warri0r45

:wall: I'll let someone else do the honours.

Good to hear it. Keeping on arguing is just going to get boring, but dude, you've got to realise... the title... is most definately not directed at all christians. You have to think about this - do you look at a newspaper, see the attention grabbing title and remain in a state of shock and disgust? No, you read the article and the title get's put into context. Your assesment of the title alone is thus still out of context as the actual topic was very specific in who it criticised and was obviously not criticising all christians. The topic always puts the title into perspective and to single out the title is just downright taking the whole topic out of context. I'm not trying to continuously hound you but if I see what I percieve to be flaws in your criticism, I'm going to continually pick them out. You've just got to be more mindful of context and who you're directing your comments at. The title is revealed in the context of the topic and replies that are ambiguous can only reliably be assumed to be referencing the topic and not any percieved outside anti-religious sentiments. Of course, people have came in an attested that you were wrong with how you interpreted thier replies, which gives credence to my asessment.

I'm not really into them either. I like myspace to check out a particular band's music though. All the lesser names are bound to have one.

Much respect to those who reside on the sensible side of the fence. You know who you are.

So your saying that science doesn't know how life became conscious. Instead it was actually God who did it. That's not very satisfying if you're an atheist. So evolution has stopped? I'm asking from an evolutionary perspective. What says that the "strong" shouldn't rule over the weak among our own race as well as other weaker animals? The only thing you seem to prove is that you should listen to the Bible. So basically we need the Bible since the theory of evolution offers no distinction between animals and humans. I think youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re missing the point entirely, that being that evolution can be easily reconciled with the bible. What evolution predicts we will do (because it does not suggest we should do anything ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s social darwinism, not the theory of evolution, and itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s stupid in my opinion) isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t a judge of itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s truth. Whatever warm fuzzies go out the door because you can conjure up the strong thumping the weak arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t a determinant of the truth of the theory and I think itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s obvious weÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re past much of the instinct based animalism and up to social order in which you can easily choose what guidance for a pious life you want, be it the bible, your parents, the Dharma, your local politician (god forbid), a role model figure, etc, etc. You make it sound like personal bias is just rubbish. As long as the Bible doesn't say "God didn't use evolution" or "God used evolution" we will have an interpretation issue. Bias now comes down to favoring one of many interpretations. What I like about theistic evolution is that it allows us to move past the whole evolution-christianity controversy and focus on what's actually important. My problem with it is my interpretation of genesis and that I think evolution is not entirely correct. Theistic evolution is the most diplomatic answer but I'm not sure it's the truth. You don't think it's entirely correct? You're not sure it's the truth? That's fine. Tell me what it is you doubt and IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ll provide a sample of evidence for your reading pleasure if you want to learn a thing or two. I agree to some extent but sometimes science can't explain how and you might need God as an explanation. Example would be miracles and things that science won't be able to explain. Similar would also be the concept of irreducible complexity. Of course I'm aware that it's not proven yet. If you like logically fallacious arguments from ignorance, then, IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ll say it again, thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s your prerogative. Also, if you think evidence that evolution is false supports your premise that there must be a designer by way of a locically fallacious false dichotomy then again, this is your prerogative. If you at all imply that science should use such an argument from ignorance then I disagree with you because itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s of no use whatsoever. What do you think would happen if we all of a sudden used god to fill a gap and took him away when we figured it out? What purpose did that provide? None, except appeasing belief only to start controversy when the populousÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ favorite idea is suddenly out of the frame because science did itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s job. This is no different to using Thor to explain thunder. It doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t explain a thing. You only think it does because you don't think. For some reason people think it's a great explanation when they have no idea whether firstly thier designer exists, whether he can resolve the problem and if so, how. It's the very essence of a "goddidit" argument and they've got a horrible track record for being blown out of the water by actual science. Think about it, what does ID explain other than it thinks evolution is a weak theory? It invokes a supernatural concept to explain something without even explaining how it does this, we just assume it resolves the problem and are expected not to question by way of another logical fallacy, a special plead. It's a bunch of unneccessary assumptions built upon each other and is precisely why supernatural ideas are left out of science and kept to personal beliefs. Yes, but it's not wise to work under the premises that nothing is designed. Why? YouÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re yet to provide a reason so let me suggest to you that there is no reason in adding supernatural influence and no detriment that could come from removing supernatural influence from scientific premises. See above. Of course, hold your personal beliefs, many scientists do. ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s just not the place of science to incorporate an untestable idea which explains nothing into premises. I think you're wrong. Just a quick google search resulted in: "intelligent design is wrong science" - 0 results "intelligent design is bad science" - 1700 results "intelligent design is not science" - 27,300 results You use a google search as your judge of knowledge? ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s bad science precisely because it contradicts and/or ignores known science. IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ll gladly show you some evidence for evolution which lays waste to ID because no intelligence that created everything as is, 6000 years ago, would (a) make anything faulty or useless (again, this would bump ID down to "not so intelligent design" which is essentially what evolution is as it builds upon past materials by the hand of natural selection - does it even impact on your way of thinking that somone with such a feeble mind as mine can think up ways that life could be more intelligently put together?), and, (B) make it look as if we had evolved, unless you like the idea that the designer is a trickster who delights in nothing more than confusing us poor mortals. Cite a source which isn't biased by religion which credits ID as good science. Here's one which lays waster to ID as having "significant conceptual flaws in its formulation, a lack of credible scientific evidence, and misrepresentations of scientific facts." And you can honestly judge this as in any way good science based on a google test? Give me a break. [1] What I'm banging on about isn't new. Science has long rejected ID because it's a dishonest, religiously motivated idea which explains nothing (unless you think invoking an assumption which itself isn't justified, validated in any way or explained is an explanation), advances science in no way whatsoever and whose sole purpose is to undermine a long establish and overwhelmingly accepted theory of evolution.

