Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / A poem I wrote, comments appreciated.

Author
Message
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 19th Feb 2004 01:54
Quote: "This is your argument as I understand it so far including my rebuttals. If I misrepresented your argument than please correct me and we can work from there. But I'm pretty sure I've got your argument down pat, and my rebuttals are bullet proof."


I've been correcting you for my last four posts and apparently still haven't gotten the point across. Frankly my hands are tired of typing out the same argument in different forms trying to get you to understand it. You really don't get the concept of something outside of physical boundries-- and when I did bring it up, you said something along the lines of 'you think you've proved it' which I didn't 'when you haven't' <-- obviously, and went on to go on about physical explinations for how physics itself could have come to exist. Circular reasoning. Anyways, I'm frankly sick and tired of this thread.

--Mouse: Famous (Avatarless) Fighting Furball

I am the chainsaw paladin.
Neophyte
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 19th Feb 2004 02:58
@Mouse

"I've been correcting you for my last four posts and apparently still haven't gotten the point across."

I could say the same for you.

"Frankly my hands are tired of typing out the same argument in different forms trying to get you to understand it."

You think you are tired? I spent 3 hour typing up an email to lee before getting involved with this marathon with you and Jeku. Trust me when I say the feeling is mutual.

"You really don't get the concept of something outside of physical boundries-- and when I did bring it up, you said something along the lines of 'you think you've proved it' which I didn't 'when you haven't' "

So you admit that you didn't prove that something exists beyond the realm of physics? Then wouldn't that negate your whole claim that a Creator is beyond physics if you haven't proved that something like that exists? Yet you still say that it is probable that a Creator exists? Why? You have no proof mouse, even by your own admission.

" obviously, and went on to go on about physical explinations for how physics itself could have come to exist. Circular reasoning."

No you didn't say it was outside the laws of physics, merely cause and effect. I demonstrated that cause and effect wasn't necessary for natural things and the Big Bang is a natural thing. You have yet to provide any direct response let alone acknoledge the fact that your assertion that a Creator is highly probably because the Big Bang had to have come somewhere is utterly uncalled for given this evidence.

Since you seem to be ignoring my summary of your argument and my rebuttals so I'll make this easy for you.

Assertion 1: The Big Bang occured
Evidence : This much we agree on(so its unnecessary to get evidence here)
Assertion 2: The Big Bang is the event that fromed the universe
Evidence : Again we agree here so I'll skip it.
Assertion 3: Everything has to start somewhere.
Evidence : None. You haven't given any.
Assertion 4: There is a Creator
Evidence : The existance of the Universe. I'm not sure how you can conlude this but I'll ignore that for now.
Assertion 5: This Creator is beyond the laws of physics.
Evidence: None whatsoever. You've mainly just stated it as fact without any evidence.
Assertion 6: This Creator created the Universe through the Big Bang.
Evidence : The existance of the Big Bang. Apparently it created it because there is somehow no other option than a Creator? This reasoning here seems a bit cicular so correct me if I'm miss interpretating you.
Conclusion: Since Everything has to start somewhere then the Big Bang had to have a cause and that cause is a Creator.

Given the fact that I've already disproved your earlier claim that "It has to start somewhere" we can throw this conclusion out handly but I'll go further than that.

If you'll notice you've provided absolutely no evidence for any of your arguments at all. If you have please post a quote of you stating some evidence than please post it and I'll admit I was wrong about and you did post evidence.

You statement that "it has to start somewhere" should apply to this Creator as well but you assert that this Creator is beyond the laws of physics(its cause and effect that you are getting at but will use the word "physics" here since you like it). You provide no evidence for this assertion and have just stated it like it is accepted fact. Now I'd like to introduce a little logical term here and it is caused Occam's Razor.

Here is the defination:
Quote: "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the mediaeval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham). The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building."

Its taken from here:
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html

According to this logical principle we can remove all of those unnecessary hypothesises in your theorm.
Quote: " In any given model, Occam's razor helps us to "shave off" those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon."


Since it isn't necessary to have a Creator to explain the Big Bang as I demonstrated here:
Quote: "Natural phenonmena have been shown to be without cause and the Big Bang is a natural phenonmena. This doesn't mean that the Big Bang is necessarily without cause just that it is possible."

We can remove all of your excess postulations about a Creator because they simply have no evidence to back them. Without evidence that demands to be looked at with regards to a Creator, your Creator hypothesises are removed and your argument winds up looking like this:

Premise 1: The Big Bang occured
Premise 2: The Big Bang is the event that formed the universe.
Premise 3: DISPROVED
Premise 4: Unnecessary. Removed.
Premise 5: No evidence. Removed.
Premise 6: Unnecessary. Removed.

