the earth is flat) or an 'a-astrologist' (rejecting the idea that you can predict the future depending on the position of the stars when that person was born). Labeling someone as an Atheist doesn't say anything about that person's moral or scientific beliefs. Many Atheists don't believe in evolution and many theists believe in it.

The big bang, like 'flat earth theory' is hard for humans to understand. The earth doesn't look spherical. Big bang theory exists in the realm of mathematics. Do you believe in Einstein's theories? I think they are a lot harder to comprehend than the big bang.

By the way, it is a little off topic but asking what was before the big bang is like asking what is more north than the north pole. The big bang was an expansion of space-time. There is no 'before'.


----------



## irontwig (Feb 19, 2010)

ZB_FTW!!! said:


> Atheist means you don't believe in anything. I'm not atheist, but I don't believe in any God.



If you don't believe in any god, or I assume, any higher power for that matter then you're an atheist. You should still have morals, etc.



> I'm completely unsure what to believe in. Evolution has it's arguments, and they are quite strong, but I don't believe that there was "a big bang". What existed before that? It can't just suddenly appear. Using this logic, the universe has been here for ever, or there was at least something else, before the "big bang".



Trying to apply taste and philosophy onto empirical science doesn't seem to make too much sense to me. Evolution through natural selection and the Big Bang theory are explanations that currently seem to match our observations. Sure, these theories might just be wrong, but one the of basic principles of science is to try to prove your current theories wrong.


----------



## Tim Major (Feb 19, 2010)

I'll just shut up now. Remind me to punch my humanities teacher. 

We had a big discussion today, and she said atheism meant not believing in anything to do with the creation of the universe/Earth, for example, someone believing in the big bang theory would be not atheism, but ____(I forget what word she said)

We were talking about medieval times. Maybe I didn't hear it right.

:fp to me and the teacher.


----------



## Zane_C (Feb 19, 2010)

I don't believe in a God, afterlife, or anything spiritual. That makes me an athiest right?


----------



## Thomas09 (Feb 19, 2010)

aronpm said:


> What am I giving up for Lent? Nothing, because I don't believe in fairy tales.



Why are people flaming him for this? That's his beliefs and you have yours.


----------



## Zane_C (Feb 19, 2010)

Thomas09 said:


> aronpm said:
> 
> 
> > What am I giving up for Lent? Nothing, because I don't believe in fairy tales.
> ...



+1


----------



## Johan444 (Feb 19, 2010)

Innocence said:


> Ya Ranzha, anyway, you may have realized you were too late but the issue had already been dealt with .
> 
> anyway. Athiests, there is logically no way there can not be a God. And now please allow me some time to gather my rebuttal.



Don't try to defend any religious beliefes with logic. Don't even mention 'God' and 'logic' in the same sentence.


----------



## Edward (Feb 19, 2010)

Johan444 said:


> Innocence said:
> 
> 
> > Ya Ranzha, anyway, you may have realized you were too late but the issue had already been dealt with .
> ...


*
I can't logically or scientifically prove that God exists, but I have 100% faith that he does.
*

OMG DON'T FLAME ME BRO ;_;


----------



## Zane_C (Feb 19, 2010)

Johan444 said:


> Innocence said:
> 
> 
> > Ya Ranzha, anyway, you may have realized you were too late but the issue had already been dealt with .
> ...



I thought that was said pretty well.

EDIT: May I add, "Athiest, there is logically no way there can be a god."


----------



## Johan444 (Feb 19, 2010)

Edward said:


> Johan444 said:
> 
> 
> > Innocence said:
> ...



u r doing it right.

You can believe/have faith or be fully convinced that he/it exists but you can never base it on logic.


----------



## ben1996123 (Feb 19, 2010)

gamemeister27 said:


> fazrulz said:
> 
> 
> > aronpm said:
> ...



+3


----------



## blakedacuber (Feb 19, 2010)

chocolate and sweets it's going to be hard considering i've only ever completed one lent without cheating i gave up cereal that year which i absolutely love


----------



## Jason (Feb 19, 2010)

irontwig said:


> ZB_FTW!!! said:
> 
> 
> > Atheist means you don't believe in anything. I'm not atheist, but I don't believe in any God.
> ...



The big bang theory and the theory of evolution through natural selection don't simply match observations. That isn't enough for a theory to be scientific. Scientific theories equally have a predictive power. This means you're able to predict a particular event or outcome without having ever observed it yet. (That's why people set up experiments to find Higg's boson). Furthermore it should be as fruitful (as in general) as possible. Thus, being able to predict an eclipse on earth just by looking at patterns in a calendar isn't sufficient either to be science.
Secondly science doesn't really try to prove the current theories are wrong. That's what some science philosophers (like Karl Popper) would like to believe, but real science doesn't work that way (I'm a researcher in semiconductor physics, by the way). The way it works is you use your current model to interpret new observations until the day your model just breaks down (i.e., theory doesn't match observation). that's when you refine you model or come up with something utterly new, as in a paradigm shift (the latter doesn't happen often)


EDIT: Back on topic. I don't think one should wait until lent, the new year or whatever else to reflect on one's beliefs, actions, impact or lifestyle. It should be a continuous process.


----------



## Jason (Feb 19, 2010)

ZB_FTW!!! said:


> Atheist means you don't believe in anything. I'm not atheist, but I don't believe in any God. I'm completely unsure what to believe in. Evolution has it's arguments, and they are quite strong, *but I don't believe that there was "a big bang" *. What existed before that? It can't just suddenly appear. Using this logic, the universe has been here for ever, or there was at least something else, before the "big bang".



What's that based on? Or is is just some personal belief? As to what there was before the big bang, well, if you accept the big bang theory, what happened before is just metaphysics. You might have scientists speculating about what might have happened before, but science cannot answer that. Science deals with the observable, i.e. the universe. Strictly speaking, what happened before the big bang, just as what there is inside a black hole, isn't part of our universe, and hence is only open to speculation.


----------



## Muesli (Feb 19, 2010)

Jason said:


> Secondly science doesn't really try to prove the current theories are wrong. That's what some science philosophers (like Karl Popper) would like to believe, but real science doesn't work that way (I'm a researcher in semiconductor physics, by the way). The way it works is you use your current model to interpret new observations until the day your model just breaks down (i.e., theory doesn't match observation). that's when you refine you model or come up with something utterly new, as in a paradigm shift (the latter doesn't happen often)


Theory means educated guess. Science doesn't actively try to disprove theories, it finds a better theory to take it's place.


----------



## dannyz0r (Feb 19, 2010)

That faith chart is amazing.


----------



## qqwref (Feb 19, 2010)

Musli4brekkies said:


> Theory means educated guess. Science doesn't actively try to disprove theories, it finds a better theory to take it's place.


In science, a theory is "an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations". It's not a guess as much as the best known explanation for what we have observed. Only when we find a bunch of observations that don't conform to the theory is it necessary to search for a better one.


----------



## Weston (Feb 19, 2010)

Musli4brekkies said:


> Theory means educated guess. Science doesn't actively try to disprove theories, it finds a better theory to take it's place.


You're confusing a theory with a hypothesis. What ive been taught and what ive read is that a theory is something that has already been considered to be proven and is backed up with sufficient evidence to be considered a scientific fact.


----------



## Muesli (Feb 19, 2010)

You're confusing educated guess with educated thought.


----------



## Weston (Feb 20, 2010)

Musli4brekkies said:


> You're confusing educated guess with educated thought.



Well whats the difference?
A theory is by no means a guess though.


----------



## MichaelP. (Feb 20, 2010)

Quote from this hilarious video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO9IPoAdct8 
WARNING: Inappropriate talk starting at about 2:13 when he says "Let me paint you a little picture."

Quote:
"I often debate evolutionists because I believe that they narrow mindedly and dogmatically except evolution without questioning it. I really don't care how god did what he did, I know that he did." 

"All text taken directly from online Christian fundamentalist forums." Is in the video description."


----------



## dannyz0r (Feb 20, 2010)

I love over religious people.


----------



## Johan444 (Feb 20, 2010)

MichaelP. said:


> Quote from this hilarious video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO9IPoAdct8
> Quote:
> "I often debate atheists because I believe that they narrow mindedly and dogmatically except evolution without questioning it. I really don't care how god did what he did, I know that he did."



The guys in the video are obvious trolls, quite successful I must say, getting almost 20.000 replies 

(And that quote is wrong, it should be "I often debate evolutionists...")


----------



## Logan (Feb 20, 2010)

Edward said:


> Johan444 said:
> 
> 
> > Innocence said:
> ...



So if I came into your house at night at threatened to kill you, you wouldn't even flinch, knowing that your God will send you to heaven?


----------



## Edward (Feb 20, 2010)

Logan said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > Johan444 said:
> ...


Id fight back, then call the 911 guys duh...
But If I was on my deathbed or something, I probably be praying my ass off, making sure I'm right with God.
So, yes I know that my God can send me to heaven, and will if I do things right.
I'm not going to debate this. I hate religious debates. Nothing you say is going to change my opinion, and nothing I say should change yours. Lets just stop.


----------



## Deleted member 2864 (Feb 20, 2010)

Logan said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > Johan444 said:
> ...



How's that related? Humans naturally need to survive, using what little instinct we homo sapiens have. Even if we have faith, we'll try to live.

If God were to knock on my door and offered to go to heaven painlessly, I'd still ask to live a full life and die naturally. Then, I could still go to heaven, under the conditions that I repent.

If you tried to kill me, I'd try to avoid being killed, even if I knew that I'd be in heaven.


----------



## Zubon (Feb 20, 2010)

Edward said:


> Nothing you say is going to change my opinion, and nothing I say should change yours.



At least we are now getting some honesty 

I think this statement can sum up this whole debate on the theist side well.


----------



## Tim Major (Feb 20, 2010)

Jason said:


> ZB_FTW!!! said:
> 
> 
> > *but I don't believe that there was "a big bang" *
> ...


*I don't*. Yes, it's my personal belief. I don't believe in God, but I don't believe in the big bang either.


----------



## ianini (Feb 20, 2010)

I love reading this thread.


----------



## Zane_C (Feb 20, 2010)

ianini said:


> I love reading this thread.



Don't we all.


----------



## Chapuunka (Feb 20, 2010)

Just wanted to throw this out there: if we assume there's an omnipotent God (just for a moment, please), then He could do whatever He wants right? Meaning He could defy our logic, become completely impossible for us as limited humans to understand. Who's to say He didn't cause evolution or the big bang? If He's all powerful, He can do whatever He wants, right? It then becomes much more difficult to contradict a God. (You can now go back to assuming there's no God.)

Feel free to disagree.


----------



## Edward (Feb 20, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> Just wanted to throw this out there: if we assume there's an omnipotent God (just for a moment, please), then He could do whatever He wants right? Meaning He could defy our logic, become completely impossible for us as limited humans to understand. Who's to say He didn't cause evolution or the big bang? If He's all powerful, He can do whatever He wants, right? It then becomes much more difficult to contradict a God. (You can now go back to assuming there's no God.)
> 
> Feel free to disagree.



My thoughts exactly. I just didn't want to post it until I could word it correctly.
And I know someone will come with a strong counter argument that will shut me up and own me in the process.


----------



## Escher (Feb 20, 2010)

ZB_FTW!!! said:


> Jason said:
> 
> 
> > ZB_FTW!!! said:
> ...



You choose to have an opinion on (and reject) a scientific theory you don't even understand?


----------



## Tim Major (Feb 20, 2010)

Look, I'm not posting more in this thread, so stop quoting me, I don't want to argue my opinion.


----------



## Bryan (Feb 20, 2010)

RyanO said:


> Wait, are you saying that all Muslims are idol worshipers?


Nope. Simply stating that from a Christian perspective, both of them aren't worshiping the Christian God.



Chapuunka said:


> if we assume there's an omnipotent God...Who's to say He didn't cause evolution or the big bang?



OK. I don't know a single person that believes in big bang, but not evolution. No one believes there was a huge explosion and then all the different animals were there. If there are, I would say the traditional big bang theorists would even make fun of them.

So, did God create evolution? Sure. He did. No argument from me.

Wait, when you use "evolution", are you referring to the small changes in a species? Or are you referring to the "goo to dude" theory? <SARCASM>Not that anyone would ever try to jump from one to the other without clarification</SARCASM>

So let's think about how your "God exists and 'goo to dude' is correct" theory doesn't work. So when you say "God exists", what exactly are you saying? Some God exists, but we don't know exactly what he's like? I'm going to assume you're referring to the Christian God. Well, if you're taking a Christian perspective look at things, your basis is that the Bible is true. 

OK, so let's look at the story of creation (Genesis 1). God created the world in 6 days. Well, let's put on our evolution hat and say that maybe those weren't 6 24-hour period, but days are to be interpreted as something longer (billions of years). From a Christian perspective, we won't argue it (not that it can't be argued, you'll just see that it doesn't matter if we are right or wrong on this).

So let's look at ordering from a Christian perspective:
Genesis 1:20 - God creates the animals in the sea and the birds of the air on day 5.
Genesis 1:24 - God creates creatures that move on the ground (livestock, wild animals, etc).

But that ordering doesn't work from an evolutionist perspective, since birds are land animals with wings. You don't jump right from sea creatures to birds. Therefore, you have a conflict.


----------



## Muesli (Feb 20, 2010)

End of the day, Zordon rules over all. Nobody can argue that.


----------



## Chapuunka (Feb 20, 2010)

Bryan said:


> RyanO said:
> 
> 
> > Wait, when you use "evolution", are you referring to the small changes in a species? Or are you referring to the "goo to dude" theory? <SARCASM>Not that anyone would ever try to jump from one to the other without clarification</SARCASM>
> ...


----------



## Bryan (Feb 20, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> For all I know He could've formed some random "goo" and then turned it into a human in seconds, or millions of years. I wasn't there.



"goo to dude" theory has intermediate steps (trying to avoid people pointing out that God formed man from dust). As for not being there, I agree. It would be much more convenient if someone who was there....perhaps God.....left us some sort of recorded history that we could learn from......


----------



## Chapuunka (Feb 20, 2010)

That's one of the many things I'm looking forward to about heaven. We can finally ask God those questions we've always wanted to know about.


----------



## RyanO (Feb 20, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> Hadn't thought about all that, but I try not to if I can avoid it. It only gives Satan a little push in shaking my faith. (Yes, I'm a strong Christian.)



Not thinking about why you belive something can lead to terrible consequences.

P.S. The quote tree in you message is incorrect, I didn't post any of those things.


----------



## Dene (Feb 20, 2010)

Logan said:


> So if I came into your house at night at threatened to kill you, you wouldn't even flinch, knowing that your God will send you to heaven?



I'm going to change "I" (you) to 7 foot psycho sabre-weilding lunatic (simply because I would not find you threatening at all).

My answer is: Naturally I would flinch, unless I was asleep. However I see no reason to try resisting. It would only cause me immense pain, which could be avoided by a quick cut across the throat.




RyanO said:


> Chapuunka said:
> 
> 
> > Hadn't thought about all that, but I try not to if I can avoid it. It only gives Satan a little push in shaking my faith. (Yes, I'm a strong Christian.)
> ...



It can also have no consequences whatsoever. Thanks for contributing that completely pointless statement though!


----------



## Lance Taylor (Feb 20, 2010)

*Some replies and opinions. *

I know that on the forums my opinion is a lot less valuable than on youtube, so I'll spare you what I THINK about religion until I tell you a bit about what I KNOW about religion; and I happen to know quite a lot. Here's a few problems with the things you guys have been saying.

First of all a theory not an educated guess, please show some respect. A hypothesis is an educated guess. A theory is a strong model which is able to explain many things about a certain phenomenon.

Most people who don't agree with evolution or the big bang theory have not the slightest clue what evolution and the big bang theory say. I am a biology student at the University of Alberta, so I know (relative to most of the people posting here, anyway) a LOT about what the theory of evolution says. It has nothing to do with where life originally comes from, and it has nothing to do with whether or not there is a god. Even the pope, who is the leading cause of aids in Africa- and by extension probably the biggest ******* in the world, accepts evolution, and encourages everyone else in the church to accept it as well. (If you didn't get the joke, well... it's not really a joke, but basically the pope won't let christian Africans have condoms, and this is BAD for the aids problem)

Which brings me to my next point. Yes, catholics are christians. Every christian is either a catholic or a protestant. Catholicism is the "original christianity", while protestantism is all of the different denominations that disagreed with certain aspects of catholicism, and thought they could offer "better christianity". Catholics believe that the bread and wine in the mass LITTERALLY changes into the LITERAL flesh and blood of Jesus during the mass. I'm not joking. Catholics also are NOT allowed to be divorced. Ain't that a *****? A catholic who gets divorced will be shunned until they can get their marriage absolved (this means that a bishop says that the marriage technically never happened). It's annoying things like this about catholicism that made people want to change the religion a little bit to make it a bit more convenient. That's where protestant religions came from. I used to be a catholic for many many years, I took catechism (like Sunday school, but on Tuesdays and Thursdays) for like 4 years and even a university course on western religions. But the longer you spend in a university (even a christian university [oh crap did I just admit that?]) the smarter you get, and the harder it becomes to believe in ridiculous garbage like religion. Of course, now I'm at a REAL university which offers REAL degrees, and I'm living my own life, and guess what! I'm a happier, more successful student, and a better person than I ever was as a religious type. (Yes, I am an athiest now.) I had been thoroughly brainwashed to the point, looking back on it, that it's just SCARY... and I managed to pull myself out of it. Good for me. Besides, that praise and worship band I was in was horrible.

