Democrat Party National Convention

On the otherside called the right wing republican's, The evangelicals carry so much weight that several presidential candidates expressed doubt about evolution -- that's just creepy. It's like they put a plank in the party platform about mandatory ignorance. Meanwhile our infrastructure is what it is because of twenty-eight years of "Government is not the solution.

I'd just read Alexis de Tocqueville's reminiscence of the revolution of 1848, for which he had a ringside seat as a member of the National Assembly. The two parties had narrowed their bases to the same stratum of society, the aspiring middle class. When the constitutional crisis came the government fell because absolutely nobody wanted to defend it. I thought about that during the '88 election, and again and again since.

I agree, it's creepy when Tancredo and Huckabee believe in Creationism.

That's so far beyond the Stupid Line I couldn't support either.

DF

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:
I agree, it's creepy when Tancredo and Huckabee believe in Creationism.

That's so far beyond the Stupid Line I couldn't support either.

DF

How much weight do you feel that The right wing evangelicals will carry in 08 election? Do you feel people have caught on to evangelicals?

I think so, and I certainly hope so. the Republicans need to distance themselves from those Neanderthals.

DF

I know that we all have different beliefs here. If someone chooses to be an atheist that's their right and I'm not going to insult someone for those beliefs even though I disagree with them. It would be nice to receive that same courtesy instead of being referred to as a neanderthal and being "beyond the stupid line".

As for Barney Frank, my ex said he stood firmly behind him--he certainly didn't want to stand in front of him.

Lol too funny

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:

1:35 am ~ Bill Clinton asks Ted Kennedy to drive Hillary home...

Haaaaaaaaa! That killed me!

Sorry, Nash, I certainly don't mean to imply that religious people are necessarily stupid.

But, if one believes that men walked with dinosaurs, and all the species that ever lived on the earth lived at once, then one is stupid. Creationism is the definition of stupid.

As for Neanderthals..... sorry. A bit of political hyperbole there. Politicians are called much worse every day.

DF

quote:

Creationism is the definition of stupid.

It makes more sense to me than a cosmic random accident, but that horse has been beat to death already.

I don't like the mixing of politics and religion either, nothing bothers me more than campaigning from the pulpit. I have no problem supporting a candidate with religious beliefs, but not one that uses those beliefs to gain office.

I hope the republicans will allow Mary Cheney and her wife to speak at their convention - while holding their child, of course.

As for Barney Frank - nothing you can do about him. He irritates all the right people - so does Mary Cheney.

Creationism is such a flawed belief, one must question the judgment of anyone who clings to it.

DF

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:
Sorry, Nash, I certainly don't mean to imply that religious people are necessarily stupid.

But, if one believes that men walked with dinosaurs, and all the species that ever lived on the earth lived at once, then one is stupid. Creationism is the definition of stupid.

As for Neanderthals..... sorry. A bit of political hyperbole there. Politicians are called much worse every day.

DF

If I had a dollar for every time you started in on fricking evolution vs. creationism I would be rich. It seems you do your best to take pot shots every opportunity you get. Geez. Are you insecure about it. If not, back off. In my opinion, believing man squirmed into existence from a tadpole is the true definition of stupid but I don't get on here and parade it around to every forum topic. Have a great day, though.

Believing the world is only 6,000 years old, when written records go back 5,400 years (no mention of dinosaurs, etc.) and go against the laws of physics is bewildering to me. Even the intelligent design believers don't go that route.

Assuming God created the universe (I do), why would he create laws that lie to man to bewilder him and deny use of the gift of a reasoning brain and free will (His own image)?

quote:

Believing the world is only 6,000 years old, when written records go back 5,400 years (no mention of dinosaurs, etc.) and go against the laws of physics is bewildering to me. Even the intelligent design believers don't go that route.

Assuming God created the universe (I do), why would he create laws that lie to man to bewilder him and deny use of the gift of a reasoning brain and free will (His own image)?

Excellent point. I don't believe that this existence just happened by some random accident, but I don't believe it was created just 6000 years ago either. As for humans living with dinosaurs, I have a hard time with that as well. I don't think humans would have been around for too long if there were carnivorous lizards the size of buildings running around among them. However, the argument that all the intricacies of nature and physics just happened to accidentally create themselves is just a little too weak for me to buy in to.

Yes, the position of our sun, the position of our planet, the fact we have a magnetic field, when Mars lost hers, and so many other things were necessary for life to even happen, let alone intelligent life forms is against all odds of a random event.

quote:

believing man squirmed into existence from a tadpole is the true definition of stupid

And it would be, but who said that?

Sorry if I keep poking you where it hurts, OJ. PBA and I were discussing the relationship between evangelicals, who largely believe in Creationism, and the Republicans.

I wonder how many of the Democrat candidates believe in Creationism?

DF

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:

quote:

believing man squirmed into existence from a tadpole is the true definition of stupid

And it would be, but who said that?

Sorry if I keep poking you where it hurts, OJ. PBA and I were discussing the relationship between evangelicals, who largely believe in Creationism, and the Republicans.

I wonder how many of the Democrat candidates believe in Creationism?

DF

I wonder how many repukes say they believe in "Creationism" and are lying to make love to the Evangelicals?

I wonder how many democrats believe in Marxism, that Bush caused 9/11, that Bush is planning a coup de main to stay in office, that wish Tony Snow dead, that believe in multicurturism to the extent that all cultures are equal, etcetera, etcetera.

quote:

Originally posted by interventor:
I wonder how many democrats believe in Marxism, that Bush caused 9/11, that Bush is planning a coup de main to stay in office, that wish Tony Snow dead, that believe in multicurturism to the extent that all cultures are equal, etcetera, etcetera.

Why, all of them, of course.

DF

quote:

Originally posted by meanasasnake:
I hope the republicans will allow Mary Cheney and her wife to speak at their convention - while holding their child, of course.

As for Barney Frank - nothing you can do about him. He irritates all the right people - so does Mary Cheney.

How can we tell if Mary is the wife or the husband?

quote:

Originally posted by outspokenjerk:
If I had a dollar for every time you started in on fricking evolution vs. creationism I would be rich. It seems you do your best to take pot shots every opportunity you get. Geez. Are you insecure about it. If not, back off.

