Portal   Forum   Members   Market   Gallery   Events

stupid religious people

Discussion in 'Chit Chat' started by dapork, Oct 5, 2002.

  1. cowofwar

    cowofwar Peasant

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2000
    Messages:
    13,721
    Likes Received:
    18
    Market Rating:
    0
    Do you seriously believe that every creature on Earth today was created as it is by God millions of years ago?

    Evolution is just the survival of organisms that have favorable expressed genes. Slowly organisms with unfavorable genes decrease due to low levels of reproduction and those with favorable genes (naturally available or from mutation) reproduce more often leading to what we know as evolution.

    How does this go against creationism? It makes a lot more sense that God created the necessary base components required for life and let evolution take place.

    If this wasn't the case then why did God create dinosaurs? No humans were around until the very end of their reign.
     
  2. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,759
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16
    yet you do not refute my saying that your unquestioning faith is foolish, and claiming that god exists undeniably and that "he" is the only true explanation to everything in the universe is unwise. these statements are based on conclusions that we have reached together.
     
  3. dapork

    dapork Peasant

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2001
    Messages:
    1,424
    Likes Received:
    1
    Market Rating:
    0
    Ok, I think we can declare evolution as a certainty that can't be denied.

    um... on what grounds?
     
  4. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,759
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16
    instead of "foolish" and "unwise" let's say "not good" as a general negative as to not unintentionally offend. :)
     
  5. SpocKirk

    SpocKirk Forum Moderator and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2000
    Messages:
    4,813
    Likes Received:
    25
    Market Rating:
    0
    why millions? yes, I seriously believe it. there might not have been the intra-species diversity that we have now, but with the theory I presented, that diversity could have come about by the interbreeding process over millennia.

    the definition you have used for evolution is mostly talking about natural selection. the only thing you mention that has to do is the mutation part.

    Creationism is described in the Bible and says nothing about evolving into new species

    dinosaurs existed with man (there are a few still around)

    umm, I haven't seen anything that would make evolution a certainty. I ask (yet again) for facts
     
  6. dapork

    dapork Peasant

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2001
    Messages:
    1,424
    Likes Received:
    1
    Market Rating:
    0
    What cow was talking about, is a way or evolution to take place. It's called evolution by means of natural selection. What would you call "facts?" Cause it seems you have a different definition for them.
     
  7. SpocKirk

    SpocKirk Forum Moderator and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2000
    Messages:
    4,813
    Likes Received:
    25
    Market Rating:
    0
    fact  (fkt)
    n.
    1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.

    2.
    a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
    b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
    c. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.

    3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.



    fossil records of intermediate species showing the evolution of one species to another, that amino acid thing with a progression of how that developed into life, etc. (all using the scientific method, of course)
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2002
  8. Haite

    Haite Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2001
    Messages:
    9,325
    Likes Received:
    34
    Market Rating:
    0
    I would say that my study on the nature of the universe more than qualifies me out of the "unquestioning" group. I also do not close myself to possibility, I have said this, but at this time God is the only postulated solution to the illogical nature of the universe, I have also said this.
     
  9. cowofwar

    cowofwar Peasant

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2000
    Messages:
    13,721
    Likes Received:
    18
    Market Rating:
    0
    Well as much as I'd like to believe that *BAM* the earth is here, and *BAM* now people are here, and everything stays static I really can't accept that for myself.

    It leaves too many holes.

    There are many discoveries in the field of biology that link organelles present in eukaryotic cells to prokaryote organisms that have entered the eukaryotes cell and formed a relationship with the host cell. Including mitochondria and chloroplasts.
     
  10. Haite

    Haite Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2001
    Messages:
    9,325
    Likes Received:
    34
    Market Rating:
    0
    I declared micro-evolution, which is nonspeciatian-evolution, to be a truth. Macro-evolution is so unlikely that it probably is not happening.

    On the grounds of a hypothetical survey. I postulate that if I were to ask people their opinion of the nature of emotion, that I would find a vast majority giving a more detailed and personal reply than just "chemical reactions".

    As I stated in a previous post, this is a misnomer. Natural selection can only select from already existing traits, eventually thinning out the gene pool. Did you know there's a species of seal where all members have the same genes? It's because only dominant genes are expressed now at all, and the species will likely go extinct due to degenerate mutation.