Oh, by the way god, Allah, and Yahweh are all the same dude. And if you're a christian: god, Allah, Yahweh, Jesus Christ, and the holy spirit (or ghost, if you're old-school) are all the same dude... but sort of not all at the same time. Weird, eh? Christianity, judaism, and islam are called the Abrahamic religions or "judao-christian religions", a name which I'm sure the muslims just LOVE! They are called this because they all come from the story of abraham (and his god) in one way or another. They are all worshiping the same guy, but they disagree on certain things. Jews believe that jesus was just another prophet. Muslims believe that jesus will come at the apocalypse to kick some serious ass. Yeah, that's actually true.

So yes, I am an atheist now. An atheist is anyone who doesn't believe that a god exists. Atheists do not believe in nothing. Nihilists are people who believe in nothing. Atheism and nihilism are NOT the same thing, or related to each other in any way.

Agnosticism might sound like atheism, but it's not the same thing. An agnostic is someone who doesn't know whether god exists or does not exist. You can be an agnostic christian, or an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic anything. If you don't know what you believe, you should call yourself an agnostic.

anyway, I'm sure some people are gonna be really mad at me for saying I'm not religious (and for calling the pope names). But before you flame me, think about why that bothers you so much. Almost everyone who is going to say something is NOT a catholic, and therefore has no reason to defend the pope. Furthermore, if someone has the right to post a comment about what he's doing for lent, I have the right to post a comment insulting the pope. Apples and oranges? Think really hard, and you'll see that it's the exact same thing. If the guy that opens the thread is allowed to talk religion, so is everyone else. And the fact that it's a person's belief doesn't make it all of a sudden safe from other opinions. On the contrary, I think the harder someone believes something based on what makes you feel good, the harder everyone else should try to help him abandon this delusion. (For example, I believe that I am the most handsome chick-magnet in the Edmonton area.)

By the way, I know you're supposed to capitalize catholic, christian, jew, muslim, and every other name of a "group" of people.. I'm just lazy. I also now you're supposed to capitalize "god" and "his"... but please, get real. If "god" is god's name, he might be all powerful and all knowing, but he sure isn't very original. Get a name, and I promise I'll capitalize it (and I know all about Yahweh, Allah, Jehova, et cetera. Until everyone starts using it though, it doesn't count.)

So, whatever religion you guys are, I hope you have a good lent or non-lent. Personally, I'm giving up those bottles of Arizona green tea... I love them, but they are packed with sugar. I think health is a better reason to give something up than a holiday. Makes it a lot easier too.

anyway, I hope I didn't offend anyone; but at the same time, I'm not apologizing if did.


----------



## CubesOfTheWorld (Feb 20, 2010)

im giving soda up for lent. i couldnt give cubing up because...
1 - it is a brain exercise, so my mom wouldn't let me
2 - if i dont cube for 40 days, i will forget the algorithms


----------



## Zane_C (Feb 20, 2010)

Lance Taylor said:


> I know that on the forums my opinion is a lot less valuable than on youtube, so I'll spare you what I THINK about religion until I tell you a bit about what I KNOW about religion; and I happen to know quite a lot. Here's a few problems with the things you guys have been saying.
> 
> First of all a theory not an educated guess, please show some respect. A hypothesis is an educated guess. A theory is a strong model which is able to explain many things about a certain phenomenon.
> 
> ...



Great speech.
Very nicely said, but I think you would have offended some people. Bits of this made me laugh, good work.


----------



## Dene (Feb 20, 2010)

Lance: there are a few points I could object to. I'm sure they are small things you overlooked in your haste to write that essay.

The big point I want to disagree with is your "catholics or protestants" idea. This simply is not true.

I am neither, but I am still a Christian. Call me a free-lancer Christian if you like. It doesn't matter. I refuse to belong to any specific religious sect.


----------



## Lance Taylor (Feb 20, 2010)

Well, I guess you can believe whatever you want... but if I word it this way: "a protestant is a christian who is not a catholic." you're kinda stuck.

if C is defined as "everything but B",
and A is "not B",
Then A belongs to C.

but whatever, call yourself whatever you want, it's none of my business.


----------



## qqwref (Feb 20, 2010)

Lance Taylor said:


> Well, I guess you can believe whatever you want... but if I word it this way: "a protestant is a christian who is not a catholic." you're kinda stuck.



That's not really the definition, though, and you're not going to win an argument by redefining a word (which already has a common and accepted definition) to tautologically prove your claim. It seems that Christianity has three major divisions/groups (Eastern Orthodox, [Roman] Catholic, and Protestant) and a lot of smaller denominations that aren't part of the big three groups such as Latter Day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, etc.


----------



## Lance Taylor (Feb 20, 2010)

well I'm not trying to redefine anything.. here's the first definition I found when looking in google:

# A member of a Western Christian church whose faith and practice are founded on the principles of the Reformation, especially in the acceptance of the Bible as the sole source of revelation, in justification by faith alone, and in the universal priesthood of all the believers.

the reformation was when protestant religions started breaking off of catholicism.

As for eastern orthodox, I don't know much about it. But as far as that definition goes, that's pretty much what I said.


----------



## Bryan (Feb 20, 2010)

Lance Taylor said:


> I'll spare you what I THINK about religion until I tell you a bit about what I KNOW about religion; and I happen to know quite a lot.


Oh phew....I thought my reading would be wasted.



Lance Taylor said:


> I am a biology student at the University of Alberta, so I know (relative to most of the people posting here, anyway) a LOT about what the theory of evolution says. *It has nothing to do with where life originally comes from, and it has nothing to do with whether or not there is a god. *


For knowing alot about the theory of evolution, you say very little about it. What I've bolded could also be used to describe a cookie recipe.



Lance Taylor said:


> Every christian is either a catholic or a protestant.


So where would Messianic Jews fall under?



Lance Taylor said:


> anyway, I'm sure some people are gonna be really mad at me for saying I'm not religious


Really, you think too highly of yourself if you think people are going to be mad at you for saying you're not religious. 



Lance Taylor said:


> Almost everyone who is going to say something is NOT a catholic, and therefore has no reason to defend the pope.


Huh? We can't defend the pope if we're not Catholic? Even though I don't agree with him on everything, I think (or perhaps I KNOW!) that I can defend him if I want to.



Lance Taylor said:


> By the way, I know you're supposed to capitalize catholic, christian, jew, muslim, and every other name of a "group" of people.. I'm just lazy.


Well, the fact that "Catholic" and "catholic" mean different things, it's good to use capitalization.


----------



## Lance Taylor (Feb 20, 2010)

It would take a lot more than a page of text to explain evolution from basic principles... I'd be happy to try, if you want to read all night. Maybe you can spare me the trouble, and plug it into wikipedia. Or go to a classroom.

And yes, I've already had lots of people unsubscribe because I said I was not religious. A while ago, someone told me that although he loves all my videos that he could not respect me anymore because I'm not a christian. It has nothing to do with me thinking highly of my opinion. My point is that religious people will get offended just because you say "Nah, I don't beleive that.", which is my point. There's no reason to get offended, is what I am saying.

And of course, here you are, offended, picking apart my post for everything you can possibly disagree with.


----------



## Hyprul 9-ty2 (Feb 20, 2010)

Lance Taylor said:


> It would take a lot more than a page of text to explain evolution from basic principles... I'd be happy to try, if you want to read all night. Maybe you can spare me the trouble, and plug it into wikipedia. Or go to a classroom.
> 
> And yes, I've already had lots of people unsubscribe because I said I was not religious. A while ago, someone told me that although he loves all my videos that he could not respect me anymore because I'm not a christian. It has nothing to do with me thinking highly of my opinion. My point is that religious people will get offended just because you say "Nah, I don't beleive that.", which is my point. There's no reason to get offended, is what I am saying.


What you're NOT A CHRISTIAN?!!! 
The world must be ending.


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Feb 20, 2010)

Nothing because I don't know what Lent is.


----------



## Lofty (Feb 20, 2010)

Its always so disheartening for me when I go away for a day in a thread like this and I miss so much... Like I don't want dig stuff up from ten pages ago or write a novel either. 
Personally I think you weren't very offensive Lance. But thats just because I'm not Catholic and so I don't really feel very attached to the Pope at all. I probably dislike the Pope even more than you do. 
You don't have to know much about Eastern Orthodoxy to know that its not under the usual Catholic/Protestant Split. I'm pretty sure I learned that in a High School College class. 
"Good to dude" doesn't rhyme. The proper name for the theory is the "Goo to you" theory. Goo and You rhyme. Rhyming is very important. 
Any Christian who unsubscribed to you just because you aren't a Christian and would send you a message like that is not a very good Christian in my book. Especially since all your videos just appear to be cubing videos.. I could understand if you had cubing videos and videos blatantly insulting religious people. But I like I said I don't really find your post that offensive so I assume that you aren't one of those people who would sit there and and bash religious people. 
Not all people who dismiss evolution dismiss it because they don't know anything about it. I'm at the University of Florida and I was a math and physics major for my first 2 years here and I have a friend who is is now at med school that I've talked to a bit about it, both Christian, and we disagree with evolution. I'm pretty sure he knows a bit about biology. 
As for theories go, I think the person was just saying that we should more actively try to disprove theories. If we are always just trying to prove them right we may overlook some things that we would find if we are trying to find holes in the theory. But then again with the limited knowledge humans have of such a vast universe I don't know how many of our theories would last if we started trying to disprove them. There are so many things that we don't know.


----------



## Hyprul 9-ty2 (Feb 20, 2010)

EmersonHerrmann said:


> Nothing because I don't know what Lent is.



I only know Lent because of this thread


----------



## ~Phoenix Death~ (Feb 20, 2010)

Why is there manuscripts of stuff about God existing or not? All I asked was "What are you giving up for Lent, if at all?"
And then all this athiest, God, evolution stuff pops up. That's like if someone asked help for a 3x3 and someone replies with 4x4 Parity.


----------



## Ranzha (Feb 20, 2010)

~Phoenix Death~ said:


> Why is there manuscripts of stuff about God existing or not? All I asked was "What are you giving up for Lent, if at all?"
> And then all this athiest, God, evolution stuff pops up. That's like if someone asked help for a 3x3 and someone replies with 4x4 Parity.



Amen to that.

Sure, I am a Christian, but is all of this debate completely necessary?

Why don't we all just be cordial and sit down. Have some cake. The cake is a lie.

anyway, keep this off-topic thread on-topic. I, as well as most likely many other members of this forum, am sick of this.


----------



## ~Phoenix Death~ (Feb 20, 2010)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> ~Phoenix Death~ said:
> 
> 
> > Why is there manuscripts of stuff about God existing or not? All I asked was "What are you giving up for Lent, if at all?"
> ...


+GAZILLION
Thank you.
My History teacher caught me with my new 2x2. She was shocked.


----------



## Hyprul 9-ty2 (Feb 20, 2010)

Aren't you supposed to be giving up cubing?


----------



## ~Phoenix Death~ (Feb 20, 2010)

Hyprul 9-ty2 said:


> Aren't you supposed to be giving up cubing?



Yeah. that's why this week is an exception


----------



## Dene (Feb 20, 2010)

~Phoenix Death~ said:


> Why is there manuscripts of stuff about God existing or not? All I asked was "What are you giving up for Lent, if at all?"
> And then all this athiest, God, evolution stuff pops up. That's like if someone asked help for a 3x3 and someone replies with 4x4 Parity.



That is an extremely bad analogy. I am not going to go to the effort of explaining why though.


----------



## ~Phoenix Death~ (Feb 20, 2010)

That's the point. It made no sense. And neither did the argument about evolution.


----------



## Lance Taylor (Feb 20, 2010)

So in a thread originally about religion... people are debating religions.

:fp What are you surprised? People love to debate religion and politics. Besides, there's tons of other threads about boring stuff if you can't handle it.


----------



## Dene (Feb 20, 2010)

~Phoenix Death~ said:


> That's the point. It made no sense. And neither did the argument about evolution.



Your post makes no sense.


----------



## Bryan (Feb 20, 2010)

Lance Taylor said:


> It would take a lot more than a page of text to explain evolution from basic principles... I'd be happy to try, if you want to read all night. Maybe you can spare me the trouble, and plug it into wikipedia. Or go to a classroom.


Again, a full-blown explanation isn't needed, but when you post a description of a cookie recipe, that's not enough. As I don't want to trouble you, could you least explain if you were talking about "small changes within a species" evolution or "goo to you" evolution? (Thanks Lofty!)

As for goo to you (G2Y), it does have to deal with whether or not there's a God. God's word teaches creationism (G => C). G2Y evolution teaches that creationism is wrong (G2Y => not C). Therefore, G2Y => not G.



Lance Taylor said:


> My point is that religious people will get offended just because you say "Nah, I don't beleive that.", which is my point. There's no reason to get offended, is what I am saying.
> 
> And of course, here you are, offended, picking apart my post for everything you can possibly disagree with.



Huh? Just because I disagree with you and post why along with reasoning I must be offended? If I disagreed with you and posted a cookie recipe, would that be better? Seriously, you're trying to make yourself look like some martyr when really you're not.


----------



## RyanO (Feb 20, 2010)

~Phoenix Death~ said:


> Why is there manuscripts of stuff about God existing or not? All I asked was "What are you giving up for Lent, if at all?"
> And then all this athiest, God, evolution stuff pops up. That's like if someone asked help for a 3x3 and someone replies with 4x4 Parity.



This is really all your fault for making this thread. If you didn't expect this outcome your naivety is astonishing.


----------



## Lance Taylor (Feb 20, 2010)

Bryan said:


> Again, a full-blown explanation isn't needed, but when you post a description of a cookie recipe, that's not enough. As I don't want to trouble you, could you least explain if you were talking about "small changes within a species" evolution or "goo to you" evolution? (Thanks Lofty!)
> 
> As for goo to you (G2Y), it does have to deal with whether or not there's a God. God's word teaches creationism (G => C). G2Y evolution teaches that creationism is wrong (G2Y => not C). Therefore, G2Y => not G.



Well here's the problem, and exactly what I was trying to say. There is no such thing as "goo to you" theory. It's garbage. This is the kind of crap that makes people not want to learn science in the first place. There is one, and ONLY one theory of evolution which is (still) accepted by (real) biologists. That is "the theory of evolution by natural selection". I don't know where "goo to you" came from, but it simply doesn't exist.

UNLESS you're talking about abiogenisis, which is NOT evolution. We don't know much about abiogenisis yet, but it's looking promising. I know that explaining this to someone who thinks "Goo to you" is a theory of evolution worth mentioning in the same sentence as natural selection is going to be kinda like explaining it to my four year old nephew, but I'lll try.

Abiogenisis basically is the idea that life is made up entirely of non-life "parts". Back a few hundred years, there was this thing called "Vital Force Theory" which people thought that there was a special unique sort of element exclusive to living things (call it a soul if you like). We weren't able to find many organic (carbon) compounds without a living source. Then this swell guy named Fredrich Wohler was able to make urea (a compound which before then was found only in urine) from ammonia (a compound which was easy to get from non-living sources). Boom, there goes vital force theory.

So back to abiogenisis. Scientists have been able to make 2 of the 4 nucleotides (Those DNA thingies) in a lab, basically out of mud. Life from non life looks a lot less impossible when you are able to do something like this. But then, abiogenisis is still a very young field, and there are many competing theories. "Goo to you" is NOT one of them. We have a long way to go before abiogenisis is solid enough to have a complete model of how everything happened, but it's becoming clearer and clearer that yes, it did happen.

That's one of the hardest questions to answer about "how are we here without god", so I recommend looking into it.

I'd just like to point out again the ignorance in "Well hai, there's two kindsa evolution... small changes, and goo 2 u! lol" If you're going to try and contribute anything, you have to know what you're talking about first. And it's stunningly, and embarassingly obvious that you have never been inside a biology classroom and awake at the same time.

[edit] Okay, maybe I'll take that back, because "small changes in a species" is a (I guess) reasonable summary of what natural selection is about. But I would love to know where you got the other one from. Maybe it's just a cute name for something else, so please try and explain what you're trying to get at with "goo to you".


----------



## Ranzha (Feb 20, 2010)

Lance Taylor said:


> *So in a thread originally about religion... people are debating religions.*
> 
> :fp What are you surprised? People love to debate religion and politics. Besides, there's tons of other threads about boring stuff if you can't handle it.



Wrong, sir.
The original question was "What are YOU giving up for lent?"
It's religiously based, but not a one-way ticket straight for a debate.
Keep things ON-TOPIC, is all.
Really, if you want to debate about religion, go here. Much more suitable.