For me, it's kinda like constantly running across a post stating that "two plus two equals five." I just can't help myself from calling down someone who is stupid enough to not only believe that but deny the proven answer even after they've been shown otherwise.

It's also a way to vicariously combat the stupidity of the religious fundamentalists nationwide. I don't necessarily have a problem with you believing what you want but there are people who believe as you do that want to teach their religious beliefs in a science classroom. I am quite passionately against that.

So, if you don't like being picked on for believing in ghosts, witchcraft, demons, a literal interpretation of the bible and 2+2=5, then stop bringing the stupid subject up.

For me, saying life is an accident is the same as 2+2=5. It's an unprovable theory, made up as a way to explain our existence without acknowledging a higher power. Personally, I find it too implausible. I don't have a problem with people who choose to believe this, that's their right. I respect their right to their beliefs and I don't refer to them as stupid simply because I disagree. It takes faith to believe that God does not exist just like it takes faith to believe He does. To say people are stupid for believing in God simply shows a hatred towards religion, not a disagreement with it. As I've said before, I don't insult atheists for their beliefs, I'd appreciate the same courtesy.

quote:

Originally posted by FirenzeVeritas:

quote:

Originally posted by meanasasnake:
I hope the republicans will allow Mary Cheney and her wife to speak at their convention - while holding their child, of course.

As for Barney Frank - nothing you can do about him. He irritates all the right people - so does Mary Cheney.

How can we tell if Mary is the wife or the husband?

Since there are two women, there is not a husband. I know this is hard to grasp, but there need not be "rolls" of any kind in a relationship. We all know women who totally emasculate the men in their lives. Women who are the master and total last word - the big boss. Does that make her the husband? Nope. It just means she is the dominate figure. Lots of variations in life and relationships. I really dont give much thought to the make-up of relationships I am not involved in - that includes the sex. If I am not having it - its not really of any concern to me.What two conscenting adults do is their business. In other words - its none of my business or anyone elses.

"How can we tell if Mary is the wife or the husband?"

It doesn't matter, daddy told her partner that Mary was the dominant one. The response was, "Yes, sir!"

quote:

Originally posted by NashBama:
For me, saying life is an accident is the same as 2+2=5. It's an unprovable theory,

See? There you go again being stupid.

The entire science of biology (and all other life sciences), paleontology, archeology, astrobiology and lots of other 'ologies have their very foundations rooted evolution (and vice-versa). If you believe evolution is "unprovable" then you must also apply that same wacky rule to every other legitimate science. If you are in fact, "college educated" in the sciences as you claimed (which I seriously doubt) then you KNOW better. By default, that makes you stupid.

Again, I don't have a problem with you believing whatever you want but to claim evolution is it not a valid science is just so incredibly, obtusely, wildly stupid that it borders on absolute lunacy and dark-age-ish.

quote:

To say people are stupid for believing in God simply shows a hatred towards religion, not a disagreement with it. As I've said before, I don't insult atheists for their beliefs, I'd appreciate the same courtesy.

I never stated a belief in god was stupid -- It most certainly is not. I said you were stupid for ignoring evidence that slaps you upside the head every waking moment of your life. It is the study of evolution that might save you, your wife, son or daughter from deadly viruses and bacteria that EVOLVE rapidly.

Evolution - "a tool used by God to allow free will in his universe."

quote:

See? There you go again being stupid.

The entire science of biology (and all other life sciences), paleontology, archeology, astrobiology and lots of other 'ologies have their very foundations rooted evolution (and vice-versa). If you believe evolution is "unprovable" then you must also apply that same wacky rule to every other legitimate science. If you are in fact, "college educated" in the sciences as you claimed (which I seriously doubt) then you KNOW better. By default, that makes you stupid.

Again, I don't have a problem with you believing whatever you want but to claim evolution is it not a valid science is just so incredibly, obtusely, wildly stupid that it borders on absolute lunacy and dark-age-ish.


quote:
To say people are stupid for believing in God simply shows a hatred towards religion, not a disagreement with it. As I've said before, I don't insult atheists for their beliefs, I'd appreciate the same courtesy.


I never stated a belief in god was stupid -- It most certainly is not. I said you were stupid for ignoring evidence that slaps you upside the head every waking moment of your life. It is the study of evolution that might save you, your wife, son or daughter from deadly viruses and bacteria that EVOLVE rapidly.

When did I say anything about evolution? I believe this post is the first time I've used the word evolution on this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by NashBama:
When did I say anything about evolution? I believe this post is the first time I've used the word evolution on this thread.

This sub thread began with OutspokenJerk saying,"If I had a dollar for every time you started in on fricking evolution vs. creationism I would be rich."

I responded with a retort and you responded with "For me, saying life is an accident is the same as 2+2=5. It's an unprovable theory, made up as a way to explain our existence without acknowledging a higher power. Personally, I find it too implausible."

What the heck "unprovable theory" are you blabbering about if not evolution?

I'll let you go back and figure it out, I'd rather not repeat myself since I was pretty clear the first time. As I've already said, I think this dead horse has been beat enough.

quote:

It would be nice to receive that same courtesy instead of being referred to as a neanderthal and being "beyond the stupid line".

The issue in question as being beyond the stupid line is creationism. If my definition of stupid offended you, it's reasonable to conclude you're a creationist, isn't it?

Evolution is a demonstrable fact. Creationism is religious mumbo jumbo.

DF

That's your opinion. As for evolution, some of it has been proven. The animals on the galapagos islands are a good example of that. What hasn't been proven is the claim that we evolved from primate. No one has been able to link prehistoric primates with modern day humans. That's why it's called the "missing link". I think it was George Carlin that said "If we came from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and apes?"

My whole point was that if you want to believe we evolved from primates and existence created itself through accidents, that's your right, I respect that and I don't stoop to insults. Why not show the same courtesy to those of us who believe otherwise?

Religion is not science.

my dear nash,

Evolution is a fact. that is not my opinion, it's a demonstrable fact.

George Carlin didn't say that. it's a dumb thing to say, and he's not dumb. There is no reason to believe that if humans evolved from other primates, that those other primates could not survive in their ecological place.

Genetically speaking, there are three kinds of chimpanzees... the standard chimp, the bonobo (or pygmy chimp), and us. Our DNA is 98% identical to the other chimps.