    The only way to introduce new genetic code is through random mutation. I also already said that this mutation is overwhelmingly a malefactor which is usually snuffed out through natural selection within a few generations.
     
  11. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,759
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16
    big words :stupid2:

    it's more than a postulate when an entire institution is formed around it. :nod:

    //edit: rather, people think / believe it's more than a postulate.
     
  12. cowofwar

    cowofwar Peasant

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2000
    Messages:
    13,721
    Likes Received:
    18
    Market Rating:
    0
    Well when we die we'll all know whether there's a God or not.
     
  13. dapork

    dapork Peasant

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2001
    Messages:
    1,424
    Likes Received:
    1
    Market Rating:
    0
    Oh common. First of all, you haven't taken the survey, and if you did it's all based on people's opinions. Do really think any of those people know what the hell emotions are?
     
  14. Haite

    Haite Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2001
    Messages:
    9,325
    Likes Received:
    34
    Market Rating:
    0
    Since they experience them and it's relative, then yes. Emotions are of a metaphysical extension of a physical reaction, they're more than just a bodily function.
     
  15. Haite

    Haite Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2001
    Messages:
    9,325
    Likes Received:
    34
    Market Rating:
    0
    For 9th grade biology, yes. A photosynthetic prokaryote and a chloroplast are similiar, this is true, but so are many multicellular species. I have laid down a solid argument using modern scientific theory against evolution, because two things look alike and function alike is not equal refutation.

    Einstein's theory of special relativity results from two statements - the two basic postulates of special relativity:

    The speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter what their relative speeds.
    The laws of physics are the same in any inertial (that is, non-accelerated) frame of reference. This means that the laws of physics observed by a hypothetical observer traveling with a relativistic particle must be the same as those observed by an observer who is stationary in the laboratory.

    Not everyone looks into their religion as much as the theologians, they look to those who spend their career on the topic to give them the truth.
     
  16. Kaeric

    Kaeric Peasant

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2001
    Messages:
    1,850
    Likes Received:
    4
    Market Rating:
    0
    Of course it CAN be denied...it's a theory, theories are unprovable, therefore, deniable.
     
  17. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,759
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16
    i never paid attention in biology and haven't taken a biology class for 7 years. sosume. despite your implied slander at my intelligence, you have done nothing to discredit my argument. the ball is still yours.

    not related.

    believing god to exist for sure is still "not good" because to accept a possible explanation as the only one is "not good." you have not addressed these two points that i made a while back that offended you. if you agree with these points then you are in conflict with your religion.
     
  18. dapork

    dapork Peasant

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2001
    Messages:
    1,424
    Likes Received:
    1
    Market Rating:
    0
    It's not a theory, we have proof all around us.
    Hell, reality's a theory.
     
  19. cowofwar

    cowofwar Peasant

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2000
    Messages:
    13,721
    Likes Received:
    18
    Market Rating:
    0
    What? Make sense next time.

    How else would laws be created if you couldn't prove theories?

    You can't just deny a theory. I DENY YOUR THEORY! It doesn't make sense.
     
  20. Haite

    Haite Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2001
    Messages:
    9,325
    Likes Received:
    34
    Market Rating:
    0
    It was slander, but not meant at you, although it would be taken that way since I quoted you and not cow, apologies. Cow and I just poke fun at each other since we overinflate our posts with long words.

    "Ball in my court" again? I wasn't even arguing with you on that topic at all, I have no idea what argument it is that I'm even trying to discredit since cow and dapork were the ones talking about evolution.

    Very related, pointing out modern science based on fundamental postulates, since everyone seems so pro-science and anti-religion, though the two function with incredible similiarity. The only difference is the Church explores both metaphysics and pure physics, while modern science explores only pure physics.

    To put the last two or so pages aside after repeated attempts at indirect suggestion, I'll be more blunt: I question my religion and I am open to other possibilities besides God ("to kill with the point lacks artistry"...). Being the greater authority on my own religion I'll tell you I'm not in conflict with it. The Church herself questions its own authenticity with scores of scientific inquiries.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2002

Hitometer: 53,939,576 since 1995