Your standing on religion

[Lionheart_0]

 

No acutly the point i made was valid, cause there is no proof at all that a god exists, therefore what he siad didnt make sense. Cause what if you say there is a spider is in the room, yet you cant see the spider at all, but you still feel that its there... theres no proof that a spiders there, only a feeling, and a bleif.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You missed the point again. He's speaking theoretically.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:oops: :oops: oppps... kinda missed that.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

Wait, is this documented somewhere? I do not remember hearing any scientific law that rules out a massive flood, Creation, or the fact that a massive petrified boat sits atop Mt. Ararat.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

People fail to realize that even after 500 years, the theory of evolution is still a theory. And you are judging the entire faith on a single facet. Realize that there are hundreds of denominations, not just the Catholic church.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry to burst your bubble but that is not a correct statement. In fact, I have heard the opposite...of course neither of us actually knows the real truth. But where Noah's Ark is, on the mountain, many men have tried going up there, and actually have been struck by lighting multiple times. This is not a made up myth, it is true, and I have read documents etc. on it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But it isn't the facts that keeps me going and believing, it is my faith.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There has been no evidence of Noah's ark being found. Here are a couple of articles on the hoaxes and alleged sightings from Christian aligned websites.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a001.html

 

 

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/report.asp

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The whole idea of the Earth being flooded is ridicules, you need to get the volume of water somewhere in the first place and it needs to disappear somewhere for the flood to subside. Also it wouldn't be able to explain ancient cultures such as the Aboriginal Australians which lived in Australia for over 40000 years (not to mention they have lived in Australia longer then the Young Earth predicts).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Have there been any evidence of the more outrageous events (if discovered would mean the bible has to be true) of the bible? I'm not talking about things like the Dead Sea scrolls but things like Noahs ark, Tower of Babel etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also using ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅEvolution is just a theoryÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

Imagine the universe as a room, and you want to prove that there is a spider in the room. If you want to prove the spider's presence, you only have to know one part of the room - the part where the spider is. However, if you wish to prove that there is no spider in the room, you must know every nook and crany of the room, lest the spider be hiding in some unknown corner.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's the same thing with God. To prove the existence of God, one would only have to have knowledge of one place where God is. But to prove that there is no God, one would have to know every bit of reality (be omniscient), lest God be in some far reach of the universe that man doesn't know about. Therefore, to say that there absolutely is no God is to claim omniscience. However, if you were omniscient, you'd probally fit the definition of God, hence proving that there is a God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All of that to say this: Man will never be able to conclusively say that there is no God, though one can reasonably say that one doesn't believe in God's existence. However, it is possible that someone could find direct proof of a God without being all-knowing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't exactly agree with that; I like to dream of things such as that there are galaxies out there that are entirely made of anti-matter (thus would annihilate with matter to a 1:1 ratio) and that there are other parts of the universe where our laws of physics don't work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The fact remains that our universe is generally isotropic (the same in all directions). If you can show that something applies in one section of space then there is no reason for it not to apply in all sections of space. This can be seen with observations such as the background radiation and galaxy distribution, so why shouldn't it apply to things like gods? If you have a statistically large enough area and god is not present there then the likelihood of god being somewhere else is infinitesimally small.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How could we ever make any judgement if we do not assume the universe is isotropic? Gravity might be repulsive somewhere else in the universe, chaos might work in the opposite direction somewhere else in the universe, there might be an invisible pink unicorn somewhere else in the universe etc. If we conclude there is no god in the here then what makes it likely he is somewhere else?

[xxept0]

Woah, I took all the time to read thease posts, and erm... Was gonna post a long lengthy post, but decided to stay on topic instead. :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, I believe there is an almighty, all knowing, omnipresent God, who loves me, and sent his son to die for my sins, whom without, I would be lost.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hey, I stayed on topic!!! :D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PS: Just want to say to some of you guys (Insane,Astralinre, etc) your faiths astounds me. The bible is still a vast field for me, and there are many things which I do not understand, or is trying to understand, or doesn't make sense until I give up, and move on. But you guys seem to really know your st00f. Really admire you guys for that. ;)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh yea, I read somewhere earlier, some guy said something like:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Until I see, then I will believe. (Or something similar).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hehe, I'm not sure where this scripture verse is from, but I love it! It says:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Blessed are those who have not seen but have believed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not sure if that was the EXACT biblical quote, but it had the same meaning. ;)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DOH!! I promised a short and on topic post!! :wall: :oops:

[Barihawk]

To Death_by_Pod:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow, you have seem to come up with a post that also comes straight from pro-evolution tracts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I do believe that the theory of gravity has been accepted to Law at least in the past 500 year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for aboriginals, who is to say exactly when the flood happened? Literal Biblists go by the geneogical accounts in the Bible to say exactly when the occured. However, we seem to forget that years have different meanings to different people. Considering the Julian calendar was not formed until the Roman era, how can we judge how long a biblical year was?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's like the 7 day argument. I personally believe that these were not days but era's. After all, the Creation story was told by God to Moses. And what, do tell, is a day to God? For all we know, God's day could have been billions of years!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The mistake your making is assuming that every Christian is a bible-toting literalist that assumes "It is in the Bible, therefore it is as true as the ink it is printed on." The Bible has lots of facts, and it has lots of metaphors. A worthy goal is to sort these out and learn to understand them, which unfortunately many people do not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So yeah, I am a creationist and I believe in dinosaurs and crap. Why? Because who are we to judge God and constrict him to our own thoughts and imaginations?

[goku_nazz]

I believe in a higher being.. I am a Catholic, don't really practise it much, but I believe nevertheless.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I believe in evolution. I make sense of suffering and death by believing in life after death.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I make sense of creation by thinking.. who the hell started the big bang? There was no time or space, there was no dimension, so how can this just randomly happen? It happened nowhere as there was no "space" or "room" so to speak. Unless this universe is a universe inside a bigger "universe" or whatever you want to call it outside of this dimension, then a greater being (God) must have created the big bang. Things like that don't just happen.

[weezcake]

Things randomly happen in nature. H+ + OH- = H2O.

[MyPurpleCrayon]

 

 

 

There has been no evidence of Noah's ark being found. Here are a couple of articles on the hoaxes and alleged sightings from Christian aligned websites.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a001.html

 

 

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/report.asp

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The whole idea of the Earth being flooded is ridicules, you need to get the volume of water somewhere in the first place and it needs to disappear somewhere for the flood to subside. Also it wouldn't be able to explain ancient cultures such as the Aboriginal Australians which lived in Australia for over 40000 years (not to mention they have lived in Australia longer then the Young Earth predicts).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Have there been any evidence of the more outrageous events (if discovered would mean the bible has to be true) of the bible? I'm not talking about things like the Dead Sea scrolls but things like Noahs ark, Tower of Babel etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also using ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅEvolution is just a theoryÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Astralinre]

I don't exactly agree with that; I like to dream of things such as that there are galaxies out there that are entirely made of anti-matter (thus would annihilate with matter to a 1:1 ratio) and that there are other parts of the universe where our laws of physics don't work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The fact remains that our universe is generally isotropic (the same in all directions). If you can show that something applies in one section of space then there is no reason for it not to apply in all sections of space. This can be seen with observations such as the background radiation and galaxy distribution, so why shouldn't it apply to things like gods? If you have a statistically large enough area and god is not present there then the likelihood of god being somewhere else is infinitesimally small.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How could we ever make any judgement if we do not assume the universe is isotropic? Gravity might be repulsive somewhere else in the universe, chaos might work in the opposite direction somewhere else in the universe, there might be an invisible pink unicorn somewhere else in the universe etc. If we conclude there is no god in the here then what makes it likely he is somewhere else?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Forgive me for not understanding, but if the universe is isotropic, then how come our laws of physics wouldn't work in some areas of space? If they apply to one section of space, wouldn't they apply to them all?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And, assuming you are correct that the universe is isotropic, I'd still argue that not finding God in a certain area wouldn't prove his non-existence. It could very well be that we just don't have the tools to detect him yet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You mentioned background radiation - how long have we had the tools to detect that? Imagine if we didn't have the tools to detect it, but we explored a significantly large area of space with the tools we did have. We wouldn't detect the background radiation, but that wouldn't disprove it's existence. We may have explored all the space, but we didn't explore every level of existence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In my mind, it's the same thing with God - we can explore all the space in the universe, but until we also explore all the levels of existence in the universe, we can't prove He doesn't exist. I realize this is a pretty weak argument and doesn't at all prove that God exists, but my point is simply that unless one knows all of reality (all space and all levels of reality), one cannot say with real certainty that God does not exists - the chance that He's out there cannot be entirely ruled out, though it may be made to seem unlikely.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

