P.S We'd be far more advanced (i say advanced, not better off) if science was allowed to grow freely without religion getting in the way. i.e stem cell research/human cloning.

We have a place for that: Its called Singapore

Its not religion's fault that science is so hampered. Its ignorance, the most common element in the universe.

Oh and compound interest too. That will kill us all

Oh and also Economics

And Politics

and Nationalism

and time wasted on forum boards

Thanks mate.. but evolution has been disproven many many time.... but the scientist just come up with an alternative theories ie: the horse theory, the archeological time line+ many many more, I'll have to look up if you want more.

...and religions have been disproven many many times too! The Millerites, Mormons, Catholics, Buddhists(North and South, Zen, etc), Egyptian/Greek/Roman. Each time this occurs a new theory is put forth and is followed, otherwise known as "COGNITIVE DISSIDENCE"

Just because scientific ideas change due to new evidence doesnt mean it is any less relevant. I think the key point to this whole argument is: Religion vs Science: Who would win? And the answer is easy. Science! Throw all the religionists(Including those Scientology bastards) off onto another planet and have another planet of scientific-centric people. We all know who's going to 'win': The Scientists. The Religious people would wipe themselves out in less than a decade. Probably the Shi'a and Sunni first.

I apreciate you quoted the bible (which you say you havn't read) so lets make sure we don't take things out of context or make stuff up. Thanks man

Why arent we allowed to take things out of context?? Religions have been doing it for centuries and just NOW you want to put the brakes on it? The Jehovahs Witness cult claims the bible forbids blood transfusions, Muslims refuse to eat pork, Hindus consider cows sacred. Do these sound like sensible rules to you, or theologically inspired mass-hysteria?

oh and rofl @ Hobbs was fond of his dram

Read the bible my freind

Let me clarify with an example. In Leviticus, "God" explains that male homosexuality is an abomination! I am not sure if this mean they roast over an open fire for the rest of eternity or if they have simply displeased God greatly and will suffer some other lower forms of torture for their transgressions. Either way, fundamentalist Christians love that part of the Bible (as do many non-fundamentalists unfortunately). I am going to give them this one for now. So, let's assume for the moment being that insane and grotesque idea is true.

In the same Leviticus, "God" says that anyone who eats shellfish -- shrimp, lobster, crabs -- shall also suffer eternal damnation. If they are in the sea and do not have fins or scales, eating them is ... an abomination! So, if gay guys are such a problem for society, then the evil shrimp-eaters must be just as big a problem, right? How come I don't hear that one talked about in the press so much? Because it shows how absolutely nuts it is to believe in religion.

And dont give me that line about "But Christs return institutes a new covenant with man which overrides the original from Sinai!" - That is BFS

This would mean that for some unknown reason God rejected his chosen people and branched out by allowing Gentiles to be converted? Does anyone else see the obvious and inherent problem in that, or am I going to have to do some explaining which annoys me to do and forces people reading to be put into Densa

Myth. Roosevelt was very keen to get involved, but he had trouble selling it to the general populace because of the large number of Americans who were descended from Germans and Italians.

It appears I have been a victim of the revisionists and you are right. Actually, that makes my case much worse. The American people would not endorse the sensible policy of their elected president!

Was teh Vodnik getting serviced? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NZyZsU87ms

People should never put themselves on youtube playing DDR on easy. The singing was good though, for a laugh

The earth is flat and is the centre of the universe. Everything rotates around us.

The church didnt actually teach that, because its completely wrong. Sailors knew the earth was round and the earth's circumference has already been roughly calculated

The modern misconception that people of the Middle Ages believed that the Earth was flat first entered the popular imagination in the nineteenth century, thanks largely to the publication of Washington Irving's fantasy The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus in 1828.

Also the idea of heliocentrism wasnt heretical. With Pope Urban VIII and the rise of the Jesuits in 1633, they adopted Tycho Brae's universal model exclusively.

Theologian and pastor Thomas Schirrmacher, however, has argued:
Contrary to legend, Galileo and the Copernican system were well regarded by church officials. Galileo was the victim of his own arrogance, the envy of his colleagues, and the politics of Pope Urban VIII. He was not accused of criticising the Bible, but disobeying a papal decree.

