The Crystal Method --- Roll It Up
So now both finalists of the previous World Cup have been sent home. This edition really has some interesting surprises. Too bad I can't see it through to the final this year but I'll hear from it I guess.
Sorry for stealing your sparring partner in the Creationism debate. You should read up when you've got the chance though. You'll either rage or...
The thing is that the reasons to forsake a creationist view are rational rather than personal and emotional. And rational arguments don't have be different for everyone: people can follow the same logic. But you don't seem to be very fond of logic in general, as we'll see below, so I'm not surprised that you didn't know this. I'll make another one of those "A vs B" comparisons for you. What you're saying A: Evolution is true because of reason X. B: If you say so, it has to be true. What I meant A: Evolution is true because of reason X. B: Yes. Reason X makes sense. You reprimand me for "assuming" too much, yet you call me naive without even knowing what I really think. Pot kettle black. :) Of course I know that many scientists are creationists. But they are unlikely to flat-out call my belief in evolution "stupid", which was your point to begin with. I haven't seen many scientific papers headlining "THIS IS WHY ... IS STUPID", have you? Scientists tend to use argumentation to prove their point. See the difference with bashing? I've never seen a creationist scientist actually bash evolution, only having doubts about it. On a side note, you seem to forget the original point of my reply (and yours for that matter) rather easily, instead focusing on accusing me of being this and that. Are you feeling ill? And finally... Your link fails miserably. It even headlines "Scientists who believe in God" and not "Scientists who believe in Creationism". It doesn't help that half of the list died before Darwin's theory was published. This post actually had me lie down on my bed for a few minutes, lest I fall off my chair laughing. The funniest part is that you're doing the same things you're accusing me from: not knowing what the hell you're talking about. Darwin isn't the only one who proposed the theory of evolution. Evolution has more than one "author" too if you will. Stephen J. Gould and Richard Dawkins, just to name some examples off the top of my head, are authorities on the field of evolution. Not to mention Darwin's theories fit well in the field of genetics, which has made undeniable progress in the last decades and continues to progress even now: we can make "maps" of chromosomes, we can manipulate genes to a certain extent, we can induce mutation in crops to make them resistant to several types of stress etc. Hence why evolutionists believe it is the mechanism behind evolution. We're not just guessing: we have seen what it can do. One mutation can give a fly an extra pair of legs instead of eyes, or give a human more fingers. Not too unlikely that new species gradually evolved from that actually. So even if his initial hypothesis was more conjecture than anything else, I have seen it supported countless times so far. The fact that you haven't is a blatant sign of ignorance on the subject. Or to say it in your words... And with this, you assume that those witnesses really existed, and weren't just made up in the first place. Are you trying to turn assumption into a form of art or something? Because you sure do it a lot. Try skeptical thinking for a change: you'd be amazed by what it can do. And yet people, Romans for one, did not believe Jesus to be The Messiah (which says so in the bible), even though there were people close to him who had access to that kind of information, and yet they do believe that the world was created in six days, even though there was no one around to know this (because they'd stoned the author if they didn't believe it). Point being, they swallow(ed) something without anyone being able to know whether it is true. The fact that this doesn't spark the least bit of suspicion in you forces me to conclude that you have once again made a very dumb mistake. My my how they do add up... Also, Nostradamus was a Frenchman who lived in the 16th century, and his relations to the Church have mostly been excellent. Just sayin'. This is my favourite part... REVERSAL TIME!!! DING DING DING!!! How many humans have you seen being nailed to the cross back in the days of the Bible? Because you were obviously around at that time: you have solid proof. Also, we have proof that bipedal primeapes existed in the past. It doesn't prove that evolution is true per se, as the common use of crucifixion doesn't automatically prove that Jesus was subjected to it, but we connect the dots, using the logic of evolution. So there goes another one of your pseudo-retorts. I lost count of many I have torn apart so far... Way to not just completely miss the point, but to miss the point entirely and then get smacked in the face by it when you go pick up your ammo... My point was that I don't deny that those buildings are real, I merely doubt that they played any role whatsoever in those stories which I suspect are fiction. Not only that, but I gave valid examples of works of fiction to back my point up in such a way that any high schooler should be able to understand it. Yes, because there are valid scientific indications to believe it. Because it is supported by experiments and deduction. Because it is woven into many other fields of research, such as genetics, paleontology, animal behaviour and others. Because I haven't heard even one good argument from you that can shake my logic for even an inch. :) It was fun while it lasted kid, but I've had more challenging religious debates. I have seen Christians make more intelligent statements than you have, but nice try anyway.
