Ignosticism

Theological noncognitivism

Atheism

Agnosticism

Agnostic Atheism

Weak and strong atheism


Saw a bogan last week trying to talk to his friends about why "christians are fuggen retarded".

Liking the feeling of my wallet in my pocket I decided not to start up an 'intellectual debate' with him so i'm starting a QGL thread instead.

Seroious talk. Good youtube video to shut up the theists for a while.



My problem here is that I've always wondered why strong athiests say it is an impossibility for any type of deity to have initiated the existence of our universe. How can you know?

I can understand why people dislike most organized religions due to their effects on politics and enforcing their beliefs on others... But why do strong atheists use the contradictory argument that there is no chance of any possibility of a deity which initiated the existence of our universe, and as such theists are stupid?

It's as if people interpret science and evolution as proof there is no god. It's just not.

PS. If your name is joel, you call your friends 'f*****s', have an ear piercing and catch the CLCA train, that school kid deathstaring you on the train last week was not me.

Staunch athiests are in the same boat as staunch religionists imo, but as long as people don't press their views upon others I don't care.

But why do strong atheists use the contradictory argument that there is no chance of any possibility of a deity which initiated the existence of our universe, and as such theists are stupid?

Because it's a massively flawed argument to say the universe was created by a deity but that deity doesn't have a creator.
Also, all models for deities come from religious doctrine, there's no evidence of a deity. You can examine the doctrine of every religion and find it contradicts what we know as fact, proving it was written by a bunch of ignorant morons.

last edited by Mantorok at 17:32:28 16/Sep/09

hey, whatever floats your boat.

Law of conservation of energy. A lot of people (like me) don't believe in any 'deity' or 'god' because they don't need to. They just live life and don't require a faith in the presence of some almighty being.



last edited by 3dee at 17:38:15 16/Sep/09

But that's not the theological argument at all. There is a possibility that a "deity" out of understanding of human minds created the universe.

Is your rebuttal, "You don't know the start of the start of our universe, therefore your belief of the start of our universe is wrong"?

It's a bit silly.

But also, there is only faith in such beings. Hey, if God knocked on my door and was like "Hey man" and glowy and heavenly, I'd be a believer. But no tangible evidence exists whatsoever to the existence of such Gods.

Do we have to do this again? Really?

We got over the aerospace treadmill, surely there's hope for the religion debate?

But that's not the theological argument at all. There is a possibility that a "deity" out of understanding of human minds created the universe.

Is your rebuttal, "You don't know the start of the start of our universe, therefore your belief of the start of our universe is wrong"?

It's a bit silly.

Phooks are you familiar with the Flying Spaghetti Monster? It is the analogy that shows why this way of thinking is flawed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

Just because you can conceive of an idea, such as about supernatural stuff, that you can't disprove, doesn't mean you should go believing that idea.

Hmm that articled I linked doesn't really talk about that stuff, but it mentions these two articles along the same lines:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn



last edited by thermite at 17:45:19 16/Sep/09

We don't say it's not possible. We say it's so f***ing stupid of an idea and so incredibly improbable, it's just not to be considered as fact, or probable at the least, especially in the realm of reality.

It'd be like saying that all grass can't just suddenly in eleven seconds from now turn to purple. You can't prove that it won't or can't happen. But there's a damn good chance it won't. The idea of there actually being a deity, especially one that actually fits the description as such and not just being another significant life form not fitting the description of a 'god' - that idea? Yes, it's just utterly retarded.

Believe it's possible if you want. But if you want to assert that it's possible, then I propose it's also possible when you do state so, I'm going to transform into Smaug, fly up there, and bite your stupid head off. Then we'll be on the same page. k?

On a similar note, I'm going to at this point assert that there is a teapot flying out there in low-orbit of Earth. Please prove me wrong.

last edited by Raven at 17:44:14 16/Sep/09

3dee, you are a weak athiest, which I have no problem with.

The only difference between agnostics and weak ahtiests is that agnostics say "There is no evidence, so I don't know" and weak athiests say "There is no evidence, so I don't know and I don't care/need to know".

It's strong athiests that I find silly. They use the fallacies of theists as arguments to support their belief in complete impossobility of any sort of deity having initiated the existence of our universe, which Mantaroks now edited post clearly shows. He calls theists "ignorant morons" and therefore there is no chance of any types of "deities" ever having existed.

But that's not the theological argument at all. There is a possibility that a "deity" out of understanding of human minds created the universe.

No. Religion has manufactured the need for a creator of the universe, and the concept of a deity. People accept the possibility because we as a society haven't rejected these flawed ideas.

My ideology is that there are so many possibilites in the initiation of our universe that to start ruling any of them out as clearly impossible is wrong.

I am not saying whether it is likely, or PROBABLE that deities are up in the clouds. I am saying there is absolutely NO way that you can preclude the possibility of them existing. It is simply outside of our understanding.

My problem here is that I've always wondered why strong athiests say it is an impossibility for any type of deity to have initiated the existence of our universe. How can you know?

most people that i would call strong athiests would not make the call that the existance of a diety(s) is impossible. they would more likely state that without any observable evidence there is no reason to believe in a diety. the observable universe & our tiny human lives in it seem to at least indicate that there is no diety imo. but who knows.. some crazyhead quantum mechanics blokes reckon there could be evidence of god in sub-atomic physics.. the ultimate observer !@#!# :P

i recommend the athiest tapes by the bbc for some of the more famous athiest's views on the subject.

I think you guys are confusing weak athiests with strong athiests.

they would more likely state that without any observable evidence there is no reason to believe in a diety.

^weak Athiest. (Pretty much Agnosticism, but instead of saying "I don't know" they say "the question is not worth dealing with")

make the call that the existance of a diety(s) is impossible

^ strong Athiest. I consider this silly.

last edited by Phooks at 18:01:57 16/Sep/09

My ideology is that there are so many possibilites in the initiation of our universe that to start ruling any of them out as clearly impossible is wrong.

If we are to believe the stories of God then there should be evidence of him a lot more recently than the creation of the universe.

I am a very strong atheist. Even if God turns out to be real, I still won't have faith in him.

last edited by thermite at 18:02:30 16/Sep/09

Raven, yes its all about proving a negative (a creator does not exist) which as you point out, essentially is not possible.

There's no evidence a creator exists and nothing to suggest one needs to exist. If by chance a creator does exist, the creator clearly has no interest in interacting with us.


A lot of religions of course go much further than this in terms of beliefs about life-after-death. This aspect of religion I find MUCH stupider than the belief in a creator, in that all the beliefs were just made up by various people through human history. Reincarnation, heaven-vs-hell, and whatever other silly ideas exist dont even have a weak argument to support their existance.

where do these strong & weak athiest definitions come from!@?! :P

My ideology is that there are so many possibilites in the initiation of our universe that to start ruling any of them out as clearly impossible is wrong.

so you don't rule out the flying spagetti monster? the dreamtime? zeus? thoth? jupiter? dagda? i'm just as skeptical about them, myself.

^ strong Athiest. I consider this silly.

Perhaps you are taking things out of proper context?

There is no possibility of a deity existing as described by most religions. That doesn't mean that there is no possibility of some sort of higher existence that could be described as God.



last edited by deadlyf at 18:23:52 16/Sep/09

You see, now you're talking about Agnostic atheism, which is again different.

As side tracked as you all seem to be about definitions, I'll explain..

The only person who is a strong athiest in this thread is thermite; wherein he says

I am a very strong atheist. Even if God turns out to be real, I still won't have faith in him.

When you take out the part about him admitting to the possiblilty of god existing (ironic, considering his stance)...

He encompasses strong atheism, which I find ignorant and downright silly.

last edited by Phooks at 18:45:10 16/Sep/09

Mantarok seems to use the term "creator/god" loosely, but if he is reading my posts clearly his replies indicate he is a strong athiest as well (although he is expressing his justification from an Agnostic ahteist POV)

you're the one raising and continually focusing on the distinction between strong and weak, yet when people respond on that they're the ones getting sidetracked?

3dee, you are a weak athiest, which I have no problem with.

Yeah I pretty much don't care, but I don't believe in a God (mainly cause I just think it's nonsense scientifically). I generally just live out my life, instead of worrying about some almighty being who might or might not exist.

The justifications and counter-arguments they are using to support their views are irrelevant to the points I am making. When you look at thermite, mantarok, deadlyf's and demons posts, you can see how it is a debate on society and organisied religions (and 'what is strong/weak') rather than views on the possibility of a deity which initiated the existence of our universe, which is what this thread is about.

It's as if people interpret science and evolution as proof there is no god. It's just not.

you're Asian right?

Phooks - There's no reason to consider the possibility if you know that the concept of a deity is manufactured by religions.

Here's my point jim.

I pretty much don't care

Weak athiest

but I don't believe in a God

Strong athiesm (If by that you mean any type of deity at all)

(mainly cause I just think it's nonsense scientifically)

Theological noncognitivism

. I generally just live out my life, instead of worrying about some almighty being who might or might not exist.

Weak athiest

and nah i'm not asian. why?

it's not irrelevant just cos you say it is. if you suppose something, then go on to make a statement or pose a question based on that, it's not getting sidetracked to come along and request clarification of your supposition, since it essentially forms the foundation for your thread in the first place

Ignosticism

Theological noncognitivism

Atheism

Agnosticism

Agnostic Atheism

Weak and strong atheism

The foundation of my thread is purely on the point of strong atheism.

People are supporting what they believe is strong atheism with arguments an agnostic atheist and weak athiest would use.

You're not making any points though phooks. You're just saying people who say the existence of a creator of the universe being impossible are silly/ignorant. I don't know whether you quite understand what ignorance means but essentially everyone is ignorant as to whether there is a creator to the universe. Those of us that are athiest realise that making an argument that there could be a creator is an irrelevant and circular argument as its immediate question then is "Who created the creator?"

So we in essence prefer to deal with reality because its far more beautiful, complex and mind blowing than the distraction of a creator.

Phooks, there's a very distinct difference between "I don't believe in a god", "I don't believe there is a god", and "I don't believe there can be a god".

richard dawkins is pretty much as hardcore as atheists come, and he doesn't classify himself as a strong atheist according to your wikipedia link.

so anyone classifying themself as a strong atheist is a retard imo.

^^what taggs said^^

anyway, the answer to your rather dopey question is here: http://trog.qgl.org/site/media/sounds/why.wav

if you want more info on why, study psychology

yeh?

Great rebuttal jim. I look forward to your next post.

Thing is I'm not ignorant, I am VERY interested in religion and spirituality and I think about this sort of stuff a lot. I can imagine an incredible spiritual dimension and I would like to believe that souls are real. I was raised in a school with lots of christians and I went on bible camps and know quite a lot about the christian philosophy, I've also read heaps about judaism and religious history, and I find it all quite fascinating particularly the older mythology of the regions where judaism grew out of, some of it would make for a really excellent movie.

But it's all made up, and the research is done into the origins of these texts and stories the more evidence there is that is it fiction. There is really too much to even cover in this regard without f***ing it up. The only reason God is even an idea now for you to wonder about is because of a whole lot of bulls***, and that's no reason to justify it as a plausible explanation for anything.

I won't deny that there could be something out there that could be described as God - but that's not God, and religious people won't be happy to accept some astronomic anomaly, supernatural monster, alien, subatomic pattern, etc.. as God, they have very specific stories of stuff God has done and said, he is a character. I know there are a lot more religions popping up lately where they are happy to let you believe God is whatever you want, since they are desperate for support. It's just like how I don't believe in ghosts, but science may one day uncover something bizarre that could explain ghost sightings, perhaps some new concept we will even refer to as 'ghosts' - but its not really ghosts.