I don't mean to call names or insult people promiscuously. However, Creationism is demonstrably false, and has NO credibility among scientists. It is a transparent attempt to inject religious pseudoscience into the public consciousness in order to bolster a primitive and absurd religious belief when reason, observation, experimentation, and a world of evidence tells us otherwise.

DF

DF

If evolution was a demonstrable fact, it would be a law. Last time I checked it was still a theory. When has anyone demonstrated that creationism is false? I'm not talking about the whole 6000 year old earth thing, I don't believe in that. There are scientists who believe in a Creator, my biology professor in college for one.

As I said before, to believe that science knows everything and that life is an accident requires too much of a leap of faith for me. If that's what you want to believe, fine. I'm not going to consider you less intelligent the way you consider me.

This has all been said before. It's obvious you have a hatred towards religion and religious people. I'm not trying to change your mind, simply asking to show a little respect for those with differing beliefs.

Actually many aspects of evolution have been proven without doubt.If you doubt that fact look up the proven aspects of the larger theory. I had a professor who pointed out that evolution could have been "the creators" vehicle for creation. Why not? Why must everything be one thing or the other?

I already said that parts have been proven a couple posts ago. It still has a few holes in it though. As for it being a vehicle for creation, who knows?

Since Evangelicals insist on the total innerancy of the Bible for them and other fundalmentalists evolution is viewed as a threat. Why? Because they are equating the Bible with God himself. Since the Bible evolved over hundreds of years and does not include many other books not deemed "suitable", one must view the Bible with reason. In other words - use your head. God gave it to you and expects you to use it. Does it really matter HOW God created the universe? Not really - his methods need not be understood or proven. I think the bigger interest to God is that you believe in him, not understand the mysteries of the creation. Faith is more than the written word, and it is not dependent on it. When the Bible becomes more important than God you have yourself a case of "bibliolatry" which is the worship of the word instead of God.

http://www.newreformation.org/heresy3.htm

There are more important things than this in our Christian lives.

quote:

Originally posted by NashBama:
If evolution was a demonstrable fact, it would be a law. Last time I checked it was still a theory. When has anyone demonstrated that creationism is false?

Good grief . . .

Evolution is not a "law" for the same reasons "cellular theory," "Atomic Theory" and "Gravitational Theory" is not a "law." Laws are quantifiable natural phenomenon that have been proven to occur invariably whenever certain conditions are met. They invariable and can be proven by mathematical means. Your silly statement is akin to comparing apples to English literature - there's simply no correlation there at all.

Evolution is often said to be "closer" to a law than a hypothesis because the theory is so very overwhelmingly supported by evidence but get this: EVOLUTION WILL NEVER BE "LAW" because it does not meet the aforementioned criteria for a law.

Really, Nash, your ignorance of these simple concepts is quite profound coming from someone who professed to be a college graduate with a degree in science.

2+2=4, dude.

That's a pretty good point, I agree. The Bible is a good study tool and I believe it contains the word of God. As someone who has studied history, I also know that it has probably been tampered with. God gave us a brain and logic so that we can figure out on our own what we think He wants. He's very clear about some things and others are left for us to figure out. When people focus on smaller details of the Bible, they loose focus of what they are supposed to be studying.

quote:

Originally posted by NashBama:
That's a pretty good point, I agree. The Bible is a good study tool and I believe it contains the word of God. As someone who has studied history, I also know that it has probably been tampered with. God gave us a brain and logic so that we can figure out on our own what we think He wants. He's very clear about some things and others are left for us to figure out. When people focus on smaller details of the Bible, they loose focus of what they are supposed to be studying.

My point exactly.

quote:

Evolution is often said to be "closer" to a law than a hypothesis because the theory is so very overwhelmingly supported by evidence but get this: EVOLUTION WILL NEVER BE "LAW" because it does not meet the aforementioned criteria for a law.

You're right, in other words there are some parts of the theory that can and have been proven, there are other parts that can't. Isn't that what I've already said?

quote:

Originally posted by NashBama:

quote:

Evolution is often said to be "closer" to a law than a hypothesis because the theory is so very overwhelmingly supported by evidence but get this: EVOLUTION WILL NEVER BE "LAW" because it does not meet the aforementioned criteria for a law.

You're right, in other words there are some parts of the theory that can and have been proven, there are other parts that can't. Isn't that what I've already said?

No, that's not what you meant. You are being intentionally obtuse and dense.

Let me make it clear to you: What has been "proven" by a overwhelming preponderance of the evidence and to the complete and utter satisfaction of every known scientific discipline and organization on the planet is this: Man is a primate who evolved from earlier primates who evolved from lower mammals and so on.

quote:

Originally posted by GoFish:

quote:

Originally posted by NashBama:

quote:

Evolution is often said to be "closer" to a law than a hypothesis because the theory is so very overwhelmingly supported by evidence but get this: EVOLUTION WILL NEVER BE "LAW" because it does not meet the aforementioned criteria for a law.

You're right, in other words there are some parts of the theory that can and have been proven, there are other parts that can't. Isn't that what I've already said?

No, that's not what you meant. You are being intentionally obtuse and dense.

Let me make it clear to you: What has been "proven" by a overwhelming preponderance of the evidence and to the complete and utter satisfaction of every known scientific discipline and organization on the planet is this: Man is a primate who evolved from earlier primates who evolved from lower mammals and so on.

I totally agree - one need only to look at bush to discover genetic link between apes and humans. He speaks somewhat like a human, he eats with utensils, he walks upright (but drags his knuckles), his appearence is rather simian like but more human in many respects. His intelligence level was displayed like a trained dog at Harvard, yet in application it lacks reason and success. Yes, yes, I do believe in evolution - and the fact that it may not be complete for some individuals.

You hit the nail on the head! There is nothing wrong with exposing a political parties true agendas.

quote:

Originally posted by Nav Vet:
You hit the nail on the head! There is nothing wrong with exposing a political parties true agendas.

That would include the republicans as well I assume.

quote:

No, that's not what you meant. You are being intentionally obtuse and dense.

Let me make it clear to you: What has been "proven" by a overwhelming preponderance of the evidence and to the complete and utter satisfaction of every known scientific discipline and organization on the planet is this: Man is a primate who evolved from earlier primates who evolved from lower mammals and so on.

