warri0r45

Yeah, just like the big bang theory. I know. It doesn't render it completely false either, does it? Must I state that I'm agnostic in every post? And why do you atheists keep repeating what the last one just said? Sorry but it's getting a bit tedious. The big bang theory can be tested. I'm no expert on it by a long shot, but the foremost theory in astronomy doesn't become so without being tested. Comparing it with god as an answer to questions of reality is rediculous, really. And what's with this "you atheists" jab? I'm just giving my opinion on your comment. What does you being agnostic have to do with it?

When trying to explain things such as the miracle of life and origin of the universe, God can fit into the puzzle so nicely sometimes. I could make up any entity I want, complete with properties I define, to answer any question I want. Literally, anything. That doesn't make the entity in any way real, nor it's use in answering questions compelling. To my way of thinking, any such thing is a complete cop out to rational scrutiny.

-Paul E. Rockwell, M.D., anesthesiologist. If anyone can look at me and say human life is not present at conception or the first few weeks, you're a fool. A baby is a baby from conception to the 9th month, the only difference is the stage of development. Next, some quotes from professionals in the field of genetics on when life is present. -Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman of the Department of genetics at the Mayo Clinic -Dr. McCarthy De Mere, medical doctor and law professor at the University of Tennessee The whole "it's the woman's body" and "it's a fetus" doesn't work. The difference between a fetus and a baby is the baby has it's basic form for birth, at appx 8 weeks. A fetus is in it's early stage of development. Does that make it any less of a human? Because it's dependent on another person to survive? So are normal babies, but they're not attached to their mother. So are severely ill people, so are those suffering from serious mental illnesses. So are the elderly. We might as well start another Holocaust then, getting rid of those who can't live on their own whom no one wants to take care of in this world. You can mould definitions and use terminology to suit your view all you like. I suppose a rabid environmentalist could call the act of destroying a seed tree lopping, too. That doesn't change what's actually going on here, it only changes the minds of the easily impressionable. By the way it's not all that honest to go quote mining for the opinion of a few professionals. It's not like they're impervious to personal bias. Doing what you are is called an appeal to authority fallacy. So why does the whole "it's the woman's body" and "it's a fetus" thing not work? Some people believe that the woman has a right to sanctity over her own body, just as others believe that the zygote/embryo/fetus/baby (or human being/person, if you like) has a right to life no matter what. That's the whole argument. It's not like there would be any argument if embryos could be grown entirely outside of a female. As for the comparison to those outside the womb who need help (mentally [developmentally delayed]ed, etc), they aren't taking up residence inside someone else's body, so your comparison doesn't work. Again, the whole pro-choice argument is that a woman should have sanctity over her own body, not that people on welfare should be cut off from that welfare because they're a burden on the system. Besides, If you actually considered reality, people actually do want to take care of these people. I suppose if any female friends of yours wanted to rent their womb to another female who wants an abortion, then they would be more than happy to give up the embryo. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As for the person who posted this link: http://www.afterabortion.org/hope/arti17.htm Please, try and think a little more critically. The endorsments of David Reardon's site are from pro-life organisations. One of the major stated issues is being "pro woman/pro life". He has another site called "poorchoice.org" where he the whole premise is "exposing" poor choice, aka abortion. And finally, he subtitles the institute with "our mission and ministry", with the following as an example of the rhetoric on the "healing" page: It's worth keeping in mind that not everything on the net is Kosher. There are people with vested interests everywhere who would stop at nothing to get you to think the way they do. Why not actually try a reputible professional organisation.

I remember writing a paper on this topic in highschool. You can basically forget about the X-men thing straight away because it's not at all realistic. My conclusion was basically that only the third world will see any significant evolution because they're more susceptible to dying from a disease where as we in the West treat and cure anyone who gets one. A gross oversimplification, I know, but you get the point. In a way, you can see vindication of this view in that allele frequencies for sickle cell anemia are higher in areas where malaria is pervasive. The rationale of that little evolutionary adaptation is that sickle cell anemia is the lesser of two evils. Natural selection is more or less in our hands now. Or if it isn't in a practical sense (the third world), it is in principle.

