warri0r45

I've been playing the guitar for 5 years and went to a Lutheran highschool. I'm now studying chemistry and biology in university. I like rainy days and getting a chance to contemplate things by myself. Go.

Theists (those who believe) Agnostic (those who aren't sure - fence sitters) Atheist (those who don't believe) Agnostics aren't fence sitters. Agnosticism deals with the epistemological aspect of the existance of god - the ability to know or not. Being agnostic is just a realisation of what is true; we can't know for sure. Even if they don't think so, many agnostics are likely atheists too. Atheists encompass those who are not theistic or lack belief in a god or gods. You can get agnostic theists, though. The point being those three groups you presented aren't mutually exclusive. The only two you can not be at the same time is a theist and an atheist. The only direct contradiction.

Of course. As an atheist I don't suggest that. I lack belief because of the lack of evidence. I don't lack belief because I believe the absence of evidence implies evidence of absence. It's the same for any supernatural idea; Thor, Zeus, Apollo, etc. They all lack evidence and I'm equally as lacking in my belief of them, just as much as the Christian god.

Haha, sorry but you got tricked. There's no "atheist community" or "us" when it comes to atheism. That's like implying anarchists have their own bureaus and parliament. Atheism is simply rejecting the idea of a supernatural being. It's not a religion. Agnosticism seems the most logical, because nobody can really prove a God's existence or lack thereof. The Pope knows about the birth of the universe just as much as I or some wacko preacher down the road. ---- Not to mention, why are atheists 'pitted' against christians? Over 70% of the world's population isn't christian Is it not also logical to be skeptical of bold claims and lack belief in thier truth until they are proven or have any grounding outside assumption? I see agnosticism and atheism as both logical choices.

People, people, the topic is death metal bands. I can't see one in the last three posts. Anyway for something to add to the topic, I'd reccomend Meshuggah although they are very experimental in thier sound also. Technical, experimental, progressive, dissonant groove/death metal, if that happens to tickle your fancy. (I know, hypocritical of me not posting a true-blue death metal band but no one's perfect :P )

It's not ignorant, it's arrogant. And yes, what he did was stupid and what he says in that post is ignorant. I don't care if I'm being blunt, but warri0r's got the basic good-hearted explanation down, so I'm telling this kid the truth. I don't care if I appear arrogant for not thinking that Creationism has any scientific value, but this kid's gotta realize that there's a world beyond Christianity. Evolution is a fact and a theory, and as warri0r stated, there's no debating it's validity. Get out of your little hole, see a little light, and try and open your worldview. Before you choose to reject something, try and actually understand it first. As for my statement about suspension, to walk out on science class when the teacher starts on evolution just because the little kid doesn't even understand the topic deserves at least a weeks detention. That's skipping out on class, at the very least. You're right, it's supreme arrogance nurtured from a religious upbringing. Poor teacher, must be hard dealing with kids who are so close-minded. You know why the social conditioning leviathan called fundamentalism works? Because they breed the mentality that they know they are right as a matter of fact therefore it's evolutionists who are being closed minded to the truth of the bible. It's the epitome of delusion; the thought of arrogance or closed-mindedness never crosses thier mind. It's only the outside observers that see this. That's my humble observation of the situation anyway.

I can definately go with the youtube sentiment for checking out artists. Myspace is a pretty killer place to check out a bands music too IMO. In fact looking through myspace pages is exactly what led me to buy: Meshuggah's 'Catch 33' Ion Dissonance's 'Minus the Herd' A Life Once Lost's 'Hunter' Youtube no doubt led me to by: Bill Hicks' 'Rant in E'Minor' Bill Hicks' 'Salvation: Live at Oxford, 1992' No doubt said wesites will lead me to more purchases in the future.

I prefer to buy CDs. I appreciate good music and as a token of my appreciation I pay those who put thier heart and efforts into making it. I write music myself so I can sort of relate.

The problem is that science is FACT. When a subject such as how we came to be is so highly debated, you can't preach a theory as fact. Now, feel free to put Evolution in theoretical science if you wish, but don't tell me it's the truth. OT: As mentioned in another post, I literally walked out of my Biology class when the teacher started Evolution. She said, "What are you doing??!!??!?!" And I calmly replied "I refuse to learn the lies of those who refuse to realize that the Bible is truth." Religious arrogance? Some would say so. But it had to be done. And, she didn't teach Evolution that year! Went straight to Astronomy...in hindsight, I think I'd rather be taught lies...Man that teacher could've bored Ben Stein to death. Nope, science always involves some degree of theory. You ever learn about gravity, disease or atoms? All involve theoretical components. Science is the methodology to explain facts and come up with theory and more facts. Progressively we begin to know more but theory is an essential element in doing this. Also, evolution is only highly debated in the public sphere. There is no debate as to whether evolution happened at all in the scientific community.

Too right. What songs of thiers do you play?

I can do you one better - I'll be your guy to jam to some tool with. :) To be honest I don't think I could jam Tool. Jamming implies too much experimentation. I don't think I could top anything Adam Jones does. I'm not strong enough with my use of dissonance. Nice sentiment though. :) I was thinking more play along with some of thier songs, but yeah, actually trying to improv over tool would be beyond me.