It's exactly what I meant, I'm sorry you didn't understand it the first time. Man evolving from lower mammals is still a theory. There are some interesting fossils that suggest this, but no real link between us and them. Again, science calls it the "missing link" for a reason. Until it's found, which I doubt it ever will, it's still a theory and not a law.

quote:

Originally posted by GoFish:

quote:

Originally posted by outspokenjerk:
If I had a dollar for every time you started in on fricking evolution vs. creationism I would be rich. It seems you do your best to take pot shots every opportunity you get. Geez. Are you insecure about it. If not, back off.

For me, it's kinda like constantly running across a post stating that "two plus two equals five." I just can't help myself from calling down someone who is stupid enough to not only believe that but deny the proven answer even after they've been shown otherwise.

It's also a way to vicariously combat the stupidity of the religious fundamentalists nationwide. I don't necessarily have a problem with you believing what you want but there are people who believe as you do that want to teach their religious beliefs in a science classroom. I am quite passionately against that.

So, if you don't like being picked on for believing in ghosts, witchcraft, demons, a literal interpretation of the bible and 2+2=5, then stop bringing the stupid subject up.

I'm sorry, I did not realize I brought it up on this topic. No, wait, I didn't. And I have to say that "stupid subject", by what I believe and KNOW as truth is that of an exploding ball of matter that somehow I supposedly came from.

quote:

If evolution was a demonstrable fact, it would be a law. Last time I checked it was still a theory. When has anyone demonstrated that creationism is false? I'm not talking about the whole 6000 year old earth thing, I don't believe in that. There are scientists who believe in a Creator, my biology professor in college for one.

As I said before, to believe that science knows everything and that life is an accident requires too much of a leap of faith for me. If that's what you want to believe, fine. I'm not going to consider you less intelligent the way you consider me.

This has all been said before. It's obvious you have a hatred towards religion and religious people. I'm not trying to change your mind, simply asking to show a little respect for those with differing beliefs.

For Pete's sake, nash. Is your hangup over rhetoric the only thing from opening your eyes to the truth? OK, It's now the Law of Evolution. Happy?

Creationism is demonstrated false every day. Every fossil that is dug up, every discovery of genetics disproves that nutty idea.

I don't dislike religious people, but I have no respect for the deliberately stupid.

DF

A theory does not become a law just because you say so, sorry. Fossils do not disprove creation. How did the animals that were fossilized get there? Did a few basic elements just randomly and without reason smash together and poof, there's an animal? If that's what you want to believe, but I'm not buying it.

Amino acids are the basic building blocks of life. For amino acids to be created, conditions must be exactly right. This was demonstrated back in the 50's when a scientist combined hydrogen, water, methane, and ammonia, then shocked it with electricity to simulate lightning. This created amino acids.

The scientist had to purposely combine these things together and provide exactly the right conditions for the experiment to work. For this to happen randomly on it's own in nature, happen enough to develop some kind of life, and develop other forms of life for a functioning habitat is just too far of a stretch. The odds of that really happening are incalculable. Besides, what created the basic elements that created the first amino acids?

I believe in design, not chance. I don't accept everything that I'm told, I ask questions and challenge beliefs, that usually causes people to get defensive as you and Go Fish have shown. If that makes me deliberately stupid, so be it. You can put your whole faith in science if you want, but science has made mistakes before and are not immune to mistakes in the future. If you want to put blind faith in something fallible, that's your choice. I require more evidence.

quote:

Originally posted by NashBama:
Amino acids are the basic building blocks of life. For amino acids to be created, conditions must be exactly right. ( . . .) The odds of that really happening are incalculable. Besides, what created the basic elements that created the first amino acids?

Physics and chemistry, Nash. Simple as that. No magic. No Big-Man-Who-Reads-All-Our-Minds-and-Lives-In-the-Sky, no spook, not even a flying spagetti monster. Just natural laws and chemistry. Open your eyes.

Your example of aminos acids created in the lab was so very outdated. We know so much more now.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/comet_life_010405.html

Excerpt: "More than 70 varieties of amino acids have been found in meteorites -- many the suspected cores of comets that smashed to Earth -- and are presumed to exist in interstellar dust clouds."

You missed the point of the example. Those amino acids in the lab had to be put together by someone who knew what they were doing. They didn't just fall out of some beakers on the floor and presto, amino acids, that's just too far fetched. Yet, that's what some want us to believe happened in nature, I think they had help.

Besides, how did those amino acids get in the meteorites? It's pretty tough to get those exact conditions on a rock out in space, isn't it? How did the meteorite get there? It just appeared out of nothing for no reason? Sorry, that's too weak for me to believe, but you can if you want to.

quote:

Originally posted by NashBama:
Besides, how did those amino acids get in the meteorites? It's pretty tough to get those exact conditions on a rock out in space, isn't it? How did the meteorite get there? It just appeared out of nothing for no reason? Sorry, that's too weak for me to believe, but you can if you want to.

It doesn't happen "out of nothing" you silly guy It's basic chemistry! Do you doubt that two invisible gasses called oxygen and hydrogen can combine and form something very dangerous called dihydrogenmonoxide? I'm serious! It happens spontaneously enough to fall from the sky in some places.

Comets are "dirty" balls of ice and rock. Meteors come from comets. Meteorites land on earth. Smart people find them take a really close look and find the basic building blocks of life.

Amino acids form just as spontaneously as water when interstellar ice reacts with ultraviolet light. Again, no magic, no Jaysus, no cowering before the alter, no animal sacrifices are necessary. Just take ice and add sunlight.

Open your eyes, Nash!

So what created the balls of ice and rock? What created the oxygen and hydrogen? Where did all the basic elements come from? I don't believe that things appear spontaneously. Things just don't randomly appear out of nothing and defy odds by combining and forming other things. Just as the scientist created amino acids in a lab, a higher power created them in nature.

A good example I heard in school was about a box of watch parts. You can shake a box of watch parts forever and they'll never fall in exactly the right place to make a working watch, but a bunch of elements can randomly slam into each other forming a universe and life? I don't think so.

Nash, perhaps the universe simply is. If you insist on a Prime Mover, then who created god?

If you say god always existed, I can more easily say the universe always existed. At least the universe is tangible.