Please, just stop. It gets quite old after awhile.
I used to read this thread thinking, "What are people giving up for Lent?"
Now, I read this thread thinking, "What is Lance going on about now?"

--Ranzha


----------



## Lofty (Feb 20, 2010)

Haha wow, Lance you are missing so much...
"Goo to you" is merely humour and sarcasm not admittance that we know nothing about science. So don't think so highly of yourself and so lowly of us. You are missing the obvious. 
Anyway, I've been awake a few times in a science class before, though I've been asleep a few times in them too, so I'll comment a bit. Being able to produce something in the lab is completely different from it happening in nature... If anything it would prove intelligent design by showing that a huge amount of intelligence must be put into setting up an experiment just right to get 2 of the 4 nucleotides created out of your mud mixture. 
I've yet to really hear anything that accounts for the chirality of life's molecules... 
I don't really see why people like to insist so heavily that abiogenesis is something completely separate from evolution except that they want to bracket off the part of life's origins that has the most holes so that they can still say that evolution is strong. 
Without abiogenesis where is evolution left? With a deist god who started life and then left it to evolve for itself? Thats not a valid scientific hypothesis.
Edit: 
I missed your edit. Yes, Goo to You is a cute sarcastic name poking fun at macro evolution. He's talking about the difference between micro and macro evolution. Most Christians believe the obvious scientific evidence that creatures to change and evolve in response to their surroundings but that those changes never result in the creation of a completely different kind of organism. Like a land mammal isn't going to evolve into a sea mammal but you can get different types of dogs, bacteria becoming immune to medicine and so on. This Microevolution is normally confined to species or the biblical word "kind" for different kinds of animals.


----------



## Dene (Feb 20, 2010)

LMAO seriously this Lance guy is hilarious. Look at Mr. Scholar-I'm-so-smart-and-you're-all-stupid-but-don't-worry-I'm-here-to-educate-you.

Does he seriously not realise he is surrounded by nerds on these forums? Or is he just a really bad troll in disguise?


----------



## Lofty (Feb 20, 2010)

Dene said:


> LMAO seriously this Lance guy is hilarious. Look at Mr. Scholar-I'm-so-smart-and-you're-all-stupid-but-don't-worry-I'm-here-to-educate-you.
> 
> Does he seriously not realise he is surrounded by nerds on these forums? Or is he just a really bad troll in disguise?



I normally hate the people that just quote something and say +1 but in this case I have to do it. 
+1


----------



## Lance Taylor (Feb 20, 2010)

Nah, it just bothers me when I read something that pisses on the face of science. If you don't care to correct yourself, then I don't care to explain it to you; and you can go on living your life with a head full of wrong ideas.

mr-educated-smater-than-everyone-else-on-the-forum was trying to do you a favor. If you don't want to know about evolution, don't read my post; but don't tell me I can't explain it to those who are interested. Obviously people are interested, I'm not the first person to bring it up. 

And just because you don't SEE how abiogenisis and evolution are different, doesn't mean they are. Who the hell are you? Nobody, at least not when it comes to biology. Please show your credentials before telling everyone that "Oh, well I don't see how it is so; so it must not be so." Evolution ONLY talks about the change in frequency of alleles (I always mis-spell that word), and how species, given enough time, can adapt a more suitable phenotype (YA, I KNO! BIG WORDS, RITE!?). Talking about where original life comes from is a completely different story. You can't just mash two theories together on a whim. Once we have a more complete understanding of abiogenisis, then MAYBE they will merge the two theories (like electricity and magnetism were merged into electromagnetism), but I doubt it will happen in our lifetimes, if ever.

anyway, if no one cares, then I'll stop posting about it; that is unless someone else says something which is completely wrong. I'm not going to read a rebuttal to my post which has lies in it, and ignore it. Be as religious as you want, but don't tell us that things we know happened didn't happen.

Oh, and by the way, those nucleotides I was talking about that we made from clay... we didn't do anything. Just reproduced the type of substrate that we think was around at the time of the first cells; and the nucleotides formed themselves with material that was already there. No intelligent intervention required.

Like I said, takes a lot more than a page to explain from first principles.

I'll drop it if you will.

Edit: I didn't see your edit. Land mammals DO evolve into sea mammals. Where do you think whales came from? Fish? Whales came from land mammals. The first mammals were already land animals.

anyway, I suggest a comprimise. Let's let this thread die, because obviously by responding to responses to my original post, I'm the bad guy all of a sudden. I'd be happy to go on all day like this, but not if it's just pissing people off.

You know why I've been on this forum for a year with only 3 posts? Because people hear my text in their head differently than I say it in my head. I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm trying to explain something to you because it's interesting to me.


----------



## Lofty (Feb 20, 2010)

Its not what you are saying about evolution that is making us respond this way. Its that you are clearly missing the fact that we do actually know some science and continue to assume that we know nothing even after Dene very nicely pointed it out to you. 
Your attitude is terrible. The analogy thats immediately jumping into my head is racist white people back in the day who thought "Oh poor african slaves can't do anything right, as a superior white person I'm obligated to help them out". Only replace racist white people with arrogant scientists and african slaves with religious people.
In response to your Edit: I have no opinion on where sea mammals came from. But people who hold to the theory of only micro evolution in my post say they would have come from creation. 
I'm done actually trying to talk about evolution with you. 
We can drop it.
Edit:
Like I said, its not the content but your attitude. Its coming across like you think that we don't know anything and that you are superior to us. You should probably try to change that.


----------



## Lance Taylor (Feb 20, 2010)

Lofty said:


> Its not what you are saying about evolution that is making us respond this way. Its that you are clearly missing the fact that we do actually know some science and continue to assume that we know nothing even after Dene very nicely pointed it out to you.
> Your attitude is terrible. The analogy thats immediately jumping into my head is racist white people back in the day who thought "Oh poor african slaves can't do anything right, as a superior white person I'm obligated to help them out". Only replace racist white people with arrogant scientists and african slaves with religious people.
> In response to your Edit: I have no opinion on where sea mammals came from. But in my post they would have come from creation.
> I'm done actually trying to talk about evolution with you.
> We can drop it.



Cool, thanks. Sorry if I sounded condescending, I didn't mean to.


----------



## RyanO (Feb 20, 2010)

In the case of whales I believe it was actually the other way around. Land mammals evolved from sea mammals. anyway, I find it quite silly that some religous people like to keep ignoring observed scientific evidence when science and religion really aren't mutually exclusive. It makes it hard for people to take your other claims seriously when you discredit yourself with obvious foolishness.


----------



## Dene (Feb 20, 2010)

The problem is that you are trying to explain things to us when you should be explaining it to 14 year olds. We aren't stupid. Phenotype isn't a long word. You are not smarter or more qualified than me. You will not do me any favours by dumbing down something which I already find tedious. I suggest you move along.


----------



## Ranzha (Feb 20, 2010)

I never celebrated Lent, though both of my paternal uncles are Methodist ministers >_>.
What's weirder is that they're twins.


----------



## Lofty (Feb 20, 2010)

I have never celebrated it before either. But I have decided to celebrate it this year. I have decided to stop cubing and to seriously limit my time on youtube and facebook. I can't completely give up facebook as I need it to correspond with my classmates. 
It feels really weird when I get home from class and I only have my email to check... I'm so used to wasting all my time on youtube and facebook doing close to nothing. I'll have much more time to spend with God now.
Edit: Once again Dene has put into words what I was thinking. Thank You Dene.


----------



## Johan444 (Feb 20, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> Bryan said:
> 
> 
> > RyanO said:
> ...


----------



## Lance Taylor (Feb 20, 2010)

Dene said:


> The problem is that you are trying to explain things to us when you should be explaining it to 14 year olds. We aren't stupid. Phenotype isn't a long word. You are not smarter or more qualified than me. You will not do me any favours by dumbing down something which I already find tedious. I suggest you move along.



Well I'm probably not smarter than you, but I'd like to know exactly what it is you do that makes you think a guy working on a biology degree doesn't know more about biology than you do. What arrogance.

You know this started as just me chipping in a little extra to all the little mistakes in the thread. I spent a ton of years as a catholic, and then I spent a ton of years as a biology student. Therefore, I think I know enough to correct little mistakes like "Hey Catholics aren't Christians". People blew up at ME. It was "bryan" who told me to explain evolution, so surprise... I began to explain evolution. I do assume that some people (but deffinitley NOT most people, even on a "nerd forum") know what evolution is. I explained it because I was asked to. I should have ended it at my original post. Like I said before, people, when reading text, always seem to assume I'm being a jerk. I'm just a dude waking up at his computer before I start my day. I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm trying to pitch something extra into an interesting topic. Please, take it easy.

I won't post again, so take all the cheap-shots at my character that you want. This bickering is going to go on forever unless someone grows some balls and just drops it.


----------



## Lofty (Feb 20, 2010)

Johan444 said:


> That quote pretty much sums up all christians view on ideas that speak against christianity.
> 
> *"Good point, but I'm going to ignore it."*
> 
> Where would the world be today if some people did not dare to question and criticize? Nowhere.


Way to make sweeping generalizations lol... Of course all Christians are like that.


----------



## Johan444 (Feb 20, 2010)

Lofty said:


> Johan444 said:
> 
> 
> > That quote pretty much sums up all christians view on ideas that speak against christianity.
> ...



I was a christian for a little while when I was about 16 y.o and I got the impression (read: got told) that you could not question God nor the bible.


----------



## Deleted member 2864 (Feb 20, 2010)

Johan444 said:


> That quote pretty much sums up all christians view on ideas that speak against christianity.
> 
> *"Good point, but I'm going to ignore it."*
> 
> Where would the world be today if some people did not dare to question and criticize? Nowhere.



This quote pretty much sums up your ignorant views about all Christians' ideas.

*"Nice post, so I think I'll use yours to represent all Christians."*

Where would the world be today if everybody made stereotypes and generalization? Nowhere.





At least some people know that one person doesn't represent a whole group. I think I can assume you're not Christian, so what gives you the right to judge what we Christians believe?

You sir, just made an inane post.


----------



## Dene (Feb 20, 2010)

How do you know that I am not doing a biology degree? How do you know that I have not spent the past 6 years of my life dedicated to reading everything about evolution that I could possibly imagine?

I'll answer the questions for you.
No, I am not a biology major. I have sat through biology courses though, with someone who was taking them. I am however a psychology and philosophy major. Evolutionary theory plays a huge role in psychology, and evolutionary theory is deeply imbedded in philosophy. I see no reason why either of us would be more qualified to discuss the topic. However from what you have said so far in this thread, I have no confidence in your abilities. You have only given the must dumbed down, basic explanations. I am not asking for you to give a better explanation; please spare my eyes of the misery.

Secondly, of course I have not dedicated the past 6 years of my life to reading on evolutionary theory. I have however spent a decent chunk of that time on evolution.


----------



## brunson (Feb 20, 2010)

Here's how we get to the focus on abiogenesis. 

Way back in the day we didn't understand fire, so fire was magic and we came up with the story of Prometheus and the belief in gods. Then we understood fire, so that's not magic any more, but where does the wood come from? Clearly god created it, so there's the reason for a deity. Then we came up with evolution, so that appears to take God out of the equation and, as the scientific evidence of evolution becomes overwhelming, the deists must focus on that which we cannot currently explain, abiogenesis, to continue to support their beliefs. Don't miss the fact that if we'd collectively been happy with the fact that fire was magic no one would have been motivated to learn what it really was.

But here's the kicker for me: NONE of this science precludes the existence of a god. I don't know why the faithful rail against evolution as some kind of attempt to disprove their supernatural being, I have to ask them if evolution is simply too difficult to for their deity to invent. Why do they relegate their creator to mundane images of molding Adam from clay and creating Eve from his rib? Making him a tinkerer in a garage sticking flagellae on the ends of bacteria so they can get around? Why, when a god that could create the reality around us is so much more profound and amazing?

I know many religious scientists who have no problem reconciling their belief in both God and science, I just think their God is much more clever than the god of the fundamentalists. Their God created quantum mechanics, astrophysics, galaxies, starts, life, evolution, language, art and philosophy all in the instant of the Big Bang (or whatever means the universe was created).

But why do I even care? Because when we give up and say, "It's that way because God made it that way," we stop looking for answers to why things are, and that's what the deniers of science are pushing for. If there is a god, then he created these questions for us to answer. I think it would be an offense to any god if s/he went through all the trouble to pose the questions and we ignored them, just shrugging our shoulders and declaring, "Magic." If it was me, I'd be very disappointed in my followers.


----------



## Johan444 (Feb 20, 2010)

aznmortalx said:


> Johan444 said:
> 
> 
> > That quote pretty much sums up all christians view on ideas that speak against christianity.
> ...



You're right, I should've added "almost" or something silimliar.

However, I do have a really hard time coming up with a christian that have _really, really_ tried to disprove his belifes and yet coming out of it all as a christian.

EDIT: As I said, I was once a christian, and when I finally did question my belifes in an honest way it was all suddenly very, very clear.


----------



## Lofty (Feb 20, 2010)

No need to rant about fundamentalists on a forum like this... 
Disbelieving in evolution doesn't automatically make one a fundamentalist and doesn't automatically mean they are ignorant. 
Anyway Please enjoy the following video. 
Yeah he's the Dick to the Dawk to the PhD,
he's smarter than you he's got a science degree!
The Dick to the Dawk to the PhD,
he's still smarter than you he studied biology!


----------



## fanwuq (Feb 20, 2010)

Get off the computer. Go for a walk. You will feel happier. 


ON TOPIC:
I am not giving up cubing for Lent.


----------



## Dene (Feb 20, 2010)

Johan444 said:


> However, I do have a really hard time coming up with a christian that have _really, really_ tried to disprove his belifes and yet coming out of it all as a christian.
> 
> EDIT: As I said, I was once a christian, and when I finally did question my belifes in an honest way it was all suddenly very, very clear.



Hang on, why are we trying to disprove our belief? What if my belief is that God is out there, just watching and not interfering in the lives of the living? How am I supposed to challenge this, or find reason to disbelieve it?


----------



## Chapuunka (Feb 20, 2010)

Lance Taylor said:


> while protestantism is all of the different denominations that disagreed with certain aspects of catholicism, and thought they could offer "better christianity"....It's annoying things like this about catholicism that made people want to change the religion a little bit to make it a bit more convenient. That's where protestant religions came from.



While I realize I'm just an uneducated high school kid, I have thought about some of this a lot. My personal beliefs have come straight from the Bible (and I'd be lying if I said my parents and church didn't influence me), and I try to keep it that way. I interpret it how I see it, without the Catholic church's ideas. So I've always considered myself a Protestant, but not because I've just gotten rid of "annoying things" from Catholicism, but I don't believe in the things it seems to me they added to Christianity.

But it's all how you interpret it, and I'm sure I've left several holes in my statement. I can only go with what I believe.


----------



## Escher (Feb 20, 2010)

Johan444 said:


> However, I do have a really hard time coming up with a christian that have _really, really_ tried to disprove his belifes and yet coming out of it all as a christian.



Descartes.


----------



## Johan444 (Feb 20, 2010)

Lofty said:


> Disbelieving in evolution doesn't automatically make one a fundamentalist and doesn't automatically mean they are ignorant.



Noone has said that disbeliveing evolution is ignorant, but I can imagin people have stated that being religious is (I have not).

_There is a difference between atheists and evolutionists_. Atleast outside the US.

Reread the italic three times for your own sake.


----------



## Lofty (Feb 20, 2010)

He would have to define "really, really" too. 
Really really may just mean if you haven't come out not a Christian than you haven't really really questioned yet. You've just really questioned, or maybe just questioned. 
Anyway, Dene, he said Christian, and so a belief in that kind of God would probably fall outside of Christianity. Jesus Christ is the central figure in Christianity and being God and man, is God interfering in the lives of the living.
@Johan444
I'm well aware that there's a difference, thank you tho.


----------



## MichaelP. (Feb 20, 2010)

Dene said:


> Johan444 said:
> 
> 
> > However, I do have a really hard time coming up with a christian that have _really, really_ tried to disprove his belifes and yet coming out of it all as a christian.
> ...



I think his point is that he doesn't know a christian who has challenged anything they were taught. It isn't a question of whether or not you can disprove it, the real question is, have they taken time to ponder what they believe in, instead of what they're told to believe in.


----------



## qqwref (Feb 20, 2010)

Lofty said:


> Being able to produce something in the lab is completely different from it happening in nature... If anything it would prove intelligent design by showing that a huge amount of intelligence must be put into setting up an experiment just right to get 2 of the 4 nucleotides created out of your mud mixture.


Well, it took billions of years to happen in nature according to science, didn't it? I think few scientists would be prepared to wait that long. Besides, since we don't actually have access to what Earth was like 3 billion years ago, there's no way to set up these experiments without "a huge amount of intelligence", but this doesn't in any way prove intelligent design, just that finding out details about the past is really darn hard when they're not written down somewhere. Imagine if all Civil War records were lost and you were trying to recreate all the battles' results by simulating them o_0



Lofty said:


> I don't really see why people like to insist so heavily that abiogenesis is something completely separate from evolution except that they want to bracket off the part of life's origins that has the most holes so that they can still say that evolution is strong.