although the beginnings of christianity are pretty hypocritical in the sense that the church conned the masses into killing a bunch of people in the crusades for the sake of god is terrible, people that decide not to worship god and believe in god nowadays arent forced into it and burned at the stake for being heretics. I wish i could believe in god... because if i had nothing else to turn to i could turn to god, but I think the Bible is ridiculous. Supposedly its a gigantic Metaphor for things in general, but a while ago, before science proved Genesis and Noah's Ark impossible, all the religious people said that it was completely true. To each their own.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree that the Crusades were horrible, but they have nothing to do with the origins or teaching of Christianity. For one thing, Christianity orginated a millineum before the Crusades took place. For another thing, what the Crusaders did actually went against the teachings of the Bible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MyPurpleCrayon: One explanation I've heard is that the Flood was actually misinterpreted. The Hebrew word for world is the same as the Hebrew word for country or land, so the Flood was on a much smaller scale than we think. According to this explanation, only the Middle East was flooded, since that's where all of humanity was at the time and it wouldn't have been necessary to flood the rest of the world. However, I don't know Hebrew, and I've never seen the original text, so I'm not sure about the accuracy of that explanation. :?

[MyPurpleCrayon]

MyPurpleCrayon: One explanation I've heard is that the Flood was actually misinterpreted. The Hebrew word for world is the same as the Hebrew word for country or land, so the Flood was on a much smaller scale than we think. According to this explanation, only the Middle East was flooded, since that's where all of humanity was at the time and it wouldn't have been necessary to flood the rest of the world. However, I don't know Hebrew, and I've never seen the original text, so I'm not sure about the accuracy of that explanation. :?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah I have heard about that too...

[insane]

The whole idea of the Earth being flooded is ridicules, you need to get the volume of water somewhere in the first place and it needs to disappear somewhere for the flood to subside. Also it wouldn't be able to explain ancient cultures such as the Aboriginal Australians which lived in Australia for over 40000 years (not to mention they have lived in Australia longer then the Young Earth predicts).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course you won't like this idea - but if the account is true that a flood happened, wouldn't it make sense that God caused the water to come into existence?... clearly I think the creator of this UNIVERSE can cause some WATER to come into existence at will - and therefore science doesn't need to be used to account for this.

[goku_nazz]

Listen, ya'll better study better because the story of Noah's Ark wasn't real.. neither are the creation stories, or any other crap like that. They are metaphorical stories with implied meaning.

[anonimu]

I believe that there is a Creator... It could be light, or something totally different... I also believe that if there is a Heaven it doesn't mattter how you act as long as you think that it's the right and polite way to act... I mean God would be intelligent enough to know that not everyone who knows about Christianity will actually believe everything...

 

 

 

I also agree that the Universe is huge and that in some parts of the universe

our laws of physics don't work

there are galaxies ... that are entirely made of anti-matter

Gravity might be repulsive ... chaos might work in the opposite direction ... there might be an invisible pink unicorn ... etc.

[MyPurpleCrayon]

Listen, ya'll better study better because the story of Noah's Ark wasn't real.. neither are the creation stories, or any other crap like that. They are metaphorical stories with implied meaning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you honestly expect anyone here to take you seriously? That is just rude and disrespectful of you and to other people's beliefs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Get outta here.