Conclusion: The Big Bang occured, and it is the event the formed the Universe.

I don't know about you but that looks a lot like what I've been saying all along.

Now if I misrepresented your arguments than please post and point out where I mistook what you said for something else. Thats not asking much since I've summarized things pretty handly down to six simple points.

Also, if you think that you posted some evidence where I said you posted none then please quote yourself as saying as much and I'll retract my claim that you have provided no evidence.

And last but not least if you think that you can model your argument better than me by all means do so. Take however much time you want to try to disprove or correct me. I'm a rather patient man.

But honestly mouse you've been beat. I don't think that there is any rebuttal you could provide to what I've said, but you are welcome to try.
Lord Ozzum
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2003
Location: Beyond the Realms of Death
Posted: 19th Feb 2004 03:00
WOW!! 3 Hours?! How long did it take to type this?

Take a look to the sky just before you die

---For Whom The Bell Tolls, Metallica
Neophyte
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 19th Feb 2004 03:03
Not too long. Nothing in comparison to the length of the email which I sent lee. So far nothing in this thread comes all that close to matching its length.
Lord Ozzum
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2003
Location: Beyond the Realms of Death
Posted: 19th Feb 2004 03:06
who's Lee? only person i knw named lee was recently moved to a new home because his parent were molesting him

Take a look to the sky just before you die

---For Whom The Bell Tolls, Metallica
Neophyte
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 19th Feb 2004 03:07
Lee is the guy behind the original Dark Basic. He is also lead programmer behind DBPro.
Lord Ozzum
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2003
Location: Beyond the Realms of Death
Posted: 19th Feb 2004 03:08
ah

Take a look to the sky just before you die

---For Whom The Bell Tolls, Metallica
Flashing Blade
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 19th Feb 2004 12:17
@ Neophyte

Quote: "So you admit that you didn't prove that something exists beyond the realm of physics? Then wouldn't that negate your whole claim that a Creator is beyond physics if you haven't proved that something like that exists? Yet you still say that it is probable that a Creator exists? Why? You have no proof mouse, even by your own admission."


Religion is based on FAITH not evidence. It's a bit of a kop-out when it comes to arguments, but the fact is the more you believe in God the less evidence you need. God cannot be proved to exist, but scientific proof means nothing to believers - their faith is all they need.
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 19th Feb 2004 18:27
And I may mention that not all Creationists are religious, either. I'm not religious, like I said waaaaaaay back, but I am a Christian.

@Neophyte - I've recapped all of your 7 pages of posts here, and don't get angry, but it seems like your job here is to find a flaw with just about every point we try to make.

Here's a question for YOU to be on the other side of the spectrum: What exactly do you believe? Are you just playing devil's advocate or do you ponder what the meaning of life is? What is your motivation for getting out of bed in the morning, if, when you die, you'll just be dust and that's it? Or do you believe in reincarnation? Probably not, because a higher being has to be in charge of that, huh? Or do you believe in some kind of interplanetary creator like an alien? I'm grasping here, but what do you think your purpose in life is, *other* than pretend that there're tremendous flaws in believing in a creator. All this evolution-talk, could it not work side-by-side with creationism?

I would like *YOU* to post *YOUR* beliefs so it's not so one-sided anymore (i.e. mouse or I post, then you try and rebute every last breath by going "sigh you just don't get it" or "baseless evidence yadda yadda yadda". Let's see YOUR evidence for man's purpose. If there is no purpose for man, let's see YOUR evidence for where we came from, and why there are no examples (bones, fossils, whatever) of animals changing from one to another. I would love, for example, to see a fossil of a fish that died in the middle of changing.

I'm sure Mouse and the others would like to hear your points of view, rather than why you think our points of view are flawed.

Thanks.


http://www.jeku.com/audio/
Ancient Chinese proverb: Man who runs behind car gets exhausted.
Neophyte
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 19th Feb 2004 20:47
@Flashingblade

"Religion is based on FAITH not evidence."

Yes, exactly. If mouse would just admit his belief in a Creator was based on religon and not empirical evidence or rationality then this debate would be over. My contention is that, empirically and rationally, there is no way to conclude that evolution is false and Creationism is true.

If someone wants to believe these things becuase of their faith thats fine with me, just don't proclaim they are due to empirical evidence else I've got a bone to pick with you.

@Jeku

"I'm not religious, like I said waaaaaaay back, but I am a Christian."

o_O Okay.