Ahh, now it all makes sense. Yeah, I suspected it wasn't real. Usually the news is pretty quick on this stuff if there's any truth to it.

I'm not finding anything either. Somehow I doubt it's true, but if it was it would be pretty tragic.

Read my mind perfectly. It's obviously completely exaggerated or fake. :lol:

That's pretty much my attitude as well. Plus I like having the physical copy in my hand/collection. Anyway, as for Metallica, I've heard the single but no other songs from the album. It sounds ok, I suppose.

I remember seeing the first few years ago. I then watched all yesterday after I noticed this topic. Not really that creepy, but interesting.

Easy. You get quite grumpy when people correct your mistakes that involve theology. What makes you say that? If I get something wrong, then by all means correct me. I welcome it. You can't seriously compare Mage continuously misrepresenting a well defined scientific concept and me arguing points of interpretation and opinion when it comes to god topics. If mage doesn't believe in evolution, then I couldn't care less. But neglecting fundamental basics like natural selection when discussing how a rare trait becomes fixed in a population? That's like me talking about gravity and not mentioning matter, for christ's sake. It really is pretty comical. So no, Lenticular, not easy.

meh, no thanks, I hate biology, so glad I can drop it next year \ and you point about the moths is not evolution, it is just an example of that breed of moths becoming 'extinct' in that area, due to an abnormal growth in death by birds. This is why these debates are useless, yet hilarious; those against evolution don't really have much of any idea what they're talking about. [That's why he told you to take a Bio course you twit]. Proving to anyone that evolution is "wrong" is about as possible as proving them that gravity is "wrong". It's not even worth calling it stupid anymore. Wow, why do people immidiately think that I pay no attention when we do Bio courses? Infact, the only reason I don't know too much about evolution was due to school changing and stuff, right when the old school was starting a topic on it. It is worth it, because I see it as false, just as you see God as false. What you see as false isn't evolution. It's your entirely incorrect misconstruction of it. You've demonstrated that time and time again on these forums. Pick up a book and actually learn about it otherwise people are just going to be correcting your mistakes again and again.

I'm ok with it, up to a point. Obviously it would be ideal when termination is earlier on (which the vast majority are) or if there were no need for it at all. So on that point I have to draw an arbitraty line as to where I think it's acceptable and where I think it's not. The thing is, if you make it illegal women who want one are going to find a way to get one anyway, and any abortion done illegaly isn't going to be safe. Far from it, really. However when legal, it can be regulated and done by a medical professional in proper conditions. As to who chooses to get the abortion, you often hear that it should be the women's choice, but I want to throw a different angle out there - how much of the choice should the man have? It's partly his child we're talking about here, you know.