God is a 'fantasy' idea, and as such it is really not even in the scope of all the well thought out and observed scientific explanations we have for things. If God is observable he should have been spotted by scientists, they've had a pretty good look around. If God and his actions aren't observable then in what way does he even 'exist'?

If you believe God once existed to set things into motion but is no longer around, then you are talking Deism, which was pretty much replaced by darwinism and ideas from science when they seemed exactly the same except without the unnecessary God bit chucked in at the start for no supported reason.

rebuttal to what?

seriously: "I heard someone saying something dumb, clearly there's no support for such a position - why do people do that? to the internets!"

short answer: cos people are often dumb
long answer: see psychology

God is a 'fantasy' idea, and as such it is really not even in the scope of all the well thought out and observed scientific explanations we have for things. If God is observable he should have been spotted by scientists, they've had a pretty good look around. If God and his actions aren't observable then in what way does he even 'exist'?

What if his/her/their action was to create matter ?

Each to their own imo. Atheists can't explain how matter came to be, and theists can't show me their god. It's a draw.

The justifications and counter-arguments they are using to support their views are irrelevant to the points I am making. When you look at thermite, mantarok, deadlyf's and demons posts, you can see how it is a debate on society and organisied religions (and 'what is strong/weak') rather than views on the possibility of a deity which initiated the existence of our universe, which is what this thread is about.

well if that's what the thread is about... i believe the possibility of a diety of organised religion or otherwise is 0% +/-0.01% :D that doesn't make me an agnostic! i don't believe in anything supernatural. that's not the same thing as saying the supernatural is impossible.. it's just highly improbable. so improbable that's it not worth considering.

but if what ya wanted was for us to agree with ya that some dork at the station was a big stupidhead then yeh, sure, he probably was.

but if what ya wanted was for us to agree with ya

Well I was hoping to get a strong atheist on QGL to debate with, but didn't bait any it seems. Spent most of the thread trying to explain the difference between ideologies. :/ boring now.

Phooks, I don't even get what the hell you're trying to prove. That there's atheists who are determined to disprove the existence of God? Of course there are, who's arguing that? Though I think you'll find that the majority of atheists don't really give a s***, and don't make religion a part of their lives at all.

I don't understand what the point of this thread is.

I think i'm an Apathetic Agnostic with Ignostic tendencies.

I went to church (at the behest of my Mother) until I was 12 and Boys Brigade (Think Scouts, but weekly meetings in a Church instead of a Scout Den) until 17 on my own steam. Still have many church friends heavily involved in the church. My sister and mother go most weeks as well. Unless you plan to anger a lot of people (on both sides) it's really not best to discuss these things. It is fun every now and then though :p

Also, I work with a 6000 Earther. I find it simpler to avoid him as much as possible.

the simple fact that religion requires faith is enough for me to not have faith

no proof, no care

“I'm not normally a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me, Superman!” Homer

I am a strong Atheist? I don't believe in a Deity at all, mainly because of my education which I have used to made an educated decision.

Just because we can't prove it does not mean it is possible Phooks. It just means we can't prove it YET! Let the human race advance a little more than we shall see.

But I guess our advancement is being held up due to religion and belief and not enough research and education....

last edited by dynamite at 20:24:27 16/Sep/09

There's definitely something higher out there... you guys just haven't aten enough mushrooms.

"Science adjusts its beliefs based on whats observed, FAITH, is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved" - Tim Minhcin "Storm"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB_htqDCP-s

for an activity that is essentially refraining from doing something, there are certainly a lot of different types of atheism

is a person who actively denies the existence of god any 'stronger' of an atheist than a person who has lived in a cave all their life and has never been exposed to religious ideas?

i and my fellow aphilatelists (the hobby of not collecting stamps) would certainly say yes

Because it's a massively flawed argument to say the universe was created by a deity but that deity doesn't have a creator.

Well, not really. The universe is all time, space and matter. So if some entity (a.k.a. God) did make the universe, that means that entity is outside of the universe and, therefore, outside of time. So the questions "what happened before God" or "who made God" is invalid because time doesn't apply to or affect an entity that created time.

There's no evidence a creator exists and nothing to suggest one needs to exist.

Disagree. The complexity in a simple cell indicates a designer. Proteins, DNA, RNA all point to a designer. I look at the world around me and everywhere I see the mark of a creator, a designer. It baffles me when people look at the world and think that it's all here by random chance. Please note I'm not saying you all have to conform to my worldview - this post isn't about that.

I probably do have more respect for strong atheists than agnostics though - at least they stick to their convictions. None of this "sitting on the fence" bollocks.

Disagree. The complexity in a simple cell indicates a designer. Proteins, DNA, RNA all point to a designer.

What? How do all of these things point to a designer? You're implying that there's some sort of proof here, then all you say is that it probably didn't happen by chance. That's your proof?

It baffles me when people look at the world and think that it's all here by random chance.

And it baffles atheists that so many people believe that a magical space magician decided to make it all for no reason.

And it baffles atheists that so many people believe that a magical space magician decided to make it all for no reason.

NEWS JUST IN: Everyone's baffled! :)

That's your proof?

I didn't say I had proof. I believe this stuff. That's the point of faith.

But why do strong atheists use the contradictory argument that there is no chance of any possibility of a deity which initiated the existence of our universe, and as such theists are stupid?

I am not an atheist. I refuse to be labeled for not believing in something which is not real. I don't believe in unicorns either, it doesn't make me a unicorn denialist. There is no more evidence to suggest there is a God than there is to suggest there are unicorns. If you see a distinction between a creator god and unicorns, you are just another sad kid who has been brain washed by the religious establishment.

Criticising a person for adamantly denying the existence of a god is the same as criticising them for denying the existence of abiogenesis, fairies or Elvis still being alive.

I didn't say I had proof. I believe this stuff. That's the point of faith.

You said that a bunch of things all pointed to the existence of a 'designer,' implying that you had applied some sort of logical thought process to arrive at your conclusion. Then you say it's faith. They are completely different. I'm not trying to convince you something other than your beliefs, but don't go claiming that faith counts for any sort of fact whatsoever.

Disagree. The complexity in a simple cell indicates a designer. Proteins, DNA, RNA all point to a designer. I look at the world around me and everywhere I see the mark of a creator, a designer.

That's called "irreducible complexity", and requires you to completely ignore natural selection. If you ignore natural selection, you're a f***ing moron who needs to go back to school and pay attention to Science classes.

So if some entity (a.k.a. God) did make the universe, that means that entity is outside of the universe and, therefore, outside of time. So the questions "what happened before God" or "who made God" is invalid because time doesn't apply to or affect an entity that created time.

If God can change things, he must exist within time. Making up imaginary rules for time is another sign you should have paid attention in school.

last edited by Mantorok at 22:11:04 16/Sep/09

Finally, a religious debate that will get somewhere.

lol

Disagree. The complexity in a simple cell indicates a designer. Proteins, DNA, RNA all point to a designer. I look at the world around me and everywhere I see the mark of a creator, a designer. It baffles me when people look at the world and think that it's all here by random chance. Please note I'm not saying you all have to conform to my worldview - this post isn't about that.

As a cell biologist I cry when people can think such retarded things.

Dude, I used to love your show when I was a kid.

I believe in 2012. Well not really, i've just been listening to a lot of Muse lately :P

so anyone classifying themself as a strong atheist is a retard imo.

Never go full retard.

Phook's post

Well I don't believe a God could exist, and I trust in science and all that but really, I don't think about it at all in "real life". Like, the whole "religion" just doesn't exist in my daily life. I have no need for it. I would rather just "live" than devote time to this stuff. So I gues im a 'weak atheist'?

what does the debate on weak atheist vs. strong atheist actually establish?

That's what I was asking in my first post. I don't actually know what this thread was setting out to achieve.

He's trying to suggest strong atheists are just as dumb as the religious, because strong atheists won't consider the idea that a deity exists.

Atheist view:

The universe spontaneously existing out of nothing is extremely strange. What came before the nothing? How did that come about? What about the thing that existed before that?

A God creating the universe is extremely strange. What created the God? How did it come about? What created the thing that created the God?


In the end (or the beginning?) both view points are as strange as the other.

i rate this thread topic 7 yawns

As a cell biologist I cry when people can think such retarded things.

lul

Never go full retard.

double lul

for an activity that is essentially refraining from doing something, there are certainly a lot of different types of atheism

Well you'd kind of be wrong in it being passive.
Its actively believing in no god.

Proteins, DNA, RNA all point to a designer.. It baffles me when people look at the world and think that it's all here by random chance.

Even if you accept the existance of a creator, unless you subscribe to the Christian view of "God made the Earth in 7 days" then I don't understand your position at all.

If you want to say "the Creator put in place the rules that govern our universe, that among other things, allowed life to evolve" then that seems perfectly reasonable. Most people don't seem to like this definition of a creator though.

If I was the creator of this universe, I think I would be spending my time watching stars explode and black holes and stuff like that. If we presuppose the existance of a creator, then humans must surely be completely insignificant compared to the full volume of the this creator's work.

Sorry, I thought this was reddit for a second

I think i'm an Apathetic Agnostic with Ignostic tendencies.

Hahaha, Scooter. Made me lol.

I used to be a very forceful atheist type - any chance I had to speak to a religious person I would try to talk them into trying to see that their religion is wrong.

Now I don't give a f***. Because it's not important what you believe or what anyone believes in to get them through life. As long as the way they live doesn't significantly interfere with the way I live. (I.e., kids don't blow yourselves up in public places)

/thread

Yeah pinky your almost there.
Atheism is a belief system (like any religion) the difference being the absolute belief in their being no deity.

And any strongly held belief that gets forced on to others is annoying!

If I want to believe there is a god living in my sock drawer who cares!!!

Now I don't give a f***. Because it's not important what you believe or what anyone believes in to get them through life. As long as the way they live doesn't significantly interfere with the way I live. (I.e., kids don't blow yourselves up in public places)

Agreed. What does it matter what someone else thinks? You're either right or wrong and so are they. Nobody will ever truly know until death.

Nobody will ever truly know until death.

hehe saint you've become quite the troll, I like this new you

The universe spontaneously existing out of nothing is extremely strange. What came before the nothing? How did that come about? What about the thing that existed before that?

How about the initial state of our universe was as a singularity, and the Big Bang is what caused it to take its present state.

it's not that hard saint.

Everyone has faith and our lives couldn't work without it. People have faith in their family, friends and co-workers. I have faith my toaster will work in the morning and my car will make it to the office.

Faith is also the thing which makes me 'know' that the Brisbane Lions will when the next 50 consecutive premierships and all past premierships have been lost due to injustice.

To say that faith isn't a part of your life is plain stupid.

I don't have faith in people or in a toaster or in football. I can trust people, and predict that a toaster will work, and calculate a certain team is strong, and hope and imagine the outcomes of things. It is not the same thing as faith.
I have trained myself to have a very strong bulls*** filter. Doesn't mean I'll say anything to call you out if you're lying to me, but I don't just accept any facts or knowledge at face value - there is a process that information is to be put through before I can truly believe it - and even then I have to keep an open mind that I may have assumed or accepted something I shouldn't have. This is skepticism, and it is the proactive rejection of blind faith.



last edited by thermite at 11:49:50 17/Sep/09

yeh I get the feeling the type of faith being described in a religious context and faith that your toaster will work, are kind of different

if you were to unplug your toaster from it's power source and then have faith that it would still toast your toast, you might be a bit more in the ballpark :D

By that logic, your one testicle is a testicle system.

Actually Zy ... it would be a reproductive system.

Having a belief in no gods is different to no belief in gods.
I personally believe in minimal gods.

have you taken a bite from the god or is it still whole?

One testicle is a reproductive system?

If that's all you have then yes it is. A system doesn't have to be functioning properly to be a system.