But they're not really one theory, even if many Christians think they are. I can't understand why people like to insist so heavily that abiogenesis is somehow part of evolution. Abiogenesis is the answer to "how did life start" and evolution is the answer to "where did all these differences between species come from"; creation might answer both questions in one fell swoop, but that isn't necessary. There's nothing contradictory in believing one without the other, and while I have no clue how a scientific person could disagree with the theory of evolution I think it is quite reasonable to disagree with the theory of abiogenesis. Unfortunately science doesn't allow for supernatural explanations so there is no alternate theory for abiogenesis. Personally I think the most reasonable religious approach is to believe God seeded the planet with life so evolution could start (accepting Genesis as storytelling rather than literal historical fact).

The truth is that abiogenesis is almost completely guesswork (because of the difficulty of replicating conditions back then, of course) whereas both microevolution (changing a trait within a species) and macroevolution (changing species over a longer period of time) are extremely strongly supported by evidence. Microevolution has even been shown to happen in a controlled laboratory setting.



Lofty said:


> Most Christians believe the obvious scientific evidence that creatures to change and evolve in response to their surroundings but that those changes never result in the creation of a completely different kind of organism. Like a land mammal isn't going to evolve into a sea mammal but you can get different types of dogs, bacteria becoming immune to medicine and so on. This Microevolution is normally confined to species or the biblical word "kind" for different kinds of animals.


But how can you conclusively define what kind of animal something is? Recall the heap paradox (is 1000000 grains of sand a heap? yes? how about 999999? etc.) - when a group of organisms change species there are pretty much always some kind of intermediate forms that aren't clearly one or the other. In every small change it won't look like the two organisms are of different types, but if you add in a huge number of changes it might not be so obvious. You can tell fish and land animals apart, but what about the lungfish? What about amphibians? It's not like we only had sea animals and suddenly land animals popped up, but rather that some sea animals slowly adapted to become more and more able to take advantage of land, until eventually at least one group of animals was so comfortable on land that they didn't need to go back to the sea at all (and would eventually evolve out of their now-vestigial sea adaptations). Distinctions such as "land vs sea" are never really clear-cut in the same way you can never objectively say the exact number of sand grains you need to make a heap.

Anyway, even if such huge chances are hard to imagine, it's possible to imagine two species developing from one by considering two separate groups of the same species living in different environments. Remember that one of the main definitions of whether two species are different is whether they cannot reproduce and make fertile offspring. So suppose that one of your groups stays mostly the same, because they're fine in their environment, but the other group had a hard time and has gone through a huge number of adaptations in the several millions of years it's been in the other environment. Now they meet up. It's quite reasonable that enough small changes could have taken place that the two sets of DNA are just incompatible - then you have a new species.


----------



## Johan444 (Feb 20, 2010)

MichaelP. said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > Johan444 said:
> ...



Pretty much this.

What single thing/idea/proof is there that outweighs everything that speaks against christianity?


----------



## Chapuunka (Feb 20, 2010)

Lance Taylor said:


> And yes, I've already had lots of people unsubscribe because I said I was not religious. A while ago, someone told me that although he loves all my videos that he could not respect me anymore because I'm not a christian. It has nothing to do with me thinking highly of my opinion. My point is that religious people will get offended just because you say "Nah, I don't beleive that.", which is my point. There's no reason to get offended, is what I am saying.
> 
> And of course, here you are, offended, picking apart my post for everything you can possibly disagree with.



Now you're just making generalizations. Just because some of your religious subscribers believe or say one thing doesn't mean all "religious people" believe the same way. That's like saying because I saw a gang that was all black people, all black people must be members of gangs.


----------



## Lofty (Feb 20, 2010)

qqwref said:


> Lofty said:
> 
> 
> > Being able to produce something in the lab is completely different from it happening in nature... If anything it would prove intelligent design by showing that a huge amount of intelligence must be put into setting up an experiment just right to get 2 of the 4 nucleotides created out of your mud mixture.
> ...


I need to be less lazy and type out more fully what I actually believe... 
By saying set up in the lab I was referring to experiments that have to be set up a certain way for them to come out right. I hate to keep bringing up only the same point but I haven't really studied evolution in awhile. But from what I've heard scientists have claimed to have been able to solve the problem of chirality in the lab but basically that means nothing if the lab isn't set up just like nature is... 
As for abiogenesis and evolution I know their definitions and I know why they are different. I'm just saying I think that its odd that people get so heated at religious people when they even hint that they may be the the same thing. You have to admit that they are at least related theories and in a naturalistic world evolution would impossible without abiogenesis. 
So religious people are wrong for believing in God but scientists are not wrong for believing in many things that are completely guess work? (When you read all my posts assume that I am a moderately intelligent university student not a backwoods redneck) 
We've discussed in the forums before about evolution and transitional species and unless there has been some new information I don't think we need to discuss it again. It seemed to come down with how many transitional species are needed to convince us that they actually are proof of evolution and not just a coincidence. To me the transitional species between land and sea mammals seemed to all basically be whales already and weren't enough in number to convince me, but then again I'm more prone not to believe in evolution, you on the other hand are more prone to believe in evolution so for you it was convincing evidence. 
The definition of species as animals that are able to mate and reproduce fertile offspring together which is why I included that some people make up some kind of additional classification that Genesis calls "kinds" that is different than species as it is hard to argue that no species will split into two after a relatively small number of changes. I can imagine two scientists in the lab selectively mating something like flies with a quick reproductive cycle until they can no longer mate just to stick it in the face of creationists when that is clearly missing the point.


----------



## Ranzha (Feb 20, 2010)

Reading this circular reasoning and misunderstanding made me remember this:


----------



## RyanO (Feb 20, 2010)

Belief doesn't require proof. Your belief that Christianity is false can't be proven either. Whether or not you believe in God requires some degree of faith either way. If you believe there is no God, you are putting faith in the evidence you interperet as arguments against God. Someone else could look at the same evidence and see it as an argument for God. Not all Christians blindly believe everything the preacher says on Sunday. Religion isn't only for mindless sheep, but it does tend to attract them.


----------



## qqwref (Feb 20, 2010)

Lofty said:


> I'm just saying I think that its odd that people get so heated at religious people when they even hint that they may be the the same thing. You have to admit that they are at least related theories and in a naturalistic world evolution would impossible without abiogenesis.


No I don't. They're related theories in the same way cooking and digestion are related. Even if there was a divine being who simply created creatures from scratch, evolution would still occur, and millions of years later we would still be able to conclude that it had happened.



Lofty said:


> It seemed to come down with how many transitional species are needed to convince us that they actually are proof of evolution and not just a coincidence. To me the transitional species between land and sea mammals seemed to all basically be whales already and weren't enough in number to convince me, but then again I'm more prone not to believe in evolution, you on the other hand are more prone to believe in evolution so for you it was convincing evidence.


Well, the problem is that land animals (as a group) evolved from sea animals over a long period of time, so in that stage you'd be likely to see transitional species. However, all mammals are descended from land-based organisms, and the gap between land mammals and sea mammals is pretty small, so you're unlikely to find any obviously transitional species. Humans can swim, as can many other mammals, so the first 'sea mammals' were probably just animals who were good at swimming and realized there was a lot of food in the ocean. If a group of creatures spend most of their time swimming, it's easy to imagine that through time they would evolve more desirable traits for the ocean, such as sleeker and hairless bodies.



Lofty said:


> The definition of species as animals that are able to mate and reproduce fertile offspring together which is why I included that some people make up some kind of additional classification that Genesis calls "kinds" that is different than species as it is hard to argue that no species will split into two after a relatively small number of changes. I can imagine two scientists in the lab selectively mating something like flies with a quick reproductive cycle until they can no longer mate just to stick it in the face of creationists when that is clearly missing the point.


Is it, though? If you accept that one species can eventually become a similar one, through gradual tiny changes in traits, I don't think it's a big leap to accept that through gradual small changes in *species* animals from one 'kind' can eventually become animals from another 'kind'. It's the same idea, with gradual changes adding up to a huge change over time. And as I said before, grouping animals into types (even if the types are ones like mammal, reptile, etc) isn't so easy when some species seem to straddle the line, so even though (say) a typical mammal and a typical reptile may not look too similar, a reptile-like mammal species and a mammal-like reptile species may be only a few species changes away from each other.


----------



## CitricAcid (Feb 21, 2010)

Alright, the thing I don't understand about this thread is WHY we're arguing. Although I find it interesting and engaging to argue about politics and/or religion, I don't see the point of doing it in a thread like this. Sure, Phoenix might have been ignorant to post a thread that is religiously based, but the way he posted it shouldn't have started a religion debate. If your not a part of Christian denomination that celebrates Lent, why would you post in this thread in the first place? I find the the person who posts something like that more ignorant than the thread. If your not a Lent-celebrator, stay out of the thread. It's as simple as that. It's very stupid and foolish to sit here and argue over your beliefs. I, personally am Catholic. Go ahead, flame me. I really don't care. Why does every thread that has the smallest amount of religion in it's roots turn in to a stupid debate with bans, flames, and caps lock. All Phoenix wanted to do was relate with others who celebrate Lent. Is there anything wrong with that? This entire debate is VERY stupid and foolish, and should have never started.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Feb 21, 2010)

I think the original intention of this thread was for people who are giving something up for lent to share it. The "arguements" have nothing to do with the question in the first post at all. Just my 2 cents CAD.


----------



## Bryan (Feb 21, 2010)

Lance Taylor said:


> There is no such thing as "goo to you" theory. It's garbage.



"Goo to you" basically refers to the theory that all living things formed from single cell organisms (which were the result of abiogenesis). It's a combination of abiogenesis and evolution. We could call it "single-celled organism to you", but it's not as catchy. anyway, I think most of the people on the forum probably understood what I was getting at. 



Lance Taylor said:


> I'd just like to point out again the ignorance in "Well hai, there's two kindsa evolution... small changes, and goo 2 u! lol"


Yeah, most of the ignorance in that statement is the poor spelling and grammar. Your posts have more of that than mine. 



Lance Taylor said:


> And it's stunningly, and embarassingly obvious that you have never been inside a biology classroom and awake at the same time.
> 
> [edit] Okay, maybe I'll take that back, because "small changes in a species" is a (I guess) reasonable summary of what natural selection is about.


So it's obvious, but you realize later that you're wrong? Hmm....must not have been so obvious then. 



Lance Taylor said:


> Sorry if I sounded condescending, I didn't mean to.


With the quote above, and saying that it'll be like explaining to a 4 year old, I can't see how you didn't mean to be condescending. 



Lance Taylor said:


> Well I'm probably not smarter than you, but I'd like to know exactly what it is you do that makes you think a guy working on a biology degree doesn't know more about biology than you do. What arrogance.


Believe it or not, you can get knowledge of stuff outside a college degree. Not everyone know everything about a topic. Besides, just working on a biology degree doesn't mean anything. It's actually getting the degree that counts. Many people switch majors and don't end up being experts in their current fields. And just being a biology major doesn't give you a free pass, especially the one you tried to take by not giving any real facts in your first argument.



Lance Taylor said:


> This bickering is going to go on forever unless someone grows some balls and just drops it.


The Christians can stop arguing when the Rapture occurs, and the evolutionists can stop arguing when they grow some balls (through small changes over millions of years).

I think Lofty is taking college classes in religion, so you shouldn't argue with him on anything religious, since he's taking religion classes, and therefore must obviously know more than you, and therefore wins the argument with no discussion.

Like Lofty said, it's your whole attitude. You could've stated your arguments in a straightforward manner, but instead try to argue with a bunch of rants and accusing anyone who responds that they're offended by you.


----------



## ~Phoenix Death~ (Feb 21, 2010)

CitricAcid said:


> Alright, the thing I don't understand about this thread is WHY we're arguing. Although I find it interesting and engaging to argue about politics and/or religion, I don't see the point of doing it in a thread like this. Sure, Phoenix might have been ignorant to post a thread that is religiously based, but the way he posted it shouldn't have started a religion debate. If your not a part of Christian denomination that celebrates Lent, why would you post in this thread in the first place? I find the the person who posts something like that more ignorant than the thread. If your not a Lent-celebrator, stay out of the thread. It's as simple as that. It's very stupid and foolish to sit here and argue over your beliefs. I, personally am Catholic. Go ahead, flame me. I really don't care. Why does every thread that has the smallest amount of religion in it's roots turn in to a stupid debate with bans, flames, and caps lock. All Phoenix wanted to do was relate with others who celebrate Lent. Is there anything wrong with that? This entire debate is VERY stupid and foolish, and should have never started.





miniGOINGS said:


> I think the original intention of this thread was for people who are giving something up for lent to share it. The "arguements" have nothing to do with the question in the first post at all. Just my 2 cents CAD.



+42


----------



## Lofty (Feb 21, 2010)

Bryan said:


> I think Lofty is taking college classes in religion, so you shouldn't argue with him on anything religious, since he's taking religion classes, and therefore must obviously know more than you, and therefore wins the argument with no discussion.


I'm working on a religion degree. That means I know more about religion than all of you! And if just working on a degree counts I also have worked on Math, Physics and Chinese degrees, I am now an expert in many fields and am going to change my major a few more times to become a master in many more fields 
Edit:
@qqwerf
Can happen and did happen are two completely different things. I'll admit that I find the theory of evolution somewhat appealing. That life changes over time through mutation and response to the surroundings is a pretty cool thing. However do I think that it actually did happen? And do I think it plays out as nicely in the real world as it sounds in theory? No. From the primordial soup of millions of years ago to us? I just don't buy it. I know millions of years is a long time but come on, thats a lot of ground to cover. A lot of very small probability events in a very hostile environment. 
But then again I'm not a young earth creationist or any specific kind of creationist either. I question both sides of it equally and no one has yet convinced me. 
Recently I received a link my friend in medschool who I mentioned earlier with a list of like 5 or 10 things that science can't explain that mentioned a whole book about similar things. I think stuff like that is interesting. We don't really talk about all the shortcomings of science often. Not that I'm anti-science, I love it. Its just good to be real and open with what we actually have.


----------



## Hyprul 9-ty2 (Feb 21, 2010)

lol, qqwerf xD


----------



## MichaelP. (Feb 21, 2010)

Hyprul 9-ty2 said:


> lol, qqwerf xD



WHY COULDN"T YOU LET THIS THREAD DIE!!!!


----------



## Dene (Feb 21, 2010)

Johan444 said:


> MichaelP. said:
> 
> 
> > Dene said:
> ...



I don't see how the two points are related at all.
On the first point: If you don't know any Christians who have really challenged their beliefs, then you can't know many Christians. I know the majority don't, but plenty do. Take myself and Lofty, for examples.

On the second point: Give me an explanation to the origins of existence. Just name it. When you do, you will be the most revered athiest of all time. Good luck.


----------



## Edmund (Feb 21, 2010)

aronpm said:


> What am I giving up for Lent? Nothing, because I don't believe in fairy tales.



Presenting ideas like this just makes your side look like a load of *******s. I don't agree with you but if someone just wrote of your side like this I wouldn't like it.

I think when you state what your giving up for Lent it kind of gets rid of the purpose and turns it into almost a pride thing, but because we're all doing I'll say what I'm doinguring Lent I am really trying to be a better student, no meat on Fridays (obviously for Catholics), and I'm not listening to my music on the way to school, which is pretty annoying but it gives me more time for though and sometimes I pray in the morning now.


----------



## Johan444 (Feb 21, 2010)

Dene said:


> Johan444 said:
> 
> 
> > MichaelP. said:
> ...



The way the two points are related is that if you question your belief taking as much information and knowledge about christianity and non-theist science as you can and weigh the arguments against each other it should appear that the existance of a christian God is the least probable, by a big margin, of the two.

And if you're not going to base your belief on probability then on what? Are you saying that there has to be a God since there are no answers on how life started?

I assume you had a traditional christian belief earlier since you said you did change after questioning it. However it seems that your current belief is not a christian one. So you went from christian ---> religious non-christian.
If you're saying that your current belief is an alternative christian belief I cannot do other than disagree since I don't think a passive God is a christian God.

I can't say how the origins of existence started since I have not yet stumbled across a theory that seems probable enough. Is this a proof that there must be a God? (no).


----------



## Muesli (Feb 21, 2010)

It's a matter of choice. Both Christianity and Atheism are the two sides of the same coin that explains the universe. The only difference is that Science is striving to understand the universe better, whilst Christianity is happy to stick with what it has now. There is nothing wrong with that at all, in the same way that you wouldn't criticise someone for buying another Ford car after their old one. 

I am Athiest, and I strive to be tolerant of all other points of view but the one thing that annoys me is people preaching to me. Everyone has different beliefs, and nobody should think that anybody elses beliefs are inferior. Christianity is the following of Faith with little logic, and Atheism is the pursuit of Logic with little Faith. *NEITHER ONE IS BETTER BECAUSE THEY CANNOT BE COMPARED.
*
Now please, stop arguing and let the thread die on its own.