:ohnoes: Yet another reason (besides your woeful skills in every sport known to man compared to us Queenslanders :P ) I don't live in Sydney... those pesky funnel webs. Do they ever get into the suburbs or are they just in the surrounding bushlands?

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace" - Jimi Hendrix.

I always thought they were insects :oops: Which are animals. If I'm not mistaken, chances are any living thing you see with the naked eye that isn't rooted into the ground will be an animal. Now I feel silly :P It's ok, animal is usually synonymous with something more like 'vertebrate' or even 'mammal' in general society. Insects are just seen as insects, but, they're all part of kingdom animalia along with frogs, crabs, bees, sponges (yes, sounds wierd but sponges of all things are classed as animals), starfish, flatworms, termites, blue whales, humans, spiders, fish, penguins, etc, or they can all be classed along with plants, fungi and microscopic protists in the domain eukarya, meaning having eukaryotic or nucleus containing cells. Bit of biology for you.

I always thought they were insects :oops: Which are animals. If I'm not mistaken, chances are any living thing you see with the naked eye that isn't rooted into the ground will be an animal. By the way I liked the story. I doubt your regular spider would lash out or try to run up your arm, generally I think they like to cower in dark corners because the'ye suceptible to be eaten by bigger animals. Just the other day I sprayed one a little and it sped off in the opposite direction.

Oh, and how could I forget Bill Hicks? (signature). Just about any of his material.

Any lyric from Meshuggah's Catch 33 album, convincingly screamed by the monotony and robotic nature of Jens Kidman's voice. Just an example:

You are still wrong and if that is a reference to outside topics, you are still irrelevant. It was clearly one person here who did as you accuse yet you woefully and hypocritically stereotyped most as being christian haters based on hating the actions of Phelps and his church, which is still a little detail you don't feel like admitting. "Sorry, what I said was hypocritical". Easy. I was wrong about you feeling victimized, I'll admit it, because you're clearly not in the position to be victimized, not being a christian. You were hypocrticial in your original post, you were wrong in quote mining out of centext, you were wrong in assuming I am one of those you accuse in your original post and you continue to be wrong by erroneously accusing the majority of the posts here expressing hate for christianity based on the actions of Phelps and his church. If you want to cop out and say this argument is futile, go ahead.