"I've recapped all of your 7 pages of posts here, and don't get angry, but it seems like your job here is to find a flaw with just about every point we try to make."

No, my purpose was to argue evolution and creationism(the origin of the universe kind) kind of slipped in to the mix. When you argue with someone, you don't just ignore points whenever you feel like it. You address them. Or at least that is how I view debate. In my eyes, if you aren't addressing all of their points you are losing.

"Here's a question for YOU to be on the other side of the spectrum: What exactly do you believe?"

That the Big Bang is the beginning point of the Universe and that based on evidence and reason there is nothing else before it. Also, evolution is a reality.

"are you just playing devil's advocate or do you ponder what the meaning of life is?"

I'm not playing devil's advocate. That would suggest that I believe in Creationism but that I just get a kick out of arguing otherwise. I can assure I very much Do Not believe Creationism. As for pondering the meaning of life I came to the conclusion to that question along time ago. See below for details.

" What is your motivation for getting out of bed in the morning, if, when you die, you'll just be dust and that's it?"

I won't die for a long time. In the meantime, there are plenty of things to look forward to in life like say completing this compiler that I'm working on for BASIC4GL and starting my own on-line store.

I don't see how that lack of any Creator of the universe will make my life not worth living.

" Or do you believe in reincarnation? Probably not, because a higher being has to be in charge of that, huh?"

Reincarnation? No. No evidence. As for a higher power being in charge of that, not necessarily. Buddhists believe that reincarnation is simply a natural phenonmena and that there is no higher power(well certain sects do anyway. Others think otherwise) Oh wait. There I go again with that arguing thing.

" Or do you believe in some kind of interplanetary creator like an alien?"

I think you can guess the answer to that one.

" I'm grasping here, but what do you think your purpose in life is,"

And here is where the meaning of life bit comes in. The meaning of life is, or more specifically your life, is what you make it. There is no one ultimate goal that everyone must strive for. Meaning is a subjective thing. It can't be measured. It is not objective. Its really up to the person what their life will be like and I think that that is a beautiful thing.

"*other* than pretend that there're tremendous flaws in believing in a creator."

I don't pretend. I know.

"All this evolution-talk, could it not work side-by-side with creationism?"

Quote: "I don't know if that is addressed to me or not, but I've been using the word creationist to mean someone who doesn't believe in evolution and that the variation between the species was caused by God."


Your using the word Creationism differently then me. If you mean Creator-of-the-Universe Creationism then yes, several million Christians believe such a thing.

"(i.e. mouse or I post, then you try and rebute every last breath by going "sigh you just don't get it""

I don't say that mouse does.
Quote: "I've been correcting you for my last four posts and apparently still haven't gotten the point across."

Quote: "You still don't get it,"

Quote: "You're very confused... "

Quote: "Sigh. I'm afraid both you and the person who wrote that rather petty article really don't get it"

Quote: "Final proof you just don't get it."

Quote: "Neophte, gaaah, you still don't understand."

Quote: "Are you getting my point yet?"

Sound Familar? That's just in the last two pages.

"or "baseless evidence yadda yadda yadda"."

Baseless claims.

"Let's see YOUR evidence for man's purpose. If there is no purpose for man, let's see YOUR evidence for where we came from, and why there are no examples (bones, fossils, whatever) of animals changing from one to another."

Purpose is a subjective thing and can't be "proven" in physical sense of the word. Purpose is "metaphysical". You can't have evidence for purpose because there is none. It doesn't reside in the physical world but rather the world of ideas. Its like trying to prove the color green is the best color. You can't.

I'd get into this more, but this post would just ramble on endlessly and there are other things I'd like to do.

As for the evidence, I've given it to you already. Over and Over and Over and Over. If you want it go back in my previous posts and look for it. Or better yet ask mouse. At least he bothers to read my links when I post them.
Dazzag
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location: Cyprus
Posted: 19th Feb 2004 21:17
Wow. Someone who didn't know who "Lee" was on his own boards....

Golly. Now that is one mythological creature I thought everybody believed in.... then again, not much evidence... hmmmm.... when was Lee born?.....

How times change....

Cheers

I am 99% probably lying in bed right now... so don't blame me for crappy typing
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 19th Feb 2004 21:31
Neophyte, by the way, no hard feelings. I still think you don't get it , but you're a rather refreshing person to argue with after Raven and Simple and Raven's Ego and Simple's Ego. But I am really tired of arguing this topic after the last two or three threads HZense made about it that turned into this exact same argument.