DF

God wasn't created, He always was. It's hard to understand and impossible to explain, but that's how it is. Sure, you can say the universe always existed, but that goes against the Big Bang theory, doesn't it? God is just as tangible as the universe, it just takes a little different way of looking at things.

The main difference between atheists and those who believe in God is that atheists believe humans know everything and are superior. Those who believe in a higher power have accepted the fact that there are things beyond our comprehension and that we are not superior. For us to try and understand God is like my dog trying to understand my computer. Just because she doesn't understand it or even knows what it is doesn't mean my computer does not exist.

quote:

Originally posted by NashBama:
God is just as tangible as the universe, it just takes a little different way of looking at things.

Hmm. So I can pick up a piece of 4 billion year-old rock and throw it at your head. Can you pick up a piece of God and do the same?

quote:

The main difference between atheists and those who believe in God is that atheists believe humans know everything and are superior.

Bunk. Atheists are absolutely certain that we DO NOT know everything and know we are not more superior that the ant you crush under your foot while taking a walk through the park.

It is organized religion who claims to have all the answers, knows the "truth" and threatens you with eternal pain if you so much as question its authority.

quote:

Those who believe in a higher power have accepted the fact that there are things beyond our comprehension

No disagreement there. You look at a complex object and say, "I don't understand therefore god did it."

But I believe that all things are knowable. Our progress over the past few thousand years has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is nothing in the universe that it un-knowable or beyond human comprehension. We are, collectively, understanding more and more every single day.

It is so grieveously sad that you are too ignorant to participate in this exciting journey.

quote:

God wasn't created, He always was. It's hard to understand and impossible to explain, but that's how it is.

why is that how it is? By what evidence is that how it is?

If something always has been, it's the universe. Before this one, there might have been who knows how many before it? Who knows if there are infinite universes in other dimensions?

We don't understand everything, but that's no reason to make up an answer like god. We know what we know, and we have some idea of what we don't. AND we are learning more every day.

DF

quote:

It is so grieveously sad that you are too ignorant to participate in this exciting journey.

As I said before, some people get angry and defensive when their beliefs are challenged, thanks for providing a good example of that.

quote:

Hmm. So I can pick up a piece of 4 billion year-old rock and throw it at your head. Can you pick up a piece of God and do the same?

As I said, it takes a different way of looking at things. Even science has things that you can't see or touch such as electrons or anti-mater. It takes specialized instruments and calculations to find these things. To find evidence of God requires a little more than just your naked eyes.

quote:

Bunk. Atheists are absolutely certain that we DO NOT know everything and know we are not more superior that the ant you crush under your foot while taking a walk through the park.

It is organized religion who claims to have all the answers, knows the "truth" and threatens you with eternal pain if you so much as question its authority.

You think you are superior to me because I believe in God. Just go back and look at all the cheap shots at my intelligence because you disagree with my beliefs.

Organized religion and the belief in God are two different things. I'm not a member of a church and I don't claim any denomination. Some churches believe things and teach things that I don't agree with. Don't lump all Christians together has having the exact same belief, we don't.

quote:

No disagreement there. You look at a complex object and say, "I don't understand therefore god did it."

No, I look at everything simple and complex as God's creations. Things don't appear out of nowhere or create themselves, something has to start the process. I can see a 4 billion year old rock and know that all the minerals and elements that made it had to be created some how. They then had to be brought together in the right conditions to create the rock. That's something that is impossible to happen simply by accident, so if we rule out accident the only thing left is intent. To have intent there must be intelligence behind it.

quote:

Who knows if there are infinite universes in other dimensions?

Good point, who knows? Is there evidence of another universe or an alternate dimension? So putting a belief in the possibility of an alternate universe is okay, but putting a belief in God is not. That simply comes down to a choice in faith, you're taking one faith and I'm taking another, no difference really.

ah, but my dear nash, I do not insist that there are parallel universes, I only admit the possibility.

You insist god exists, with no proof whatever.


DF

quote:

ah, but my dear nash, I do not insist that there are parallel universes, I only admit the possibility.

You insist god exists, with no proof whatever.

There is no proof of a parallel universe either. So is there the possibility of God if the same holds true with parallel universes?

There is proof of God, but like I said, just as we need something to help us see electrons and neurons, we need something to help us see proof of God.

there is a possibility of god, same as Santa claus.

What is the proof? what do you need to see it?

DF

quote:

there is a possibility of god, same as Santa claus.

What is the proof? what do you need to see it?

So if there is a possibility, you can't say that He absolutly does not exist.

The proof is all around, if you really want to find proof and you search for it, you'll find it. It's different for everyone and requires an open mind and open heart. At one time I doubted the existence of God, I found evidence that proved otherwise. It's just something you just have to find for yourself, but you have to be willing to look.

quote:

The proof is all around, if you really want to find proof and you search for it, you'll find it. It's different for everyone and requires an open mind and open heart. At one time I doubted the existence of God, I found evidence that proved otherwise. It's just something you just have to find for yourself, but you have to be willing to look.

nash, ol' bud...... under that criteria, I could talk myself into whatever god is currently fashionable. If I accept existence as proof of god, I can then choose among many gods. they can't all be right.

I don't mean to be pedantic or stubborn, but I want evidence of your god. One thing that I can see without talking myself into believing it first. got one?

DF

quote:

nash, ol' bud...... under that criteria, I could talk myself into whatever god is currently fashionable. If I accept existence as proof of god, I can then choose among many gods. they can't all be right.

I don't mean to be pedantic or stubborn, but I want evidence of your god. One thing that I can see without talking myself into believing it first. got one?

I didn't say accepting existence is proof, I said you have to open your mind to the possibility. There's evidence all around, but until you're ready to look, you'll never see it.

Dr. Wernher von Braun replied when asked about whether or not it is reasonable to acknowledge a Creator:

"Must we really light a candle to see the Sun? The electron is materially inconceivable, and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects that we use it to illuminate our cities, guide our airliners through the night skies and take the most accurate measurements. What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electron as real, while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive of Him? … The inconceivability of some ultimate issue which always will lie outside scientific resolution should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction. To simply dismiss the concept of a Creator as being unscientific is to violate the very objectivity of science itself."

the good doctor was right. those things we can't reason don't necessarily not exist, but they don't necessarily exist, either.