Sounds like too broad a definition to me. Explaining existence is a vague concept, one which encompasses a whole heap of things, including how it came to be (which you said below is not for it to say). I'd rather say that religion tries to explain the purpose of existence, i.e. understanding it. The usage of the term "explanation" can cause this kind of confusion, but I do think I'm on the right track on this. Yeah, I understand what you mean. Indeed, I do not agree with actually trying to disprove God. It seems impossible to me, as impossible as it is to prove his existence.
There is a difference between stupid and wrong. I don't judge humans, I'd rather judge individual opinions and methods. Your counter retort of "You haven't even given any arguments yet!" for example was quite wrong, since he didn't have to give any new arguments in order to stand strong in this debate. He could have just used the ones stated already, since they haven't been properly refuted yet anyway. I can give them a lot of arguments in favor of evolution. If they have even the least bit of understanding and interest for science I can convince them. And if not then they are hypocrites, since the bridges they cross, the medicine they take and the refreshments they drink have all been produced by scientific means. So no, I wouldn't feel insulted. As a matter of fact I would feel really, really smart. XD Fair enough. And I explicitly refered to it as hating as I explained the difference between hating and impairing freedom. So what's the complaint? Suppose the authors mentioned there are the true authors (even though most of them are strongly disputed), that would just hurt the credibility of the bible even more. Do you really entrust your entire faith to a handful of authors of ancient times who, let's face it, didn't know what the fuck the world is about (i.e. had little knowledge on how natural phenomena occured)? Because that is a stupid thing to do. Another classic mistake to make it that, by discovering that one part of the bible is true, you automatically assume that everything in it has to be true, even when it sounds as amazing as "giant space man makes an entire multiverse in six days". As for the grave... The person buried there is real, and he might have been someone named Jesus. He may have been a dude with charisma aplenty, someone who could gather followers, but that doesn't mean he has automatically done the "magical" things he did. Buddhism went something like this. Some versions of the path of Siddharta Gautama (Buddha)'s path actually sound quite credible: he was a spoiled prince who had a change of heart and went into seclusion, had a lot of introspective moments and eventually formed an entire dharma which he then went to preach throughout different regions. I believe a person like that may have existed in real life. It wasn't until later, after he died, that people started assigning him magical and supernatural powers. They changed "being indecisive" to "being tempted by the demon Mara" for starters. Anything to make it more outrageous. Jesus may have underwent the same kind of transformation. Especially the fact that the bible was written by such a limited number of people (as you yourself have implied) makes me wary of its accuracy. People lie, exaggerate, tell stories and pull things out of context all the time. Why should the authors of the bible be any different? "Crucifixion was common in that period so that has to mean that Jesus being crucified was true!" No. Just no. Making a story believable is a little more difficult when you claim that Jesus died due to a UFO crashing on him than by using a common method of execution in those times. "Terminator took place in Los Angeles, a real-life city! That means Terminator has to have been true! And ohmigosh, the Louvres is a real museum. That means The DaVinci code is a 100% accurate retelling of events that really happened!" No. Just no. See the crucifixion example above. If you want to tell stories, you may as well include true/believable elements in order to make it easier to swallow. No one will dispute the existence of the tomb of Augustus but real-life elements are so often interwoven with fiction that they tell us little to nothing about the validity of the stories that include them. It doesn't prove, or even support, the more controversial fairytales in the bible: turning water into wine, splitting the sea in two, darkness over Egypt, the deluge, and of course the creation of the universe. What I am saying is that you're taking something for granted that really isn't as trustworthy as you make it out to be. You really have nothing to support your belief that the bible is non-fiction, and yet you firmly cling on to it. And yes, that is foolish, dumb and stupid. But it doesn't mean you are, as a person.