--Mouse: Famous (Avatarless) Fighting Furball

I am the chainsaw paladin.
HZence
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Mar 2003
Location:
Posted: 19th Feb 2004 23:36
Quote: "there is no way to conclude that evolution is false and Creationism is true."


I propose that either neither are true, or both are true.

The possibility that neither are true is self-explanatory, however the possibility that both are true may require some explanation.

I'd like you to put ideas such as the following in the back of your mind while considering this.

Quote: "To believe that God "directed" evolution over millions of years, is to say that God is not powerful enough to create."


Courtesy: http://www.internet-grocer.net/evolutn.htm

To be blunt, that is entirely untrue; I cannot begin to tell you how much is wrong with that statement. I'll take the Christian stance for a moment - who are you to determine what God's plan truly is? Perhaps God could make something appear from thin air, but this does not mean that it had to happen that way.

Naturally if you're a conservative there's no way of getting through to you. But if you're searching (or are an open-minded debater), I think you may want to consider that evolution may indeed be biblical.


Team EOD :: Programmer/Storyboard Assistant
Neophyte
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 19th Feb 2004 23:53
@Mouse

"Neophyte, by the way, no hard feelings. I still think you don't get it "

No, I think I do. If I got your arguments wrong then just point out where I went wrong in my 5th(counting this one I think) post from the bottom up. I layed them out in a simple format so it should be easy to correct me.

"but you're a rather refreshing person to argue with after Raven and Simple and Raven's Ego and Simple's Ego."

Thank you. I'd say the same for you.

"But I am really tired of arguing this topic after the last two or three threads HZense made about it that turned into this exact same argument."

Fine. I'll consider this argument over with between us.

@HZence

"who are you to determine what God's plan truly is?"

There is a flaw in your argument. He isn't. He is merely interpreting Genesis literally.

"I think you may want to consider that evolution may indeed be biblical."

No it isn't. Evolution isn't mentioned anywhere in the bible. The story of creation(and I'm using the one first encountered in Genesis, not the second one) doesn't mention evolution in any form and if taken literally is about as against evolution as you can get.
CattleRustler
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Aug 2003
Location: case modding at overclock.net
Posted: 20th Feb 2004 00:14
here is my attempt at poetry:

"we joined these forums
we program games
religious threads
end up in flames"

-the end.

thank you
good night

-RUST-
"What the... Mooooooooooo!"
HZence
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Mar 2003
Location:
Posted: 20th Feb 2004 00:15
If taken literally Neo, then yes.

I should reword that - I do not mean to say that the bible says anything such as "So slowly, over a period of time, under the control of God, creatures changed into other creatures, etc."

What I'm saying is that evolution may actually agree with the bible. Yes, I believe that's what I was trying to say

Quote: "There is a flaw in your argument."


Eh, I don't think so. Yes, he's interpreting Genesis literally, but that's basically saying what I was saying.


Team EOD :: Programmer/Storyboard Assistant
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 20th Feb 2004 00:58
Quote: "At least he bothers to read my links when I post them."


Haha you just had to put one last stab in there, didn't you. I've asked it once before and now I'll ask it again: What makes you think I didn't read your links, because I don't agree with them? Are you so arrogant as to claim that because you've posted your links, and because you take them as fact, that everyone else is just ignorant if they don't?


http://www.jeku.com/audio/
Ancient Chinese proverb: Man who runs behind car gets exhausted.
Neophyte
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 20th Feb 2004 01:23
@HZence

"Eh, I don't think so. Yes, he's interpreting Genesis literally, but that's basically saying what I was saying."

No, you weren't.
Quote: "
. I'll take the Christian stance for a moment - who are you to determine what God's plan truly is? Perhaps God could make something appear from thin air, but this does not mean that it had to happen that way.
"


You were saying that he was determining God's plan when all he was doing was taking Genesis literally. He wasn't determining what God should or should not do at all, merely what God has told him what God's plan was(i.e. creation, the story in genesis).

"What I'm saying is that evolution may actually agree with the bible."

What I'm saying is it doesn't. There is no mention of evolution in the bible. I don't see how the story of Genesis(the first one, haven't read the second one) squares with evolution. At all. If you think you can interpet it to suggest evolution I'm all ears.

@Jeku

"I've asked it once before and now I'll ask it again: What makes you think I didn't read your links, because I don't agree with them?"

You are either being deliberately annoying, or incredibly dense.