DF

quote:

the good doctor was right. those things we can't reason don't necessarily not exist, but they don't necessarily exist, either.

That's sort of what he's saying, but you're right and that's what I've been trying to get across all along. It takes faith to not believe in God just as it takes faith to believe. It just comes down to where you choose to put your faith. Contrary to what many atheists say, belief in God does not require discarding logic, reason, or science.

http://everystudent.com/features/isthere.html?gclid=CIGqpq707o0CFRqsOAoddAuWPA

quote:

Originally posted by NashBama:
That's sort of what he's saying, but you're right and that's what I've been trying to get across all along.

Umm, that's not true. What you've been trying to get across is that man was poofed into existence and woman was poofed form the rib of a man. All this was done via the magical power of an omnipotent space alien.

That is what you believe, correct? If not, exactly what DO you believe?

quote:

Umm, that's not true. What you've been trying to get across is that man was poofed into existence and woman was poofed form the rib of a man. All this was done via the magical power of an omnipotent space alien.

That is what you believe, correct? If not, exactly what DO you believe?

Quote me where I said "omnipotent space alien".

Go back and re-read my posts, it's clear you haven't because I've made my point clear in just about every one.

I don't believe in the Bible or any other heavily edited ancient tribal text. I'm open to any and all new evidence. If Jesus came down out of the clouds and said here I am, see my magical powers, performed miracles and such, I'd take that into serious consideration.

At this point I don't require belief in any of the thousands of Gods man has chosen to worship. I do believe in myself, my family and you. ;^)

Our personal beliefs are our own and I support an individual's rights to worship in the manner they see fit.

Regards, miamizsun

P.S. Oh yeah, regarding the Dems National Convention, I put that right down there at the bottom next to the GOP Convention. I have no faith in them either. They're only second to the charlatans we see suckering the masses out of their hard earned money.

quote:

Originally posted by NashBama:
Quote me where I said "omnipotent space alien".

You insist that human origin could not have come form primordial soup, correct? You think we were zapped into existence by God, correct?

You call him God, I prefer to think of him as a extraterrestrial. Same thing.

quote:

Go back and re-read my posts, it's clear you haven't because I've made my point clear in just about every one.

You made you point about what you DO NOT believe but I see nothing that indicates what you DO believe. Thus, I'm left with extrapolations. If I am wrong, please clarify: Where did we come from?

I never said we were zapped into existence. I said that the odds of us being here by accident are impossible. We were created, I don't know how. The Bible said man was formed from dust from the ground. I don't think a pile of dust just suddenly popped and became a guy, this may have been a process that took a long time. The thing is that no one knows exactly the process that led to us being here. All I know is that we're here and it's not due to a few innate materials randomly falling together.

quote:

Originally posted by NashBama:
I never said we were zapped into existence. I said that the odds of us being here by accident are impossible.

Oh? Exactly what ARE those odds? A million to one, a billion to one? Infinite? You are a man who understands science -- a college graduate and all that -- so you know you must quantify that or risk being called an idiot.

So, what are the odds?

quote:

The Bible said man was formed from dust from the ground. I don't think a pile of dust just suddenly popped and became a guy, this may have been a process that took a long time.

A process such as, ohh, I dunno, EVOLUTION?

quote:

The thing is that no one knows exactly the process that led to us being here. All I know is that we're here and it's not due to a few innate materials randomly falling together.

I 100% agree with you there. No one knows. Theories abound but the evidence, SO FAR, suggest that it happened purely by accident. If you ahve another theory SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE then I really want to hear it!

But you say "No one knows . . ." then, in the EXACT SAME SENTENCE say (paraphrased) "But I KNOW it didn't happen by chance."

Does your faith blind you so effectively that you can't even see that humongous hypocritical blunder?

You're not getting it. If you want to believe in the greatest cosmic odds defying accident of all time, that life came from non-life, that's your right. I think it takes a lot more faith to believe that as opposed to a creator. Calling me an idiot just shows that you are unable to handle a challenging conversation like this. I'm done here.

biology is not a greatest cosmic odds defying accident. Many biologists think that, with the right combination of chemicals and environment, life is more or less inevitable.

With all the billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars and planets, that right combination must occur from time to time. It happened here.

l'chaim!

DF

Again, it's the same idea that if you shake a box of watch parts enough, they'll come together in just the right way and make a working watch. The odds on that are impossible. The odds that someone made the watch are more plausible.

quote:

Originally posted by NashBama:
Again, it's the same idea that if you shake a box of watch parts enough, they'll come together in just the right way and make a working watch. The odds on that are impossible. The odds that someone made the watch are more plausible.

Okay, I'll buy that: Let's take a box of watch parts - on second thought, let's tale a hundred million boxes of watch parts and scatter them all over the earth.

Let's start shaking every one of those boxes every second for a whole day . . . No, make that a year . . No, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand, a million or perhaps a BILLION years.

With a nearly unlimited amount of time, what are the odds that the parts would fall into place just once in just one of those boxes?

Yeah, the odds are probably pretty darn slim. But slim is not "impossible" and, again, slim becomes likely when you literally have all the time on the world.

But we aren't talking aouit watch parts. We just needs a few chemicals such as sugar and phosphate and some proteins - all naturally occurring ingredients -- to come together one time in one small little primordial pond to form a single cell plant called algae. Once you have that, you have started the clock ticking towards something resembling you and me.

Doesn't that sound much more plausible than an amnipotent space alien poofing everything with the snap of a finger?

nash,

what if we had a box of watch parts. What if, when we shake them, some of them combine to form useful things?

Then, what if we continue to shake them, those useful things combine with other parts to take advantage of environmental opportunities, such as using the agitation to randomly evolve? Over time it's likely.

And, what if we shake them often enough that they are capable of reproducing themselves? Over billions of years, it's not impossible at all.

I know, I'm being silly. the watchmaker analogy is silly, too. I can go to the watch shop and meet the watchmaker. I can see him work.

I can't see god work. No one can. Because god is a poor explanation for life.

DF

quote:

nash,

what if we had a box of watch parts. What if, when we shake them, some of them combine to form useful things?

Then, what if we continue to shake them, those useful things combine with other parts to take advantage of environmental opportunities, such as using the agitation to randomly evolve? Over time it's likely.