So it's true you don't have a penis.

How's that relevant ? ... ask your mum for details

a testicle has more than one molecule

a testicle has more than one molecule

But is it better than LCD, or plasma? And does it vote Labour, Liberal or Greens? All very important questions that need answering.

TBH, surprised this thread is still going

let people believe whatever they want to believe, as long as they don't force those beliefs on others.. me especially..

zy... you should just stop now

I like turtles.

It's as if people interpret science and evolution as proof there is no god. It's just not.

hmmm well how is it not proof? God only exists within religion and religious frameworks. He / she has not shown up anywhere at any point in time other than in religious doctrine? Since evolution and science contradict modern religion entirely and can disprove it, why would someone entertain the existence of a 'god' when everything that constitutes god (the bible or any other book) has been proven to be made up??

If you’re referring to the intelligent design argument, it doesn't really involve religion at all. It just refers to the fact a single cell is ridiculously complex, too complex to be random and therefore is intelligently designed. I've seen Richard daw kin’s in an interview regarding ID and even he doesn't deny it as a possibility. I think he said this theory just raises more questions, like 'then who created this intelligent designer?' 'Where does this designer come from? Etc.

Don’t get annoyed at people using evolution and science to disprove god, the fact that god hasn't be proven to exist at all does that enough.

edit: ran through spell check so stupid kiddies wont fap off over spelling errors and typos.


last edited by defcon at 16:36:02 18/Sep/09

yeah, if you can't spell religion you don't get to hate on it.

just fyi.

edit:

your're

wtf?!

That's a pathetic response taggs, he can write better than a majority of religious people. At least he's not forbidden to spell out 'God' on the Internet as many religious nutbags are.

a retard is a retard, whether they believe in god or can't spell basic words.

stop f***ing leaving the democrats out of your party lists. Anyone who doesn't vote democrat is a f***ing moron!

http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg35/ggb777/sciencevsfaithpt3.jpg

Proteins, DNA, RNA all point to a designer.. It baffles me when people look at the world and think that it's all here by random chance.

You do realise that all of the workings of this can be explained through chemistry and physics...

Atheists and scientists don't believe the world was created by random chance. That is the creationist's strawman for evolution. If you understand the principles of evolution you will see that it is anything but random, despite the seemingly arbitrary nature of many mutations. The ideas behind evolution are even used in computer programming to generate possible solutions to complicated problems that may not even have a single right answer.
And if you haven't noticed a lot of things in life are a bit f***ed up, but they're still around cos they happen to work, take childbirth for example - WHAT THE f*** nobody 'intelligently designed' that, it's totally messed up. What about things eating other things? Poisonous plants? Bad weather? Is that all part of the plan? Get the f*** out, all of that stuff is horrible. Ever known a sick child or anyone with a daedly disease? If there were marks given out for design this universe would not score highly.

Now, God may not be real, but, regarding people's belief systems; 'there is something to it' (sorry I'm having trouble wording what I'm thinking). People are predisposed to believe in things like a creator because of the very nature of our own minds. We are creators and we are observers and we are judges - these are features we give to God, but in reality these features are the product of our own evolution. It almost does seem like there is a goal in mind for evolution - I'll give you that, but I don't think it's a goal that anybody sat down and thought about before this all started. The very environment in which evolution takes place gears us towards adapting to our environment, and we are also examining and trying to improve it now - which would have been an excellent god plan, sure, but it doesn't mean there is one.

http://api.ning.com/files/0iWm54LVz3RIMnBwF4fSh93WZJe0I4gv1Z*AmjAFbFVuKCF5apw1QDKfoMB-*tkBEpkqmRE2feSVyAQ79m7mykHFV8HZC5lh/n66703207_30572873_2074.jpg

Thread started out boring, but has supplied many lulz.

Heh, I bought this Jesus doll at a garage sale for $1 on Saturday and sold it on eBay for $200!!!!

What a Prophet!!

---

I took this hot dominatrix bird home from the club last night. But then I thought, "What would Jesus do?"

So I let her strip me naked and whip me.

---

In the year 2009 the Lord came unto Noah, who was now living in England and said, "Once again, the earth has become wicked and over-populated, and I see the end of all flesh before me. Build another Ark and save two of every living thing along with a few good humans."

He gave Noah the CAD drawings, saying, "You have 6 months to build the Ark before I will start the unending rain for 40 days and 40 nights."

Six months later, the Lord looked down and saw Noah weeping in his yard-but no Ark. "Noah!" He roared, "I'm about to start the rain! Where is the Ark ?"

"Forgive me, Lord," begged Noah, "but things have changed. I needed Building Regulations Approval and I've been arguing with the Fire Brigade about the need for a sprinkler system. My neighbours claim that I should have obtained planning permission for building the Ark in my garden because it is development of the site, even though in my view it is a temporary structure. We had to then go to appeal to the Secretary of State for a decision.

Then the Department of Transport demanded a bond be posted for the future costs of moving power lines and other overhead obstructions to clear the passage for the Ark 's move to the sea. I told them that the sea would be coming to us, but they would hear nothing of it.

Getting the wood was another problem. All the decent trees have Tree Preservation Orders on them and we live in a Site of Special Scientific Interest set up in order to protect the spotted owl. I tried to convince the environmentalists that I needed the wood to save the owls - but no go!

When I started gathering the animals, the RSPCA sued me. They insisted that I was confining wild animals against their will. They argued the accommodation was too restrictive, and it was cruel and inhumane to put so many animals in a confined space.

Then the County Council, the Environment Agency and the Rivers Authority ruled that I couldn't build the Ark until they'd conducted an environmental impact study on your proposed flood. I'm still trying to resolve a complaint with the Equal Opportunities Commission on how many disabled carpenter's I'm supposed to hire for my building team. The trades unions say I can't use my sons. They insist I have to hire only accredited workers with Ark-building experience.

To make matters worse, Customs and Excise seized all my assets, claiming I'm trying to leave the country illegally with endangered species. So, forgive me, Lord, but it would take at least 10 years for me to finish this Ark."

Suddenly the skies cleared, the sun began to shine, and a rainbow stretched across the sky.

Noah looked up in wonder and asked, "You mean you're not going to destroy the world?"

"No," said the Lord. "The US government beat me to it!"

Atheists can't explain how matter came to be, and theists can't show me their god. It's a draw.

Do you actively try to be retarded?

I look at the world around me and everywhere I see the mark of a creator, a designer.

What kind of, moron, logic is that? We've known for hundreds of years that eye-witness testimony is the worst form of evidence you can get. f***, crazy people see crazy s*** all the time. Does their experience count in this? f***, for a moment today I thought I saw a cloud in the sky. Does that mean clouds have faces? Maybe it was God checking up on me!?

It baffles me when people look at the world and think that it's all here by random chance.

There's only two types of people who actually think that. No wait, there's only one type of person who thinks that: An idiot.

I probably do have more respect for strong atheists than agnostics though - at least they stick to their convictions. None of this "sitting on the fence" bollocks.

Even Agnostic fence sitters are basically saying "Your religion is s*** and poorly thought out. Only idiots would believe that". They just don't want to offend you.

what does the debate on weak atheist vs. strong atheist actually establish?

It established that you are a fag, and that you should kill yourself as quickly as possible.

Atheist view:

The Atheist view is that "God was created by Man." Nothing else.

Everyone has faith and our lives couldn't work without it.

Did you go to Obes' school for the retarded?

Strong atheist. God can't exist. My argument is a semantic one:

Axiom: Universe is logical. Otherwise, game over, all bets off, can't have a discussion.

Problem: God is poorly defined. Makes it hard to answer the question in a sensible fashion (see Ignosticism).

Solution: Consider full set of definitions.

Case A) God has some illogical properties, like omnipotence. Easy: disproved by axiom, reject immediately.
Case B) God has properties, but these aren't falsifiable in any way. Invisible unicorn/dragon/teapot problem. God is indistinguishable from something which doesn't exist, therefore the two concepts are equivalent. Toss these in the bin also.
Case C) God has properties, at least some of which are falsifiable. Great, toss the useless properties which can't be falsified for reasons above. Now we're left with something boring, because we can test it, (eventually) explain it, and then just stick it in the same category as other facts of the universe like E=mc² (I dispute that pantheism is a real -theism; it's just picking a really poor synonym). So we haven't defined God because there's no difference between that definition and the other (almost?) inifinite number of definitions that are in the same boat.

In other words:
- Definitions of God (or Gods), such that they can be shown to exist, aren't definitions of God but just ordinary natural phenomena.
- Definitions of God with magic properties that can't be tested/observed are just elaborate ways of describing things that don't exist. Invisible and incorporeal unicorn/dragon/FSM and an empty void that doesn't influence anything are all the same thing.

The rest follows from there. The axiom may be suspect and the reasoning a little finessed in parts, but that's what I have until I see/think of something better.

"A rainbow must be God's doing!"
Nope. Refraction, reflection then refraction coupled with the different wavelengths combined to create the Sun's white light means that the rainbow is always 45 odd degrees reflected from the angle of the Sun.
"Huh?"
Sigh...

Do you actively try to be retarded?

So typo you have the answer to how the universe was created ?

Quick ... ring Cern tell em to cancel that multi billion dollar experiment under the ground typo has the answer!

The only good answer i actually read in this entire thread was:

"A lot of people (like me) don't believe in any 'deity' or 'god' because they don't need to."

But because it came from 3dee i know he doesn't need faith or god, he already has Steve Jobs.

(I actually thought for a second you meant that God was around because when lives sucked, hope was a great way for people to cheer up their spirits and live their meaningless lives in poverty and difficulty and work really hard in belief that it would pay off after they died by going to heaven)

Actually: we were discussing religious topics the other day in the car. If you have omniscience, do you even need omnipotence? I mean really, why bother being everywhere when you know whats going to happen. And isn't omniscience way better than omnipotence, i mean my example for this is with omniscience I'd know there was lots of gay porn around, but choose not to watch it. With omnipotence I don't have that choice..

It'd suck to be God, no wonder he gave up after we killed his Son.


last edited by skythra at 10:03:06 18/Sep/09

But because it came from 3dee i know he doesn't need faith or god, he already has Steve Jobs.

Oh dear lord.

Too cheap? Or are you calling him again..

this thread is gay, too much typing, requires more pictures. and dragons.

well, pictures of dragons, ok?

this thread is gay, too much typing, requires more pictures. and dragons.

well, pictures of dragons, ok?

http://www.mccullagh.org/db9/d30-14/drag-race-3.jpg

yeah this thread sux big time. religion is a business.

As a person with a debilitating disorder I take offense at comments I went to a school for retards. I can't help that I was born with a massive cock!

Is glow bowling a religion ?

Actually: we were discussing religious topics the other day in the car. If you have omniscience, do you even need omnipotence? I mean really, why bother being everywhere when you know whats going to happen. And isn't omniscience way better than omnipotence, i mean my example for this is with omniscience I'd know there was lots of gay porn around, but choose not to watch it. With omnipotence I don't have that choice..

You're confusing your terms there:

-omnipotence: all powerful
-omniscience: all knowing
-omnipresence: everywhere at once

isn't omniscience way better than omnipotence

you're thinking of impotence

http://www.ectomo.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/neverending-story-jesus.thumbnail.jpg

Much lulz.
Although on a serious note. I have a few points:

The video, (waaaaaay back) which was intended to be the instigator of this argument, seemed to me to be just about being able to logically justify one's opinions. The religion vs athiesm debate was used as a great example. But I think for the purposes of this argument that vid is redundant.