----------



## Dene (Feb 21, 2010)

Actually I don't believe in a passive God. I think I implied that rather carelessly earlier, excuse me.
Naturally the origins of existence is not the only thing that maintains my belief in God. I usually use this example because it is so strong. The only way to respond to this problem without involving a deity is to say that the universe itself contains the supernatural powers required to exist (By "supernatural powers" I mean some sort of thing not currently explainable by physics, i.e. infinite existence outside of space-time).

I'm tired and haven't worded that very well, but hopefully you see the point. 

And in fact I do base my belief on probability. We have two choices: we exist purely through chance; or, we exist through the guidance of an infinite supernatural power. I think the supernatural power is more probable than chance. You probably disagree. By this I am not proposing intelligent design or creationism or anything silly like that. I don't believe in a passive God, but I also do not think God is involved in huge amounts. I believe God got things going, and then tinkers around when God feels like it. I am a firm believer in free will, not just of humans, but of the universe. God doesn't put things exactly where they belong; God allows them to go with the flow, so to speak.

Have you heard of the simulation argument? If not, I can explain briefly tomorrow. But not now.


----------



## Zane_C (Feb 21, 2010)

I can't be bothered reading through this thread, but are you guys arguing? Maby this thread should just die.


----------



## AndyRoo789 (Feb 21, 2010)

Yea.
Religion thread = Never ending argument.


----------



## Johan444 (Feb 21, 2010)

Dene said:


> Actually I don't believe in a passive God. I think I implied that rather carelessly earlier, excuse me.
> Naturally the origins of existence is not the only thing that maintains my belief in God. I usually use this example because it is so strong. The only way to respond to this problem without involving a deity is to say that the universe itself contains the supernatural powers required to exist (By "supernatural powers" I mean some sort of thing not currently explainable by physics, i.e. infinite existence outside of space-time).
> 
> I'm tired and haven't worded that very well, but hopefully you see the point.
> ...



On the origins point, I think there is a chance that we eventually will discover probable theories that are based on physics wich could explain how everything started. Just because there aren't any yet does not mean that they will not be found.

Chance vs. the existance of a concious almighty entity _per se_ are both very very unlikely, I have not seen anything that speak for either of them and therefore I can't say that I belive in either. However, I do find the probality of the existence of a christian God as pictured in the bible, to 0.

So maybe to sum it up, you have made your conlusion while I've not yet and maybe never will.

I checked up in the simulation argument a little but cannot see where it does fit in here.


----------



## iasimp1997 (Feb 21, 2010)

Either someone close this thread or let it die. Threads like this NEVER end.
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18097


----------



## Tortin (Feb 21, 2010)

Dene said:


> Actually I don't believe in a passive God. I think I implied that rather carelessly earlier, excuse me.
> Naturally the origins of existence is not the only thing that maintains my belief in God. I usually use this example because it is so strong. The only way to respond to this problem without involving a deity is to say that the universe itself contains *the supernatural powers required to exist (By "supernatural powers" I mean some sort of thing not currently explainable by physics, i.e. infinite existence outside of space-time).*
> 
> I'm tired and haven't worded that very well, but hopefully you see the point.
> ...



The thing is, just because it's not A, does not automatically make it B. And you also say 'not currently explainable', which is true, but does not, by any means mean that it will always be not explainable.

I don't really agree with your statement that we exist 'purely through chance.' There was a good youtube video explaining it. I'll try to find it, because I'm not very good at explaining.


----------



## RyanO (Feb 21, 2010)

Johan444 said:


> I can't say how the origins of existence started since I have not yet stumbled across a theory that seems probable enough. Is this a proof that there must be a God? (no).



Is this proof that God doesn't exist? No.

Please realize that your conclusion is not the only rational choice. The only time I really get upset with religious people is when they try to convince me that their beliefs are better than mine. You are doing the same thing. If you are correct and God doesn't exist, does it really matter if some people believe that God does exist? You stand nothing to gain from attacking someone else's beliefs.


----------



## Johan444 (Feb 21, 2010)

RyanO said:


> Johan444 said:
> 
> 
> > I can't say how the origins of existence started since I have not yet stumbled across a theory that seems probable enough. Is this a proof that there must be a God? (no).
> ...



What that was aimed for was the christians that says that God exists because no other theory is proven. i.e. "You cannot prove evolution, therefore God exists."

If I understand you right you think I mean that "if neither can be proven, my theory must be right".

What I mean is that everyone should base their beliefs on the strenghts of theories rather than the weaknesses of other theories. Wich is what I (and some christans) do, even if it did not sound like it.


----------



## Deleted member 2864 (Feb 21, 2010)

Johan444 said:


> RyanO said:
> 
> 
> > Johan444 said:
> ...



Christianity isn't a theory, it's a faith. You're not supposed to know, your'e supposed to believe. Such is part of the basis of Abrahamic religions as far as I know.

The whole idea of Abrahamic religions is that the said follower should be able to trust that God is real.


----------



## RyanO (Feb 21, 2010)

Questioning your beliefs is advocated in the Bible. If you are a Christian you should question your beliefs.


----------



## Lofty (Feb 21, 2010)

For those of you saying that this thread needs to be closed or die, why do you care? Just stop reading the thread! At this point you know whats going in the thread and as far as I know you are not being forced to read it. Maybe we enjoy arguing about religion? Tho at this point I would say its much more of a discussion. 
Questioning things is commended in the Bible. Like if the Bible taught something that was very obviously not true, like demanded that the earth was flat and if you didn't think the earth was flat you were a heretic, I would probably not believe other things the Bible says. 
A belief in God is somewhat based upon logic. Its certainly not in spite of logic. 
I don't know any Christian who will say because evolution can't be proven the Bible/God is true. Thats just nonsense. 
Also just because someone is a Christian does not mean that they can not also be a scientist. So one can be a Christian and still try to learn more about the universe around them. Some people are even more spurred on to be scientists because they are Christians because they want to learn about the intricacies of God's creation. The Psalms do say the heavens declare the glory of God.


----------



## CitricAcid (Feb 21, 2010)

[Relevant To Thread Topic]I'm giving up carbonated beverages and food such as chocolate, cookies, brownies, etc. And of course, no meat on Friday.[/Relevant To Thread Topic]


----------



## aronpm (Feb 21, 2010)

iasimp1997 said:


> Either someone close this thread or let it die. Threads like this NEVER end.
> http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18097





MichaelP. said:


> WHY COULDN"T YOU LET THIS THREAD DIE!!!!





Zane_C said:


> I can't be bothered reading through this thread, but are you guys arguing? Maby this thread should just die.





AndyRoo789 said:


> Yea.
> Religion thread = Never ending argument.





Musli4brekkies said:


> Now please, stop arguing and let the thread die on its own.



There is no reason why this thread should be closed. There is intelligent discussion going on discussing religious beliefs. If you can't handle that, *stop reading the thread*.


----------



## TheMatureOne (Feb 21, 2010)

Nothing, because I don't believe in myths.


----------



## Muesli (Feb 21, 2010)

It's uncomfortable for alot of people to have their beliefs probed in this way, and the last thread decended very quickly into flaming. I'd rather that not happen again.


----------



## Dene (Feb 21, 2010)

Johan444 said:


> I checked up in the simulation argument a little but cannot see where it does fit in here.



So the idea I was getting at in the simulation argument is that, one day we may be able to create living humans, in a computer simulation. We would be God, we could do whatever we wanted to those people. The point I was going to make is that, if we were God in this situation, what would we do? We might play around a lot at the start, but eventually that will get a bit boring. We would become less and less involved, and would prefer to sit and watch on occasion, helping out when we felt like it.

I was just arguing for my view of a God that doesn't interfere all that much.


----------



## CubesOfTheWorld (Feb 21, 2010)

Lets stop talking about god/buddha/whatever the *nevermind* you guys are talking about and get back on topic. I would not give cubing up for lent due to forgetting the algorithms


----------



## Deleted member 2864 (Feb 21, 2010)

Musli4brekkies said:


> It's uncomfortable for alot of people to have their beliefs probed in this way, and the last thread decended very quickly into flaming. I'd rather that not happen again.



We've gone 27 pages and no flamewars have begun I think (don't feel like reading all the pages to check, but if there was one, this thread would probably be closed by now).

On topic (seeing as most of my post were pretty off of it...): I'm not giving up cubing, but I'm going to limit my TV time to 1 1/2 hour/week  I'm actually doing pretty well. I've probably watched 1 hour this week.


----------



## brunson (Feb 22, 2010)

I think most of the posts by the main participants here have been civil and respectful. Everyone clamoring to have the thread closed should just move along, clearly there is nothing for you to see here. No one is forcing you to read any of this.


----------



## Edmund (Feb 22, 2010)

brunson said:


> I think most of the posts by the main participants here have been civil and respectful. Everyone clamoring to have the thread closed should just move along, clearly there is nothing for you to see here. No one is forcing you to read any of this.



Agreed. It seems like the most whiney posts are the ones telling the mods to shut down this thread.


----------



## qqwref (Feb 22, 2010)

This would be a rather nice discussion thread if _half the posts weren't people saying the thread is going to collapse into a flamewar_. You guys can stop, we have already heard it 20 times and it's not gonna happen.



Dene said:


> So the idea I was getting at in the simulation argument is that, one day we may be able to create living humans, in a computer simulation. We would be God, we could do whatever we wanted to those people. The point I was going to make is that, if we were God in this situation, what would we do? We might play around a lot at the start, but eventually that will get a bit boring. We would become less and less involved, and would prefer to sit and watch on occasion, helping out when we felt like it.
> 
> I was just arguing for my view of a God that doesn't interfere all that much.


Sure, but you would have other stuff to do than play with your simulation. It doesn't look like God has any other tasks than, y'know, looking after the universe. If you believe the Bible we (as a species) were created in God's image, which means that even if there are aliens out there we'd be the most important, so it's kind of odd to have a non-interfering deity.

Besides - and this is just my interpretation, feel free to correct me - it seems like the Christian God does care about whether people believe in him or not, since those who don't believe/follow his teachings are sent to a place of eternal torment. If God didn't think following his word was important, and he was a "loving god", he wouldn't sentence someone to infinite torment for disobeying it. But if God cares about that, how come:
- God allows so many different religions to exist and fight each other, when the things he wants people to follow are specific and well-defined?
- God doesn't personally appear to a few famous atheists to convince them of his existence? A lot of people don't believe simply because they've never seen any evidence of a supernatural entity, and I think a personal visit would convince a pretty high proportion of nonbelievers.
I guess what I'm saying is that I can't see why a deity who cares about people's beliefs would leave it up to chance. Showing off wouldn't take away any free will, and even if believers with faith are preferred I'd think it would be better to have believers who've seen evidence than disbelievers. It seems illogical to me for the Christian God (if he exists, of course!) to not interfere with things.


----------



## MichaelP. (Feb 22, 2010)

I am in no way qualified to speak on the topic of religion, because I have not studied it, nor have I looked into evolution farther then the basics, but I would still like to throw what I can onto the table, and I will try and be as respectful as possible on this subject. So for starters, both sides of my family are Jewish, but my dad thinks it's all nonsense. He was raised in a conservative-reformed house, which occasionally went to services. My mom was raised in a very religious house, and both her parents were orthodox. They attended prayer sessions very often, and my grandpa often led the services. Their faith was not passed down onto her strongly, and she's now conservative, and are family is as well. We keep kosher in the house, but when eating out, almost everything is fair game (McDonalds, Fillet Mignon, ext.). I go to sunday school, but a good portion of the time, I get out of it. I personally have sided with my dad in the idea that scientific theory > religion. One of the main reasons for this is that I think religion started with an idea (g-d), and worked their was down to a theory on how that is possible, where as science, gathers the information, the builds it up to an idea. So I find my belief placed in evolution, and the big bang, because I think man came up with the idea of god, loved it, then decided to build a backstory. I'm also slightly troubled that without the age of scientific repression, when religion was triumphant, we would be, supposedly 1000 years farther then we are today.


----------



## Dene (Feb 22, 2010)

qqwref: How do you know God doesn't have other things to do? He might have all sorts of obligations that are out of the scope of our comprehension. If we had simualations as I described, and we were the God, the humans in our computers would wonder what sort of other things we might be doing as God. As it turns out, we are just living out our lives. 

The way I see it, life is meant to be a test of faith. God doesn't explicitly show himself as a "test", if you want to put it that way. My guess is that you won't find that answer satisfactory, and I can't really think of much else to say at the moment.


----------



## ~Phoenix Death~ (Feb 22, 2010)

...Why are we talking about God and about whatever when the posts asks "What are you giving up for Lent?" Answers like "Nothing/this/that/not the same Religion/ahtiest" are fine. But why are we talking about evolution, God, animals, God's view, and whatever I missed? HOW do you get of topic THIS fast and THIS much?


----------



## RyanO (Feb 22, 2010)

You've lost control of your thread. Get over it and stop making the same post over and over. Most of us actually seem to be enjoying this discussion.


----------



## Innocence (Feb 22, 2010)

I'm going to say a few words, just as defence, even though I'm WAY too late.

Look them up and ponder over them.

Irreducible complexity.
General revelation.
Teleological argument.
Every intelligent creation has a creator.
The Star of Bethlehem on dvd.

That will be all for now.

EDIT: Oh, wait. Let's assume God's real, and omnipotent. To all that say the world wasn't created in the literal 7 days, I ask you this: Why wouldn't he? If God is omnipotent in the true sense of the word, why would he not do everything exactly as the Bible says? To say he would use a method as inefficient as the big bang is ridiculous.

Omnipotent>Outside time.


----------



## Ton (Feb 22, 2010)

~Phoenix Death~ said:


> I'm giving up cubing for lent.
> ...
> ...
> STARTING AFTER THE CALTECH COMPETITION!
> ...




First I respect your dedication, to me this has only purpose if you actually use this time to pray instead of cube. 

To me there are a lot of things beside cubing -the smallest part- that waste my time, like watch TV , gaming , browsing the internet

If I was you I would select the thing that uses the most time


----------



## RyanO (Feb 22, 2010)

Innocence said:


> Irreducible complexity.


Psuedoscience.


Innocence said:


> General revelation.


Possible argument for a God, but a pathetic argument for a Christian God.


Innocence said:


> Teleological argument.


See above.


Innocence said:


> EDIT: Oh, wait. Let's assume God's real, and omnipotent. To all that say the world wasn't created in the literal 7 days, I ask you this: Why wouldn't he? If God is omnipotent in the true sense of the word, why would he not do everything exactly as the Bible says? To say he would use a method as inefficient as the big bang is ridiculous.
> 
> Omnipotent>Outside time.



Lol, just lol.

EDIT*
Sorry for the weird mommentary tripple post. My computer lagged up and apparently the refresh button is not my friend.


----------



## Innocence (Feb 22, 2010)

Post enough there?


RyanO said:


> Pseudoscience



How?



RyanO said:


> Possivle argument for a God, but a pathetic argument for a Christian God.



Again, why? How on earth could all this have come about by chance?




RyanO said:


> As above



...you get the drill. Learn some arguing, boy.




RyanO said:


> Lol



You know quite well I was referring to all the christians, not you.


If anything, consider this: If you are an athiest, and there is a god, you're screwed. If you believe in God, and there isn't a God, what happens?


----------



## RyanO (Feb 22, 2010)

Irreducible complexity is a theory that is largely rejected by scinetific community. It's a wonder intelligent design proponents still refference this.

As for general revelation, how could observed complexity in nature lead someone to the conclusion that Jesus died on a cross to save us from our sins? I can understand deducing the existence of God from observing nature, but getting from there to Jesus is Lord and savior is quite a leap.

Don't even bring up Pascal's Wager, it's just bad philosophy. If there is a God and he turns out be the Islamic God, you're screwed. This is a really bad argument. If there isn't a God (and therefore no afterlife) you've wasted a large part of the only life you're going to get, congratulations.


----------



## Innocence (Feb 22, 2010)

RyanO said:


> Irreducible complexity is a theory that is largely rejected by scinetific community. It's a wonder intelligent design, proponents still refference this.



Largely rejected by the ATHEISTIC scientific community. This thing is a pretty weighted topic, and the majority usually appears to be dominant.

You're giving me extremely vague answers, obviously intended to pad your argument. 

How exactly can you fault the fact that if you take stuff away to a certain point, a system will be disrupted?



RyanO said:


> As for general revalation, how could observed complexity in nature lead someone to the conclusion that Jesus died on a cross to save us from our sins? I can understand deducing the existence of God from observing nature, but getting from there to Jesus is Lord and savior is quite a leap.



Point taken.



RyanO said:


> If there isn't a God (and therefore no afterlife) you've wasted a large part of the only life you're going to get, congratulations.



Define "Wasted".


----------



## ~Phoenix Death~ (Feb 22, 2010)

Ton said:


> ~Phoenix Death~ said:
> 
> 
> > I'm giving up cubing for lent.
> ...


Cubing takes up a lot of my time.


----------



## RyanO (Feb 22, 2010)

Innocence said:


> RyanO said:
> 
> 
> > If there isn't a God (and therefore no afterlife) you've wasted a large part of the only life you're going to get, congratulations.
> ...