Anyway: Here is a fun link! Fundies say the darndest things!

Bah. The two quotes which rule over ALL OTHER QUOTES:

"This party's over!" - Mace Windu, Attack of the Clones

"......." - Keanu Reeves from any movie he's in

Lets just face it god isnt real! If you still believe in him in this day and age your an idiot

Quote from: Zarathrustra

God is dead.

Sorry. I cant get over how funny Zarathrustra is

3. Evolutionism's premise is self-existence. That is: If disproven(but NOT to Creationism) it ceases to exist and a whole new(third method) theory would come about.

Quote from: Arnifix

3. What the hell? Micro-evolution has been proven to occur. It is scientific fact. However if macro-evolution is proven to be false, then yes, a new theory would be needed.

What I mean is: Evolution is self-serving. Its a theory invented as an attempt to explain the creation of biological life using scientific method. From a Creationist point of view: Evolution is its own existence(or beast) whereas Creation advances nothing new and merely is a retooling of the old.

Good point.

I've read arguments before on this sort of thing, and the theory of there being 'nothing' also being impossible, as the idea of nothing must exist for there to be nothing...

Circular arguments make my head hurt these days, so I stopped caring.  Much like David Humes 'Principal of the Uniformity of Nature'.... That nub was a retard.  I hate him.  He owes me $ for the panadol to fix the headache.

Quote from: Bill Hicks

"Today a young man on acid realised that all matter was really energy
condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness
experiencing itself subjectively, there's no such thing as death,
life is only a dream, and we're the imaginations of ourselves.
Here's Tom with the weather ..."

If there was a 'god', then ideas of god like this make more sense to me.

Bill Hicks rocks.

God's Debris - Mr Hicks is abit late
David Hume is very very......'wordly preachy'. That is, he uses too many words for Gnosis and too few for....non-Gnosis(?) Unfortunately, I cant recommend any philosphers that are in a similar vein.

Since this thread is TL;DR this may have already been stated but...

Russel's Teapot that man was an absolute genious. Of course, the flying spaghetti monster falls well short of the brilliance of: The Church of the Sub-Genius

I don't "blindly adhere" to "scientific mantra"

This seems to be the main point of JayKay's posts, that you do. And is a point of contention

And eastern religions are alot worse? Hmmm, if you say so. That's an opinion based one. I have certainly not heard of any eastern religions inciting the bullshit that western and the middle-eastern religions have. Not to say shit hasn't gone down, just that its effect on the world hasn't been nearly as noticeable.

You mean the effect on the WESTERN world hasnt been nearly as noticeable. For example: The entire kingdom of Tibet layed down arms and became pacifist buddhist and a very similar occurance in the kingdom of Bhutan. Actually, that was a good thing.
Hinduism has had quite an effect on a small country called India. The seperation of castes could be construed as as an early method of apartheid.
Eastern religion needs its own thread, not a post here which will probably be unread

And it is the point of the thread. This is a religion "megathread".

Yeah sorry about that. The posts were all about evolution/creation and I forgot about the whole religion thing.

So you're implying that 2000 years from now, people will regard him as such? Lets not forget that Jesus Christ had an immediate impact on history. I mean, He did RISE FROM THE DEAD! Or did you miss that part?

People will NOT view Ghandi as a Jesus like figure for the simple fact that a) He claimed he was only a man. b) He claimed he was a Buddhist, and a Christian, and Hindu AND a Jew. c) He never claimed divine holiness or divinity. d) We have both is writings AND video footage of him i.e Proof of existence.

The point of my post was not to discredit the possiblity of Christ. In fact it was in response to the idea that Jesus was merely a "Martin Luther King" figure, which is entirely correct. I was merely to pointing out that given the lack of FIRST-HAND information about his TRUE teachings anyone could become an influential figure in biblical times.
Even Musilims give Jesus credit, but do not believe him to be the son of God.

Its actually closer to around 8000 years, according to the latest biblical-based estimates. The latest scientific estimates place it at closer to 4.7 billion years - just a slight difference.