And, what if we shake them often enough that they are capable of reproducing themselves? Over billions of years, it's not impossible at all.

I know, I'm being silly. the watchmaker analogy is silly, too. I can go to the watch shop and meet the watchmaker. I can see him work.

I can't see god work. No one can. Because god is a poor explanation for life.

Like you said, you have to go to the watch shop to meet the watchmaker. You have to be willing to find him to see who made your watch. Until you do, you'll never see who made your watch. The same thing with God. He's not going to come to you to prove Himself, you have to look for Him. Until you're able to do that, you'll never find proof. Those of us who believe do see God at work and we have pretty clear evidence of His existance.

I’m enjoying this thread. I’ve been searching various sites from both points of views and wanted to share this site: http://www.samsloan.com/creation.htm. (Mostly about the eye part because I’m nerdy that way.) Don’t know much about the author of the site (Cash) except when I did search him, he apparently didn’t like Falwell. Cool.

The human eye is furnished with automatic aiming, automatic focusing, and automatic aperture adjustment. It can function in almost total darkness and in bright sunlight as well.
It can see an object as fine as the diameter of a hair and make about 100,000 motions a day. Then, while we sleep it performs its own maintenance work. Scientists still do not fully understand how it works. For anyone to think that the human eye could evolve into such an intricate organ is utterly ridiculous! Even Darwin admitted "to suppose that the eye. . . . . . . . . . . . could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. . . . . The belief that an organ as perfect as the eye could have been formed by natural selection is more than enough to stagger anyone." (Its odds are 1 in 10 to the 266th power)

Just saying,

nice try. Your site is biased to a religious point of view, and contains many logical errors.

for example, you use the bible as a reference in which you place credence. it has none. it is a book of poetry and superstition, little else. It is a very poor scientific reference.

Then, you say "Evolution is built upon a supposition - that creation exists by natural causes. Having started the supposition, they looked to nature to prove it. (This is circular reasoning)" Evolution is a provisional conclusion derived from evidence. It is the result of natural evidence. Science demonstrates the reality of evolution every day, and if you have a better explanation, please present it. if that explanation is Creationism, it has been found to be incorrect in every detail.

Creationism is the true circular reasoning. Creationists assume the fairy tale of the bible is true, then use the same book and poor pseudo-science to bolster it's claims. It's somewhere between laughable and pathetic.


Glad you're enjoying the convo, to. Keep in touch.

DF

Did you try this? It was written by a former athiest and she says a lot of the same things I've been saying, only better.

http://everystudent.com/features/isthere.html?gclid=CIGqpq707o0CFRqsOAoddAuWPA

Atheist use words like "fairy tale" to try and disprove the Bible. It hasn't been disproven conclusivly any more than evolution. Is there reason for doubt, sure. But that's where faith comes in. You put your faith in a book written by Darwin, I put my faith in an older book, what's the difference?

oh, for chrissakes...

quote:

The site is developed by an interdenominational Christian organization: Campus Crusade for Christ, International.

I became aware of those bustards at Auburn. they used love-bombing and other reprehensible psychological techniques to ensnare gullible youngsters.

They are expert at deception and pseudo-intellectual manipulation. A friend of mine, who I had known all my life, almost killed himself because of the guilt and grief they instilled in him. He remains warped to this very day.

I reject their arguments on their lack of merits, and because I know that those sons of *****es will lie to further a political cause.

DF

Perhaps you’ve misunderstood me, DF. I’m not trying anything.?! True. The link I posted is biased, but that’s not why I posted the link at all. I posted it because I took the information about the human eye and the quote from Darwin from it. Since I copied it from the site, I wanted to provide the link. I’m not here to argue that someone’s very own interpretation is wrong.

Last week while crossing the Patton Island Bridge, my six year old asked me if there were sharks in the river. I told her possibly, there are some species of sharks known to be in fresh water. She then asked me why God made sharks when they hurt people. Without want of begging the question about why, I told her that people go into sharks natural habitats etc. So maybe that might shed light as to why I’m interested in this topic.

I find it interesting that George Lemaitre, a Roman Catholic Priest, was the theory inventor of the Big Bang. I find the calendar year interesting, how one man had the impact to change the calendar year, even though common era is used by some, it still remains changed. From the human gnome to black holes…the whole thing is just interesting is all.

Sorry to continue in the digressing of your original topic. To that, the best was the event happening at 1:35 AM.

quote:

Originally posted by NashBama:
Until you're able to do that, you'll never find proof. Those of us who believe do see God at work and we have pretty clear evidence of His existance.

But, Nash, that is FAITH, not science. As much as you like to try, you simply cannot mix the two.

I can look into my son's eyes or watch a butterfly and see "evidence" of God if I so choose. The problem with that is that there is a insurmountable, unbelievably large amount of data that suggests that my son's eyes resulted from a beautiful chemical reaction between my sperm and my wife's eggs. Nothing more.

I can look at the complexity of something as simple as a spider web and marvel at the Hand that must have worked at building such a wonder. But then there's that insurmountable amount of evidece that the spider is simply a relative of the sea crab that long ago evolved to become a land predator.

You, too, can have your religion and science, too, but you will have to drop some of the really stupid notions that Noah's Arc and Adam and Eve were anything but fairy tails or parables.

quote:

Originally posted by NashBama:
Did you try this? It was written by a former athiest and she says a lot of the same things I've been saying, only better.

http://everystudent.com/features/isthere.html?gclid=CIGqpq707o0CFRqsOAoddAuWPA

Okay, I'll nibble. I don't want to tackle the whole thing as there is so very much wrong with it that I don't know where to start. So, why don't you pick what you believe to be the the single most "convincing" claim made in that site and I'll tell you why it is so grievously wrong.

quote:

You put your faith in a book written by Darwin, I put my faith in an older book, what's the difference?

No one, esp Big Charlie himself, ever asked me to have faith in The Origin of Species. Darwin put it out there, and let its merits support it. I don't need faith to understand evolution, it's not a matter of faith.

It's reason, observation, experiment, and measurement that provide us with the incontrovertible accuracy of evolution.

DF

The Blind Watchmaker

quote:

It's reason, observation, experiment, and measurement that provide us with the incontrovertible accuracy of evolution.