Quote: "
"If you didn't notice, that article is about the Sun Pictures' Noah's Ark hoax., not about disproving that the Ark exists"

Uhh...yeah, actually, it IS about disproving that the ark ever existed. I even did a CRTL-F Find with "Sun Pictures'" with and without the apostrophe and It didn't turn up anything."


Sound familar?

That jab was also aimed at you because of this:
Quote: "
. If there is no purpose for man, let's see YOUR evidence for where we came from, and why there are no examples (bones, fossils, whatever) of animals changing from one to another. I would love, for example, to see a fossil of a fish that died in the middle of changing.
"


I've posted numerous links through out this thread doing just that. Repeatedly.

Here it is again, from page 5:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

also from page 5:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Here is one on page 5:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Another on on page 5, this one about humans:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

Here is another one on page 4:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

"Are you so arrogant as to claim that because you've posted your links, and because you take them as fact, that everyone else is just ignorant if they don't?"

No, I claim it because you keep asking for evidence of these things even though I've given them too you repeatedly a long time ago.

At least you aren't still defending Behe though.
Oraculaca
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Jan 2003
Location: Scotland
Posted: 20th Feb 2004 01:29
Well I dont really want to read this thread from the start ,but I did find this nugget incredibly amusing,
Quote: "I would love, for example, to see a fossil of a fish that died in the middle of changing"


Ahhhhhhhhh


In a permanent state of 'Under Construction'
Neophyte
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 20th Feb 2004 01:46
@Cut Me Own Throat Dibbler

"but I did find this nugget incredibly amusing,"

I know. It almost funny until you realize he is being serious.
Oraculaca
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Jan 2003
Location: Scotland
Posted: 20th Feb 2004 02:17



In a permanent state of 'Under Construction'
Lord Ozzum
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2003
Location: Beyond the Realms of Death
Posted: 20th Feb 2004 02:26 Edited at: 20th Feb 2004 02:26
hehehehe, but, Neophyte: yes, God could have meant it unliterally (new word) but i don't think he did. you can't prove it, i can't disprove it, let's leave irt as that (unless you can prove it) abput evoltuion

Take a look to the sky just before you die

---For Whom The Bell Tolls, Metallica
HZence
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Mar 2003
Location:
Posted: 20th Feb 2004 03:26
Quote: "No, you weren't."


It doesn't matter, he's still saying that he 'knows' God's plan by saying what he said. In a nutshell, it's not that I'm right and you're wrong or vice versa, it's that we're both right.

Quote this: Stupid thing to argue over.

Quote: "There is no mention of evolution in the bible."




I didn't say there was - that doesn't mean that it couldn't have been part of God's plan. I don't know a lot about evolution, but I do know that the line

Quote: "God created the animals"


does not necessarily mean - POOF! All of a sudden, there they are!

LOL, you're reading too much into this Neo. What I'm saying is that the bible can be interpreted in different ways. That's just an example.


Team EOD :: Programmer/Storyboard Assistant
Neophyte
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 20th Feb 2004 04:23
@HZence

"It doesn't matter, he's still saying that he 'knows' God's plan by saying what he said."

Actually, looking back, he didn't say anything about "god's plan" at all. Here is the quote again:
Quote: "To believe that God "directed" evolution over millions of years, is to say that God is not powerful enough to create.""


"In a nutshell, it's not that I'm right and you're wrong or vice versa, it's that we're both right."

If that's what you want to believe go ahead.

"Quote this: Stupid thing to argue over."

But fun never the less.

"I didn't say there was "

I didn't imply that you were.

" that doesn't mean that it couldn't have been part of God's plan."

I find it hard to believe that it is when one reads the bible, genesis in paticular.

"does not necessarily mean - POOF! All of a sudden, there they are!"

It doesn't have to. Evolution is a change in a population over time. If they were created, they didn't change. There were no predecessor animals mentioned in the bible for any of those animals to have evolved from so even if these animals came into existance slowly through a million years(which if you read genesis doesn't happen. It is stated that they were formed in a single day.) it still wouldn't be evolution as there was no change involved.

"LOL, you're reading too much into this Neo. What I'm saying is that the bible can be interpreted in different ways. That's just an example."

Yes the bible can be interpreted in many ways. If you take genesis to be a metaphor then you could probably fit evolution in there somewhere if you wanted to. But it would be streching it.