What's your definition of theory in this context? The definition of theory is usually a claim that has not be definitively proved with scientific backing. Evolution and Creation are theories. Not quite, mate. A theory in a scientific context is a body of experimental evidence and data used to explain a group of natural phenomena. A theory is about understand something, it's not one step below "proven". Theories can be very rigorous and consistent explanations by virtue of all the data and evidence in favour of them and the predictions they make. Atomic theory is an example of a very solid theory. So is the theory of evolution. In actuality, the notion that we share common ancestry with other organisms is considered fact by biologists. There's really a lot of very good evidence for that concept and nothing that's contradicted it. The theory of evolution is mostly dealing with the understanding of how it happened/happens. Creationism is a religious belief. It's nowhere near a scientific theory. meh, no thanks, I hate biology, so glad I can drop it next year \ and you point about the moths is not evolution, it is just an example of that breed of moths becoming 'extinct' in that area, due to an abnormal growth in death by birds. Also one thing I don't understand, is how when something evolves it ends up causing it's offspring to have it's traits, at a high enough rate to cause all of the species to have it. Like (say for example) there is a country, lets call it Place. Now in Place everyone has blue eyes, except one person, who has brown eyes. Now according to evolution theories, everyone is Place could end up with brown eyes, yet my reasoning and logic tell me it can't! Mage, your understanding of evolution is seriously lacking. Let me use your example and actually represent evolution correctly: A population evolves when the individuals pass on mutations or non-mutated alleles to their offspring in a disproportionate number. Say for example there's this country, called Reality. In Reality, everyone has blue eyes except for one person, with brown eyes. In Reality, the allele for brown eyes will only spread throughout the population if there is a reproductive advantage to having brown eyes. The process of disproportionate survival according to reproductive advantage of certain traits is called natural selection. The resulting change in allele frequency over time is called evolution. An allele is a variation of a gene. We know that this process happens. It's the process by which bacteria gain antibiotic resistance in hospitals - the few that have a gene for antibiotic resistance (on a piece of DNA called an R-plasmid) will survive more often than those that don't, and therefore they will spread their genes to future generations in a disproportionate number. If you want to know more about the process involved, just google "conjugation." I don't actually expect you to agree with facts or reality, but I like talking about biology anyway, so hopefully some other people got something out of this explanation.

I honestly wasn't going to bother assassin, but thanks anyway. I suspected my point would be completely glossed over and Sly's repeated again, but I'm not a philosophy major so what would I know. :lol:

Of course you can gel together evolution and religious beliefs. It's only fundamentalist types whose beliefs are contradicted by evolution who are so adamantly against it. If it weren't for them, the whole evolution/creation thing wouldn't even be an issue. Obviously, all the science and research done over the decades has supported the conclusions of evolution. It's no more "theory" than atomic theory. Both use masses of data in a logical framework to generate testable precepts which explain and contextualise the data.

Sounds completely nuts. According to wiki, one of his predictions was that the 2008 Olympics wouldn't happen, but obviously they did. Another was that we would discover time travel in 2001. Again, didn't happen. Another is that there should be serious civil unrest in the US circa the 2004 elections and civil war by 2005. Again, didn't happen. The extent of mindless adherence to this nonsense apparently saw some arguing that the Beijing Olympics were all a faked conspiracy. :lol: Oh and with any such story, the obligatory cover-your-[wagon] tactic is inevitably used: "Since I will eventually be leaving this worldline, I could easily tell you all sorts of things that would happen in the next few years. Unfortunately, your worldline is already 2% different from mine, and theres no way to give you absolute facts about future events. When the day comes for my prediction to be realized, it may happen or it may not." http://www.think-aboutit.com/Misc/TimeT ... nTitor.htm