Moving on. It seems to me that a lot of the responses from the "athiest" (I use that term loosely) point of view seem to be rather hostile. This may indicate that they have been/are offended by religion/s of sorts. In some instances I agree with this hostility and believe it is justifiable, but I myself don't feel the same way.
I believe that the way that religion has been portrayed and expressed, in both modern and past contexts, has resulted in this dislike of the "church."
I myself am a Christian and believe in God (please don't hurt me) I believe that those representations of the church have been/are misleading and incorrect. The core message of Christianity is centered entirely on love. It is such a shame that so many turn away from the church because of their portrayal of this love (through their rules and regulations and whatnot). Unfortunately though we are all fallible human beings and it is understandable that we screw it up somehow.

I realize that this reply probably won't deter people from their hostile view of the church (caused by a misrepresentation of the Christian message) I just hope that it allows some people to realize that they might not be angry at the Christian message (ie. God) rather just mad at some of his messengers. Who screwed up royally.

Nah, the message itself is pretty s*** too

Particularly the part where the creator is allegedly such a softcock that in order to prove a point to a rebellious minion (instead of just wiping the c*** out and not failing so hard at making future minions), unimaginable suffering has had to be, and is yet to be experienced by millions of people whom this creator allegedly loves - as if somehow, this means the creator was right and rebellious minion was wrong and that if enough people suffer for a long enough period of time, rebellious minion can finally be wiped out and paradise restored.

lol?

yep spot on.

Actually, not spot on.

How about this? God wants to spend eternity in fellowship with the people he's created who freely choose to love him. Hard-wiring his creations to love him would have no value to him, so he needed to give us the free will to choose.

Does he want people to live without him? Not a chance. He loves you all. He has given you the choice and will not force you. But the choice you make has permanent consequences.

He's not delaying the restoration of the Earth to prolong suffering, he's waiting to give everyone the chance to choose him.

Since he so bang up for free will and our choice not to love him, I wish all the Fundies that follow him would do the same.

euphoria you said 'not spot on' but then didn't actually discount anything I said - all you did was spin god's point of view - as though you think it somehow justifies putting people through the unspeakable pain they've suffered

God wants

...

have no value to him

...

so he needed

yeh, this is what it's all about and it's why people with a thinking brain have such a problem with the premise

wow this post has now become about the christian message and how wrong/right it is.

But Scooter I think you're dead right. You summed up in one line what I was trying to say before.

Those fundamentalists who go out of the way and stand on street corners with a bull-horn telling everyone that "Ya'll be condemned if ya ain't be believing" definitely got their wires crossed somewhere. There is absolutely no love in the way that they present that message. Thats just one very general example of a messenger who sucks balls.

and Jim I didn't quite understand what you were saying.

Particularly the part where the creator is allegedly such a softcock that in order to prove a point to a rebellious minion (instead of just wiping the c*** out and not failing so hard at making future minions), unimaginable suffering has had to be, and is yet to be experienced by millions of people whom this creator allegedly loves - as if somehow, this means the creator was right and rebellious minion was wrong and that if enough people suffer for a long enough period of time, rebellious minion can finally be wiped out and paradise restored.

are you saying that all the suffering in the world is just to prove a point to the rebellious minion (do u mean satan?)

Also

He's not delaying the restoration of the Earth to prolong suffering, he's waiting to give everyone the chance to choose him.

Euphoria we can't put a time/condition on the second coming. It says in the Bible only the father knows. Still, glad to have a similar opinion on here :D

Wasting my Sunday's at Church isn't gonna get me anywhere in life. Wasting my Sunday's lazing around is another story...

How about this? God wants to spend eternity in fellowship with the people he's created who freely choose to love him. Hard-wiring his creations to love him would have no value to him, so he needed to give us the free will to choose.

Does he want people to live without him? Not a chance. He loves you all. He has given you the choice and will not force you. But the choice you make has permanent consequences.

He's not delaying the restoration of the Earth to prolong suffering, he's waiting to give everyone the chance to choose him.

Except the Judeo-Christian god is meant to omniscient, so he knows what will happen. This means free will is an illusion, and God is punishing people for s*** he knew they would do before he even created anything.

Also, time to dig out this classic:
http://i38.tinypic.com/2u458p0.jpg

Here's a tip, if you're going to debate in this thread read all of http://wiki.ironchariots.org/ and http://rationalwiki.com/ just so you don't post stupid arguments that have been debunked a million times before.

last edited by Mantorok at 12:08:40 20/Sep/09

most, if not all, arguments in this thread have been supposedly debunked already, from both sides.
It all depends on your approach and your presuppositions. If you approach an idea assuming that its wrong, of course your gonna find fault with it.

You're God's bitch, Zy.

Or maybe God's your bitch?....

Except the Judeo-Christian god is meant to omniscient, so he knows what will happen. This means free will is an illusion, and God is punishing people for s*** he knew they would do before he even created anything.

Don't waste your time, Mantorok. Do you really think somebody dumb enough to believe the bible is going to be able to understand determinism?

Free will is not an illusion. God knows the outcome but he gives you the choice. Without the choice, you would be forced.

Euphoria we can't put a time/condition on the second coming. It says in the Bible only the father knows.

Well, I didn't say when or why, I just mentioned one of the more obvious items on God's checklist before he pushes the big red stop button. He knew before he created the universe who would be saved. That's the whole pre-destiny concept - so it makes sense that he'll wait till everyone who will choose him has the opportunity to do so.

Don't waste your time, Mantorok. Do you really think somebody dumb enough to believe the bible is going to be able to understand determinism?

It's interesting how many people somehow equate being religious with being uneducated or unintelligent. It's an extremely arrogant and inaccurate view. And such statements about philosophical views always make me think of Romans 1:22 "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools".

Free will is not an illusion. God knows the outcome but he gives you the choice. Without the choice, you would be forced.

If he knows the outcome, he knows our choice. If he already knows the choice we are going to take, is it really a choice?

You cant have both destiny and choice.

It's interesting how many people somehow equate being religious with being uneducated or unintelligent. It's an extremely arrogant and inaccurate view.

If someone believes in a fantasy history, even if this was the product of their 'education', and their mind is so impaired years later that they haven't figured out it's a lie, then what are we to say about such people?

Nobody is saying it's their fault, but they are poorly educated on these matters and their intelligence has clearly suffered if they can't think rationally as a result.

Watched Ben Hur last week. Awesome movie.
Jesus appears in it a few times but they never show his face.
Anyone that sees Jesus "knows this man"

You wont find a bigger Atheist than I am but I love those old Jewish Religious Hollywood movies. They really must have been powerful movie experiences back in the day.
Ten Commandments is still the best. Heston and Yul Brynner awesome stuff.

pug is more real then god, he's the leader of the conclave of secrets!

sigh.. it gets a bit wearing trying to argue a point politely when you are constantly referred to as unintelligent because of your beliefs.

but that's pretty much what everyone thinks. sorry, guy. it's ok you can just brush it off with the persecution/martyr complex most religious people seem to have.

And such statements about philosophical views always make me think of Romans 1:22 "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools".

I liked the bit in Narnia where Prince Caspian discourages Eustace from using foul language.

it gets a bit wearing trying to argue a point politely when you are constantly referred to as unintelligent because of your beliefs.

Because you haven't learnt why you're wrong.

It all depends on your approach and your presuppositions. If you approach an idea assuming that its wrong, of course your gonna find fault with it.

well I was on your side of the fence until my early-mid teens - grew up under a religious father, 3 church sessions a week, doorknocking on weekends, public speaking - basically it was my life. I didn't assume the idea of the bible was wrong, in fact I assumed it was right.

It wasn't until I was 13 or 14 or so that I ever even questioned it at all and even when I did and found the answers the church was giving me were flimsy at best, it still took a few years to completely break free of the shackles of the brainwashing, I was probably 18 or 19 before I pretty much acknowledged to myself that the whole thing was a crock of s*** and that I'd wasted so much of the time in my life thus far on essentially nothing.

So... I'm not approaching the idea assuming it's wrong - I used to believe the idea myself and realised it was wrong.

Look I'm not trying to say "oh noes you is hurtingz me'z i is crying to my mummy now kthxbai" (the martyr thing) I am just tiring of this argument because i realize that I believe what I believe and you believe what you believe. I don't think what we say is gonna change each other's views.

it gets a bit wearing trying to argue a point politely when you are constantly referred to as unintelligent because of your beliefs.

Because you haven't learnt why you're wrong.

Thats the attitude that this thread was referring to.

pug is more real then god, he's the leader of the conclave of secrets!

its the conclave of shadows

Skuzz, you live in Australia. Can you give an explanation for how all the species of native animals made it to the Middle East so they could ride on Noah's Ark? I'd be very interested to hear about wombats building rafts that can survive travelling half way around the world.

Oh wait, that couldn't possibly happen but the Bible still isn't wrong.

There was an aboriginal Noah obviously.

obviously they rode on sea turtles.

no, that is a good question. researching now :)

Obviously the real god is the rainbow serpent

While you're researching, figure out how:
1. Freshwater fish didn't die from the changes to water chemistry when flooding caused lakes, rivers, and streams to be joined with oceans.
2. All forms of plant life survived underwater for a year.

Ok I found something (it didn't take long) and i'll agree these are just hypothetical, in the end we can't know for sure.

If we assume that the story of noah is true then we can assume that there was a massive world wide flood which would have drastic effects on the world. ie change in temperates and environments and possibly change in the landmasses. In short, we can safely say that the pre-flood world was vastly different.

So really, the kangaroos and penguins and polar bears and whatever else doesn't live where noah was may not have been separated by water at all and may have lived where noah was. The earth could have been made up of one continent (a pretty common theory, gondwana or something) and so the 'roos could have just hopped on board. Alternatively the 'roos could have lived in the middle east alongside noah.

Again this is just a possibility, I dunno for sure, however I do believe that there is evidence of a world wide flood actually happening sometime in the earth's past.

While you're researching, figure out how: 1. Freshwater fish didn't die from the changes to water chemistry when flooding caused lakes, rivers, and streams to be joined with oceans. 2. All forms of plant life survived underwater for a year.

oh man... /sigh

ok..

sry for double post btw

last edited by Skuzz at 20:22:43 20/Sep/09

Pangaea was the single land mass supercontinent, and it broke into Laurasia and Gondwana during the mid Jurassic period. So either you believe humans co-existed with dinosaurs and Noah had some Megalosauruses on board (which magically didn't eat him or any other animals), or you believe it happened in a modern world and animals had to cross the sea.

last edited by Mantorok at 20:11:44 20/Sep/09

I think you'll find that fitting every f***ing animal in the world on a boat is a load of bulls***.

NO, BUT YOU HAS TO HAVE FAITH!!!@@@11.

Wow mantorok.. set me a doosy there. Though i did still find something.

First i think we should note this:

any suggestion that fresh-water fish could not have survived in a post-Flood world assumes three things not in evidence: (1) that the salinity of the oceans and seas in Noah’s day was the same as the salinity of those today; (2) that fresh-water fish cannot live in diluted salt water; and (3) that the ability of water-living creatures in Noah’s day to survive in saline environments was the same as that of creatures found in today’s oceans and seas.

Source

This can basically be summed up again by saying that we don't know for sure, but there is a definite possibility. Apparently (I did not know this) many species of fish can survive in both saline/non-saline environments and that all species of fish invariably adapt to their surroundings.

Today the oceans are 3.6% salt. With the hydrologic cycle the oceans could easily go from fresh water to 3.6% salt in less than 5,000 years. The animals can adapt to a little bit of salt in the water over that amount of time no problem. So the animals that were in the flood were all fresh water animals. Today there is a distinction that was not needed before the flood, ie. fresh water and salt water.