The problem with the bible is that some sections are genuine metaphors(PSALMs, If I recall correctly) and others appear to be meant to be taken literally(Ten Commandments?). It doesn't state which is which and there in lies its weakness and greatest strength. This flexibilty has allowed it to survive the changing times and cultures as new societal needs are met with new interpretations. This comes at the price of arguments over doctrine and the proper interpretation there of.
Lord Ozzum
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2003
Location: Beyond the Realms of Death
Posted: 20th Feb 2004 04:27
yes, which forms that creationists rationalize everything from Moses believeing in God to the wine thing someone mentioned

Take a look to the sky just before you die

---For Whom The Bell Tolls, Metallica
HZence
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Mar 2003
Location:
Posted: 20th Feb 2004 04:34
Quote: "Actually, looking back, he didn't say anything about "god's plan" at all"


Oh, contrare:

Quote: "To believe that God "directed" evolution over millions of years, is to say that God is not powerful enough to create."


From this, one can gather that he believes it is impossible for evolution to be part of God's plan. Make sense?

Quote: "I didn't imply that you were."


Imply that I was what?

Quote: "If that's what you want to believe go ahead."


This is why people hate arguing with you; you seem arrogant. No offense intended, I just want to be honest. That's the way you come off. It's the "Okay, but I know I'm right" thing.

Quote: "It doesn't have to. Evolution is a change in a population over time. If they were created, they didn't change. There were no predecessor animals mentioned in the bible for any of those animals to have evolved from so even if these animals came into existance slowly through a million years(which if you read genesis doesn't happen. It is stated that they were formed in a single day.) it still wouldn't be evolution as there was no change involved."


I'd like to touch on the "single day" thing. What may be a day to us could be ten thousand years to God. Just another way the bible can be interpreted in different ways. It sometimes is hard to tell what is metaphorical and what is not. This goes back to what you mentioned: interpreting it word for word. Again - all open to interpretation.


Team EOD :: Programmer/Storyboard Assistant
Lord Ozzum
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2003
Location: Beyond the Realms of Death
Posted: 20th Feb 2004 04:37
yes, i have heard that so many times it's stupid

Take a look to the sky just before you die

---For Whom The Bell Tolls, Metallica
Neophyte
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 20th Feb 2004 04:46
@HZence

"From this, one can gather that he believes it is impossible for evolution to be part of God's plan. Make sense?"

No. He didn't say anything in that quote about God's plan. Merely, that evolution would mean that God isn't powerful enough to create things directly.

"Imply that I was what?"

That evolution is mentioned in the bible.

" This is why people hate arguing with you; you seem arrogant. "

Or that I win all the time.

Anyway, sorry for coming off arrogant with that last statement. I really didn't realize that was how I sounded. I'm not in the best of moods right now as I kind of have a headache.

"It's the "Okay, but I know I'm right" thing."

But I do know that I'm right.

I was actaully trying to be non-confrontational in that last statement(not something I'm too good at). Usually I'd just argue I was right but I'm getting tired today so I wanted to not press the point too much.

" What may be a day to us could be ten thousand years to God."

I've heard this argument before. Its a real old one actually. The idea that a day could be more than a day is false. That would invalidate the sabbath as god rested on the seventh day and declared that all would do so as well(I would quote directly from the bible but I don't have it with me at the moment). According to the bible, a day is a day. Not ten thousand years or a million.
HZence
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Mar 2003
Location:
Posted: 20th Feb 2004 05:20 Edited at: 20th Feb 2004 05:25
Quote: "He didn't say anything in that quote about God's plan"


Right. It was implied.

Quote: "Or that I win all the time."


Quote: "But I do know that I'm right."


Yes, that's what I mean.

To me, however, in a debate, no one really 'wins'.

Quote: "The idea that a day could be more than a day is false. That would invalidate the sabbath as god rested on the seventh day and declared that all would do so as well(I would quote directly from the bible but I don't have it with me at the moment). According to the bible, a day is a day. Not ten thousand years or a million"


This is an excellent point, and is one that I've never heard before. I'll definitely look into that more.


Team EOD :: Programmer/Storyboard Assistant
HZence
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Mar 2003
Location:
Posted: 20th Feb 2004 05:24
An additional thought. I don't think it's worth debating if you 'know' you're right. In that case, it isn't really a debate, it's just trying to show someone that they're wrong. However, when you're talking about controversial issues that are really a matter of opinion, you can't just 'know' you're right- at least, I don't think so. You should be able to really take into consideration what the other side is saying and look for validity, not expect it to jump right out at you.

Eh, I don't know where I was going with that.


Team EOD :: Programmer/Storyboard Assistant
Neophyte
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 20th Feb 2004 05:37 Edited at: 20th Feb 2004 05:42
@HZence

"Right. It was implied."

Where? I don't see it myself.

"Yes, that's what I mean."