This thread immediately reminded me of that massive tif con topic. One day... haha. :P

Red herring. This isn't relevant the this thread and the issues of this thread relating to your hypocrisy. May not be relevant to this thread, but is relevant to the fact that tip.it has a underlying negative perception of Christians. Your not going to find anything with only pro-Christian comments. Nothing about how a church saves some young orphans and everyone says "Yay those Christiansare doing a good thing!" No, even if Chrstians solved world hunger, restored world peace and stopped global warming, people (including the majority of tip.it) would still persecute them and their beliefs. You can't bring yoursef to see where you were in the wrong, can you? You can't bring yourself to say it. All you can rely on is a weak sheath of shifting focus to irrelevant points. This is irrelevant. You stereotyped the whole tip it community with your narrow misconception before even properly reading the replies. You just assumed that they were all christian haters (including those that hate themselves #-o ) and in doing so you gave yourself a putrid stench of hypocricy when it was clear your accusations were misplaced. You were up in arms about people stereotyping all christians on the basis of the actions of the few yet you saw no problem in stereotyping all here, in this topic, as christian haters based on the actions of these baptists when it was merely one. That is the issue I brought to your attention yet which you continually brush aside. I come to you talking about chalk and you reply by talking about cheese.

Red herring. This isn't relevant the this thread and the issues of this thread relating to your hypocrisy.

You assume wrong. The majority of the U.S. Christian community isn't like that. Not even the deep south. I agree with both your points. It's good to hear these idiots got what's coming to them and it's not fair stereotyping christianity based on the action of the loud minority. I'm always keen on the more level headed pulling these numb nuts on the verge types into line for spwewing waste all over thier faith. I sure as hell would. I have no respect for people such as yourself, who are clearly in the wrong and continuously deny to the extent where you use my accusations of you against me. You are the hypocrite and you seem to continually brush past the fact.

No, we're not lynching christians (again, you hypocriticially stereotype the whole posting people of this thread while you are up in arms against people stereotyping all christians based on the actions of the few), we're lynching these "god hates [bleep]s" bigots. Any decent human being would see no wrong in being against dangerous intolerant bigots protesting soldiers at thier funeral. Any decent human being would see no wrong in protesting against their intolerance and bigotry towards homosexuals in which they hijack a faith that is supposed to represent love. Either way, you've just spewed up a red herring. You're taking the focus off of yourself. You haven't adressed your own hypocrisy. Way to go.

My god, you, benfr, are truly deserving of the tag of moron. Sorry, it had to be said. I'll let these good people come in and set you straight if they see the need. Get of your sobbing soap box and stop feeling so victimized. The topic is about these southern baptists and the people you quoted clearly were referencing them.

No, they hate these Baptist morons who protest "God hates [bleep]s" all the time, I saw no indication that anyone on this topic, bar one, takes that and applies it to all christians. You're a hypocrite, aren't you? You think everyone here takes a hatered for these people and applies it to all of christianity when they clearly don't and you whine about people stereotyping all christians. It's the pot calling the kettle black.

OMG you are pathetic. Just because one person on this thread espoused that view you act as if it's all of us. It's a resounding view on these forums, and particularly on tip.it chat (of the rare times I go on it). There are more Christian-hating threads than regular threads. You don't even care about the hypocrisy in your post? It's irrelevant what happens on other topics or forums. You wrongly grouped everyone in this topic into one group while this is exactly what you're complaining about.

OMG you are pathetic. Just because one person on this thread espoused that view you act as if it's all of us. You shouldn't feel like you can automatically play the victim card just because people, christians included, are calling a fringe group of nutters, well, nutters.

The majority of the U.S. Christian community isn't like that. Not even the deep south. I agree with both your points. It's good to hear these idiots got what's coming to them and it's not fair stereotyping christianity based on the action of the loud minority. I'm always keen on the more level headed pulling these numb nuts on the verge types into line for spwewing waste all over thier faith. I sure as hell would.