Source

I'm sry i couldn't really find any truly unbiased sources in my 15mins of research. But i hope this at least makes sense to you.
I'll move onto the plant one..
You know rather than bombard me with these questions, you guys could open your minds a bit and have a gander at the old google yourself.

edit: wording.

last edited by Skuzz at 20:18:39 20/Sep/09

this argument is completely futile. i love yaz all though.

LOL, Skuzz's posts are so amusing. I can't work out if he's trolling or not.



last edited by Crizane Tribal at 20:31:22 20/Sep/09

Couldn't be arsed writing a long winded one, but seeds.

seeds can survive and plant again.

vid made me lol. I'm sure there are idiots on both sides of the argument.

in answer to the other questions, yeah i believe there were some dinosaurs on the ark, and yes i believe there were 2 of every type of animal on the ark. (2 dogs, 2 cats, etc. not 2 of every breed)

or maybe...
http://hippiekiller.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/troll.jpg

With the hydrologic cycle the oceans could easily go from fresh water to 3.6% salt in less than 5,000 years.

Thanks for providing a timeline for when you think the flood happened: circa 3000BC. Good to know that all the ancient cultures around at that time were wiped out, and then Noah's descendants went out into the world and started them up again because they were such good sports.

...you guys could open your minds a bit and have a gander at the old google yourself.

I was raised Christian, opening my mind made me realise it was false.

seeds can survive and plant again.

Not all seeds can survive. Also, what did the herbivores eat while they waited for the plants to regrow? Obviously Noah had food on the ark (including meat that didn't rot for all those carnivores), but they probably exhausted that supply.

last edited by Mantorok at 20:47:43 20/Sep/09

uhh mantorok, don't you know that the dinosaurs and other carnivores just ate other animals and those animals just didn't exist after the ark came back down from the flood, jeez

funky - Noah took seven of every "kind/sort"* of clean animal and two of every "kind/sort" of unclean animal. He slaughtered the extra clean animals once he got off the ark and made them into burnt offerings for God.

* Very vague what this actually means, did he have all breeds of dogs or just wolves? If the latter, how did we domesticate dogs into various breeds so quickly? This is also a problem in humans, we have too much genetic variation to have two common ancestors 5,000 years ago.

last edited by Mantorok at 21:06:25 20/Sep/09

Also, what about closely related species of animals which do not breed, but have not yet speciated? Dawkins gives an example in The Ancestors Tale of 2 breeds of bird living in this valley. The birds look the same, can cross breed and produce perfectly healthy offspring, but their songs are every so slightly different and they avoid interbreeding. Would Noah have to take both species?

i believe there were 2 of every type of animal on the ark. (2 dogs, 2 cats, etc. not 2 of every breed)

So the types of animals changed over time to look like the ones we have today? One might even say... evolved. Take THAT, evolution-denying creationists!

Dunno if i agree with the 3000 years estimate. Through recounting the genealogies in the Bible, they've estimated that the earth is approx 6000-10000 yrs old. I dunno how old the earth was when we had the flood, but my argument assumes its somewhere within those limits.

the question on feed, lol I found this answer which amused me. I won't deny it's possible.

Dinosaurs could have eaten basically the same foods as the other animals. The large sauropods could have eaten compressed hay, other dried plant material, seeds and grains, and the like. Carnivorous dinosaurs—if any were meat-eaters before the Flood—could have eaten dried meat, reconstituted dried meat, or slaughtered animals. Giant tortoises would have been ideal to use as food in this regard. They were large and needed little food to be maintained themselves. There are also exotic sources of meat, such as fish that wrap themselves in dry cocoons.

source
It was a big boat, plenty of room for storage.

All the different cultures in the world I believe came about after the incident at the tower of Babel which happened after the flood. (another day, another argument)

I heard a lecture by Ken Ham (big creationist guy. i'm sure you guys would hate him) where he was talking about the different types of animals. He was saying that within each "kind" of animal is the genetic information for many different breeds. Otherwise known as the genetic potential for variation.

It is possible for a pair of animals to harbor nearly all of the alleles (variations of a type of gene) for their kind in their genome.

source

Going along the same lines, if we assume that Adam and Eve existed, that means that within those 2 people is all the genetic information for all the different looking people in the world today.

so how many different species of dinosaur were there on the ark?

All the different cultures in the world I believe came about after the incident at the tower of Babel which happened after the flood. (another day, another argument)

The problem here is various cultures existed before 10,000 years ago. They were there before the flood would've happened. So they would have been wiped out, and after the Tower of Babel people would have to migrate and take up these cultures again.

It is possible for a pair of animals to harbor nearly all of the alleles (variations of a type of gene) for their kind in their genome.

For blood type, you have at least seventy different alleles which are to be contained within two pairs (one in Adam, one in Eve). 4/70 is about 0.057, not even close to 1 so there's no way a pair of individuals contained almost all the genetic variation. And blood type is just a simple example.

haha I'm just picturing this tardis style ark that can magically fit 2 of all 2 million species of animal currently known to science.

wait moses was jewish yeah

then he wouldnt have had pigs on his boat would he

Everyone knows that Morgan Freeman is God.

http://www.nerve.com/CS/blogs/theremoteisland/2009/04/morgan-freeman.jpg

I haven't read this thread, but it's safe to assume you're all f*****s, correct?

And to think, I just finished watching I Now Pronounce You Chuck And Larry..

Snap.

I haven't read this thread, but it's safe to assume you're all f*****s, correct?

Chucklef***s, actually.

Edit: HTML oopsy!

chucklef*** is over we're back to f*****

whats the score now on religion vs reality?

447 - 0??

so over this argument although can prove lulz at times.

Do you know what happens when you inbreed? You get creationists.

Hahaha.

Every single discussion about religion always ends up being about creationism. I'm going to throw a few replies in for old times sake and then I'm out.

Very vague what this actually means, did he have all breeds of dogs or just wolves? If the latter, how did we domesticate dogs into various breeds so quickly?

Probably just wolves (or a wolfish-type of animal that's now extinct - can't be bothered searching for information specific to dogs/wolves). Thousands of years is plenty of time. Look how quick new dog breeds are cranked out through selective breeding.

So the types of animals changed over time to look like the ones we have today? One might even say... evolved. Take THAT, evolution-denying creationists!

Creationists don't dispute evolution within kinds of animals. It's an observed scientific fact. We do dispute what we call macro-evolution. A dog plus a dog can't make a horse. Never has, never will. Selectively breed all kinds of dogs for as long as you like and you'll end up with a dog. And selective breeding results in a loss of information, which is the wrong way to support the theory of evolution.

The birds look the same, can cross breed and produce perfectly healthy offspring, but their songs are every so slightly different and they avoid interbreeding. Would Noah have to take both species?

How about there was one type of bird and the two versions of song evolved after? Birds can quickly learn new songs - there's one bird that's great at mimicking the sound of a chainsaw.

RE: old cultures being "restarted": Everything we see, all cultures, archaeology are from post-flood. Everything was wiped out. The current land versus sea masses are all post-flood. The description of the flood is that the fountains of the deep burst open - there were massive bodies of water under the land around the world. The surface cracked open, water came shooting up (causing rain in the process) and the world got covered entirely by water. All the sediments sank to the bottom and formed into nice layers to confuse future geologists. At the end of the flood, valleys sank and mountains raised up and the water rushed off... to form oceans and continents. Hey presto, no more old buildings for people to move into to restart cultures. Interestingly, when the Russians drilled the deepest hole in the world they discovered that the rocks down there were supersaturated with water - something that had not been expected at those temperatures and pressures. Did they find evidence of the fountains of the deep? Dunno, maybe.

when the Russians drilled the deepest hole in the world they discovered that the rocks down there were supersaturated with water - something that had not been expected at those temperatures and pressures

references ?
or as they say in the classics ... pics or lying.

My god you are so full of s*** euph it is unbelievable.

if all cultures were wiped out by the flood.. then how did the inter-breeding sons & daughters of noah re-populate the aztec, the egyptians, the celts, the mongols n all the other ancient cultures. christians rekn that noah only took his family... so that means they in-bred... great way to get mutations happening fast i guess :P

just as an fyi for the readers... christians also believe that noah was 600years old at the time of the flood & lived to be 950years old... what a trooper! then, despite rapidly improving medical knowledge, lifespans dropped off rapidly... which is why noah's grandkids aren't here to tell the tale themselves ;D

tis a wilder tale than most fictions i've read :P

Is there any evidence of this flood other than some crusty old book that says so? No. Do you believe that the world is flat as well?

christians should be pro-incest. look how well noah and his family did.

also don't forget

Genesis 20:12 And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.

Genesis 17:15 And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be. (Sarah is Abraham's sister)

Genesis 17:16 And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her.

Exodus 6:20 And Amram took him Jochebed his father’s sister to wife; and she bare him Aaron and Moses: and the years of the life of Amram were an hundred and thirty and seven years.

A dog plus a dog can't make a horse. Never has, never will. Selectively breed all kinds of dogs for as long as you like and you'll end up with a dog.

Its lines like this that just make you look silly, you oversimplify evolution, with the dog+dog=horse line, stupid people, or people who realy want to believe you take lines like this as so called proof, but realy it just makes you look dumb.

Nothing wrong with believing in any kind of Religion, if thats what you want to do, but taking things literely from the bible is a bit silly, arent they just meant to be tales that you read and learn from and apply to your life to be a better person or something.

Remember that Christians believed in a flat earth until the proof got so undeniable that they had to change there beliefs. Evolution and an earth that is billions of years old is a bit harder to prove to people because you cant just show them a picture of a round earth and go there, look its round.

show them a picture of a round earth and go there, look its round.

dude, those pictures were shopped.

The earth is hollow, you can get in to the inner earth via the poles. They are way more advanced then us have grey skin, big eyes and love to probe dumb f*** farmers and cows in the ass.

It's a government coverup

You can see it in the nasa photo
http://www.burlingtonnews.net/hollow_earth_2.jpg

Religious folk have been proven wrong by science again and again, and it's not going to stop any time soon. They changed their tune when the Earth was proven to be round, they changed their tune when it was revealed that the Earth was not the center of the universe, and more recently, they changed their tune when the Vatican admitted the existence of evolution and validated Darwin's theories.

However, unlike science, which updates its theories whenever something more logically sound is discovered, religion always denies anything contradictory until the overwhelming truth reaches critical mass, and they realise that they have to adapt to survive.

^ or for people like euph, make up even more lies to keep the good times rolling.

Every single discussion about religion always ends up being about creationism.

If religious people dislike debates about creationism, maybe they should stop claiming a deity created the universe.

they changed their tune when the Vatican admitted the existence of evolution and validated Darwin's theories.

They validated it ? because it wasn't valid before then ? ...

It wasn't valid to the church.

the church

Which church ?

I dunno, the old one that thought the world was flat.

Which church ?

Roman Catholic. That's obvious from the whole Vatican thing.

Evolution and an earth that is billions of years old is a bit harder to prove to people because you cant just show them a picture of a round earth and go there, look its round.

It's round cause we f***en took pictures and videos and you can even see it in a plane at high altitude. Again, PROVEN TIME AND TIME AGAIN.

They validated it ? because it wasn't valid before then ? ...

You know what I mean. They accepted it as no longer being in conflict with their beliefs.

It's round cause we f***en took pictures and videos and you can even see it in a plane at high altitude. Again, PROVEN TIME AND TIME AGAIN.

Yeah i know dude, thats what I was saying, what im getting at is showing that the earth is round by taking pictures is pretty hard to refute, where as if you try to show evolution, its a bit harder, especialy when the people dont understand the science of dont want to understand the science.

You know the catholic church never banned Darwins book.
Considers Intelligent design to be more a belief system then science.
And were on the evolution bandwagon not long after Darwin published his book (or at least decided that both bandwagons were happy together), tho they did resist the idea of being the great ^1000 grand child of a mutant monkey until recently.