[drk_killer]

http://www.dr-umar-azam.com/aspects_of_islam/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

all i have to post

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

Forgive me for not understanding, but if the universe is isotropic, then how come our laws of physics wouldn't work in some areas of space? If they apply to one section of space, wouldn't they apply to them all?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You mentioned background radiation - how long have we had the tools to detect that? Imagine if we didn't have the tools to detect it, but we explored a significantly large area of space with the tools we did have. We wouldn't detect the background radiation, but that wouldn't disprove it's existence. We may have explored all the space, but we didn't explore every level of existence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You misunderstood me; the first paragraph was me rambling on about what I would like to imagine, not what the case actually is. As it is, the universe is apparently isotropic and it would be safe to assume the laws of physics is indeed the same everywhere.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also the whole discussion is hypothetical, obviously a pre-requisite for knowing if god exists is a device to actually measure god. Whole sections of science (such as statistics, astronomy, physics, mathematical induction etc) all go on the assumption of an isotropic situation and my question was why god detection couldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t be any different.

[shadeglad]

:D Well ya see I look at it this way. I believe in God because I believe He exhists in spite of my belief or lack thereof. I think fallacy number one in the entire 'atheist' dogma is, "We created God."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even given the advances in Chaos theory and random string developement, the 'evolution' of living organisms, at all, never mind in ever growing complexity, relies on so many concurrent coincidences that 'atheism' actually requires more blind faith than many 'religious' outlooks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The primary factor acknowledged by most reputable scientific 'clergy', because lt's face it, atheism is a 'belief', not a conclusive fact; is the concept of 'entropy.'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Entropy is the natural tendency of a body, system, what have you, to slow down or decay with the passage of duration.

 

 

 

Everything dies, everything is constantly in a state of breaking down to it's simplest state. This 'entropic' condition of the 'natural' universe flies in the face of evolutionary theory, which propounds the ever increasing complexity of the organic being.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Secular pundits are just as likely as 'religious' ones to ignore 'inconvenient ' facts when attempting to bolster the case of 'us and that's it!' :wink:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The latest target of the atheist 'witch hunt', for lack of a better term, is the theory of intelligent design. The secular segments of the 'scientific' community shriek with desperate laughter as they attempt to infer that 'intelligent design' is just 'those wacky religionists' trying to re-package God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In fact nothing could be further from the truth. The concept of intelligent design, ( I won't lie to you, there are many, many supporters of the theory in the christian community), takes into account all of these unexplainable coincidences, and points out that there seems to be a constant, a 'guiding force' if you will, behind all of...everything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Intelligent design is not even a 'christian' idea, further more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's gaining cautious, and in many cases, given the torquemaedic response by the popular media to anything which attacks their god, i.e. "my holy self gratification;" circumspect acknoledgement by an ever growing body of the pure scientific community.

 

 

 

You know, those guys that let the evidence paint the picture rather than trying to ram the evidence into their picture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh yes, secularists do it too, and just as fanatically if not more so.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The idea of intelligent design, does not acknoledge the christian God at all.

 

 

 

In fact, it does not even mention anybody's 'gods.' It simply states that the preponderence of the available scientific evidence seems to indicate that their 'seems' to be some direct, guiding 'force' behind the creation and actualisation of the universe as we observe it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not as we think it is, or as we believe or insist it must be...but what we see happening.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evolution, which has become ever more frayed as the years have past is more tattered than ever.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Charles Darwin stated that there was a deadly flaw in his theory, one which he was convinced would be repaired as the passing years provided better, crucial evidence; evidence that the scientific methods and technologies of his day could not. Those technologies have indeed become more advance than he could ever have dreamed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately, the expected intermediary forms which Darwin confidently expected to appear, never did. Still haven't in fact. And it's becoming increasingly likely that they never will. The only fossils which have been brought to light, yes I said 'brought', have so far proven to be hoaxes. In some cases rather clever ones!! But hoaxes none the less.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So just keep right on worshipping yourselves and insisting that any attempt to create consequences for your choices is just a personal attack of some sort and a blatant violation of your 'validated-personhood.' :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for me? I belive the following quote illustrates my opinion on the subject;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"It does not matter if there is a God or not. One should behave oneself as if there were."