No.. It's only still a theory, I believe.. Is one of those theories that's virtually impossible to test realistically. The only way we would be able to test it is if we A) took humans off the planet for a few centuries or so and see if the planet cools or B) Find a habitable planet with a balanced climate, dump humans on it, and see what happens. The timeframe of the Industrial revolution is certainly evidence, but not enough to prove the theory I'm afraid(Forgive me if I'm wrong) Point one is that theories don't turn into facts. They are models of explanation. Theoretical concepts are in our minds and they merely reflect reality. It's the facts that are real, known and/or measurable data which give weight to a theory and are evidenced to support it. Fact also implies another level of certainty, to the extent where you could use it as implication for the certainty of a theory while technically it's not, nor will it be a fact - it merely means all the facts gel with it perfectly. Take the orbit of earth around the sun for instance. It's theoretical, yet people take it as a fact. Now I'm not saying the same level of certainty can go for man made global warming, yet all the facts do indeed support it where as alternate ideas - solar irradiation for example - can not support the facts to the extent where reports document that the most recent global warming trends can only meaningfully be thrown in with the man made warming theory being the major cause. The large scale tests you suggest are obviously not going to happen, as are many such adventurous tests. This does not mean, however, that the theory being tested can not be meaningfully supported by test and data.

I'm kind of similar. I generally don't like talking to parents about most things. I haven't talked to my mother for a very long time (parents divorced, *cut cut cut* :P ) You could call me wierd but sometimes I just don't see the point in talking. They seem to know what I'm like and don't push me. I don't know how many different ways I can answer "how was your day". Oh well, such is life.

Considering that there is several hundred theories on global warming I highly doubt that, and over 75% of those theories say that we are screwed for the next few hundred years, even if we do something now, it is very likely that we are too late. Forgive my ignorance, but I wasn't aware that there were 'several hundred' theories on global warming. Why do you say this? Lists of Theories on the causes of global warming 1. The orbit wobbles you mentioned earlier 2. The CO2 emissions by humanity 3. The CO2 emmisions by volcanoes 4. The methane emissions by livestock 5. The methane emissions by plankton in the oceans 6. Reflection of sunlight by ice(possibly disproven) 7. Holes in the Ozone 8. Earth's natural climate cycles. (Ice Age to 'Heat' Age) These are the ones that I can remember.. I believe the 'several hundred' statement was simply a (hyperbole?). There are many varied opinions on the causes and effects of global warming, just like there are many opinions regarding the massive extinction of the dinosaurs. Personally, I hate scientific propaganda such as this. The way these people can even called themselves scientist sickens me, it really hurts the image of the theory (Humans cause global warming) as a whole.. I do believe humanity has an effect on the Earth's climate, but certainly not in the magnitude this 'scientist' claims. It reminds me of the ridiculous movie 'The Day After Tomorrow' were on the website it said that the movie was 'real science' and the catastrophic event depicted in the movie were highly possible.. psuedoscience(sp?) at it's finest, this is really nothing more that Manbearpig fodder.. You speak of this as if it were a bad thing.. Red = The greenhouse effect. Warming is proportional to gas output. Orange = Milankovitch cycles which deal with large scale periodical warming and cooling trends (ice ages). Green = UV absorption by the Ozone layer. I doubt this has a major part in global scale warming trends at all. Blue = Solar Irradiation. It plays a part but any number of reports show it alone can't account for the most recent warming trends, only greenhouse gas emmisions can. Solar Irrandiance is also based on an 11 year output cycle. As for either man made or natural emmisions on the red point, CO2 is at record high levels for hundreds of thousands of years and the levels shot up conspicuously in accordance with the industrial revolution. If it were down to volcanoes, one would expect the ice core records to show huge [bleep]es in pre-industrial (as in hundreds of thousands of years ago whenever they went off) CO2 and methane levels to current day levels. This is not the case. By the way I'm with you from the OP propoganda. Don't be fooled into thinking the OP espouses common scientific views supported by any kind of reports. It dosen't.