They did learn from mistakes like Galileo.

tho they did resist the idea of being the great ^1000 grand child of a mutant monkey until recently.

That was my point.

Do you know what happens when you inbreed? You get creationists.

Did you know Darwin married his cousin?

Maybe he deserved a Darwin award.. wait..?

why won't anyone tell me how many different species of dinosaur there were on the ark >:(

Because it wasn't written in their fairy tale book.

Here is a hypothetical question for religious people: if you were the only person who held your beliefs... ie. you had the only copy of the bible ever written, and no-one else ever bothered to read it and only you did, would you still hold onto your faith so dearly? Would you still believe that the world was only 6000 (or whatever) years old, and that dragons were on a giant boat two thirds the size of the titanic, and all the other obviously impossible stuff, if it was you who just believed it? If you answered no you'd be correct. If you answered yes, you're a liar.

I guess the counter to this question is would I believe in God if his existence was proved without doubt. The answer is yes, but just like the situation I outlined it is an impossible scenario. I guess the main point I am making is that religious people believe these obviously made up things (although some people like euph try to use logic that borders on the infantile to rationalise them into existence) but rely on the strength of all the other millions of duymb c***s believing it, whereas if we on the other side were proven wrong we'd admit it.

A dog plus a dog can't make a horse. Never has, never will. Selectively breed all kinds of dogs for as long as you like and you'll end up with a dog.

I think everybody in this thread just got dumber from reading that...

Imagine you have a little animal... let's call it a Munchy, because it spends most of its time eating because it's a herbivore. Munchies are a bit like a horse. Now imagine the happy Munchy kingdom is ripped asunder (I shall tell this narrative in a fairy tale style, as religious people seem to love fairy tales). Some catastrophic event has caused the Munchy population to be split up into two completely isolated populations; one in a cool environment with fewer trees and the other in a warmer environment with lots of trees and lots of other grass eating animals.

The Munchies in the cooler climate are facing different selection pressures. Cold environments encourage shorter limbs, as this allows for less heat loss. Individuals with shorter legs would lose less heat, so they would have more energy to spare for mating and taking care of their offspring. Over time, this slight advantage would allow shorter-legged Munchies to breed more successfully, causing the average leg-length in cold Munchies to decrease. This decreased leg size also gets Munchies closer to the grass, their most abundant food source, so it's win-win. The population develops shorter legs, and probably other features like long hair. This is your 'micro evolution', yes?

The munchies in the warm environment weren't having an easy time of things either. There's more competition for good grass to eat... but there's plenty of trees around with not many animals eating them! Unfortunately, not all the Munchies can reach the leaves well. Those munchies with longer necks would have an advantage in terms of acquiring food. This improves their survival fitness and allows them to be more successful at breeding. Hot-climate munchies start growing longer legs. However, holding up these long necks uses a fair bit of energy. Those Munchies with longer neck vertebrae have a slight advantage, as they're relying on bone more to hold up their heads rather than muscle. This saves energy, allowing them to be more successful.

Tens of thousands of generations pass, with warm climate Munchies passing on their long vertebrae DNA. By now, the DNA which controls the development of their necks has changed considerably. A slight deviation being constantly favoured over a long period of time has resulted in considerable change. Other things change too. Long, slender legs are advantageous as they allow extra height and heat dispersion. Shorter hair also helps the Munchies expel excess heat.

Now, there's something about DNA you probably don't understand if you don't believe in evolution. People often say DNA is a 'blueprint' for building an organism. While this helps the layman grasp the concept, it is not the most accurate analogy. DNA is much more like an instructional manual. It's more like a step-by-step guide to building a house than a schematic drawing. It tells the body when to produce different cells at different stages, when to release certain chemicals, what ratio of chemicals to put in something else etc.

So, after a million years of separation, the separated Munchies are reunited by an environmental change. However, the Munchies don't really recognise each other. The cold-climate Munchies have become short and stocky, with their DNA telling them to build short, thick bones and long hair. They look much like a pony, so let's call them Munchonies now. The warm-climate Munchies have become tall and slender. Their DNA tells them to build long, thin bones and short hair. They look kind of like a giraffe, so let's call them Muncheraffes. The reunited Munchies get along OK, since they now eat different things, but apart from that they don't pay much attention to each other.

One day, a Muncheraffe eats a bit confused in the heat of his passion and accidentally breeds with a Munchony. His sperm reaches the egg and gets in OK, but that's when disaster strikes! The DNA of the two different parents is giving instructions which are far too different or contradictory. The result is an organism which cannot function, and dies very quickly. It's like if I were trying to tell you how to build a house, while reading instructions from two different books which are in a different order. If you try to put stilts in after the cement has hardened, your building is going to fail.

OH NO, SPECIATION HAS OCCURRED! The little changes in the populations have resulted in massive change. These changes have caused the DNA between Muncheraffes and Munchonies to be far too different to produce viable offspring!

Don't be sad though, because the Muncheraffes and Munchonies still get along OK, and even hang out together in mixed groups for safety in numbers... but I'll leave game theory for another time.

Evolution ftw.

more stories about munchies please asap.

Sorry, the US state of Kansas school board made me write a church-approved version of the Munchies tale which is more in line with Christian views. Here goes:


A wizard did it.

munch munch munch on muncheros

CT: dude that was one of the best posts I have ever read!

Here's a Wholly Trinity for you....

Good: God('s?)
Neutral: Science('s?)
Evil: Devil('s?)

Prime number right there.

Nice Crizane, nice

Matt Bellamy over there ------->
is pointing to you Crizane and he wants more Munchtales.

A wizard did it.

The US would probably want it to be called a "sorcerer" or something different. (ie the first harry potter book name change)

I nominate Crizane for post of the year!!

http://media1.break.com/dnet/media/2009/9/82 Kanye Doing What He Does Best.jpg

^ hahahaha!!!! First one of those that really made me laugh.

hahah rav

Awesome post, Crizane. I'd like pictures of Munchies, Munchonies and Muncheraffes ASAP.

Vote +1 Crizane and ravnOs have a baby. The ultimate posting machine.

Much lolz.

But crizane, could I get a source from you that supports the munch-erraffe-onies theory?

Not sure if i agree entirely with whats being said, if at all.

But crizane, could I get a source from you that supports the munch-erraffe-onies theory?

origin of the species by charles darwin might be a good start :D

Skuzz - there is a wikipedia article detailing the exact history of our own evolution step by step, from ears to urine - it is fascinating how these things were invented.

invented.

ISWYDT

Aside from all life itself being evidence. More recent examples speciation you can find through the Cichlids of Africa, Finches of Galapago, Salamanders in North America amongst many others. Species tend to fill niches that are available in the ecosystem and that accounts for a large proportion of diversity. Otherwise you have to ask the question why would a god make thousands of species that essentially do exactly the same thing in the ecosystem when he could just make one?

If you want to actually look at what evolution is and the evidence for it being the reality for our existence before deciding that you don't agree with it. Aside from Origin of Species, I would recommend The Ancestors Tale by Richard Dawkins and I'm also told "The greatest show on earth" by him is also quite good. While he can be a bit over the top on the athiesm side of things in his other works, he is an evolutionary biologist by trade and he knows his s*** when he writes about that.

Maybe go in with that open mind you seem to think none of the rest of us possess.


last edited by Fireman Sam at 17:39:48 22/Sep/09

HAHA, I'm glad my tale was so well accepted. Believe it or not, illustrations are incoming.

What really annoys me though, is how christians can't just f*** off and be christians somewhere else. Why does Christianity have to pervade our schools, legal system and government? They still read the lord's prayer in parliament... I find that outrageous. They force school children to take an hour of religious (christian) education in school. Swearing on the bible is still the default method of signing in Jurors. You have to REQUEST affirmation, as if my word and bond are secondary to swearing on a silly bunch of fairy tales.

If creationists want to fight science so much (particularly evolution), stop giving them antibiotics. Or better yet, only give them ones that worked 50 years ago but don't anymore. Why don't they work anymore? Surely it's not evolution...

What really annoys me though, is how christians can't just f*** off and be christians somewhere else. Why does Christianity have to pervade our schools, legal system and government? They still read the lord's prayer in parliament... I find that outrageous. They force school children to take an hour of religious (christian) education in school. Swearing on the bible is still the default method of signing in Jurors. You have to REQUEST affirmation, as if my word and bond are secondary to swearing on a silly bunch of fairy tales.

I don't think this is a Christian only thing. If we where a nation who was built by a majority .. say .. Celtic Druid population we would probably be burning some herbs before parliament sits, kids would be wearing robes and carrying staffs to Druid school heh.

Edit:

From a page back

You know the catholic church never banned Darwins book.
Considers Intelligent design to be more a belief system then science.
And were on the evolution bandwagon not long after Darwin published his book (or at least decided that both bandwagons were happy together), tho they did resist the idea of being the great ^1000 grand child of a mutant monkey until recently.

Yeah, I'd say the Catholic Church is one of the more forward thinking on the majority of topics. They're not exactly American Christian nutters (Baptists etc).

last edited by Syco at 21:39:24 22/Sep/09

I went to a Catholic private school, Religion stayed in Religion class. I didn't even mind religion classes, got to learn a lot about other cultures and their belief systems.

Don't get me wrong guys, if I see irrefutable evidence that proves the theory of evolution is true, then by all means I'll hop right in that bandwagon, but I am yet to be convinced.

From what I've studied Creationism is a more logical and plausible scenario. (I expect a lot of backlash on that statement :S)
I'll lay that down to my Christian upbringing, which I still standby and believe.

And thermite when has wiki ever been a reliable source?

http://photos-f.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs201.snc1/6822_139877546085_674836085_3179109_3480421_n.jpg

last edited by Skuzz at 01:36:43 23/Sep/09

From what I've studied Creationism is a more logical and plausible scenario. (I expect a lot of backlash on that statement :S)

I think that not believing in evolution is a kind of insult to God. It would take far more skill and elligence, a God-like knowledge of the universe, to have a system such as evolution come into play. Not only have it come into play, but making it do so with the the rules that govern the entire universe. Not only that, but have it work out to create Humans many, many millions of years after you flick the universe into being, God's Plan if you will.

Now that would could only be done on purpose by a God.

Don't get me wrong guys, if I see irrefutable evidence that proves the theory of evolution is true, then by all means I'll hop right in that bandwagon, but I am yet to be convinced.

then you're either totally full of s***, haven't actually read a book in your life (apart from the bible) or are so incredibly stupid there's no hope for you.

sorry to be a c***, but it's true.

i think it's funny that skuzz seems to think you have to believe in evolution

like it's a god that no one has ever seen or something

i don't know about you, but there is far more evidence of evolution around than a man in the clouds that hears your prayers that no one has ever seen before

why the f*** are you all even trying to prove anything to these clowns (skuzz, euphoria etc)? they are the ones that should have something to prove to us (the mystical man in the sky, that no one has ever seen)

last edited by paveway at 07:50:46 23/Sep/09

Don't get me wrong guys, if I see irrefutable evidence that proves the theory of evolution is true

ask yourself why you expect so much more of evolution than you do of theology. look at the emotional attachment there, and what you think you'd stand to lose by letting go of those beliefs

can i see some irrefutable evidence that your god exists first plz

From what I've studied Creationism is a more logical and plausible scenario

Where do you get your shrooms, man? I want in.

From what I've studied Creationism is a more logical and plausible scenario.

Well then read something other than the f***ing Bible.

^ This.

Creationism is no more plausible than Alice In Wonderland.

An illustrated, updated version of Munchies - an evolutionary tale is available here.

Don't get me wrong guys, if I see irrefutable evidence that proves the theory of evolution is true, then by all means I'll hop right in that bandwagon, but I am yet to be convinced.