 

 

 

Winston Churchill

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

God bless!! :)

[Death_By_Pod]

To Death_by_Pod:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow, you have seem to come up with a post that also comes straight from pro-evolution tracts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I do believe that the theory of gravity has been accepted to Law at least in the past 500 year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for aboriginals, who is to say exactly when the flood happened? Literal Biblists go by the geneogical accounts in the Bible to say exactly when the occured. However, we seem to forget that years have different meanings to different people. Considering the Julian calendar was not formed until the Roman era, how can we judge how long a biblical year was?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's like the 7 day argument. I personally believe that these were not days but era's. After all, the Creation story was told by God to Moses. And what, do tell, is a day to God? For all we know, God's day could have been billions of years!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The mistake your making is assuming that every Christian is a bible-toting literalist that assumes "It is in the Bible, therefore it is as true as the ink it is printed on." The Bible has lots of facts, and it has lots of metaphors. A worthy goal is to sort these out and learn to understand them, which unfortunately many people do not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So yeah, I am a creationist and I believe in dinosaurs and crap. Why? Because who are we to judge God and constrict him to our own thoughts and imaginations?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know but the only "pro evolutionist" thing I was defending was the definition of theory in the scientific context. Look at the dictionary you will see something similar to the following (was taken from dictionary.com):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

 

 

 

2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know about you but it doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mention that scientific theories are guesses anywhere; actually to the contrary scientific theories actually explain things.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some people did take Newton's theory of gravity to be law even though it couldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t describe everything (eg. 3 large objects interacting with each other) and was later replaced by EinsteinÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s theory of gravity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you do not take the bible literally then why do you believe in a great flood and NoahÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s ark as being real but not things such as seven day creationism or the Earth is only a few thousand years old?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even if you do take days to be era's you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t explain things such as light and dark on the first ear but the sun was created on the fourth era. The sun is what gives us light and dark not to mention it took time to create stars so light couldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have existed early on in the universe. Also Plants would have been made on the 3rd era but they couldn't survive a whole era until the sun was made on the fourth era. Also why would god need a day for rest and wondering if creation is good; he knows everything and can will anything into existence so whatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s with the day of rest?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not making the mistake of imagining all Christians are literalists; in fact I went to school in an area of overwhelmingly Christian faith. Funny thing was every one of the kids that went to my school didn't believe in the bible literally (however the school required you to be in the top few percent of the state to enter so I guess it filtered out some of the less intelligent people); not one of them believed in the creation story or a global flood. They took the ideas such as being kind and fair over believing the stories as absolute truth. People who believe in NoahÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s ark being real and seven day creationists are literalists and my post defended against that instead of moralistic Christians which I couldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t care less about.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

Of course you won't like this idea - but if the account is true that a flood happened, wouldn't it make sense that God caused the water to come into existence?... clearly I think the creator of this UNIVERSE can cause some WATER to come into existence at will - and therefore science doesn't need to be used to account for this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can't describe Materialistic behaviour with theistic belief. The fact that flood was physical means that it can be explained as some sort of physical phenomena so was hasn't any scientifically verifiable explanation been put forth for testing?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know but an appeal to the supernatural isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t an argument for a materialistic phenomena; I don't think you would be to happy If I explained that god created us, god created the sun and god created every atom and god holds in place and god is lightning etc. basically using god as a scape goat for everything, so why does it apply in special cases such as miracles? It seems like science doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t need to account for anything when we have god on our side.

[Death_By_Pod]

:D Well ya see I look at it this way. I believe in God because I believe He exhists in spite of my belief or lack thereof. I think fallacy number one in the entire 'atheist' dogma is, "We created God."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even given the advances in Chaos theory and random string developement, the 'evolution' of living organisms, at all, never mind in ever growing complexity, relies on so many concurrent coincidences that 'atheism' actually requires more blind faith than many 'religious' outlooks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The primary factor acknowledged by most reputable scientific 'clergy', because lt's face it, atheism is a 'belief', not a conclusive fact; is the concept of 'entropy.'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Entropy is the natural tendency of a body, system, what have you, to slow down or decay with the passage of duration.

