|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 02/20/2008 : 21:03:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by andrew19
I would like to ask a simple question! What evidence, short of God coming out of the sky, and saying " hi", would it take for you to believe that God exists?
|
I do believe God exists. I could ask you what evidence short of the Goddess coming up and kissing your forehead would it take you to beleive in Her? Same type of question you have posed to the denizens here.
No one here doubts that you truely believe in your theological construct of a God. Like they don't doubt that I truely believe in my theological constructs of a God and Goddess.
Some members here are more than happy to accept any empirical data you have for the existance of a God.
Empirical evidence requires that the phenomenon be observable, definable, and measurable. Once one places limits on a deity by measuring and defining, that concepts stops being devine.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2008 : 21:43:41 [Permalink]
|
| I would like to reply to ricky first. In that, i am in no means trying to be rude. I simply have not had the time in years to become properly acquainted with the subjects and information with which i am provided with as answers. Would you rather me make a statement on something in ignorance? I may ask questions based on faulty information, but how else is one to learn the truth?? |
Everyone starts out ignorant, there is no avoiding that. And you will make mistakes, we all do. Discussing the subject with another person, even if that person is less knowledgeable than you, can provide a different perspective and be beneficial. But you have no interest in discussion, you don't discuss anything. You simply take our responses, say "thanks", and then change the topic completely. You aren't interested in learning, and I nothing you say can convince me that you are until you change your posting style and actually have a discussion with us. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 02/21/2008 : 03:16:14 [Permalink]
|
Whether or not God(s) exist is immaterial because even if it/they should, they are, by necessity, of the supernatural. Science wants nothing to do with the supernatural and rightly so, because it cannot be measured nor tested, nor experimented upon, nor even observed. If it could, then it wouldn't be supernatural any more, would it? And if God should be found mundane rather than mysterious, there would be no point in worship, would there?
And there, in a nutshell, is religion: an attempt at explanation for the unexplainable.
I had a late night of nose-in-book, and it's too early in the morning to be writing this sort of crap. Is the coffee done yet?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
andrew19
New Member
USA
16 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2008 : 07:05:45 [Permalink]
|
| Ricky! I am very disappointed that i come across in that way. I am interested in learning, I have left many assumptions behind in regards to macro evolutionary theory in general since i started posting here. Has that changed where I stand? No. Does that mean that I'm not interested in learning? I hope not. Thanks for the interesting question/post Valiant Dancer. See even though I may refer to God in the masculine, He is actually non-gendered. He created genders, he applied the masculine to himself to establish himself as a father type figure so we humans could, in a way, relate to him. But as to the empirical for God. If God did indeed provide that evidence, would any "love" reciprocating from that be true love?? Which he indeed desires from us. Or would that reciprocated love be dutiful ? That is why I, as a Christian, accepted Christ on faith. He then revealed the reality of his existence. And you are correct in that if you could define the undefinable it would cease to be undefinable. Filthy I'm sorry about your late night. I think that whether God exists or not is everything but immaterial. If god truly exists and said god created us , than that god is deserving of our reverence/interest is it not?? Am i right ?? Whats your opinion?? As for me I have a very important test in 1 hour so i gtg. Thanks for your time and opinions all. God bless |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 02/21/2008 : 08:15:22 [Permalink]
|
| Filthy I'm sorry about your late night. I think that whether God exists or not is everything but immaterial. If god truly exists and said god created us , than that god is deserving of our reverence/interest is it not?? Am i right ?? Whats your opinion?? As for me I have a very important test in 1 hour so i gtg. Thanks for your time and opinions all. God bless |
"Don't cry for me, Argentina." It's a damned good book and I'm looking forward to diving back into it!
My opinion, for what it's worth: Certainly an all-powerful entity would be worthy of worship, if such it demanded; although I fail to see why it would insist on it, having the rest of the entire universe to play with. Beside that, we're pretty boring.
How&ever, unless and until such emperical evidence as to the existence of this guy is produced, I can't bring myself to blindly follow the writings of Bronze Age, semi-nomads who knew little of the world beyond their own, picayune territories, and certainly not that of their latter-day apologists.
Re: micro/macro evolution; there ain't no such an animal! It's all just plain, old evolution. The micro/macro bit was first put forth by desperate creationists who finally had to admit that there was at least some sort of biological evolution going on but couldn't bring themselves to even tentativly accept the whole thing (which they feared might put them out of business, and in at least some cases, likely would). For some reason, the scientific community also adopted the terms, perhaps for ease in descriptions.