But crizane, could I get a source from you that supports the munch-erraffe-onies theory?

Not sure if i agree entirely with whats being said, if at all.

Start here. When reading through this topic, there are a lot of big words and concepts that don't involve a magical sky wizard. If you need any help understanding anything, let me know.

Edit: Link fixed.

last edited by Crizane Tribal at 17:51:29 23/Sep/09

your link doesnt work crizane

edit: works now

last edited by ravn0s at 18:06:47 23/Sep/09

I expected a lot of these comments. But, at least you guys know where I stand. Unfortunately every piece of evidence I have ever witnessed or read about which supports the theory of evolution has been flimsy at best. If you guys have any evidence that is entirely conclusive please spell it out to me like I'm a six year old.

Zy I think you can see people really aren't going easy on me.

And Jim I definitely agree with what you said. I absolutely have an emotional attachment to the theory of creationism because I was brought up with it, but like I say, I am yet to be dissuaded.

Paveway if you read back you'll see that this discussion has covered both sides of the argument to some degree.

Whatever happened to tolerance guys? Instead of telling me what a dumbass you think I am and how full of s*** my beliefs are, how about some polite intelligent rebuttal? I just started posting here and so far it has been enjoyable, I would really like to continue in this forum.

If you'll permit me, I have another question. Supposing evolution is true and we started out as fish, made our way to monkey and then climbed down to human, where did our ethics and morality come from? You can't deny that everyone has some sense of justice (Both the twisted and the innocent), but where did it originate and whats keeping it there?

hey skuzz you are free to believe whatever retarded theory you want. you're ok in my books.

If you guys have any evidence that is entirely conclusive please spell it out to me like I'm a six year old.

Influenza virus. Living, rapidly evolving organisms.

but where did it originate and whats keeping it there?

It's a mutation just like everything else, and because it increases chances of successful reproduction it spread.

skuzz:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_%28ethics%29

...have some info and a lot of references - you can cross check most of the references with the help of the googles too

Supposing evolution is true and we started out as fish, made our way to monkey and then climbed down to human, where did our ethics and morality come from? You can't deny that everyone has some sense of justice (Both the twisted and the innocent), but where did it originate and whats keeping it there?

Behaviour is also an evolutionary product. How our brains are structured and how they work is a result of evolution. Not raping and murdering is beneficial to us all, as it allows us all to get along. Lions don't kill each other for food. Do you think they have a god? Any person who kills others with little reason will be shunned by the rest of society out of fear. A human on the savannah (where we evolved) has very poor survival prospects on their own.

It sickens and disgusts me if you need a thousand year old book of tales to tell you what is right or wrong. Do you honestly lack the intellectual, emotional and ethical integrity to realise simple universal morals and ethics on your own? I don't want to be killed, so I shouldn't kill other people. I don't want my stuff to be stolen, so I won't steal from others. I don't need a book to tell me to be honest, to respect my elders or not to rape people. It's the golden rule; treat others as you wish to be treated.

A male lion will, however, kill the cubs of another male. This too is a mechanism to ensure that they pass on their own genes. The male lion is just doing the best he can to ensure that his genes survive. I think you'll find most parents would kill another person to save their own child. Hell, the only reason I ever think I would kill another person for is to protect a family member. This doesn't make me or a lion immoral, it makes us genetically fit. Look up the statistics of child abuse. Children are FAR more likely to be abused by a step parent. It's not that humans are inherently evil, we're just animals. Is a wolf evil for killing a rabbit to eat? No.

Evolutionary psychology is an incredibly complex yet interesting topic, but if you can't grasp the fundamentals of evolution you will fail to understand EP.

Unfortunately every piece of evidence I have ever witnessed or read about which supports the theory of evolution has been flimsy at best.

No, your understanding of it or your mental capabilities are flimsy at best.

Zy, do you not believe in Micro-evolution either?

Also, why are the more backward Christians (Baptists, Evangelicals etc etc) so opposed to change? Why try to explain away science in some pretty crazy ways? Why can't they take a leaf out of the Catholic book. When something is proven otherwise to current beliefs say 'yep, we agree with you, it does work that way, just as God intended'.

Unfortunately every piece of evidence I have ever witnessed or read about which supports the theory of evolution has been flimsy at best.

Coming from a person who thinks some dude named Noah managed to round up 2-4 million animals and chuck them all in a big wooden boat before some huge kill-everything flood from some "almighty" dude...

JST A LITTLE FLIMSY DONTCHA REKUN

Paveway if you read back you'll see that this discussion has covered both sides of the argument to some degree.

spell it out to me like a 6 year old

Unfortunately every piece of evidence I have ever witnessed or read about which supports the theory of evolution has been flimsy at best.

No, your understanding of it or your mental capabilities are flimsy at best.

Pretty much exactly what I was going to say.

Skuzz, if you truly can't follow the logic of the post Crizane made about the Munchonies and Mucnheraffes, then there's really no point in you posting here anymore. You're conveniently disregarding every well thought-out post that's been presented to you, which is not the way to get your point across. We're not being mean (well, not all of us), we're just dumbfounded.

Skuzz, if you truly can't follow the logic of the post Crizane made about the Munchonies and Mucnheraffes, then there's really no point in you posting here anymore.

Yeah, I even drew pictures just for you, Skuzz :(

Humans evolved a different language to snakes, that's why today we can eat apples without being deported. I just don't get how creationists can say they can't see proof of evolution but will happily accept that women are made from ribs and even claim that it's somehow more logical. There isn't enough matter in a single rib to create a whole person, in fact there is only enough to create one rib. Never ever sully the term logic with whatever you call the operation of your mind again.

Evolution itself isn't a theory, it is an observable occurrence. The theory is what we evolved from, not that we evolved at all. I'd agree with you if you said there is no irrefutable proof that we evolved from chimpanzees, but there is real tangible evidence that we did in fact evolve. From what, who knows but denying evolution completely because you feel it refutes your religion is like a 6 year old child with their hands over their ears calling out "la la la" because they don't want to hear that they came from mummies vagina and would rather continue to believe that they were delivered by a stork. Eventually you grow up and accept the undeniable truth or don't and live a life hiding from reality.

Your choice.

ps I only read the last page, when did this become a 13 page thread?

Skuzz, isn't it interesting to see how indoctrinated the general population is regarding evolution? I can't help but smile when people defend statements and assertions that, in the strictest sense, have nothing to do with science but are essentially points of an evolutionary belief system.

The whole evolutionary worldview is defended with religious fervour by its adherents. They're quick to say "but my science tells me so" when the conclusions they're basing their faith on have very little to do with facts and a whole lot to do with the interpretation of those facts – complexity is added to complexity, quickly abstracting and concealing the reality that much of the basics of evolution are still in the “seems to”, the “we think that”, and the “could have happened” statements. Minor changes are put forward as proof for major ones, where no such evidence exists.

Because I acknowledge and realise my worldview is one of faith, I have at times in my life had to seriously consider whether my belief system stands up against what the majority view is. I have naturally questioned the validity of what the bible states. The benefit of such exercises seems to be an ability to identity fact versus interpretation, baseless assertions versus proven conclusions. I honestly doubt if many non-believers ever fully remove their pre-conceptions about religion when looking at how much data truly supports the creationist view. They seem to stumble at even contemplating that there could be a creator, while clinging to the even more fantastic idea that everything came from nothing and life evolved from water that fell on rocks and became goop (oh and the magical ingredient of time, lots of time).

Who are the more deluded? Those who can see the line between a belief system and science, or those who can’t?

I apologise that this post has perhaps come off sounding rather arrogant, it is not my intent. I just can’t be bothered retyping it. Flame on people, flame on. :)

BTW, nice post with the Munchonies and Mucnheraffes, Crizane – good story, well written (it didn’t need the pictures). How about the prequel: “from sea to land”, and the sequel: “from walking to flight”.

oh man you are too much.

reckon
a special kind of ignorant

Short answer Euphoria

those who are religious are the deluded ones

haha bible

baseless assertions versus proven conclusions.

Proven conclusions pretty sums up the entire idea of Science.

Baseless assertions pretty sums up Creationism.

I have at times in my life had to seriously consider whether my belief system stands up against what the majority view is.

That's something else that annoys me; the Christian "we're marginalised" complaint. After whites, Christians are the most over-represented group in Australia. Christians are the largest religious group in the country (outnumbering atheists) and they hold most seats of power. Good luck trying to become Prime Minister of Australia or President of the United States as an atheist. Christians have no right to claim they are a minority, marginalised or discriminated against.

Skuzz, isn't it interesting to see how indoctrinated the general population is regarding evolution? I can't help but smile when people defend statements and assertions that, in the strictest sense, have nothing to do with science but are essentially points of an evolutionary belief system.

Just because you ignore or are physically incapable of understanding the glaring scientific proof and overwhelming abundance of evidence does not mean evolution is a matter of faith. There is observable, scientific proof of evolution. Why are there bacteria that can resist antibiotics that would have killed them 50 years ago? Because they have evolved. There was a news story last year about a team who had cultivated bacteria for 30 years and documented the changes which had occured, including speciation within a single strain. The data is available if you can find it, you can even request culture samples to test for yourself.

Or, you know, you can keep sitting there with your eyes shut, your fingers in your ears and screaming 'LA LA LA'. Whatever it takes for you to stop reality from shattering your outdated beliefs.

Skuzz, isn't it interesting to see how indoctrinated the general population is regarding evolution? I can't help but smile when people defend statements and assertions that, in the strictest sense, have nothing to do with science but are essentially points of an evolutionary belief system.

The whole evolutionary worldview is defended with religious fervour by its adherents. They're quick to say "but my science tells me so" when the conclusions they're basing their faith on have very little to do with facts and a whole lot to do with the interpretation of those facts

What the hell? Who, in the entirety of this thread has said that they believe evolution purely because science "told them so?" Nobody. There have been countless posts in here explaining why evolution is a logical, observable process and the most probable and fitting explanation as the origin of our species.

– complexity is added to complexity, quickly abstracting and concealing the reality that much of the basics of evolution are still in the “seems to”, the “we think that”, and the “could have happened” statements. Minor changes are put forward as proof for major ones, where no such evidence exists.

Not a single post in here has even come close to delivering the same level of coherent reasoning on the side of Creationism. We get "because the Bible says so."

Just attempt to try and give us something anywhere near the level of reasoning as what's been put forward in Crizane's story.

Total hypocrisy.

Hmm some of you are making a fatal mistake in your arguements.

A christian can believe in evolution.

nah, you're missing the point obes.

euphoria and skuzz are 6000 year old earthers.

"from sea to land" is easy - some animals live in shallow water, as infants they're more mobile and capable of doing things like going into even shallower water to escape predators. As they grow up those who learn to survive for short periods only partially submerged in low tide can continue to escape predators and tap sources of food not accessible to their peers, this goes on and they're able to move further and further into shallower water or onto banks and beaches. The pressure of trying to use their fins like legs and staying out of the water produces new mutations that eventually lead to better versions of legs and the ability to survive on air.

A christian can believe in evolution.

In short, false.

Evolution demands: through death came man.
Christianity demands: through man came death.

To accept evolution (as a Christian) is to state that God created man through the death of countless generations - a direct contradiction of Genesis and the concept of the Fall of man. Either you believe in the bible or you don't. If man didn't bring death into the world through sin, then there was no need for Jesus to save us from our sins. There is no support for the gap theory or day-age theory - they've been shot down in flames.

There is observable, scientific proof of evolution. Why are there bacteria that can resist antibiotics that would have killed them 50 years ago? Because they have evolved. There was a news story last year about a team who had cultivated bacteria for 30 years and documented the changes which had occured, including speciation within a single strain. The data is available if you can find it, you can even request culture samples to test for yourself.