 

 

 

Everything dies, everything is constantly in a state of breaking down to it's simplest state. This 'entropic' condition of the 'natural' universe flies in the face of evolutionary theory, which propounds the ever increasing complexity of the organic being.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Secular pundits are just as likely as 'religious' ones to ignore 'inconvenient ' facts when attempting to bolster the case of 'us and that's it!' :wink:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The latest target of the atheist 'witch hunt', for lack of a better term, is the theory of intelligent design. The secular segments of the 'scientific' community shriek with desperate laughter as they attempt to infer that 'intelligent design' is just 'those wacky religionists' trying to re-package God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In fact nothing could be further from the truth. The concept of intelligent design, ( I won't lie to you, there are many, many supporters of the theory in the christian community), takes into account all of these unexplainable coincidences, and points out that there seems to be a constant, a 'guiding force' if you will, behind all of...everything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Intelligent design is not even a 'christian' idea, further more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's gaining cautious, and in many cases, given the torquemaedic response by the popular media to anything which attacks their god, i.e. "my holy self gratification;" circumspect acknoledgement by an ever growing body of the pure scientific community.

 

 

 

You know, those guys that let the evidence paint the picture rather than trying to ram the evidence into their picture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh yes, secularists do it too, and just as fanatically if not more so.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The idea of intelligent design, does not acknoledge the christian God at all.

 

 

 

In fact, it does not even mention anybody's 'gods.' It simply states that the preponderence of the available scientific evidence seems to indicate that their 'seems' to be some direct, guiding 'force' behind the creation and actualisation of the universe as we observe it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not as we think it is, or as we believe or insist it must be...but what we see happening.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evolution, which has become ever more frayed as the years have past is more tattered than ever.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Charles Darwin stated that there was a deadly flaw in his theory, one which he was convinced would be repaired as the passing years provided better, crucial evidence; evidence that the scientific methods and technologies of his day could not. Those technologies have indeed become more advance than he could ever have dreamed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately, the expected intermediary forms which Darwin confidently expected to appear, never did. Still haven't in fact. And it's becoming increasingly likely that they never will. The only fossils which have been brought to light, yes I said 'brought', have so far proven to be hoaxes. In some cases rather clever ones!! But hoaxes none the less.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So just keep right on worshipping yourselves and insisting that any attempt to create consequences for your choices is just a personal attack of some sort and a blatant violation of your 'validated-personhood.' :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for me? I belive the following quote illustrates my opinion on the subject;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"It does not matter if there is a God or not. One should behave oneself as if there were."

 

 

 

Winston Churchill

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

God bless!! :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow, just wow. You say scientists are ignorant because of entropy yet you incorrectly apply it to evolution and the Earth. The Earth (and therefore Evolution) is not in a closed system, we get energy from the sun which replenishes us to live another day. It is an open system so does not apply to the rule of going towards chaos.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Global warming would be a smack in the face of entropy because we are retaining more heat and hence have an increase in average temperature. Whereas Entropy states things tend towards a chaotic environment so all of the Earths energy should radiate out and disappear, but itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s not due to the sun keeping it nice and warm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It seems like another religious pundit choose to ignore the inconvenient facts when attempting to bolster the case of "us and that's it!" :wink:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well the 3 most vocal groups that openly support intelligent design believe in:

 

 

 

- A Christian God (Some Christians)

 

 

 

- Aliens [uFOÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s] (The RaelianÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s, the guys who claim to have cloned a human. Visit http://www.rael.org for more info)

 

 

 

- A Giant Spaghetti Monster (Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, http://www.venganza.org)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It sure doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t help to have the most vocal supports and writers of I.D. books such as Michael Behe to openly admit he believes the intelligent designer to be a Christian God. It also doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t help to have intelligent design be a part of the wedge strategy, a Christian attempt to get rid of science and replace it with Christian morals (by using intelligent design to fight scientific theories with Christian ones) http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html. Intelligent design sure is secular (where are the other major religions who have groups that support intelligent design?) :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It would be a ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åwitch huntÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[insane]

 

 

 

 