Wasted, as in you've spent your life worshiping the equivalent of the Easter Bunny.

EDIT*

I'm not an athiest. I don't think worshiping God is silly. I'm just trying to show that using Pascal's Wager as a way to defend your beliefs is illogical.


----------



## Innocence (Feb 22, 2010)

RyanO said:


> Innocence said:
> 
> 
> > RyanO said:
> ...



Exactly how does worshipping God result in a lower quality life?


----------



## RyanO (Feb 22, 2010)

Innocence said:


> RyanO said:
> 
> 
> > Innocence said:
> ...



How does believing there is no God lower your quality of life? Claiming that you should worship God to hedge your bets is silly. Assuming a belief in God, there are a mutlitude of religions that claim their teachings are the only true path to the afterlife. A majority of those religious people must be wrong since their beliefs are mutually exclusive and no one religious group consists of a majority of the human population. What makes you think you picked the right religion? Have you even looked into any other religions? Do you really think you would be a Christian if you were born in Saudi Arabia?


----------



## qqwref (Feb 22, 2010)

Dene said:


> The way I see it, life is meant to be a test of faith. God doesn't explicitly show himself as a "test", if you want to put it that way. My guess is that you won't find that answer satisfactory, and I can't really think of much else to say at the moment.


Right, I've heard this argument before, but there's no point of testing someone if you know they're going to fail. As I said above, if God wanted nonbelievers to believe (as he seems to), it would be silly to just leave it up to luck and hope they happen to get convinced, rather than convincing them yourself (which would be trivially easy for an omnipotent being). Once someone is a believer you can test them all you want, but if they're not a believer there is no information you can possibly gain from testing their non-existent faith.


----------



## adimare (Feb 22, 2010)

Innocence said:


> Irreducible complexity.


If you're talking about Behe's idea, it's been destroyed countless times. In a nutshell, it's been proven that what Behe describes as irreducibly complex systems (ie: bacterial flagellum) made up of individual parts that could not have possibly evolved on their own due to their uselessness (ie: the flagellum's hook) are actually made up of parts that were used differently in less complex systems (ie: the hook of the flagellum most likely evolved from a secretory system's needle).



Innocence said:


> General revelation.


Too subjective, basically boils down to "the stars in the sky amaze me therefore God exists".



Innocence said:


> Teleological argument.


Which one?



Innocence said:


> Every intelligent creation has a creator.


Define "intelligent creation".



Innocence said:


> The Star of Bethlehem on dvd.


Haven't watched it. Cliffs?



Innocence said:


> *Oh, wait. Let's assume God's real, and omnipotent.* To all that say the world wasn't created in the literal 7 days, I ask you this: Why wouldn't he? If God is omnipotent in the true sense of the word, why would he not do everything exactly as the Bible says? To say he would use a method as inefficient as the big bang is ridiculous.


Who are you to say an omnipotent God that transcends time would care about efficiency over say, beauty or simplicity?


----------



## Innocence (Feb 22, 2010)

adimare said:


> Who are you to say an omnipotent God that transcends time would care about efficiency over say, beauty or simplicity?



Complexity isn't really an issue, and as for beauty, there wasn't even anyone around to care until close to the end.


----------



## RyanO (Feb 22, 2010)

Innocence said:


> adimare said:
> 
> 
> > Who are you to say an omnipotent God that transcends time would care about efficiency over say, beauty or simplicity?
> ...



What makes you think it's close to the end? The sky is falling!


----------



## Innocence (Feb 22, 2010)

Referring to the end of the beginning of creation. If that makes sense. Man wasn't around until a lot of other stuffs were created.


----------



## adimare (Feb 22, 2010)

Innocence said:


> adimare said:
> 
> 
> > Who are you to say an omnipotent God that transcends time would care about efficiency over say, beauty or simplicity?
> ...


You're ignoring the rest of my post.


----------



## RyanO (Feb 22, 2010)

Since you believe in a literal 7 day creation, I suppose you believe dinosaur fossils were planted by Satan to mislead the faithful?


----------



## Innocence (Feb 22, 2010)

adimare said:


> Innocence said:
> 
> 
> > adimare said:
> ...



Not really, just not replying. I'm tired.

RyanO, I never once said dinosaurs didn't exist. You're jumping to conclusions.

Oh, I saw your edit last page. What religion do you follow if you aren't an athiest?


----------



## RyanO (Feb 22, 2010)

I guess I was jumping to conclusions. I appologize. I'm still interested in how the appearance and extinction of dinosaurs before the creation of man is consistent with a literal 7 day creation. I'd appreciate it if you could enlighten me.


----------



## Zane_C (Feb 22, 2010)

I'm not going through the posts, but if something get posted and I feel like arguing against it, I might get involved.
But this thread seems pretty pointless.

*Note:
If you want your thread to stay on topic; In the title never include any of the following words:*

Angel
God
Life
Bible
Jesus
Christ
Dead
Evolution
Creation
Christianity	
Church
Faith	
Hebrew	
Holy
Judaism	
Testament	
Passages	
Prophecy	
Religion	
Verses
Amen
Baptize
Devil
Glory
Grace
Heaven 
Hell
Kingdom
Priest
Satan
Sin
Worship...

Oh yeah, and also "Lent"

There are just to many threads that go off topic and this post might help.


----------



## qqwref (Feb 22, 2010)

Shut up, Zane_C. Shut up.
(Clarification: this is the off-topic forum. Going off-topic is _the point_. Get over it. You don't completely control what we say in a topic just because you made it.)

@Innocence: If you believe in a literal 7-day creation I assume you also believe the world is ~6000 years old. In that case, would you say (using evidence from the Bible) that humans and dinosaurs coexisted at some point, or that dinosaurs never existed and the fossils are forgeries?


----------



## Innocence (Feb 22, 2010)

Zane_C said:


> I'm not going through the posts, but if something get posted and I feel like arguing against it, I might get involved.
> But this thread seems pretty pointless.
> 
> *Note:
> ...



Lol.

RyanO (Referring to you as that as my name is Ryan too),

I honestly have no idea how the existence of dinosaurs is compatible with a literal 7 day creation, as I've done no research on the topic. My friends have, I might ask them. What I do think is that people are too narrow minded. Our idea of 7 days passing as they do today could be completely different to the first 7 days.


----------



## Zane_C (Feb 22, 2010)

Oh damn, I'm shattered. I mean it's off topic from the beginning, but anyway.

EDIT: I was nearly ganna quote this, but I was hoping no one would post in between.


----------



## RyanO (Feb 22, 2010)

qqwref said:


> Shut up, Zane_C. Shut up.
> (Clarification: this is the off-topic forum. Going off-topic is _the point_. Get over it. You don't completely control what we say in a topic just because you made it.)
> 
> @Innocence: If you believe in a literal 7-day creation I assume you also believe the world is ~6000 years old. In that case, would you say (using evidence from the Bible) that humans and dinosaurs coexisted at some point, or that dinosaurs never existed and the fossils are forgeries?



The idea that the earth is only 6000 years old isn't even biblically consistent. This myth was started when someone went through the so and so begot so and so's and assumed a average lifespan of 40 years or something, I don't remember the exact number. This certainly is inconsistent with a literal interpretation of the Bible since Noah and others were listed as living 900+ years.


----------



## Innocence (Feb 22, 2010)

RyanO said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > Shut up, Zane_C. Shut up.
> ...



Again, you're assuming that a "year" is consistent. From what I've learned, God sure is weird with time.

EDIT: Oh, qqwref, by the way, I think Zane was being sarcastic(somewhat). (Correct grammar for parenthesis, tell) Also, I guess you've seen that in my post after yours I know nothing about dinosaurs. Ty.


----------



## Johannes91 (Feb 22, 2010)

RyanO said:


> Not thinking about why you belive something can lead to terrible consequences.


+1, True



Dene said:


> What if my belief is that God is out there, just watching and not interfering in the lives of the living? How am I supposed to challenge this, or find reason to disbelieve it?


Not having a reason to believe it is a perfectly valid reason to not believe it. Can you prove that the world will not magically end in 2038? Why don't you believe it will?


----------



## RyanO (Feb 22, 2010)

Innocence said:


> Again, you're assuming that a "year" is consistent. From what I've learned, God sure is weird with time.



Seems odd to me that God wouldn't use our definitions of day and year, seeing as we're the target audience. God sure is a prankster, or maybe he just doesn't understand basic astronomy.


----------



## qqwref (Feb 22, 2010)

What would be the point of using measurements such as "day" and "year" in the Bible if they weren't the actual lengths of time? (I doubt people actually lived ~900 years, but still, if you're taking Genesis 1 literally you might as well do it for the rest.)


----------



## Innocence (Feb 22, 2010)

Yay, I found what I was looking for. (Unlike bono.)

http://www.missiontoamerica.org/genesis/six-thousand-years.html

By the way, I'm going to bed now. Cya.


----------



## RyanO (Feb 22, 2010)

Innocence said:


> Yay, I found what I was looking for. (Unlike bono.)
> 
> http://www.missiontoamerica.org/genesis/six-thousand-years.html
> 
> By the way, I'm going to bed now. Cya.



Hahaha, thanks for the "educational" link. It's sad that some people will read this and actually be fooled by it. It's not sad enough to keep me from laughing about it though.


----------



## Dene (Feb 22, 2010)

Johannes91 said:


> RyanO said:
> 
> 
> > Not thinking about why you belive something can lead to terrible consequences.
> ...



Shame on you Johannes! I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you completely misread what he said. This is the reply I gave to his stupid statement:


Dene said:


> It can also have no consequences whatsoever. Thanks for contributing that completely pointless statement though!



I'm actually embarrassed for you right now.



Johannes91 said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > What if my belief is that God is out there, just watching and not interfering in the lives of the living? How am I supposed to challenge this, or find reason to disbelieve it?
> ...



I have already given other reasons why I believe God exists (I actually already asked for everyone to excuse me for implying that I believe that God is completely passive. I don't actually believe this). However I have no reason at all to believe the world will magically end in 2038. 

Honestly Johannes, this is a shameful effort on your part. Please come back when you are thinking straight.


----------



## irontwig (Feb 22, 2010)

Innocence said:


> Yay, I found what I was looking for. (Unlike bono.)
> 
> http://www.missiontoamerica.org/genesis/six-thousand-years.html
> 
> By the way, I'm going to bed now. Cya.



That was an entertaining read, I also like this page:

http://www.missiontoamerica.org/genesis/dinosaurs-people.html


----------



## RyanO (Feb 22, 2010)

They did an awful lot of work to make that site look like they actually believed the nonsense they were spouting out. They must of had a lot of time on their hands.


----------



## Johannes91 (Feb 22, 2010)

RyanO said:


> They did an awful lot of work to make that site look like they actually believed the nonsense they were spouting out. They must of had a lot of time on their hands.


_Poe's law — "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humour, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing."_

For more "fun", see http://www.answersingenesis.org/ and http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page. Or talk.origins.



Dene said:


> Johannes91 said:
> 
> 
> > RyanO said:
> ...


The way I read it, it's not stupid at all. I've seen it happen several times: You get brainwashed as a kid, live as a happy fundamentalist idiot for a while, some day ask yourself "Why do I believe all this when all those smart people I know don't?". You can't come up with any satisfactory answer, slowly start to realize it's all ********, then either a) get over it or b) have some kind of mental breakdown (there has to be a name for this; existential crisis?). If you never question anything, good for you; ignorance is bliss, as everybody knows. But if you do, the sooner it happens, the better; that'll make it more likely you manage to pull off option (a) and reduce the brain damage done and amount of time wasted.

If you base your whole life and world view on some very strong assumptions, questioning them is IMHO a very important thing to do.



Dene said:


> I have already given other reasons why I believe God exists (I actually already asked for everyone to excuse me for implying that I believe that God is completely passive. I don't actually believe this).


Sorry, although I skimmed the whole thread I didn't read everything. In that one post you simply said "I believe this, why shouldn't I?", and with no context that sounds stupid.

I see you mentioned the simulation hypothesis now. That's very interesting indeed, I'm not sure what to think about it.


----------



## Johan444 (Feb 22, 2010)

Musli4brekkies said:


> It's uncomfortable for alot of people to have their beliefs probed in this way, and the last thread decended very quickly into flaming. I'd rather that not happen again.



Then stop posting charts which makes fun of religious people 



Innocence said:


> If anything, consider this: If you are an athiest, and there is a god, you're screwed. If you believe in God, and there isn't a God, what happens?



If you choose to become a christian just to be sure you're not going to hell when you die would lead to a very uncmfortable life. You would base your actions and everyday life on what the bible says even though you would not think it's God words in it. In some cases you would let the bible do the thinking for you.


----------



## Zane_C (Feb 22, 2010)

Innocence said:


> If anything, consider this: If you are an athiest, and there is a god, you're screwed. If you believe in God, and there isn't a God, what happens?



If anything, consider this: If you are an athiest, and there is no god, you rock! If you believe in God, and there isn't a God, what happens?

If you believe in god and it turns out there is no such thing, well that just sucks and your've wasted a lot of time going to church (if you go to church that is). You have also made a complete fool out of yourself and have proven to be a very nieve person.

I think I'll take my chances with being screwed.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Feb 22, 2010)

Dene said:


> Johannes91 said:
> 
> 
> > RyanO said:
> ...


The way I read it, it's not stupid at all. I've seen it happen several times: You get brainwashed as a kid, live as a happy fundamentalist idiot for a while, some day ask yourself *"Why do I believe all this when all those smart people I know don't?"*. You can't come up with any satisfactory answer, slowly start to realize it's all ********, then either a) get over it or b) have some kind of mental breakdown (there has to be a name for this; existential crisis?). If you never question anything, good for you; ignorance is bliss, as everybody knows. But if you do, the sooner it happens, the better; that'll make it more likely you manage to pull off option (a) and reduce the brain damage done and amount of time wasted.

If you base your whole life and world view on some very strong assumptions, questioning them is IMHO a very important thing to do.[/QUOTE]

First of all your implying that believing in a God or more specifically the christian god makes you stupid? (thats how i read it..)

also how i see it is like this:
athiests are the people to smart to blindly believe but not smart enough to look at all the evidence of intelligent design. Look around what evidence do you see that theres an intelligent design? everywhere, everything thats not man made screams of a designer.


Zane_C said:


> Innocence said:
> 
> 
> > If anything, consider this: If you are an athiest, and there is a god, you're screwed. If you believe in God, and there isn't a God, what happens?
> ...


this is an ignorant statement...


----------



## Escher (Feb 22, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> everything thats not man made screams of a designer.



I'm sorry, but no, you cannot think like that.
We are human and completely limited in what we can grasp by our intelligence and the fact we exist for such a short time.

The reasons you think that nature 'screams of a designer' are:
a) you already have a concept of an intelligent designer through social conditioning which you apply to everything natural and complex you see, and 
b) because people cannot grasp how amazing and powerful evolution over _millions_ of years is, which creates intricately complex organisms and organs that seem perfectly 'designed' for their purpose, and that we are too dumb to currently understand.


----------



## Kirjava (Feb 22, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> athiests are the people to smart to blindly believe but not smart enough to look at all the evidence of intelligent design. Look around what evidence do you see that theres an intelligent design? everywhere, everything thats not man made screams of a designer.









And before I hear "This can't've happened by chance, it's so unlikely". SOMETHING had to happen, it just so happens that THIS happened. The basic premise of evolution is only that present day species have evolved from primitive ancestors. Evolution does not require that this had to occur by chance. Something with superior vision is more likely to survive than something without => converges towards good vision.

If everything was created by a designer, he's certainly not intelligent. Why is our immune system so weak?


----------



## jms_gears1 (Feb 22, 2010)

Escher said:


> jms_gears1 said:
> 
> 
> > everything thats not man made screams of a designer.
> ...



You can think like that, Do you have proof that the earth has existed more than several thousands of years? I do believe that the only 'proof' we have are fossils of dinosaurs and rocks that are dated back millions of years.

What else do we have that dates the world as old as evolution requires it to be?

also read my response to kirjava.



Kirjava said:


> jms_gears1 said:
> 
> 
> > athiests are the people to smart to blindly believe but not smart enough to look at all the evidence of intelligent design. Look around what evidence do you see that theres an intelligent design? everywhere, everything thats not man made screams of a designer.
> ...


What does the video have to do with my statment, just curious.

I honestly believe that it cant have been some cosmic chance that enabled us to exist, to be having this argument. Sure its plausbible that the earth and all the planet and planetoids could have been created 'on accident', but then for one of them to have the conditions required to sustain life would decrese the already miniscule chance. But then for life to actually evolve makes that chance much smaller.

And sure Darwinism can explain some mutations that would enhance an organisms survival ability, but mutation never produces new information, it only depletes it.
it went:
wolf => chihuahua
not
chihuahua => wolf.

Ok now i did a bit more research and i found a scientific law that says exactly what i just did.

Its the Second law of Thermodynamics, or the law of Increased Entropy: (source: http://www.allaboutscience.org/second-law-of-thermodynamics.htm)

"While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time."