Ever heard of the NORA-principle? It's a principle proposed by Stephen J. Gould that states that religion and science both have their areas of expertise, called "magisteria". The gist of it is that science tries to "explain and deduce", while religion (or spiritualism in general) tries to "understand and give meaning". Kind of like what you're saying. It is for example meaningless to try and see a meaning behind cell division, maybe as pointless as trying to explain why some feel the presence of God. So yes, that principle mentions they can co-exist, but to each their own. They are friendly neighbours as long as each one stays on his side of the hedge. Unfortunately for you Christians, this also means that religion is in no place to explain the origins of the universe and life, since these are categorized under science. According to your own theory (and Gould's), you have no business in such discussion. Get off our lawn! (Not to say we haven't trespassed in your territory, mind you. Scientists have tried to prove the existence of and locate the "God module" in the brain. Admittedly, progress is shaky at best, comparable even to the creationism "The G-man did it, don't ask me how!" argument. Perhaps we really shouldn't touch each other's fields?) So now you have implied that the "science vs God debate" is irrelevant. Makes me wonder what you're still doing in this thread actually.
Thousand Foot Krutch --- Faith, Love And Happiness
So it's to show that you're not biased on the subject? Maybe you're right. Thanks for replying.
Blur --- Song 2
Counting Crows --- She Talks To Angels
That being said, the concept of time does not have a beginning at all. Therefore, anything can have existed for eternity, material or supernatural. We're in the dark on what that is, and what it has done, and Christians ask us questions that we admit can't solve (yet) believing they have won the debate. They don't seem to realise, however, that "A wizard did it by making things go poof." isn't a valid explanation to provide foolproof conclusion either. This is a major difference between the two factions. Sooner or later some form of "belief" comes into play regardless of which side you lean to. It's simply a matter of being rational and accepting a coherent, experimentally devised but more complex theory, or the "quick-and-dirty" convenient method that does things by pointing everything back to God. As for me, I'm consistent and pragmatic. I have seen math, physics, biology and chemistry solve many problems. I've seen them being the foundation of every bridge I cross, every medicine I take and every car I drive. I've seen it solve problems, so I believe (there, I said it) that it can solve this one. I haven't seen prayer or any supernatural phenomenon solve or accomplish anything, so I don't have any reason to believe that it can. All unsolved questions aside, if you'd ask me for a reason why I'd pick science over religion any day, it's because science has been beating religion out of the water in many territories before whereas the opposite hasn't happened all that often, if at all.
Well, you're (unwillingly) keeping the taboo alive yourself: I wonder why, in any topic regarding homosexuality, it is so important to state the way you roll first before making your point. Why is it even relevant whether you're straight or gay? Isn't that too part of the taboo? This isn't just Rho, on the contrary, it is quite common. I myself have probably done it. But it made me wonder.
It's not crazy, I prefer less...one-sided matches as well. Uruguay-Mexico just now was one of them. Interesting to know:Uruguay is one of just four teams that didn't get scored against yet (the others are Chile, Portugal and The Netherlands), and the only one so far who have kept this up in all three matches of the first round. I wonder if they'll become the new Switzerland? XD
I'm indecisive about whether to facepalm or to give that guy my eternal respect. Depression or not, it takes balls to pull that off!
Depeche Mode --- People Are People
Toshi getting banned.
The level of professionalism in this review has blown me away. Would have given you some advice to make it even better but... ...I was beaten to it.
Creationism is a cultural/religious phenomenon though. You can't flat out ignore it. It's not whether it's real that counts, it's whether it's there. Go to a museum that exhibits Japanese culture and you'll find plenty of references to Shinto. That's the kind of presence in museums I meant.
That's a ******ed argument. If there was no solution for these problems, then we would no longer exist. Without rest or nourishment our species, or any species for that matter would have been extinct long ago. Then you wouldn't be here anymore to observe it. There may have been countless unsolvable problems in the past, but they were so detrimental that they have extinct anything that those problems concerned. Not everything has been solved. Everything that wasn't a big enough problem to extinguish us so far has been solved, or minimized, or just hasn't been relevant yet, or isn't that bad yet. Your examples are dumb too; hunger and fatigue can easily be explained scientifically and their solutions are therefore not "coincidences". This all pales in comparison to That One Hole in your reasoning, the single reason why no person in his right mind would ever defend it. That hole is called "not knowing what the fuck is happening in the world". Allow me to illustrate. Yeah, you can take something out of the fridge whenever you're hungry. But there's this funny place to the east of America and south of Europe. It' called Africa. People might have heard of it: legend has it that there's a certain world cup taking place there this very instant. The thing about this "Africa" is...These people are poor. They don't eat very much, nor very often. And yet they are very familiar with this hunger you speak of. Funny, isn't it? Maybe you should preach your theory there. That'd be fun.