So yet again, I ask: how many micros, do you think, it would take to form a macro? I have yet to get a satisfactory answer to this question and don't believe that I ever will.
Best of luck on your exam, although you seem studious enough that you shouldn't need much.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2008 : 08:31:12 [Permalink]
|
andrew said:
| But as to the empirical for God. If God did indeed provide that evidence, would any "love" reciprocating from that be true love?? |
By that logic you can't experience "true" love towards other people because you have evidence that they exist.
Seriously, have you read the explanations of theory I linked for you yet?
Or, as Ricky has suggested (and your most recent post supports), do you just intend to keep changing the subject without engaging in an actual discussion?
I'm beginning to think you might be a carefully hidden sockpuppet of Jerome.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2008 : 08:34:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by andrew19
I would like to reply to ricky first. In that, i am in no means trying to be rude. I simply have not had the time in years to become properly acquainted with the subjects and information with which i am provided with as answers. Would you rather me make a statement on something in ignorance? I may ask questions based on faulty information, but how else is one to learn the truth?? |
Why don't you write something that tell us that you acknowledge what we are telling you? We are sitting on boatloads of information on evolution (and creationist misrepresentation of evolution), but how can we possibly know if you understand the information we are giving you? We might just as well tell you everything in Greek, and neither of us would be non the wiser.
It should be important to you too. We give you information, but you yourself have no way to determine if you understood us correctly unless we discuss the implications of what you have been told. Only then can we together reach a consensus on the information we have given you.
| I know what i believe. I ask these questions to better acquaint myself with this subject matter. Which is why in past posts i have said,and truly meant, that i appreciate the answers i am given. |
But what use is answers if you don't understand them?
As a believer, you evaluate the truth values of statements of fact by divine revelation. This process is very different from how science and skepticism works. Fundamentally different, and a lot of confusion and mis-interpretations will occur if we are not given opportunity to double-check the message is received.
| Even tho i may disagree on whether or not it points to a creator or macro evolution. I have personal experiences with my God and I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that He exists. You are welcome to disagree, that is your prerogative, and i will not intrude upon that. |
That sounds like a discussion meant for the Religion Folder here at SFN
Again i will disagree on whether this creature is an example of evolution or not.
|
That however is an appropriate subject for this forum. So... why not tell us your reasons for this belief, and we can examine why you reject the scientific evidence for Archaeopteryx being an intermediate species between dinosaur and bird?
Given your stated lack of knowledge of the theory of evolution, are you willing to entertain the notion that your knowledge in this field is flawed, and your position may be based partially on false premises?
I will leave you with this thought. Is mainstream science today, in our education system, and general public TRULY objective. The theory of evolution is still just that, a theory. Thanks for you time and God bless you! 
|
Now we're obviously back to the beginning again, with you obfuscating the issues by using words and expression that have dual meaning. Evolution is not "just that, a theory". Your use of the words in that paragraph implies the word theory to mean "a hunch" and not "scientific theory".
The point of a scientific theory is to be TRULY objective as much as possible. That is the whole point with science.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2008 : 08:43:45 [Permalink]
|
Strange how the religious have finally accepted global warming as fact based on the science, yet evolution which has about 10,000 times as much evidence to support it, is still just a hunch to them.
P.S. This is not directed at you Drew, im just venting. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2008 : 09:22:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by andrew19
And as for the archaeopteryx I was incorrect in labeling it a hoax. After googling the creatures name, the inquiry into the fossils authenticity i found, had been dismantled apparently. Again i will disagree on whether this creature is an example of evolution or not.
|
This is an opportunity for a proper discussion with the potential for learning. Tell us why you think this fossil is not an example of evolution. Don't let this opportunity pass you by.
Originally posted by andrew19
I will leave you with this thought. Is mainstream science today, in our education system, and general public TRULY objective.
|
Of course it is. Science reveals hoaxes and exposes bad science.
Originally posted by andrew19
The theory of evolution is still just that, a theory. Thanks for you time and God bless you!
|
How many years of theological programming have you endured. Belief/faith do not lead to knowledge. I find it a positive thing that you are here in the first place. Please, continue to open yourself up to the wealth of knowledge the members of this forum can provide.
Originally posted by andrew19
That is why I, as a Christian, accepted Christ on faith. He then revealed the reality of his existence.
|
No. That is faith, too |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2008 : 10:34:48 [Permalink]
|
Filthy spake:
| My opinion, for what it's worth: Certainly an all-powerful entity would be worthy of worship, if such it demanded; although I fail to see why it would insist on it, having the rest of the entire universe to play with. Beside that, we're pretty boring. |
I created a life in the form of my daughter. I love her, and I think she loves me. If one day she decides she doesn't love me, I think I would be sad, but I don't demand that she loves me. And I certainly would not make her life a living hell if she didn't.