----------



## Escher (Feb 22, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> You can think like that, Do you have proof that the earth has existed more than several thousands of years? I do believe that the only 'proof' we have are fossils of dinosaurs and rocks that are dated back millions of years.
> 
> What else do we have that dates the world as old as evolution requires it to be?



...

How on earth is carbon dating *not* good enough proof? 

And what do you have that dates the world ~6000 years old?
Oh yes, a translation of a translation of oral history passed down through generations, that is marred by hundreds of anachronisms when read as a factual historical text.

EDIT:


jms_gears1 said:


> Ok now i did a bit more research and i found a scientific law that says exactly what i just did.
> 
> Its the Second law of Thermodynamics, or the law of Increased Entropy: (source: http://www.allaboutscience.org/second-law-of-thermodynamics.htm)
> 
> "While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time."



...


----------



## jms_gears1 (Feb 22, 2010)

Escher said:


> jms_gears1 said:
> 
> 
> > You can think like that, Do you have proof that the earth has existed more than several thousands of years? I do believe that the only 'proof' we have are fossils of dinosaurs and rocks that are dated back millions of years.
> ...


Carbon dating is only 'accurate' up through about 50,000 years, and even then because of a host of natural processes and activities of humans destroy any credibility carbon dating has.

and as for the ~6000 years old remark, what do you have that dates the world back millions of years?

while the 50k mark is to long for what I as a christian believe, its not near long enough to imply evolution.

EDIT:


Escher said:


> jms_gears1 said:
> 
> 
> > Ok now i did a bit more research and i found a scientific law that says exactly what i just did.
> ...


Meaning?


----------



## Escher (Feb 22, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> Escher said:
> 
> 
> > jms_gears1 said:
> ...



Meaning that it has almost nothing to do with evolution. 
Having to do 'a bit more research' to find out about something as basic as the 2nd law of thermodynamics shows you up.

Re: proof that it isn't 6000 years old, how about you read this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

and then research the methods used?

And then why don't you read about aborigine australian history, and that it goes back to around 30-40k years old, iirc?

Perhaps you should read this too: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/age.htm


----------



## Kirjava (Feb 22, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> Kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > jms_gears1 said:
> ...




You're surprised that life evolved in a place where conditions enable evolution?

This is like saying that you roll an 10000 sided die and when it lands on 1337 it must have had intervention by the magical sky wizard, because it couldn't have landed on that by chance, 1/10000 is just too unlikely. But it had to land on SOMETHING, and it'd be a 1/10000 chance whatever it landed on.



jms_gears1 said:


> And sure Darwinism can explain some mutations that would enhance an organisms survival ability, but mutation never produces new information, it only depletes it.




I think you should watch the video again. This is a willfuly ignorant statement.



jms_gears1 said:


> it went:
> wolf => chihuahua
> not
> chihuahua => wolf.




Why does a chihuahua have 'less information' than a wolf? Because it's smaller?



jms_gears1 said:


> Ok now i did a bit more research and i found a scientific law that says exactly what i just did.
> 
> Its the Second law of Thermodynamics, or the law of Increased Entropy: (source: http://www.allaboutscience.org/second-law-of-thermodynamics.htm)
> 
> "While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time."




I'm pretty sure you're regurgitating information you discovered on a creationist website. You think that because you're now using 'Science' that it has to be accepted.

Your application of science is incorrect.

It is true that any natural process contained within a closed system will distribute its energy in such a manner that its entropy will increase over time. This is essentially what the Second Law of Thermodynamics attempts to define.

However, the earth is not a closed system. There is an external body of heat that has been affecting this planet for some time now.

It's called the Sun.



jms_gears1 said:


> while the 50k mark is to long for what I as a christian believe



If you believe the universe was created <50000 years ago....

Light from stars we can see in the sky would take longer than this to reach us. We're looking into the past.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Feb 22, 2010)

Escher said:


> Meaning that it has almost nothing to do with evolution.
> Having to do 'a bit more research' to find out about something as basic as the 2nd law of thermodynamics shows you up.
> 
> Re: proof that it isn't 6000 years old, how about you read this page:
> ...



It does have something to do with evolution....
Its proof that time is the enemy of complexity....

also I was more looking for a substantial source to site when i made that statement....

while this is obviously a creation-biased site ill still give the link:
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Why methods in general are inaccurate

The bottom line is, any type of method that trys to date the earths existence, by nature, whill be horribly inaccurate.


----------



## Muesli (Feb 22, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> The bottom line is, any type of method that trys to date the earths existence, by nature, whill be horribly inaccurate.



There is inaccuracy, and there is being 553,999,994,000 years wrong.


----------



## d4m4s74 (Feb 22, 2010)

Innocence said:


> Post enough there?
> 
> 
> RyanO said:
> ...


if you believe in god, and there is a god, but he turns out to be the wrong god, you're just as screwed as an atheist, even after a life of worship.

and with the billions of gods people have believed in during he history of mankind, that chance is HUGE


also, for the carbon dating thing, after about 5000 years it's not that accurate anymore, but after a few million years they're usually just around 700 to a few thousand years off


----------



## Escher (Feb 22, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> It does have something to do with evolution....
> Its proof that time is the enemy of complexity....
> 
> also I was more looking for a substantial source to site when i made that statement....
> ...





theauthoroftheabovepage said:


> The reliability of creationist sources is often questioned because those who write them are not always experts in the areas they write about. But I believe that their message is true, namely, God created the universe, the earth, and all that is in it, God created life on earth recently, and the earth since then has experienced a major catastrophe.



So he values the message they carry above the fact that they are not experts in their field? I can hardly be bothered to read the rest of the page.

I don't care about the source (wiki or not), I care about the fact you had to research the second law of thermodynamics, and that you applied it hilariously badly.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Feb 22, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> jms_gears1 said:
> 
> 
> > Kirjava said:
> ...


... magical sky wizard really?

Yes it had to land on something, but the theory of evolution would be more akin to the die landing on a side with no numbers.

Its not a fixed chance for all outcomes, the percentage chance for each possible outcome of the Big bang theory, are all horribly skewed.



jms_gears1 said:


> And sure Darwinism can explain some mutations that would enhance an organisms survival ability, but mutation never produces new information, it only depletes it.





kirjava said:


> I think you should watch the video again. This is a willfuly ignorant statement.



that is not an ignorant statement. that video suggests that information is added however mutation depletes the information.



kirjava said:


> jms_gears1 said:
> 
> 
> > it went:
> ...


because it serves no purpose at all. Other dogs such as beagles are hunting dogs, they are bred for their unique bark and their ability to track.
Dachshunds are bred to dig and bark.

What do chihuahuas do?

aside from that, it was more of an example to explain what i was talking about. I think my point was clear. 


kirjava said:


> jms_gears1 said:
> 
> 
> > Ok now i did a bit more research and i found a scientific law that says exactly what i just did.
> ...



The point was, evolution could not create the complexities that are present in the world today. Because time is the enemy of comlexity, the Sun doesnt have anything to do with evolution.


kirjava said:


> jms_gears1 said:
> 
> 
> > while the 50k mark is to long for what I as a christian believe
> ...



if you think that the earth was created >50k years ago...

just because the earth wasnt here doesnt mean nothing else was, the bible talks about the creation of the earth not the creation of the entire universe.


----------



## adimare (Feb 22, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> I honestly believe that it cant have been some cosmic chance that enabled us to exist, to be having this argument. Sure its plausbible that the earth and all the planet and planetoids could have been created 'on accident', but then for one of them to have the conditions required to sustain life would decrese the already miniscule chance. But then for life to actually evolve makes that chance much smaller.


Have you sat down and calculated what the chances you speak of are? Sound like you have if you're so sure that they're miniscule. We're not talking about the chance of life appearing on Earth, we're talking about the chance of life appearing on any planet. The current number of stars calculated to exist in the observable Universe is \( 10^{22} \), let me write that down for you, that's 10.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 stars. It's currently believed that most of these stars have at the very least one planet orbiting them. Do you really think that the odds of life are so tiny that we should believe it impossible to occur given these numbers?




jms_gears1 said:


> And sure Darwinism can explain some mutations that would enhance an organisms survival ability, but mutation never produces new information, it only depletes it.
> it went:
> wolf => chihuahua
> not
> chihuahua => wolf.


Where are you getting this from? Do you really think that people who have devoted their entire lives to evolutionary related investigation have overlooked something as simple as this?

Here, http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/dawkinschallenge.htm



jms_gears1 said:


> Ok now i did a bit more research and i found a scientific law that says exactly what i just did.
> 
> Its the Second law of Thermodynamics, or the law of Increased Entropy: (source: http://www.allaboutscience.org/second-law-of-thermodynamics.htm)
> 
> "While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time."


The 2nd law applies to closed systems. The Earth is obviously not a closed system, the increase of entropy that takes place in the sun as it discharges useful heat towards the Earth more than covers any decrease in entropy that takes place in evolution. Trying to use the 2nd law of thermodynamics to disprove evolution is like trying to use it to prove that it is absolutely impossible to solve a Rubik's cube.


----------



## d4m4s74 (Feb 22, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> just because the earth wasnt here doesnt mean nothing else was, the bible talks about the creation of the earth not the creation of the entire universe.




genesis 1:14


----------



## jms_gears1 (Feb 22, 2010)

Escher said:


> jms_gears1 said:
> 
> 
> > It does have something to do with evolution....
> ...


So then what field are you an expert at?
I think the term expert in the authors message meant that they do not have a degree in that subject, versus not knowing what they are talking about. Just because you didn't formally learn something, does not mean you know nothing about it.

secondly, now your just being belligerent, Ive stated this multiple times now, The point was to say that time is the enemy of complexity. 

also again i was looking for a source to cite, that backed me up, before i just threw it out there. And my applications works, and works very well for my point.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Feb 22, 2010)

d4m4s74 said:


> jms_gears1 said:
> 
> 
> > just because the earth wasnt here doesnt mean nothing else was, the bible talks about the creation of the earth not the creation of the entire universe.
> ...


>.> oops,


----------



## Kirjava (Feb 22, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> Kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > jms_gears1 said:
> ...




I'd say that's an accurate description.



jms_gears1 said:


> Yes it had to land on something, but the theory of evolution would be more akin to the die landing on a side with no numbers.




...no it wouldn't? All sides have numbers, it's impossible to land on one without one. It has to land on SOMETHING.



jms_gears1 said:


> Its not a fixed chance for all outcomes, the percentage chance for each possible outcome of the Big bang theory, are all horribly skewed.




The die doesn't have to be a fair die for my point to be correct.



jms_gears1 said:


> jms_gears1 said:
> 
> 
> > And sure Darwinism can explain some mutations that would enhance an organisms survival ability, but mutation never produces new information, it only depletes it.
> ...




How does mutation 'deplete' the information? What we see here is mutations gradually adding complexity to a species. 



jms_gears1 said:


> kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > jms_gears1 said:
> ...




This is crazy naive. Purpose != information. I was going to write unique assets that chihuahuas have that wolves don't, but I really shouldn't need to. 

This paragraph you wrote also exposes your ignorant ego centric view of the world.



jms_gears1 said:


> aside from that, it was more of an example to explain what i was talking about. I think my point was clear.




I know what you're talking about, and your example should show how silly you are being.



jms_gears1 said:


> kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > jms_gears1 said:
> ...




Ok, so now you realise that your appliction of the laws of thermodynamics is incorrect, you'll simply switch to a new argument and claim this is the point you were trying to make. Which it wasn't.

Time may very well be the enemy of complexity. Good job that we've had a lot if it.



jms_gears1 said:


> the Sun doesnt have anything to do with evolution.




Are you being serious? Did you even read what I wrote about entropy?



jms_gears1 said:


> kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > jms_gears1 said:
> ...




I see that someone has already addressed this. It also invalidates another point you made in this post.


----------



## MichaelP. (Feb 22, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> jms_gears1 said:
> 
> 
> > I honestly believe that it cant have been some cosmic chance that enabled us to exist, to be having this argument. Sure its plausbible that the earth and all the planet and planetoids could have been created 'on accident', but then for one of them to have the conditions required to sustain life would decrese the already miniscule chance. But then for life to actually evolve makes that chance much smaller.
> ...



I think this argument is pretty sensible and should end the "odds are against us" argument.


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Feb 22, 2010)

The bottom line pretty much is: It's irrational to believe in something that has no evidence for it. Believing in God takes the same logic as believing in a big purple monkey awesome spider superman batman nintendo 64 killing machine that's 1000000 ft tall. They both have no evidence for their existence.

And if someone comes back with "that's what faith is for", or something...why would you devote your entire life worshipping and following something that you don't even know is true?


----------



## jms_gears1 (Feb 22, 2010)

Lt-UnReaL said:


> The bottom line pretty much is: It's irrational to believe in something that has no evidence for it. Believing in God takes the same logic as believing in a big purple monkey awesome spider superman batman nintendo 64 killing machine that's 1000000 ft tall. They both have no evidence for their existence.
> 
> And if someone comes back with "that's what faith is for", or something...why would you devote your entire life worshipping and following something that you don't even know is true?




Evidence is subjective, in that you can interpret it how you like.
I believe as i stated above, that the very existence of this earth, of the universe, is proof that their is a sentient, intelligent designer.


----------



## Muesli (Feb 22, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> Lt-UnReaL said:
> 
> 
> > The bottom line pretty much is: It's irrational to believe in something that has no evidence for it. Believing in God takes the same logic as believing in a big purple monkey awesome spider superman batman nintendo 64 killing machine that's 1000000 ft tall. They both have no evidence for their existence.
> ...


Prove it. I see no evidence.


----------



## d4m4s74 (Feb 22, 2010)

The human eye proves the designer is nowhere near intelligent, he must have been drunk when he designed it

and the platypus, was probably made up right after inventing weed


----------



## jms_gears1 (Feb 22, 2010)

Musli4brekkies said:


> jms_gears1 said:
> 
> 
> > Lt-UnReaL said:
> ...


Prove what? 
That I interpret the existence of the universe as proof that there is existence in god?



d4m4s74 said:


> The human eye proves the designer is nowhere near intelligent, he must have been drunk when he designed it
> 
> and the platypus, was probably made up right after inventing weed


How does the eye prove the designer is nowhere near intelligent?

and i like platypus's...
but why would you say anything about them?


----------



## Muesli (Feb 22, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> Musli4brekkies said:
> 
> 
> > jms_gears1 said:
> ...



"...is proof that their is a sentient, intelligent designer."

Prove that. You made a statement, back it up.


----------



## d4m4s74 (Feb 22, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> How does the eye prove the designer is nowhere near intelligent?
> 
> and i like platypus's...
> but why would you say anything about them?



okay, the human eye.

I quote Richard Dawkings (no worse then quoting a creationist forum)

"Any engineer would naturally assume that the photocells would point towards the light, with their wires leading backwards towards the brain. He would laugh at any suggestion that the photocells might point away, from the light, with their wires departing on the side nearest the light. Yet this is exactly what happens in all vertebrate retinas. Each photocell is, in effect, wired in backwards, with its wire sticking out on the side nearest the light. The wire has to travel over the surface of the retina to a point where it dives through a hole in the retina (the so-called ‘blind spot’) to join the optic nerve. This means that the light, instead of being granted an unrestricted passage to the photocells, has to pass through a forest of connecting wires, presumably suffering at least some attenuation and distortion (actually, probably not much but, still, it is the principle of the thing that would offend any tidy-minded engineer)."


----------



## miniGOINGS (Feb 22, 2010)

qqwref said:


> @Innocence: If you believe in a literal 7-day creation I assume you also believe the world is ~6000 years old. In that case, would you say (using evidence from the Bible) that humans and dinosaurs coexisted at some point, or that dinosaurs never existed and the fossils are forgeries?



Isn't the Behemoth mentioned in the bible with the tail the size of a tree? Same with Leviathan...


----------



## qqwref (Feb 22, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> And sure Darwinism can explain some mutations that would enhance an organisms survival ability, but mutation never produces new information, it only depletes it.
> it went:
> wolf => chihuahua
> not
> chihuahua => wolf.


You don't wanna go here. The wolf -> chihuahua evolution was done _by humans_ using selective breeding. There are actually a great deal of species and subspecies which do not exist in nature and have been selectively bred by humans - many breeds of cat and dog, and many types of fruit, such as the standard supermarket banana. (In fact, using selective breeding, which is essentially controlled evolution, has improved a huge number of fruits from their natural form.)



jms_gears1 said:


> Evidence is subjective, in that you can interpret it how you like.


Evidence is subjective in the same way a book is. There are many interpretations, but a great deal of them are simply wrong.


Anyway, about intelligent design... if you believe the designer was so intelligent, why are there so many problems with our species (to choose just one)? How come we have an appendix? Why are there so many genetically transmitted diseases? What's up with everything (heart, eyes, ears, joints, etc etc) deteriorating with age? Why do wisdom teeth so often come in crooked? Why is it so easy to break a collarbone? I could go on. What I'm saying is that there may be a lot of things that look like they must have been designed by an intelligent being, but there are also a lot of things that look like whoever designed them was an idiot. The only reason to have a vestigial organ like the appendix is because there's no evolutionary advantage to not having one. To me, the "God did it" hypothesis explains very few of these issues, while the theory of evolution can explain pretty much all of them.