That was in response to Laurasaur's posts. Her sources estimate it to be 5000 years

Centuries? You mean like the 3000+ years since it was originally written?

Yes I mean centuries. As in 300 centuries. More than that in fact, but cant go to far back. Only have 5000 years to play with human history.

Awesome - quote a fictional character when trying to prove a real point

Obviously the irony of quoting a Fictional character in reponse to Factual information eludes you. I think I'll just use them on Zarkov then

states that currently people who don't believe in God or don't subscribe to any particular religion are only numbered at 1.1 billion people worldwide. So really, I should say "I've 5 billion people who disagree with you" and then you say ...

Do Jedi count?

Okay on a more serious note: Could anyone actually give a summary on the position everyone is taking? The only truths I've found in this whole thread is:
1. Creationists and Evolutionists agree on non-mutually exclusive points i.e Life was created
2. The premise of Creationism discredits Evolutionism, but Evolutionism does NOT discredit Creationism, BUT Creationists believe that it is a direct attack on belief
3. Evolutionism's premise is self-existence. That is: If disproven(but NOT to Creationism) it ceases to exist and a whole new(third method) theory would come about.
4. Fundamentalist Creationists are 'muddying the waters' with unjustifiable claims and responding to inquiries with "Naturalism" and non-scientific endeavouration.

Which is sad, because the inverse is that you choose your beleif out of fear. Which revitalises my ascertation that if god does exist, it is the embodiment of the most powerful evil to ever have existed and has created us solely as slaves and prisoners of biology

If God exists then you have nothing to fear by being on his side and everything to fear by not being on his side. This encroaches on free will and is beyond our comprehension in relation to Gods motive for us: LIve and worship me so you can die and worship me in heaven.

I repeat evolution is a theory - creationism is a parable

I liked Aesop's fables better

Hi its JayKay, Laurs fiance.

Hi Jay Kay! I havent seen you online since the Buttertrolls moved to Iconz

Unfortunately the idea that we can believe whatever we want and "that its all ok" may actually be a very stupid idea, as there is only one reality, therefore not everyones beliefs can be correct.

Correct. So interference with other peoples possibly correct beliefs is a BIG no-no

in my opinion, by far the most unprobable of the two theories is evolution

"When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" - Sherlock Holmes

Regardless, doesn't it strike you as pretty funny how its taken them this long (150years or so since evolution really started to take root in western society) to find one intermediary fish/reptile?

Doesnt it strike you funny that the cure for small pox and penicillin had been staring people in the face for 3000 years? Or that many inventions are pure accidents?

The only 'truth' I subscribe to is that "all fact is faith." i.e. one can never really know anything, we all just believe in our 'truths'. If you want to label my beliefs then I guess you could call me an agnostic nihilist.

Technially a Nihilist wouldnt believe in anything. Agnostic-Nishilist is an oxymoron

People should have the humility to admit it when they don't understand something.
And the courage to live with the uncertainty that it brings.

"The only true wisdom is that you know nothing" - Socrates

I'm not convinced that Hawking has got it right.

Because he didnt. Or hasnt. Yet. He's still working on it.

I've actually heard it was a collection of stories or a library of books. As in it didn't all get written at once for the purpose of being a 'Holy book'

The Torah, being the books of law which are the fundamentals of the Jewish faith are the basis for the bible. The new testament is the most fragmented parts of the bible due to the fact that there wasnt an 'official' bible until its formal appearance(after diocletians purge?). Many books which made the new testament have been lost forever and its currently debatable just how much of it has survived repeated translation efforts.

Creation= Faith in the unknown, Evolution= Faith in logic. I like logic.

Unproven Logic is biased, arrogant and based entirely on falsehoods

The creationalists are never going to believe our facts about evolution because they are so devoted to their religion, and we are never going to believe what they say about creation because, well, it's laughable.

Facts which attack faith is very rarely wholeheartedly accepted.

Creation has issues, evolution has facts.

Both have issues. Evolution has promise

This is a non-event. Your blind faith in a supernatural will warp your views on everything to conform to your ignorant mindset

And blind adherence to scientific mantra will not change his viewpoint

Word to your buddhist monks. Eastern religions are just that little bit... better.