It seems you semi-grasped the point being made. And ummm... I know. Two things. 1.) You fail to realize that laws are "archaic" only with the passing of time. 2.) You fail to understand what was meant by essential character, so let's try this again. God is what He is. His actions do not change that. For example, humans are typically seen as evil creatures. However, simply because man is an evil creature does not mean that all of his actions are evil nor can he do good. It simply means that his nature is one of evil. The inverse is true for God. Simply because He is good and all-loving does not mean he can not commit evil (If you want to call it that) nor does it mean he is any less good or loving for doing so. Hell, even the Bible and Quran both attest to this fact (God/Allah makes evil for His own purpose). Double hell... You play Runescape. I know for a fact there are instances of Sara doing what would be considered evil and Zammy doing what would be considered good. I do believe we've gone over this point before. Twice, if not three times. In this very thread no doubt. The laws are still there. Jesus simply fulfilled them (He did not abolish them). The laws will remain until the day Jesus returns and Heaven and Earth are washed away. Pretty simple, really. What nonsense? You continue to make value judgments concerning a system of laws because it does not conform to what you personally deem as right and wrong. That's great for you buuut... What you think of any particular law/commandment is irrelevant. I happen to think quite a few current laws we have are idiotic, but that doesn't make them so now does it? Your last two comments prove that you completely fail to understand the concept of an opinion. I'm making value judgments? I think these laws are idiotic? Yes, that's right. It's expression of an opinion. Being an apologetic believer, clearly yours is different. Ill express my opinions no matter how much you don't agree with them. Of course I realise these laws are only archaic with passing time. Again, that's exactly when people deem things archaic. How do you go from me actually acknowledging that in the paragraph before to "you fail to realise that..."? Do you seriously think Im going to look at these laws any more sympathetically because of that, especially considering they supposedly come from a good, timeless and all-loving god? Ill make judgments of archaic laws and customs as I wish. As for his essential character, god is whatever you judge him to be, as making value judgments is all you can do with god. Hes not going to come down to you and say oh, by the way guys, my essential character is actually good. Even then, people who dont have a vested interest in seeing everything he does as good will judge him by his actions. You merely uttering that his essential character is good even though he commands homosexuals to be killed makes no sense to someone like me and therefore Ill judge that hes not good. Your judgment that he is good is one of opinion, and so is mine. Do you understand this concept? People judge others by their actions all the time. Millions have judged Hitler as an evil bastard, but some Nazi sympathetic type saying you fail to understand what is meant by essential character isnt going to dim that view. To the believer, the view of god is a rosy one, usually no matter what. To someone like me, Ill judge him by his actions like any person would judge another by his actions. There is no preconceived perception of he must be good, therefore Ill be apologetic and try and retrofit his actions into that view to keep the faith. I seriously doubt that discussing this with you will go anywhere, so Ill end there. Ive made my point, and others can judge that as they see fit.

Wait wait wait! The laws you deem as "archaic" are only as such because you happen to live approximately 3,400 years after their inception. If you happened to live in the year 1400(ish) BC, you would find the laws no more archaic than you find the laws of today. Anywho... Care to explain how it's playing to the time period. The direct implication here is that God suddenly decided to change his mind concerning the law. However, last I checked, there was the whole "Not a letter shall pass away from the law until both Heaven and Earth pass away" (Matthew 5:18) thing. Yeah, I live in this time and I deem those laws archaic. Thats how the term archaic works. It really goes without saying. But it is a good point that Id probably see those laws as the norm if I were around at the time, however thats not what I was getting at. What I mean by playing to the time period is that he sees that these people are archaic and makes archaic laws to suit them. Presumably, good to a good and all loving god doesnt include going around burning or stoning others, especially not for ridiculous reasons like disobeying parents or being homosexual. Do you agree? Do you think those are good commands from a good god? But then you bring up Jesus comments on Mosaic Law. Fair enough. So am I right in saying that god still commands these things of some people? If so then obviously the point I was making is moot and he wasnt playing to archaic people hes just got a seriously skewed moral compass himself. If thats the case, then I think that kind of god is no more venerable than any other obviously man-made god with seriously outdated characteristics. The sooner you realize that God being both good and all-loving is not changed by His actions, the better. What do you mean by this? Why would god command such nonsense if he didnt think it was a good thing to do? Just for [cabbage]s and giggles? I dont think those commandments are good in any way shape or form, therefore I dont think they could have possibly come from a good god. To me, they indicate anything but.

Speaking of allergies, I remember hearing research that suggests people who live with a pet are less likely to develop one. http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/aug2002/niaid-27.htm Anyway, I'm a dog person. Never had a cat, though.

Instructing anyone to do the things in Leviticus is nice to you? It's horrific, and yes, that is judged by today's standards. The thing that I don't get is that he's supposed to be a god above and beyond our human concepts of time. Why is he playing to the time period and instructing people to abide by archaic rules which include killing disobedient children and homosexuals? Punishments like stoning and being burnt to death? [1] Why not set out the nice rules back then? It sounds more likely that archaic people made these archaic rules, not a timeless, all loving being.

