I.M. Gei Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack of the Dead Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 you're right. I don't have all the answers. I know I don't know everything about God. but I know that he's infinite and is actually the easiest thing to believe. have you ever heard of a Case for Christ? It can lay it out better than I can hope to imagine. and guess what, while the man was researching to write this book, he was an atheist. if you so choose you can read it and see what changed him. I obviously can't. I read the bible and I see how the pieces fit together. its not something I can change over here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uguu Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 you're right. I don't have all the answers. I know I don't know everything about God. but I know that he's infinite and is actually the easiest thing to believe. have you ever heard of a Case for Christ? It can lay it out better than I can hope to imagine. and guess what, while the man was researching to write this book, he was an atheist. if you so choose you can read it and see what changed him. I obviously can't. I read the bible and I see how the pieces fit together. its not something I can change over here. Not that the rest of your post isn't worth laughing at but holy shit hahaha REALLY? Maybe it is easier to believe. That doesn't mean shit though because the human mind is kind of a piece of shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peener weener Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Not that the rest of your post isn't worth laughing at but holy shit hahaha REALLY? Maybe it is easier to believe. That doesn't mean shit though because the human mind is kind of a piece of shit. It doesn't mean shit because easiest to believe =/= facts. That's like saying the baby-crane thing that carries newborn babies is real because it is the easier thing for children to believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freohr Datia Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 .... *is not quite sure how she feels on everybody arguing against others' religion/non-religion* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peener weener Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 I read the bible and I see how the pieces fit together. well I guess we're all wrong then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack of the Dead Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 we'll all know one day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esme Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Well that was fun while it lasted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mousefire Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 we'll all know one day. Yep. That day will be when Super Robot Wars OG2nd comes out in America. For with such a holy miracle, there must be a god. Of course, that god is likely the Einst Reggiseur, in which case we are all fucked due to a lack of giant robots. Everyone, pray to the Getter Robo Bible every night in hope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defeatist Elitist Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 (edited) you're missing the fact that it's a choice. mankind is corrupt. unholy. evil in nature. Don't tell me you never had the urge to do anything wrong. that's called a sinful nature. because of that we are literally separate from God. now God made an order that he was going to stick to. sacrifice for mercy. well. he sacrificed himself for complete redemtion of all mankind. all they needed to do was turn away from sin. Didn't mean they were always going to be perfect afterwards. to err is human, and christians are still human. First of all, it's insane to just assume that everyone is evil (plus no objective morality, etc, but that's beside the point), and urges to do something wrong is irrelevent,only actions should be considered. Regardless, being all powerful, BY DEFINITION God would be able to make us without sin. well I find it interesting that the entire world works together. in order for plants to survive they need Carbon dioxide and light along with other nutrients. they give off oxygen. animals use oxygen and give off Carbon dioxide. the human body. irreducibly complex. its like a watch. if you take a piece out of the watch its not going to work anymore. same way with the human body. as I said earlier, you don't get that from random chance and evolution. there is too much complexity for there to not be a creator. Notice I'm not saying this prove that God is the one that did this. This just shows that there was a creator. the earth was also different back then. It had an atmosphere that was able to sustain life, like the dinosaurs that do not exist today. man could have lived for hundreds of years. there is also evidence of a great catastrophe that hit the earth. I remember reading about some digs in North america that yielded dinosaur bones. most of them were cracked or completely broken. evidence that something big hit. wouldn't a worldwide flood fit in this instance? and I would like for you to include a civilization that didn't have some sort of higher power that you can think of off the top of you head. because every major civilization recognized a higher power. and I suppose that by flat you mean the whole ends of the earth deal. that meaning that chrisitians were supposed to go to all the world to preach. and the majority of the world didn't know if the world was flat or not. it was said so that everyone would understand their mission. I've never seen anything that said the earth was supported by pillars. care to show me where? If you don't understand even the most basic of scientific concepts then I suggest you don't fucking talk about them you tool. Irreducible complexity is a bullshit argument, and nothing is irreducibly complex. To refute your arguments presented here though, firstly, your "Carbon Dioxide/Oxygen" dychotomy is way over