I can do you one better - I'll be your guy to jam to some tool with. :)

Bill Hicks. :XD:

Summed it up perfectly. Kids don't even know what science is anymore. They should teach about scientific thoery, the aspects of it and the scientific method.

Ghost of Perdition by Opeth.

Any music video by Tool. Dark and artistic. For a few reccomendations, give 'Prison Sex' or 'Sober' a plug on youtube. But hey, I'm not picky. Any music video where you don't see the band just mindlessly playing thier instuments in front of a camera gets my vote. It's so cliche just standing in front of a camera like a douchebag playing your song it's become a pet hate of mine.

Your argument and evidence is thoroughly compelling. I suggest writing to a scientific journal. i was just stating my opinion which i have the right to do so, and i didnt list any of it as fact smart @$$. nor did i ever say my thoughts were correct. What do you base your opinion on? Are you privy to knowlege of cosmology that the cosmologists aren't? Really, what forms the basis of your opinion? If you like harbouring an opinion ignorant of what it is you have opinion about, why do you have that opinion? I don't have an opinion on anything to do with economics, for example, because I'm largely ignorant of it. Is it not ok for you to accept that you don't know? Or do you prefer to just have a baseless opinion? Why? I honestly don't get that kind of mentality. Don't take this the wrong way, you can have whatever opinion you wish; I'm not here to dictate what you should believe. As I've said numerous times before, in any kind of discussion, understanding comes from justification. I will understand you and why you have your opinion when the justification comes, not when you state what your opinion is. Could you imagine a debate when everyone just states thier opinion? Me: I believe X You: I believe you are wrong. How enlightening. I feel so much more fulfilled as a human being right now. I want to learn something. I value what you have to teach me.

Awesome dude! Well done! The kind of stuff you're mentioning is right up my alley. Currently 2nd semester, first year, bachelor of applied science degree, planning of majoring in biochemistry. I just adore everything genetics and wouldn't mind getting into something like genome studies and perhaps do some research there. Going through the composition of the genome and the types of sequence present in one of my uni classes was a great inspiration for this.

But that's the key problem. Creationism and Intelligent Design are not theories. Once again, we return to people's ignorance of what the word theory means. Maybe I am ignorant of the definition but is the definition something along the lines of "explanation whose status is still debatable"? Isn't that what these are. The explanation of the beginning of the human race. None of it is proven so it is still debatable. Until an explanation is proven, it's theory. These are explanations. They aren't proven. They're theories. I will say that I might be missing something and I'll admit that I may be completely wrong, but until you kindly point out that key thing that I'm missing, I will stand by my opinion. How debatable depends on the nature of the theory. The only thing you'll ever hear debated within the theory of evolution are the mechanisms and rate. The fact that it happens is considered just that - fact. Let me perform an excercise. Below is google search of 'define theory' and highlighted are those definitions best applying to scientific theory. Key aspects: Well substantiated and organized. Explains phenomena and facts in a linking manner. Includes tested hypotheses. Repeatedly confirmed by many of these tested hypotheses (if tests contradict the theory, the theory accomodates by changing; this is the accountable nature of science) Well supported by evidence. If people debate whether a theory is true in scientific circles, it's because it isn't a strong theory. People don't debate whether the theory of evolution is true within scientific circles, they only debate rates and mechanisms of change - the nitty gritty details. It's only people in the public sphere who debate it.

Your argument and evidence is thoroughly compelling. I suggest writing to a scientific journal.

I'd reccomend Opeth although they only have smatterings of death metal in thier songs. They are very experimental in thier sound.

In one form or another, I've discussed these things 3 times now in the evolution thread.

I feel there were a few important points brought up by myself in response to evolution nay-sayers on pages 2, 4 and 6 in the "evolution in public schools" thread and on page 6 in the "my issues with christianity" thread. Explanation of the quote - 1) There are many human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs) found in the human genome. 2) Most of these families of HERVs are found in other primates, at the same site of integration or loci, suggesting all those who share HERVs, including humans, inherited them from our most recent common ancestor. The mathematical probability of a multitude of HERVs inserting in all primates in thier precise locations and harbouring the same knockout mutations is staggering. Further reading: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses ------------------------------------------------------ Another line of evidence to corroborate with the aformentioned. The motivation behind posting this is that there seemed to be so much quick disregard for evolution as 'just a theory' or 'unproven.' Well, here's some proof. Here are some genome data comparig ours to other primates and the interpretation of that data. Comment, criticise, critique. That's what we're here for.

And I don't think anyone has a problem with that. The issue here is of course teaching these creation stories in science classes. It seems peapole are pretty unanimous on avoiding teaching creation stories in science classes though, which is good.

If you didn't teach theory, all they'd have to do is give you a book of irrelevant facts and say "study it." Pretty useless. As people have tried to stress ad nauseum, theory does not imply guess or conjecture. It's a much stronger framework than that based on observation, hypothesis, tests on those hypothesis and support from numerous lines of evidence.