Eastern religions are ALOT worse. But thats not a point of the thread

Presuming that the Roman Catholic church, being the oldest and strongest form of christianity practised, and that all other protestant forms of christianity have branched of it at some form of time, you must wonder - for what reason have they split? Do they no longer share the core values of the faith? Has they bible's interpretation changed in any way?

The Lutheran/Presbeter/Etc split occured due to indulgences. Dont know what they are? Read a book

If you really think there is no God, I've got a billion people worldwide who would love to disagree with you.

....and five billion who disagree with them.

God is dead.

ROFL!!! I laughed so hard at this. Im still laughing!!

P.S To bloodyYOKEL: I looked at your tree of life and laughed. Its upside down! The Nature of Causation article I've read before, though in a different and much more informative form

Oh, and keep it concise. A entire page of writing will generally go unread.

Except by me. I've read all the posts in this whole thread after being alerted to it when someone posted on it.

I had some material which i believed was worthy of discussion. My original posts were interesting were they not?

Except they were not on the topic of Evolution or Creationism. You should create your own thread on Nemesis stars

Creationism, or rather literal Creationism (the christian belief that Genesis/etc is a literally true guide to the creation of the universe) does not qualify as a scientific theory on any of the above items. This is because it is essentially based on the belief system described in an ancient document, the bible
"Creation Science" was banned from schools in america. Basically because it's foundation is from a christian religion and is therefore NOT scientific.

"Theocratic Dictatorship" - Frank Zappa

I'm sure the entire fabric of the christian universe would collapse upon itself if god was proven to be anything but infallable.

"The Hitch-hikers guide the Galaxy": Infinite Improbability Drive?

I don't like the term "Evolutionist" - i prefer "Anti-creationist".

:cool:

The brain literally is physically unable to comprehend the alternative. I'll post more on this later.

And you never did Im guessing you mean how the brain cannot comprehend disorder

The 'stories' contained in the Bible do indeed contain socialogical truths

Truisms do not a religion make. Obediance, Scripture and Heirachy do

you're supposed to pay attetion to is the fact he was in fact a jew

Which is why all Judeo-Christian religions believe the soul of a Jew is far more valuable than that of any other type of non-believer

mho, jesus was the ancient day martin luther-king

If Ghandi had been born 2000 years ago he most likely would have become a Jesus like figure today

What is more logically plausible?
1. Natural evolution? i.e. the slow evolution from primitive lifeforms to more complex lifeforms.
2. Creation via a deity i.e. An all-knowing being who has the power of creation

Humanistically? Evolution. Otherwise: Creation. Creation is the basis for ALL cultures mythology and is a natural part of cultural developement.

A group of organisms is said to have common descent if they have a common ancestor. In biology, the theory of universal common descent proposes that all organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.

All organisms have a common descendant: Adam and Eve, then Noah.

Animals today are completely differant than they were several thousand years ago

Since the world is apparently only 5000 years, well 4150(due to the great flood) years old then this statement is probably incorrect.

Perhaps we should be asking why people believe in what they do?

The only thing harder than reading this thread is asking people to justify their beliefs

With anything we don't understand, it's so easy for religious types to go "Oh...yeah, that was us, we did it all." Funny, since at least evolutionists can come up with theories, not just think up some mystical creation story that cannot even be looked at scientifically.

If you've ever seen a book on Modern Islam, you'll find a section about science claiming that ALL sub-atomic particles and the four forces are controlled and created by Allah. No mention of Quantum Mechanics though.

The one thing that really blows me away is how some people can believe that they are walking on this earth "by chance".

You are walking on the earth totally by chance. Its called Quantum Mechanics.

Shown from the most fundamental laws of physics (laws of thermodynamics):

Sub-atomic particles, the basic structure of the universe, are subject to Quantum Mechanics and not physics

It is very possible that Job was describing a dinosaur in Job 40 when he wrote of the ‘chief’ of God’s Creation

Job is a mythological fable which has been a part of Bedouin culture for centuries

You can choose to go on your evidence, and I will choose to go on mine, which makes alot more sense to me

You're not alone. Creation is a theory supported by many people.