So what? It's still bacteria. Call me when it talks or walks. I don't deny evolution (change within a kind) occurs. That's observed. I don't believe the universe popped into existence all by itself and that life started when goop got struck by lightning. We're talking about origins here. Show me evidence for how complex life started. Show me evidence of how the universe began. You can't, because there isn't any. And that is undeniable. Any opinions or theories you have on such subjects are not supported by science but by supposition, conjecture, and yes, belief.

last edited by euphoria at 21:56:04 23/Sep/09

Show me evidence of how the universe began.

Well, there's the background microwave radiation. There's background radiation which is a result of the cacophonous event which created our universe, kinda like an echo. Sounds more like a big bang than a sky wizard snapping his fingers.

Show me evidence for how complex life started.

Uh... the fossil record? Look it up you lazy s***, I'm too tired of catering to you intellectually lazy and unethical fools.

I don't believe the universe popped into existence all by itself and that life started when goop got struck by lightning.

What you believe doesn't really matter.

So what? It's still bacteria. Call me when it talks or walks.

Fail. Have you got millions of years to fully evolve some bacteria into complex lifeforms?

that life started when goop got struck by lightning.

Who ever said this? Complex proteins and other molecules started interacting using only their natural physical phenomenon and became complex enough to form very very simple 'lifeforms' and billions of years later these simple organisms have evolved into the many millions of known and unknown species of lifeforms on Earth. That's a very simple explanation btw.

Show me evidence for how complex life started.

There's a hell of a lot of research and experiments doing exactly this. The 'primordial soup' stuff.



last edited by 3dee at 22:11:30 23/Sep/09

Sounds more like a big bang than a sky wizard snapping his fingers.

Possibly - but it's not proof. That's my point.

the fossil record

All the "almighty" fossil record shows is that something died. It doesn't say when, it doesn't say whether that creature had any offspring to continue its genetic line. I've read a heck of a lot about the fossil record over the years. Paleontology is filled with those statements I mentioned: "we think", "could possibly have", "perhaps lived". A bone in the ground proves nothing about the origin of life. And if you think otherwise, you're deluded.

It doesn't say when

Um. Yeah, it kinda does actually.

A bone in the ground proves nothing about the origin of life. And if you think otherwise, you're deluded.

Um. Yeah, they kinda do actually. See, what they do is they carbon date the bones then go "oh, wow, these all line up both chronologically and structurally in an evolutionary manner, wow what a coincedence that is!".

It doesn't say when

Uh, carbon dating. And don't even TRY to refute it.

I've read a heck of a lot about the fossil record over the years.

It's not garbage by that unqualified f***wit Ken Ham, or your incarcerated friend Kent Hovind at all, is it? No Real, serious scientists refute paleontology or carbon dating.

And if you think otherwise, you're deluded.

At least I don't have imaginary friends, lol.

Balls. They date how old the rocks are by index fossils. And they date how old the fossils are by which layer of rocks they're found in.

I can't believe you mentioned carbon dating - all dating techniques are known to have widely varying results on the same samples, but carbon dating is useless in the context of dating fossils supposedly from millions of years sgo.

I have at times in my life had to seriously consider whether my belief system stands up against what the majority view is.

http://ozatheist.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/being-oppressed.jpg

Show me evidence of how the universe began. You can't, because there isn't any. And that is undeniable. Any opinions or theories you have on such subjects are not supported by science but by supposition, conjecture, and yes, belief.

Can you provide the other side the same proof? No-one that I know claims to know how everything came to be. Anti-Matter may have cause the Big bang, but we dont really know what preceded that.
All we do know is that a Magical Sky Fairy didn't blink us into existence 6000 odd years ago. We have proof that the earth wasn't created 6000 years ago and we have proof that, over time, animals such as Humans (that's you and me) have adapted to suit their environment. We call this evolution.

And don't even TRY to refute it.

Too late -_-

I can't believe you mentioned carbon dating

Uh, they can use radiocarbon dating to track human migration paths and the extinction of homo neanderthalensis. That's within the 60,000 year time frame.

Who believes in exogenesis? :-P

To accept evolution (as a Christian) is to state that God created man through the death of countless generations - a direct contradiction of Genesis and the concept of the Fall of man.

This right here is why it's a futile argument. Religion WILL NOT accept anything that isn't explicitly said in the Bible, whereas science will happily alter its theories if something is found which can better explain it than how we used to.

I'm surprised at myself for even getting involved in this thread, because it's statements like that which go to show that it's all futile. I don't even know what the point is, really, because I have no intention of trying to tell you you're wrong, just that you can't tell us that you know you're right.

Hey Midda, you're Hemerage's brother right?

What happen to him, why isn't he around anymore?

Just ignore me if I'm completely wrong...

oh man, i remember when i met hemmy at a mayhem rave years ago (lulz). good guy.

CT your posts are f***ing epic to read. you need to become an author or something. i would say don't waste your time on these chumps but it's so goddamn entertaining (and orsm to read), so keep it up!

Heh, thanks, Taggs. I'm glad you're enjoying it :)

Nah, sorry dude, that ain't me. =)

ah. fair enough. :)

Can you provide the other side the same proof?

No, that's my point. On the subject of origins (universal and life) no proof exists. If you choose to believe in the big bang and evolution, that's fine. But it's belief in the many theories building on top of one another all purporting to be science.

Don't get me wrong - much of the scientific work that falls in the realm of evolution is science. But it's used to extrapolate and support statements of origins beyond what is scientifically proven.

Actually Scooter, Christians are the minority. Many people tick the Christian boxes on national census because that's what they associate themselves with due to being raised that way, but they aren't practicing, bible-believing Christians. The majority is secular. Journalism, politics, arts, media, science, etc, are in the main secular.

Religion WILL NOT accept anything that isn't explicitly said in the Bible, whereas science will happily alter its theories if something is found which can better explain it than how we used to.

I disagree. Science ignores much of what is said in the bible. The description of a world wide flood would make me expect to find massive amounts of sedimentary rock pretty much everywhere - we do. Furthermore many examples of those sedimentary rocks show tight bending as if the layers were folded while still damp because no cracks on the rock are evident, indicating the layers formed quickly not over thousands of years. The bible tells me we should find fresh water springs at the bottom of the sea - and we do - they were only discovered last century. I could go on for some time, but I'm not going to rehash and retype the body of creationist scientific work. To go the Institute for Creation Research for some examples. But be warned, they mention God and the bible - how open minded are you feeling today?

heme's bro was macca

you guys should listen to me and stop pandering to these f***wads with facts they are always going to deny and get some facts back

i want my proof of the sky wizard ffs

no one can give me that can they

please don't start talking about geology euphoria, you sound like an absolute clueless tool. but what's new i guess

last edited by paveway at 07:56:31 24/Sep/09

I just read the thread title and realised I have no business in here, whoops. Sorry Phooks!

i want my proof of the sky wizard ffs

Actually, no. I don't want proof. There can't be scientific proof. My point is many things stated in the bible regarding how the world was created stacks up against what we see around us. To drag us slightly back on topic my strong theistic belief is supported by the natural world around us. Strong atheists see support for their belief in evolution. But neither side has ultimate proof and despite the cries of atheists that their position is a loftier one of science, it just isn't. Any position on origins is based on a belief that either there is a creator or there isn't.

can your little 6000 year old brain begin to understand how long it would take for all the sedimentary rock to form that you talk about? most of which happens to be in old creek and river beds and extinct inland seas.

i'll give you a hint, alot f***ing longer than 6000 years. this is fact i'm not going to entertain anything you say against this

you really have no clue when you start talking about geology, sedimentary rock is found in specific places. how thin and thick the layers are is irrelevant that is dependant on a bajillion other factors

matey 40 days and 40 nights of flooding isn't going to create rock

f*** there i go, pandering to you wankers with facts that i know you'll disagree with. it's hard not to slam you c***s with known facts

facts ie not up for debate

last edited by paveway at 08:43:18 24/Sep/09

last edited by paveway at 08:43:51 24/Sep/09

Actually no. Most of us base it on the fact that we dont know how things came to be. The difference is, instead of believing a Magical Sky Wizard did it, we set out to understand how it all works in hope that one day we might achieve just that. An understanding on the universe built on facts.

Evolution isn't a belief system, it's fact. Scientificaly proven fact.

look at something as basic as coal, takes a few thousand years to form

how long do you think it takes diamond to form and then get pushed high enough up that we can mine down to it?

To accept evolution (as a Christian) is to state that God created man through the death of countless generations - a direct contradiction of Genesis and the concept of the Fall of man

Only if you believe genesis to be a literal and accurate historical record.
Something only fundamentalists do. Which is a very very dangerous thing to do, because your faith is totally wrapped up in a book written by humans with their own agendas. Heck a Roman emperor helped go through and decide what was in the bible and what wasn't. And if someone can prove even 1 thing in that book is wrong (which is easy cos it contradicts itself) then your whole faith has had its footing ripped out.

If you take it to be a creation story / a telling of a story people could understand then they get along just fine.

hai guys, whats going on ITT?

how long do you think it takes diamond to form and then get pushed high enough up that we can mine down to it?

Superman can make diamonds out of coal - I imagine God would have the same powers.

That brings up an interesting debate ...
Who'd win Superman vs. God ?

batman

Ivan Lottapussy > both

a mystical being that can do everything. belief in something like this sure can absolve a lot of feelings of helplessness.

"your life is miserable because it is a test from god." hah!

no it's not. your life is miserable because you are a loser. go out and do something about it.

^^^

Science ignores much of what is said in the bible

Well f***ing duh!

I'm about to go away for the weekend, so I shalln't be trying to clear the fog of ignorance over the minds of our creationist buddies. I'll just wrap up with an explanation of why I'm so opposed to the majority of religious beliefs.

It all boils down to The Ethics of Belief. It's a bit of a read, but worth it. Basically, if you believe in something despite the evidence before you, you are being unethical in your beliefs. Why does this matter, you ask? Your beliefs are your own personal thing, right? They don't matter to anybody else.

WRONG. What you believe shapes how you behave, and how you behave affects other people. If anything you do because of your unsupported beliefs has adverse affects on other people, you are responsible. If a surgeon were operating on a sick patient and accidentally nicked an artery, if he decides to pray for a miracle rather than fix the problem with his skills he is responsible for that death.

It doesn't apply just to organised religion. The same can be said for superstition or any other silly belief. You know how some people have that superstition about lifting their feet off the floor of a car when going over train tracks? If a driver lifts their feet of the floor and pedals to do this, they are putting other drivers at risk by slightly increasing their response time if they need to brake in an emergency. This superstitious driver is guilty of being unethical in their beliefs, as they are doing something which affects other people because of their unfounded beliefs.

These are just some very specific examples. Most of the affects your unethical beliefs have on other people will be far more subtle. What you believe is going to have subtle affects on your behaviour, and this is going to have ramifications for other people, despite what you may think.

There is no reputable, solid science to back up the bible. Read up on ANY creation scientist and you will find that they are poorly regarded within the scientific and academic communities. To continue to believe the bible or any other ridiculous religious text is harmful to society as a whole. If you honestly believe the bible over science, you are being intellectually lazy and unethical.

Religion WILL NOT accept anything that isn't explicitly said in the Bible, whereas science will happily alter its theories if something is found which can better explain it than how we used to.

I disagree. Science ignores much of what is said in the bible.

Of course it f***ing does. It was a book written by uneducated fools who thought that catching the flu was the wrath of God. Their interpretation of events that happened thousands of years ago hardly holds a lot of weight.

And how is that in the least bit relevant to what I said anyway?

crizane just have to say your munchies story summed up pretty much all of my entire term 4 biology course. It has been read aloud to a family member :)

Love the drawings, btw.