I've always thought that my morals were vastly superior to most of the morals displayed by the various major cult's deities. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 02/21/2008 10:36:22 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2008 : 12:47:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by pleco
Filthy spake:
| My opinion, for what it's worth: Certainly an all-powerful entity would be worthy of worship, if such it demanded; although I fail to see why it would insist on it, having the rest of the entire universe to play with. Beside that, we're pretty boring. |
I created a life in the form of my daughter. I love her, and I think she loves me. If one day she decides she doesn't love me, I think I would be sad, but I don't demand that she loves me. And I certainly would not make her life a living hell if she didn't.
I've always thought that my morals were vastly superior to most of the morals displayed by the various major cult's deities.
|
Indeed, but you are merely another biological product of evolution as are we all.
'drew, I think the fossil you want is Archaeoraptor, the Piltdown of China  . That one was/is indeed a fraud, but a valuable find none the less as it was composed of two ancient species, one of them undescribed. Creationist go all of a tizzy over it and it really makes about as much sense as than their denial of Archaeopterix.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 02/21/2008 16:04:26 |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2008 : 14:18:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Originally posted by pleco
Filthy spake:
| My opinion, for what it's worth: Certainly an all-powerful entity would be worthy of worship, if such it demanded; although I fail to see why it would insist on it, having the rest of the entire universe to play with. Beside that, we're pretty boring. |
I created a life in the form of my daughter. I love her, and I think she loves me. If one day she decides she doesn't love me, I think I would be sad, but I don't demand that she loves me. And I certainly would not make her life a living hell if she didn't.
I've always thought that my morals were vastly superior to most of the morals displayed by the various major cult's deities.
|
Indeed, but you are merely another biological product of evolution as are we all.
'drew, I think the fossil you want is Archaeoraptor, the Piltdown of China . That one was/is indeed a fraud, but a valuable find none the less as it was composed of two ancient species, one of them undescribed. Creationist go all of a tizzy over it and it really makes about as much as than their denial of Archaeopterix.
|
From filthy's link in case the link isn't opened:
| This fossil led to a scandal when it proved to be a forgery upon actual scientific study. The forgery was constructed from rearranged pieces of real fossils. Zhou et al. found that the head and upper body actually belonged to a specimen of the primitive fossil bird Yanornis.[1] Rowe et al. found that the tail and legs belong to a specimen of the dinosaur Microraptor.[2] Despite this forgery, many true examples of feathered dinosaurs have been found and demonstrate the evolutionary connection between birds and other theropods. |
emphasis mine
edited to spell filthy correctly  |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 02/21/2008 15:41:54 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2008 : 15:39:59 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
| I'm beginning to think you might be a carefully hidden sockpuppet of Jerome. |
Dude, you are indeed a skeptical, cynical young fox! If your clairvoyance proves to be correct, you will undoubtedly win the annual W.&Glück Award for early detection of Troll activities!
|
|
|
|
andrew19
New Member
USA
16 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2008 : 17:34:45 [Permalink]
|
Man i think that Dr Mabusa may be right on the folder move. Yet again I hardly know where to begin. Ah yes Macro vs Micro. Ahh well i guess that I cant bring myself, based on the evidence presented thus far, to believe that many variations in a species give rise to entirely new species. I.E fish to reptile reptile to mammal and so on. How does the Archaeopteryx prove lizard to bird?? This is an entirely honest, unbarbed question, as I have never understood this. I understand that it bears characteristics of both lizard and reptile but how does that prove that they are linked. how did the need to fly arise?? If the half evolved form of a wing couldn't provide a function why would it continue to evolve?? These and many questions like them(and other reasons of the Godly kind) are why I cannot accept the theory of evolution. By no means am i implying that i don't want your opinions or the information I just so far have disagreed with, like i have said in previous posts, that they point to evolution. I have looked up, twice now, the definition of theory and would appreciate the claims of my ignorance on it to stop. I will now give the definition of along with some interesting info on the word. Theory:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The word theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.
In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the theory of general relativity.
In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statement "It's not a fact, it's only a theory." True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.
According to the National Academy of Sciences, Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2008 : 17:46:38 [Permalink]
|
| If the half evolved form of a wing couldn't provide a function why would it continue to evolve?? |
Who says it couldn't provide a function? |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Conservative Christian :D