Of course you won't like this idea - but if the account is true that a flood happened, wouldn't it make sense that God caused the water to come into existence?... clearly I think the creator of this UNIVERSE can cause some WATER to come into existence at will - and therefore science doesn't need to be used to account for this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can't describe Materialistic behaviour with theistic belief. The fact that flood was physical means that it can be explained as some sort of physical phenomena so was hasn't any scientifically verifiable explanation been put forth for testing?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eh, I agree with you here, to an extent. My point was, if God can create a universe, he can create a flood.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know but an appeal to the supernatural isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t an argument for a materialistic phenomena; I don't think you would be to happy If I explained that god created us, god created the sun and god created every atom and god holds in place and god is lightning etc. basically using god as a scape goat for everything, so why does it apply in special cases such as miracles? It seems like science doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t need to account for anything when we have god on our side.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's personal vs. scientific cause, I think. God being the personal cause for the creation of the universe, and science explaining the methods behind it. So I'd be perfectly okay with you saying the above things, because, IMO it's indirectly (or maybe directly, who knows) true. Except for the part where God *is* lightning. I'd say he created lightning when he created the universe, he didn't become lightning... I'd also be perfectly okay with you using the Big Bang Theory and evolution (to an extent here, I'm still not a fan of evolution - though you call gravity a theory as well, we've had much more data to gravity, as I observe it in every move I make - I don't really observe evolution all that much - Unless I'm directly looking for it, and then maybe I'd end seeing things because I want to) as means for how the universe was created, as long as you don't bring in the "who" using science.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It sure doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t help to have the most vocal supports and writers of I.D. books such as Michael Behe to openly admit he believes the intelligent designer to be a Christian God

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wasn't Michael Behe's book more about disproving evolution's certainty using irreducible complexity than about his belief in a Christian God?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seems like a straw man to me.

[abyssalreaper]

not going to flame you for your (non)religion but how can u ignore the truth everything in existence is proof that God existsi hope that you realize that God exists because even though i dont know you it pains my heart to know that people will burn in hell

[Merre]

not going to flame you for your (non)religion but how can u ignore the truth everything in existence is proof that God existsi hope that you realize that God exists because even though i dont know you it pains my heart to know that people will burn in hell

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With all respect but: :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm an atheist. I'm not even baptized and I'm really thankful to my parents for it. They decided to let me choose when I was old enough to do so. Well I'm 21 now and I've thought lots of time about this matter. But as long as I haven't seen proof of something I don't believe it.

 

 

 

Just the fact that I can do whatever I want without any "upper creature" stopping me makes it more obvious that there is no god!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just watch all the stupid things that happen everyday: religious murders, terrorism, men that kill their wives and children coz they suffer a depression, American soldiers torturing Iraqi civilians, nature disasters, gangfights, drug victims, drunk drivers that kill others, people who kill for fun, students who kill their schoolmates and teachers, etc etc etc...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If there is a god, he must be a freaking sadist if you ask me!

[Pete_the_Viscous]

Edit. In fact, I'm not even going to bother. I've said it in too many religion v science topics at tip.it; those people who have been here for more than one of them already know what I think.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To those of you who don't know -- it was a point about not being so small minded as to say that one or the other must be (un)true.

[abyssalreaper]

 

not going to flame you for your (non)religion but how can u ignore the truth everything in existence is proof that God existsi hope that you realize that God exists because even though i dont know you it pains my heart to know that people will burn in hell

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With all respect but: :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm an atheist. I'm not even baptized and I'm really thankful to my parents for it. They decided to let me choose when I was old enough to do so. Well I'm 21 now and I've thought lots of time about this matter. But as long as I haven't seen proof of something I don't believe it.

 

 

 

Just the fact that I can do whatever I want without any "upper creature" stopping me makes it more obvious that there is no god!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just watch all the stupid things that happen everyday: religious murders, terrorism, men that kill their wives and children coz they suffer a depression, American soldiers torturing Iraqi civilians, nature disasters, gangfights, drug victims, drunk drivers that kill others, people who kill for fun, students who kill their schoolmates and teachers, etc etc etc...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If there is a god, he must be a freaking sadist if you ask me!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. i am tired of peopel blaming God for evrything dont u peopel realise satan roams the earht as well!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. I belive that all of our lives are a test that will determine what happens with our soul God gave us freee will and its up to us to decide to use that to our advantage in a good way or a bad way when Armagedon happesn those who used there free will to live a good life will go to heavan while the rest have to suffer through the Rapture

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

but hey thats how ilook at it if udont want to belive in God even though u ur self is proof of his existence fine.