simplified, but regardless, a lot of plants actually use more oxygen than carbon dioxide, and all plants use both. Additionally, it's not so much that plants need carbon dioxide, as it is that they like to make sugars, which can be used to store energy (just as in human beings), and sugars require a source of carbon. It just so happened that eventually circumstances on earth were such that reducing carbon dioxide became an incredibly effective method of creating sugar. Regardless of this though, if you understood the first fucking thing about evolution, you would understand that plants and animals "playing off" each other in the way you described makes perfect evolutionary sense. Many sects of buddhism are essentially athiestic in that they didn't believe Buddha was a god. They did sort of believe in a higher power, I suppose though. Many of the Chinese philosophies lacked gods, etc. As for the flood, there is absolutely no geological evidence of a worldwide flood, and it doesn't make much sense in context regardless. Beyond that, there are so many possible explanations for SOME dinosaur bones being cracked, that a worldwide flood is almost impossible in comparison. I challenge you to prove to me that the world can exist the way it has being the result of an explosion that resulted of infinite matter (aka nothing) and how things could change into what they are today and how we have no actual record in 5000 years of a species experiencing a significant change. It's shit like this that demonstrates to me that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. The prevalence of disease itself should be proof enough that species have undergone significant change, as can things ranging from the results of animal husbandry, to the variations in size of various hunted animals or a host of other examples. Beyond that, 5000 years is an absurdly tiny period of time as far as evolution is concerned, record keeping was absolutely atrocious for approximately 4900 of it, and we have a huge number of examples from before then. As for the Big Bang, I don't see what problems you have with it. The theory has held up remarkably well to criticism and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. It is a well supported and reasonable explanation of how the universe as we know it came into being, and there are no real holes in it. In many ways it's a complex theory, but it shouldn't be that difficult to understand the basics. I recommend again that you actually read something by actual scientists on the subject, but to get you started here's the wonderful and incredibly easy to understand lecture by Lawrence Krauss.the significance is shown above. and how does that fact that he knows all that will happen effect the premise of free will? It's an insignificant sacrifice because it's not a sacrifice. The biggest drawback was dying, but he fucking knew he wouldn't. Basically, he was like "I'm going to die for your sins, but I'm not actually going to die". sure, assholery helps. You can call me an asshole once you stop being an intolerable fool who suscribes to a notion that not only flies in the face of all scientific knowledge, but also retards the progression of our entire fucking species. Until then, fuck off. can you trace the steps of evolution? what proof from the world proves the link between man and ape? it was an assumption that there is no higher power that led to this theory. not the proof found in the world. there is no fossil evidence. no links. nothing definitive. evolution does not make sense, believe it or not. Again, you really do not understand evolution at all, and you clearly have not done the slightest bit of research into the scientific literature. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, be it in vestigial organs, the fossil record, genetics, especially in junk DNA, similarities between modern animal, and the list goes on. Simple English wiki says it best when it says "nothing in modern biology makes sense without [evolution]". As far as fossil records and "missing links", what about all the pre homo sapien homonids we KNOW existed? Biogenesis. life comes from life. if there was nothing alive before a certain point in time, how does it magically start living? The modern theory of abiogenesis, while certainly not as unquestionable as the big bang or evolution, does have considerable merit and evidence in it's favor. how does the human have morality? There is no objective morality, but if you mean a sense of morality, and things like the golden rule, then again, you don't fucking understand the first thing about evolution. You are a complete fucking moron if you cannot comprehend that not doing shit like indiscriminately killing other members of your species might be evolutioarily favorable. Fuck man. why does the human have a capacity for the abstract and things that are above that of an animals? Because that capacity was, and still is incredibly evolutionarily advantageous, but also rather difficult to achieve. It took hold in us, we got a bit "lucky", we out competed several other species with that capacity, and we emerged as we are today from it as the only species that we know can do that (though to be fair, we can be fairly certain several other animals are self aware, so a number of them may have a basic capacity for many of these things). can you logically answer those questions? Yeah I can, given that I am a very moderately scientifically literate person, which you obviously aren't. But honestly, before you post again, educate yourself and go read some scientific literature, or failing that, just browse the wikipedia articles for some of this shit, because it is an insult to these theories for someone like me to have to defend them. Edited December 31, 2011 by Defeatist Elitist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defeatist Elitist Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 we'll all know one day. I'm pretty sure I know now, but when I'm dead I won't know, because I'll be fucking dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack of the Dead Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 yeah. don't come to my part of texas when you die. I'll bury you outside the cemetery facing west. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uguu Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 (edited) cool people get burned to ashes after death little boy Edit: CREMATED that was the word I was looking for Edited December 31, 2011 by Hikarussr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack of the Dead Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 we do that too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freohr Datia Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 yeah. don't come to my part of texas when you die. I'll bury you outside the cemetery facing west. I'm sorry but... ignoring that whole post wasn't a very smart move, for your argument at least. I read the whole thing and really a whole lot of what he says is true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defeatist Elitist Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 yeah. don't come to my part of texas when you die. I'll bury you outside the cemetery facing west. Why should I give a shit about what happens to my body after I die? I mean, in all probability I'll just donate it for research or something, but if that was supposed to be intimidating or something, it fucking wasn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaybee Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 I'm not going to say anything other than creationism is fucking bullshit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defeatist Elitist Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 I'm not going to say anything other than creationism is fucking bullshit. I'm going to be honest, this may well be way better than saying what I did. I fear I give it too much credit to address his arguments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack of the Dead Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 I'm sorry but... ignoring that whole post wasn't a very smart move, for your argument at least. I read the whole thing and really a whole lot of what he says is true. I'm done responding to something that insults me at every turn. I haven't seen any examples of those that work. "nothing is irreducibly complex" threw out that post. go read up on the chemical processes behind blood clotting and tell me how that isn't irreducibly complex. anyway. I'm done. people aren't going to listen anyway. I knew you wouldn't because I know the people of this forum well enough to know their stances on this issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defeatist Elitist Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 (edited) I'm done responding to something that insults me at every turn. I haven't seen any examples of those that work. "nothing is irreducibly complex" threw out that post. go read up on the chemical processes behind blood clotting and tell me how that isn't irreducibly complex. anyway. I'm done. people aren't going to listen anyway. I knew you wouldn't because I know the people of this forum well enough to know their stances on this issue. Fuck off. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and I can't believe you would even dare to tell me to go read up on scientific processes when you clearly don't have the faintest idea about any of the ones you're talking about. Additionally, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that it IS irreducibly complex anyway, so fuck off again. Edited December 31, 2011 by Defeatist Elitist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freohr Datia Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Well, insults aside, what he says is correct. As I've already said, I don't really support all this arguing that's going on, but I'm just trying to point out that if you really want to make your points any more valid it won't work/help to ignore everything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Original Alear Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Most elements being naturally created by giant exploding balls of fire doesn't seem very smart either imo Are you kidding that sounds amazing. I think that's a gr9 idea. If I was a god and came up with that one I would definitely do it. I mean uh when I was god and I came up with that one I totally did it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uguu Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 by Lawrence Krauss btw this is pretty cumming everywhere Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balcerzak Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 the chemical processes behind blood clotting and tell me how that isn't irreducibly complex. Double-knockout mice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack of the Dead Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Abiogenesis, aka chemical evolution. the one that assumes that there was no oxygen in the atmosphere and those conditions allowed for amino acids to be formed. and this was tested by miller and urey correct? well from what I read they were only able to produce about half of the necessary amino acids for life and some of them were actually the wrong kinds and therefore useless. it assumed that the atmosphere was not oxidizing, but was made of methane. while it did produce those amino acids, it failed to take into account that amino acids easily break apart under natural sunlight, therefore they would not have been able to for a protein, much less an organism. and if this theory were true, how could we have oxygen in the atmosphere today and not then? how did it change? also amino acids and polypeptide chains are more likely to break apart in water than they are to form. water being the primordial soup which all life was supposed to originate from. the other big thing is that proteins don't form from amino acids without dna. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.