----------



## Deleted member 2864 (Feb 22, 2010)

Lt-UnReaL said:


> And if someone comes back with "that's what faith is for", or something...why would you devote your entire life worshipping and following something that you don't even know is true?



Most don't devote our lives to faith. We have other things to do other than worship.

And in case you weren't aware, there isn't any theory about how life was created that is concrete enough to be considered true-no-matter-what-end-of-story. Devoting to any of these theories could very well be "wasting your entire life."

You can't be sure that whatever you believe is true, science-based or not. 



qqwref said:


> Anyway, about intelligent design... if you believe the designer was so intelligent, why are there so many problems with our species (to choose just one)? How come we have an appendix? Why are there so many genetically transmitted diseases? What's up with everything (heart, eyes, ears, joints, etc etc) deteriorating with age? Why do wisdom teeth so often come in crooked? Why is it so easy to break a collarbone? I could go on. What I'm saying is that there may be a lot of things that look like they must have been designed by an intelligent being, but there are also a lot of things that look like whoever designed them was an idiot. The only reason to have a vestigial organ like the appendix is because there's no evolutionary advantage to not having one. To me, the "God did it" hypothesis explains very few of these issues, while the theory of evolution can explain pretty much all of them.



Please explain why life created by an intelligent being would have to be perfect. Perhaps that if life was created, the creator's intention was to not be perfect, to deteriorate, and to die out.


----------



## qqwref (Feb 22, 2010)

:fp

That's not what theory means in a scientific context. Fail.

Also, scientific theories don't require that you devote your life to them. The theory of evolution doesn't say that all believers need to spend an hour every week praising Darwin. Religion does that kind of thing, though.


----------



## Muesli (Feb 22, 2010)

qqwref said:


> jms_gears1 said:
> 
> 
> > Evidence is subjective, in that you can interpret it how you like.
> ...



Haha! I approve whole heartedly of this sentence. 

The only real thing that bugs me about christianity is that they take the bible so literally, yet it assumes that every animal on earth lived within walking distance of Noah's house. At this rate, Harry Potter will be a religion in 2000 years.


----------



## Deleted member 2864 (Feb 22, 2010)

qqwref said:


> :fp
> 
> That's not what theory means in a scientific context. Fail.
> 
> Also, scientific theories don't require that you devote your life to them. The theory of evolution doesn't say that all believers need to spend an hour every week praising Darwin. Religion does that kind of thing, though.



Meh, maybe you're right. In fact, you're probably right. 1 1z ju5t t3h pr3t33n

But I didn't say scientific theories require that you devote your life to them. Just like I said you don't have to devote your life to a religion, I also meant that you don't have to devote your time to science. Ltunreal said:


Lt-UnReaL said:


> And if someone comes back with "that's what faith is for", or something...why would you devote your *entire life worshipping* and following something that you don't even know is true?



...To which I replied that you don't spend your life worshiping. When did I say that you have to devote your life to a scientific theory?

Also, last time I checked, an hour a week isn't your whole life. It's not like I live in a church. I go to school and learn math, language, and (yes) science. I go outside. I eat out. I go to the mall. I hang out at home.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Feb 22, 2010)

qqwref said:


> How come we have an appendix?



Sorry, but this is a pet peeve of mine. Claiming an organ is vestigial is something that our current level of science is not ready to proclaim. We do not have a sufficient knowledge of how the body works to be able to claim that we know for sure an organ is vestigial. That's because a "sufficient knowledge" would have to be almost complete, and we still have some organs which we are very far from understanding the exact workings of (such as the brain). Perhaps in a number of years, we'll be able to proclaim that something is vestigial, but for now, our knowledge is insufficient for that.

With regard to the appendix, here and here are links to a differing opinion. Honestly, it seems that they also don't have enough information to be sure the appendix is not vestigial - it still may be. I'm still not ready to bet my life savings that the appendix is not vestigial. And it certainly doesn't rule out the possibility that there are other vestigial organs. But at least there is still valid scientific disagreement on the issue for the appendix.

My interest is purely personal and selfish - I don't want someone taking out my appendix unless it's absolutely necessary, since I think it's possible it may be helpful to me. (Although I will be happy to have it taken out if I ever need to. )


----------



## rubiknerd11 (Feb 22, 2010)

Right when I saw this thread I KNEW that it would become a religous war so I figured that I would share my opinion on the subject. I'm Agnostic which means that I am not devoted to any religion. I believe that where you are determines what religion you are. If you are in the U.S. then you are most likely christian, if in India then you are probably Islamic, etc. My main belief though is that nobody knows how everything was created because if you did _*you would be GOD*_.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Feb 22, 2010)

Musli4brekkies said:


> jms_gears1 said:
> 
> 
> > Musli4brekkies said:
> ...



Ok if you READ what i said, i said that i interpret the fact of existence itself as proof.
Since this is obviously how i INTERPRET there is no burden of proof...



miniGOINGS said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > @Innocence: If you believe in a literal 7-day creation I assume you also believe the world is ~6000 years old. In that case, would you say (using evidence from the Bible) that humans and dinosaurs coexisted at some point, or that dinosaurs never existed and the fossils are forgeries?
> ...


Yes it does.


----------



## Deleted member 2864 (Feb 22, 2010)

rubiknerd11 said:


> Right when I saw this thread I KNEW that it would become a religous war



I actually think this thread is unusually civil. There is nothing that (I at least think so) is a hint of a flame war. I'd call this a debate rather than a forum war.

I'm getting sorta bored with this thread though... time ta pull out


----------



## Johan444 (Feb 22, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> Ok if you READ what i said, i said that i interpret the fact of existence itself as proof.
> Since this is obviously how i INTERPRET there is no burden of proof...



But why the christian God of all the Gods out there?
If our existence is your proof of an intelligent designer there must be other evidence that points at this one God especially.

I'm just curious, I can understand why one would belive in ID, but not in christianity to be honest.


----------



## Muesli (Feb 22, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> Musli4brekkies said:
> 
> 
> > jms_gears1 said:
> ...



By the same logic I could interpret my 3x3 times to be 10 seconds every time, and if somebody asks for proof I will tell them that is how I interpret my times and thus I don't need to prove myself.

You see how frustrating that scenario would be?


----------



## Dene (Feb 22, 2010)

rubiknerd11 said:


> If you are in the U.S. then you are most likely christian, if in India then you are probably Islamic, etc.



Lol really?




Johannes91 said:


> The way I read it, it's not stupid at all. I've seen it happen several times: You get brainwashed as a kid, live as a happy fundamentalist idiot for a while, some day ask yourself "Why do I believe all this when all those smart people I know don't?". You can't come up with any satisfactory answer, slowly start to realize it's all ********, then either a) get over it or b) have some kind of mental breakdown (there has to be a name for this; existential crisis?). If you never question anything, good for you; ignorance is bliss, as everybody knows. But if you do, the sooner it happens, the better; that'll make it more likely you manage to pull off option (a) and reduce the brain damage done and amount of time wasted.
> 
> If you base your whole life and world view on some very strong assumptions, questioning them is IMHO a very important thing to do.



But this isn't what he said at all. As far as I'm concerned, all that he said is that I am being an idiot because I do not believe that the next time I turn on my computer, it will set of a bomb and destroy the whole of the city that I live in, planted by insane islamic suicidists. 

What you are saying is that it could have terrible consequences to _devote your life_ to something you believe in with no evidence and without questioning it. This is, of course, completely different. And I agree with you, it could possibly have terrible consequences, as you stated. But then again, it could still have no consequences whatsoever. In fact, I'm going to assume that in most cases (most = majority, i.e. more than 50%) nothing happens at all. Most Christians that I am aware of go through life perfectly fine and never have major mental breakdowns.


----------



## Dene (Feb 22, 2010)

Lt-UnReaL said:


> The bottom line pretty much is: It's irrational to believe in something that has no evidence for it. Believing in God takes the same logic as believing in a big purple monkey awesome spider superman batman nintendo 64 killing machine that's 1000000 ft tall. They both have no evidence for their existence.



Whoa you have completely got it wrong with this comparison. For all any of us know, God is exactly as you described as a big purple monkey etc. etc. We do not believe in a form of God, this is heresy. We believe in values and qualities etc. etc.


----------



## qqwref (Feb 22, 2010)

Mike Hughey said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > How come we have an appendix?
> ...


Sure, OK. The main evidence for it being vestigial is that when people have it removed it doesn't really negatively affect them, but I suppose it's always possible it might have some small function we aren't aware of. Still, there are many other problems with the human body.



aznmortalx said:


> Please explain why life created by an intelligent being would have to be perfect. Perhaps that if life was created, the creator's intention was to not be perfect, to deteriorate, and to die out.


I don't expect it to be perfect, but if you're going to declare that the positive qualities of a human body point to a creator, someone needs to point out that there are also quite a few negative qualities. 



Johan444 said:


> jms_gears1 said:
> 
> 
> > Ok if you READ what i said, i said that i interpret the fact of existence itself as proof.
> ...


This. I know there's a tendency in this kind of argument to interchangeably talk about the idea of any god and the idea of the Christian God, but this is a really good point. Even if you believe there must be a creator, or life must be intelligently designed, or whatever... where's your argument that this deity must be the same one the Bible talks about, and the same one your church tells you to pray to?


----------



## jms_gears1 (Feb 22, 2010)

Johan444 said:


> jms_gears1 said:
> 
> 
> > Ok if you READ what i said, i said that i interpret the fact of existence itself as proof.
> ...



A couple of diffrent things, Mostly its that i believe that other religions are wrong.

First of all I automatically think of polytheistic arguments as absurd. When I think of God i think of a being that created us, that is all powerful. Every Polytheistic religion that i know of says that, there is one almightyish god who created minor deitys to help him out. I believe that this line of thought makes any type of god to much like humans, therefore the god is no longer really a god.

now the one other religious group i know something about, as far as their beliefs go, are the muslims. Muslims say they believe Jesus was a prophet of Allah, but Muhammad was the major prophet. A prophet speaks for God, or in this case Allah. However they do not believe Jesus to be the messiah. Jesus clearly state that he is. So when the muslims say that he is not they are calling Allah a liar. Which defeats the point of the religion.


----------



## Johan444 (Feb 22, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> Johan444 said:
> 
> 
> > jms_gears1 said:
> ...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions

A list of a few hundreds religions that you would need to discard the same way you did with islam.

Maybe your "other things" are focusing on evidence that are speaking for christianity itself.


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Feb 22, 2010)

aznmortalx said:


> Lt-UnReaL said:
> 
> 
> > And if someone comes back with "that's what faith is for", or something...why would you devote your entire life worshipping and following something that you don't even know is true?
> ...


Nope, I was well aware. I hope you didn't assume I wasn't aware of that.



@jms_gears1: lol


----------



## RyanO (Feb 22, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> Johan444 said:
> 
> 
> > jms_gears1 said:
> ...



Even if other religions are wrong, it doesn't mean yours is right. B != not A. You admit that you think most religous people are wrong, maybe there is a pattern here. Also you are making the common mistake of assuming the Bible is true in order to prove that the Bible is true. This is clearly circular reasoning. The Bible states that Jesus claims to be the messiah, however we can't know what he really said. That's like saying the Qur'an states Jesus isn't the messiah, therefore when Crhistians say he is they are calling God a liar.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Feb 22, 2010)

RyanO said:


> jms_gears1 said:
> 
> 
> > Johan444 said:
> ...



Well i have not seen a better explanation than that of creation. 

also The muslims believe in the christian Jesus from what i remember.


----------



## Muesli (Feb 22, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> RyanO said:
> 
> 
> > jms_gears1 said:
> ...


No, you're just not seeing a better explanation than creation.


----------



## Johan444 (Feb 22, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> Well i have not seen a better explanation than that of creation.



Here's one:

"God created the universe. End."

This one > the bible because there are no contradictions or false statements.

Sorry, abit too drunk to avoid posting


----------



## jms_gears1 (Feb 22, 2010)

Musli4brekkies said:


> jms_gears1 said:
> 
> 
> > RyanO said:
> ...


And whats a better explanation?
First of all that would be subjective however....
I honestly would like to believe that my existence doesn't stop when i die.


----------



## RyanO (Feb 22, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> Well i have not seen a better explanation than that of creation.
> 
> also The muslims believe in the christian Jesus from what i remember.



Creation does not imply a Christian God. Muslims don't believe the biblical stories about Jesus are authentic. If you read the Qur'an this is quite clear. If making the right religous decision is so important, I don't understand why you haven't done more research on other religions.

I'll leave you with a quote by Christian apologist, C. S. Lewis.

"If ours is an examined faith, we should be unafraid to doubt. If doubt is eventually justified, we were believeing what was clearly not worth believing. But if doubt is answered, our faith has grown stronger. It knows God more certainly and can enjoy God more deeply."


----------



## Muesli (Feb 22, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> Musli4brekkies said:
> 
> 
> > jms_gears1 said:
> ...


There is concrete evidence that the earth is older than ~6000 years and that dinosaurs roamed the earth millions of years ago. As soon as I ask you to provide evidence that God exists you essentially say "I believe it, so I don't need evidence". I could claim that I can breath underwater, but nobody would actually take me seriously until I did it. I am in the position of "Show me why you believe this". 

To quote Ricky Gervais, _"It annoys me that the burden of proof is on the athiest. It should be: 'you came up with an idea, why do you believe it?'. I could tell you that I have superpowers. But I can't go up to people saying 'Prove I can't fly.'. They'd go: 'what do you mean 'prove you can't fly?', prove you can.'_


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Feb 22, 2010)

Johan444 said:


> because there are no contradictions or false statements.



lol circular reasoning


----------



## Kirjava (Feb 22, 2010)

Hey jms_gears1,

I see you didn't reply to my last post.

Ignorance is bliss, eh?


----------



## Muesli (Feb 22, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> Hey jms_gears1,
> 
> I see you didn't reply to my last post.
> 
> Ignorance is bliss, eh?


Nor my previous one.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Feb 22, 2010)

Musli4brekkies said:


> jms_gears1 said:
> 
> 
> > Musli4brekkies said:
> ...



No I did not imply what you said up there. I said that there is enough proof in the existence of everything, all you have to do is look around you. 

As far as making the right decision i believe i have made it. Belief is just as important as evidence. Nothing is certain and you have to take everything with a grain of salt.

what i mentioned above was learnt recently. I do tend to do research in other religions just a little at a time. And i have yet to find anything as concrete as Christianity.


----------



## Muesli (Feb 22, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> I said that there is enough proof in the existence of everything, all you have to do is look around you.



Show me. Nothing I see around me says "god did this" to me.


----------



## dannyz0r (Feb 23, 2010)

@jms Show us everything that is concrete with Christianity. Prove everything from religions besides Christianity wrong without saying "I believe Christianity is right so others are wrong." Wall of text plz.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Feb 23, 2010)

Musli4brekkies said:


> jms_gears1 said:
> 
> 
> > I said that there is enough proof in the existence of everything, all you have to do is look around you.
> ...


Really, because i cant help but notice simple stuff. I mean even just plants. Plants take in CO2 which we exhale and produce oxygen which we inhale, again their had to have been a designer. The world, and every entity on it coexist perfectly, until a sentient been screws it up.

I honestly dont see how there could not be a sentient creator, Scientists discovered that the universe works within certain boundaries or laws perfectly. How could that have been some cosmic chance? If the earth had been of by even a hair we wouldnt be here.


----------



## RyanO (Feb 23, 2010)

Once again, your argument completely ignores the possibility that God could exist without Christianity being true.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Feb 23, 2010)

RyanO said:


> Once again, your argument completely ignores the fact that God could exist without Christianity being true.



No it doesnt...
I said an intelligent designer for a reason...

Ive already stated that i believe in christianity.

Ive stated i believe in christianity, and also within my last post i said i believed in an intelligent designer.

Therefore i believe in the christian God...


----------



## RyanO (Feb 23, 2010)

You've explained why you believe in God. You haven't explained why you believe in Christianity (other than making false claims about other religions.)

EDIT*

I'm not trying to be mean, I just sincerely am interested in hearing your answer to what I feel is an important question. Lack of a sufficient answer to this question was a big part of my reason for leaving the church.


----------



## Muesli (Feb 23, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> Musli4brekkies said:
> 
> 
> > jms_gears1 said:
> ...


If the universe is to exist it needs to co-operate with itself. It's called Equilibrium, and it is a natural occurance in almost everything. Plants evolved to absorb CO2 because that was what they needed to do to survive. The plants that could not survive in the CO2 rich atmosphere millions of years ago perished, whilst the ones that could survive spread across the land into the trees and bushes you see today.

If the earth were driven off by a hair then we wouldn't be here, but some other race billions of lightyears away would be having an identical argument.


----------



## adimare (Feb 23, 2010)

Musli4brekkies said:


> Kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > Hey jms_gears1,
> ...



Nor my only one.


----------