Evolution has not been proven to be accurate, it's been contested among scientists since Darwin wrote his book. That's why archaeologists are still looking for the "missing link". If it was fully proven as fact, why are people still trying to find evidence? It's still a theory for a reason.

Life is simply too complicated and too perfectly designed to have just made itself by random accident.

Biochemistry proves creation

Darwin's theory challenged

quote:

Originally posted by NashBama:
You put your faith in a book written by Darwin, I put my faith in an older book, what's the difference?

That's an extremely bad comparison. If you wanted to pick the one book that would most discredit the bible, Darwin's work would be my top choice. Origin of Species was written 150 years ago by a scientist. The bible was written 2000 to 3000 years ago by philosophers and poets and preachers.

The bible says we were poofed into existence by omnipotent space alien. Darwin says we evolved through natural processes.

There have been almost literally COUNTLESS addendums to Darwin's book since it was written. Each addendudm is celebrates and debated until everyone agrees the addemdum stands on it's own. It has been upheld by the laws of physics and man.

Until very recently, updates to the bible would make you the man of honor at your own BBQ.

Again, Nash, you CAN have your bible and appreciate science. You'll just have to drop fundamentalism as your religion.

quote:

Originally posted by NashBama:
Evolution has not been proven to be accurate, it's been contested among scientists since Darwin wrote his book. That's why archaeologists are still looking for the "missing link". If it was fully proven as fact, why are people still trying to find evidence? It's still a theory for a reason.

HEre we go again. Nash, you are hung up on this "theory" versus "law" stuff. I can't express to you how utterly stupid that notion is. Seriously, dude, this one single confusion you have makes you and your ilk look completely clueless.

Please take a look at the following article and educate yourself.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Both your links refer to work done by Micheal Behe. This retard has been so very thoroughly discredited by the scientific community that you may as well be quoting Forest Gump. His own university disowned him because of it utter unscientific views.

He was also flat out made a fool of by a Scopes-like federal trial in Dover, Pennsylvania.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

Seriously, Nash, your God gave you a brain that is capable of reason. It is not a sin to use it!

I can find plenty of sites that say man made Global Warming is a fact. I don't buy it because there are too many things that simply don't add up. The same goes for evolution. There are just some questions that evolution fails to answer, so I can't just blindly accept it.

At one time, the majority of people thought the world was flat and ridiculed Columbus for thinking differently. At one time, the majority of people thought the sun revolved around the earth and made Gallello retract his findings that said otherwise. So to say that the majority of someone's colleges ridicule them for their beliefs doesn't mean the majority is right.

Miamizsun's signature is dead on accurate and we've seen examples of the first two stages right here on this thread. If you want to accept without question that evolution is reality and that there is no God, that's your right. Personally, I tend to question religion, science, and everything else. Until all my answers about creation can be answered, I'll always doubt the validity of the random accident explanation.

Nash:

quote:

There are just some questions that evolution fails to answer

give me one such question, pls.

DF

quote:

Originally posted by NashBama:

At one time, the majority of people thought the world was flat and ridiculed Columbus for thinking differently. At one time, the majority of people thought the sun revolved around the earth and made Gallello retract his findings that said otherwise.

At one time, the majority thought man was created from the dust and woman was cloned from a rib of man by an omnipotent space alien. . . . No, don't laugh, it's true. They really did think that. I'm SERIOUS, man!

Fortunately. all those theories were proven blatantly false by very smart scientists hundreds of years ago.

quote:

Fortunately. all those theories were proven blatantly false by very smart scientists hundreds of years ago.

Science has never proven that God does not exist. Actually, the more scientific knowledge we gain, the more unlikely it that this existence came together by accident. That theory is like saying if you thew enough paint on a ceiling, eventually you'll have a recreation of the Sistine Chapel. If you want to believe it, fine, but you really have no room to laugh at someone else's beliefs.


Here are some questions evolution can't answer. How did life actually start? At one point did gasses, minerals, and elements come together to form a self sustaining life form? Where did those gasses, minerals, and elements come from? How did they travel to be at exactly the right spot at exactly the right time to create life? If no one was around when the first life form was created, then how do we know anything about it? What exactly brought all of those things together in exactly the right way and how did they suddenly become alive? How did the first living thing know to take in sustenance, to process sustenance, to excrete waste, to move, to reproduce? How did it suddenly devlop the ability to do all of those things?

"It just happened" is not an acceptable answer, but is the only one offered other than admitting intelligence.

quote:

Originally posted by NashBama:

Science has never proven that God does not exist.

I've explained this to you quite a few times now. You just can't seem to grasp the fact that "science" would never say something "does not" exist. It simply goes with whatever the evidence and the facts suggest.

quote:

Here are some questions evolution can't answer. How did life actually start? At one point did gasses, minerals, and elements come together to form a self sustaining life form? Where did those gasses, minerals, and elements come from? How did they travel to be at exactly the right spot at exactly the right time to create life? If no one was around when the first life form was created, then how do we know anything about it? What exactly brought all of those things together in exactly the right way and how did they suddenly become alive? How did the first living thing know to take in sustenance, to process sustenance, to excrete waste, to move, to reproduce? How did it suddenly devlop the ability to do all of those things?

"It just happened" is not an acceptable answer,

No one but you has said, "It just happened." I'll say this once again: We don't know how life began.

Let em say that again to you will understand: WE DON'T KNOW.

We have hypothesis and theories. Some mechanisms are well understood and generally accepted and stand up to the Scientific Method. Some are not so well understood and are debated hotly. Riches and fame will go to the many people in the future who settle these questions to the best of our ability. But, again, WE DO NOT KNOW.

What we do know as a fact is that there is absolutely, positively no evidence that an omnipotent space alien did it. None at all. There is absolutely, positively overwhelming evidence that life started via natural processes. If, however, you can produce some evidence - perhaps a bit of His fingernail, his space ship, the name of the planet He hails from, something we can go on -- you are flying purely on faith alone. That is not science. That is religion, or, in your case (I am sorry to say) ignorance.

but nash,

we ARE a collection of amino acids and related chemicals. We KNOW that life started simply and developed into more advanced organisms. We know that life is not perfect; we get cancer.

It does not stand to reason or observation that we are designed. Science has the answers to our current condition, religion does not.

DF