What's wrong with knowing that you are right?

"To me, however, in a debate, no one really 'wins'."

Then I tend to view debate radically different from you. To me, with debate, there are winners and there are losers. The winners aren't necessarily the ones who get in the last point, and the losers aren't necessarily the ones that can't address all of the points.

If you can't address all of the points, but you learned something new in the process then you aren't really the loser, at least in my eyes.

"This is an excellent point, and is one that I've never heard before. I'll definitely look into that more."

I believe that it was first forwarded by Robert G. Ingersoll. Or at least that is the earliest reference of it I remember finding. That dates back to about the late 1800s.

You can find out more about Ingersoll here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/index.shtml
Sorry I couldn't find exactly which of his works it was in. He wrote coupiously and I only read a very brief portion of his works.

[edit] Posted before I saw you second message.

"I don't think it's worth debating if you 'know' you're right."

Why? Its not like I've made up my mind and I won't change it. I'm just confident in the evidence I have.

"In that case, it isn't really a debate, it's just trying to show someone that they're wrong."

Same thing.

"You should be able to really take into consideration what the other side is saying and look for validity, not expect it to jump right out at you."

I do.

"However, when you're talking about controversial issues that are really a matter of opinion, you can't just 'know' you're right- at least, I don't think so"

But I generally don't debate matters of opinion, and I don't think I did so in this thread either(Might be wrong here. I debated a lot in this thread).
HZence
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Mar 2003
Location:
Posted: 20th Feb 2004 06:14
Quote: "Where? I don't see it myself."




Quote: "I debated a lot in this thread"


Who's fault is that

@ Everything you said in response to what I last posted: I know. I really don't know what I meant by that - just disregard it.

Quote: "What's wrong with knowing that you are right"


Quote: "I'm just confident in the evidence I have."


Right. See, we're in a religious debate and what I mean by "knowing you're right" is that (and this is not aimed at you specifically) for some people, it's more than 'knowing', it's 'being so stubborn I won't listen to logic because I know I'm right'. If that's 'knowing you're right', then I don't want to have a part of it.

In regards to "I'm just confident...". Then you should have said that. That's not how I took it.


Team EOD :: Programmer/Storyboard Assistant
Neophyte
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 20th Feb 2004 06:40
@HZence

"Who's fault is that "

Mine totally. I love to argue.

" See, we're in a religious debate and what I mean by "knowing you're right" is that (and this is not aimed at you specifically) for some people, it's more than 'knowing', it's 'being so stubborn I won't listen to logic because I know I'm right'. If that's 'knowing you're right', then I don't want to have a part of it."

That's not what 'knowing' means to me so no worries there.

"In regards to "I'm just confident...". Then you should have said that. That's not how I took it."

Sorry, but that is what I assumed I meant when I said I know that I'm right. I have confidence in the evidence and logic of my position. To me 'knowing I'm right' and being confident in the evidence I have go hand in hand.
HZence
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Mar 2003
Location:
Posted: 20th Feb 2004 06:44
Okeydokey.

So who do you think 'won' this one?


Team EOD :: Programmer/Storyboard Assistant
Lord Ozzum
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2003
Location: Beyond the Realms of Death
Posted: 20th Feb 2004 06:47
me

Take a look to the sky just before you die

---For Whom The Bell Tolls, Metallica
Neophyte
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 20th Feb 2004 06:56
@HZence

"So who do you think 'won' this one?"

Don't know. But I know that I have been brushing up on my knowledge of pro-evolution arguments as a result. I've learned quite a few things so I think I'd like to say that I won.
Lord Ozzum
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2003
Location: Beyond the Realms of Death
Posted: 20th Feb 2004 06:59
Nope, I still don't believe it, so I won (and if you can't figure it out random arshole who is going to accuse me of spamming/credit-stealing, I'm joking. Neophyte, you do bring up good points though)

Take a look to the sky just before you die

---For Whom The Bell Tolls, Metallica
HZence
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Mar 2003
Location:
Posted: 20th Feb 2004 07:07
I just jumped in to throw something out for you guys, and instead I ended up debating with Neo.

I'd say I lost!


Team EOD :: Programmer/Storyboard Assistant
Lord Ozzum
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2003
Location: Beyond the Realms of Death
Posted: 20th Feb 2004 07:15
Hzence won
Congrats

Take a look to the sky just before you die

---For Whom The Bell Tolls, Metallica
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 20th Feb 2004 10:57
Quote: "This is why people hate arguing with you; you seem arrogant. No offense intended, I just want to be honest. That's the way you come off. It's the "Okay, but I know I'm right" thing."