Lenticular, I don't think the people here can't understand faith. They just don't agree with it. Obviously the two sides of the debate don't agree on that point. Edged is right, it's worth just agreeing to disagree or opting out of the discussion if others want to talk about it. That's a fairly big misconception, aquarius. The big bang theory is a cosmological model for the universe dealing with it's expansion over time from a singularity of matter and energy. It doesn't suggest that the matter came from nothing.

I read in the paper today that Palin is another one of these people who thinks "abstinence only" sex education is a good thing. Of course McCain seems to be in that boat as well. This kind of attitude seriously gets under my skin. Way to completely ignore the reality that kids will have sex, no matter how much you urge them not to. What we need is to teach kids how to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancies with contraception, we can't just tell them not to do it and give them no recourse if they do.

I notice that kind of language a lot. Perhaps a more common example is some kid saying "hey, wanna come back to my house to play Xbox on my new TV?" I'm not so annoyed by the semantics here. It really goes without saying that the parents own this stuff, not the kids. I suppose it is kind of annoying that kids who happen to be part of a rich family are automatically held up on some social pedestal, though.

Of course, the point of this thread is to impress and convince you personally that there is a God. Every person has morals, which are standards of right behavior. Yet, where do these morals come from? How do we know what right behavior is? Its common sense that killing a person (not in self-defense) is wrong. But where does that common sense come from? It must come from a higher being, a diety, a god. An atheist could argue that this is not possible, since a god doesn't exist. Part of out morals come from our parents. Parents teach us the basics of morality when we are young. Now, if one's parents were atheists, where did their parents get their morals? If you trace it back far enough, you are bound to run into a generation in which your relatives did believe in a god, in this case, the true God (my opinion). Thus, their morals came from that God, and their parents. However, lets say there is a tribe of completely isolated people who have never heard of a god. Where do they get their standards of right and wrong? Its called natural law. Natural law happens to be influenced by God, seeing as he created nature. Thus, they still get their morals from God. So tell me, where do you get your morals? A god maybe? It could be evolution by natural selection in that social animals find a benefit in being social. If there was a group of 100 people and they all had slightly different abilities, would they be more likely to survive together, or apart? Why do insects like ants live in colonies? Why do elephants travel in herds? Could it be for the same reason? Here's the thing: a mental hurdle to killing someone else benefits the human species as a whole by maximising the chances of survival for everyone. Could you imagine how far we'd get as a species if we didn't have a mental barrier to the act of killing another human being? We would be extinct by now. It's worth noting that this scenario isn't perfect, though. Even to this day, different social groups are hostile to one another, the more different they look, the more likely the animosity. Another interesting trait we humans seem to possess is fear of being ostracised by the group, hence why we tend to go with the forces of society (parents, school, culture) and try not to stick our heads above the crowd, so to speak. How could this evolve? Again, selection pressures are focused on keeping us all within the group. Any straying from the herd and we inevitably die. Again, evolution. Natural selection favours those who have instincts of self-preservation. There are perfectly logical natural explanations for these things. Your arguments fall short of proving the existence of a god, sorry. You can't expect to insert god into the equation as if that magically explains everything. How did god create morals? Because he felt like it? How does that work? Can you show me the logic behind that? How do you go from not understanding something (the existence of morals) therefore the existence of a concept (god) which you define as able to explain morals? Can you put god or his attributes to the test? How can I know that god exists as claimed other than through faith alone? You get the picture. You can see why some people just aren't satisfied with god as an answer for anything. You can't put the nature or actions of a god to the test at all, hence why there's just as much evidence for any other concept I might want to invent to "solve" the problem. I don't think "I define it as such, and it is" is a rigorous way to answer something if you can't put it to some empirically understandable test.

I love the hypocrisy when some overly-patriotic person is willing to get violent towards someone else because "people died for the flag." It's like they don't get that the freedoms they're talking about include, well, not being assaulted. So in standing up for their view of what the flag represents, they'll break those representations exactly. Who is worse here? The guy who burns the flag and only desecrates a representation of the values in question, or the guy who actually violates the values in question?