Evolutionist theoreticians know this, of course. They know that they must rely on some other process to create the required new information, because the evolution story demands it.

Because otherwise they would have to require the use of divine intervention which invalidates all their findings.

If you're right, I WILL BE DEAD AND HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE of anything, and therefore seriously not care

Actually three philisophies, Absurdism, Objectivism and Existentialism rely on the lack of universal meaning for humanity. They are hugely motivating and creative factors in many peoples lives.

Galileo himself, who first suggested that the sun was the centre of the solar system was a creationist

Because if he got taught anything else, he and his teacher would be burnt at the stake for heresy. He almost DID get burnt at the stake and excommunicated. He was forced to recant, his findings where deemed heretical and taken to the vatican. He was locked away for most of his life

And yes, the Bible gives painstaking details of the average age pre flood being around 850years, which then decreases within the subsequent 500 years to anywhere between 70 and 120

Quote from: Laurasaur

I agree, there was no way the majority of the people living 4000 years ago new that the world was round

Thats because according to your findings, Civilisation would have only been 150 years old after the flood of 4150

Is it just me, or does it seem like I'm repeating myself?

People arent paying attention to what you are saying, they're merely replying to what they think they are hearing(or reading)

You incidently didn't provide a reference so I'm not sure where you got these rules, which are based on the humanistic bias that there is no god

Of course it will be based on Humanistic bias! If science were based on Christian principles, we wouldnt have cloning. In fact, we'd probably all be fighting over which 'science' is the best!

Naturalism is not a tenet deducible by the experimental method, but a philosophical assumption from outside science

So its either: An unqualified outsider commenting on a scientific event. A qualified outsider commenting on a scientific event event. Or philospher commenting about the event? Philosphers say, scientists prove.

And the famous Stephen Jay Gould: Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. THe stereotype of a fully rational and objective "scientific method" with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is a self-serving mythology." (Natural History, 103(2):14, 1994)

Kantian philosphy, the cornerstone of ALL Western philosophy, dictates that a statement of position and adherence to neutrality is required for all statements. Without this area of neutrality all you have is statements and ideas which can only be applied to yourself or people like you. Science is exactly the same: Without neutrality or a control, all you end up with is speculation about a result which may or may not be repeatable.

God is intelligent though, right?

There is no evidence of this. Either God is so intelligent that we cannot comprehend its vastness OR it is so random and capricious that it is impossible to fathom its function/motive

Your going beyond what we are capable of understanding. But i would say yes, god and the universe are one.

Then that would support my 'random and capricious' statement

I _think_ that Catholicism encourages "earning" forgiveness through your hail-marys and other tasks

Causistry, which was practised by the Catholic Church is the basis for 'earning' forgiveness. Catholicism has two motive driven agendas to forgiveness: Perfect Contrition, wishing to be forgiven in the eyes of God for misdeeds and Attrition, confessing/performing your punishment for misdeeds to avoid a worse punishment(hell)

basic bugs that are significant to the game role - unforgivable in my view, poor testing and software developement process. indicative of a newer team or cheaper job.

That is so incredibly true, and with the 'advent'(thought Console Online Gaming has been around for quite a while)of the new Xbox live program, Im quite sure the Xbox 360 developers will be shoving out half-finished games by the truckload. Why? Because they can just patch it later!

Counter-Strike: Source(!!!!!) came out buggy as hell and STILL has some quite serious issues. Thank goodness it was free, had I had to pay for it I'd be incredibly annoyed.

On topic: I cant say that games are becoming less innovative, just less...varied

anyone mentioned dune yet ? :rnr:

 wasn't it the precurser to all the rts type games ?

Man that game was *so* old. I remember playing it when it first came out. It was *awesome*. Then I played it again in 1995 and its controls were clunky, it was slow and it just wasnt user friendly. Considering the amount of time and effort I put into finishing that game too!

I think it was the precurser. There were a few other games that contained real-time strategy ELEMENTS, but none contained the construction/control system that has now become the standard point and click RTS format