Thank you! So I'm not the only one who gets the same vibe.

Neophyte - I can be non-religious and Christian at the same time-- it's actually not that hard. I just have a personal relationship with the one that I believe created everything, including myself. Nothing more, nothing less.

Enough about this thread which has obviously changed nobody's mind. Let's move onto gun control, now

Unless you want me to dig up some more links and have 90% of them come from the same two sites like you?


http://www.jeku.com/audio/
Ancient Chinese proverb: Man who runs behind car gets exhausted.
Pricey
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Feb 2003
Location:
Posted: 20th Feb 2004 11:10
Quote: "Personally I thought it was nicked from "The Office". Add a bit of guitar afterwards and you would be sorted"


that episode is so funny!


Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 20th Feb 2004 14:37
I won because... because...

--Mouse: Famous (Avatarless) Fighting Furball

I am the chainsaw paladin.
Neophyte
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 20th Feb 2004 21:07
@HZence

"I just jumped in to throw something out for you guys, and instead I ended up debating with Neo.

I'd say I lost! "

You found out about Ingersoll and learned about a clever counter-point to the a-day-is-more-than-a-day argument so I wouldn't say you lost completely.

@Jeku

"I can be non-religious and Christian at the same time-- it's actually not that hard. I just have a personal relationship with the one that I believe created everything, including myself. Nothing more, nothing less."

Okay.

"Unless you want me to dig up some more links and have 90% of them come from the same two sites like you?"

There is nothing wrong with getting your links from the same site. What matters is the validity of them. And, FYI, if you counted all of the links I posted refuting Behe it would be more like under half of all my links came from talkorigins.com.

"Enough about this thread which has obviously changed nobody's mind. Let's move onto gun control, now "

I have no real stance on gun control so it really isn't an issue I'm going to debate for or against as vigorously as evolution.

What I'm wondering is when you are going to fess up to not reading my links though. You seem to be curiously silent about that issue after I posted several instances of links you have simply ignored. Apology perhaps?

@Mouse

"I won because... because... "

You learned of several excellent pro-evolution sources and you actually seem to be considering them. I'd say that as long as you come away from this debate with some new knowledge than you did in fact win.
Lord Ozzum
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2003
Location: Beyond the Realms of Death
Posted: 21st Feb 2004 00:40
My stance on gun control: I should have one

Take a look to the sky just before you die

---For Whom The Bell Tolls, Metallica
HZence
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Mar 2003
Location:
Posted: 21st Feb 2004 04:14
Quote: "I wouldn't say you lost completely"


No? Well I was joking. I wouldn't say that I lost at all


Team EOD :: Programmer/Storyboard Assistant
Teh Go0rfmeister
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Aug 2003
Location:
Posted: 21st Feb 2004 12:17
Quote: ""To believe that God "directed" evolution over millions of years, is to say that God is not powerful enough to create.""


does that mean when you play the sims, you immediately create a family, alredy full up on skills, have the most promoted job you can get on the game, already living in a mansion, with a swimming pool? thus missing out on the fun of building up?

If God did create us 3-6 m. yrs ago, we still would of evolved at least slightly compared to our original design. We've had... what? 2 ice ages? as well as other changes we've been put through.

one thing i don't see how could of formed naturally through evelotuion from 1-celled oraganisms, the reproductive system/organs.

www.tinnedhead.tk watch this space for the first ever calculator to show the working out. also look out for our first game- ww.exor-mk1.tk
empty
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location: 3 boats down from the candy
Posted: 21st Feb 2004 14:26
Quote: "one thing i don't see how could of formed naturally through evelotuion from 1-celled oraganisms, the reproductive system/organs."

You are aware that you were a single cell approx. 9 months before you were born?

Me, I'll sit and write this love song as I all too seldom do
build a little fire this midnight. It's good to be back home with you.
Teh Go0rfmeister
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Aug 2003
Location:
Posted: 21st Feb 2004 14:34
i dont mean like that... i mean (whispers in young empty's ear) the... you know... the... train... and the tunnel

http://www.tinnedhead.tk under re-construction.
Chris K
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Oct 2003
Location: Lake Hylia
Posted: 21st Feb 2004 15:07
What the hell?

Don't pick the brain, the eye, the heart - pick the reproductive system. I mean, that probably the worst organ system in the body! It only works about 25% of the time.

Flashing Blade
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 21st Feb 2004 17:55
Only 5% after you drink beer

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-24 21:48:54
Your offset time is: 2024-11-24 21:48:54