Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum

Jun 30, 2009 by Britt Kennerly
Ken A. Ham President and Chief Executive Officer of Answer in Genesis stands with a mechanical Utahraptor at The Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, in 2007. For a group of paleontologists, a tour of the Creation Museum, which has been dubbed a "creationist Disneyland," seemed like a great tongue-in-cheek way to cap off a serious conference.

For a group of paleontologists, a tour of the Creation Museum seemed like a great tongue-in-cheek way to cap off a serious conference.

But while there were a few laughs and some clowning for the camera, most left more offended than amused by the frightening way in which evolution -- and their life's work -- was attacked.

"It's sort of a monument to scientific illiteracy, isn't it?" said Jerry Lipps, professor of geology, paleontology and evolution at University of California, Berkeley.

"Like Sunday school with statues... this is a special brand of religion here. I don't think even most mainstream Christians would believe in this interpretation of Earth's history."

The 27 million dollar, 70,000-square-foot (6,500-square-metre) museum which has been dubbed a "creationist Disneyland" has attracted 715,000 visitors since it opened in mid-2007 with a vow to "bring the pages of the Bible to life."

Its presents a literal interpretation of the Bible and argues that believing otherwise leads to moral relativism and the destruction of social values.

Creationism is a theory not supported by most mainstream Christian churches.

Lisa Park of the University of Akron cried at one point as she walked a hallway full of flashing images of war, famine and natural disasters which the museum blames on belief in evolution.

"I think it's very bad science and even worse theology -- and the theology is far more offensive to me," said Park, a professor of paleontology who is an elder in the Presbyterian Church.

"I think there's a lot of focus on fear, and I don't think that's a very Christian message... I find it a malicious manipulation of the public."

Phil Jardine posed for a picture below a towering, toothy dinosaur display.

The museum argues that the has been misinterpreted and that was a vegetarian before Adam and Eve bit into that sin-inducing apple.

Jardine, a palaeobiologist graduate student from the University of Birmingham, was having fun on the tour, but told a reporter that he was disturbed by the museum's cartoonish portrayal of scientists and teachers.

"I feel very sorry for teachers when the children who come here start guessing if what they're being taught is wrong," Jardine said.

Arnie Miller, a palentologist at the University of Cincinnati who was chairman of the convention, said he hoped the tour would introduce the scientists to "the lay of the land" and show them firsthand what's being put forth in a place that has elicited vehement criticism from the scientific community.

"I think in some cases, people were surprised by the physical quality of the exhibits, but needless to say, they were unhappy with things that are inaccurately portrayed," he said.

"And there was a feeling of unhappiness, too, about the extent to which mainstream scientists and evolutionists are demonized -- that if you don't accept the Answers in Genesis vision of the history of Earth and life, you're contributing to the ills of society and of the church."

Daryl Domning, professor of anatomy at Howard University, held his chin and shook his head at several points during the tour.

"This bothers me as a scientist and as a Christian, because it's just as much a distortion and misrepresentation of Christianity as it is of science," he said.

"It's not your old-time religion by any means."

(c) 2009 AFP

Explore further: Will rapprochement mean new research collaborations between Cuba and the U.S.?

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Creationism flap stirred in Britain

Apr 24, 2006

Australian geologist John Mackay, a well known creationist, Monday started a controversial speaking tour of British secondary schools and universities.

British may teach 'Adam and Eve' theory

Feb 06, 2006

The flap concerning the teaching of intelligent design as a scientific concept contradicting Darwin's theory of evolution has spread to Britain.

U.S. political climate boosts creationists

Apr 26, 2006

The U.S. political climate is bolstering the view of creationists who dispute claims that Earth is up to 4.5 billion years old, a Dallas anthropologist says.

Evolution fight flares at UC-Berkeley

Nov 28, 2005

A civil lawsuit has been filed against operators of a University of California-Berkeley Web site that's designed to help instructors teach evolution.

Recommended for you

Study: Alcatraz inmates could have survived escape

Dec 17, 2014

The three prisoners who escaped from Alcatraz in one of the most famous and elaborate prison breaks in U.S. history could have survived and made it to land, scientists concluded in a recent study.

User comments : 272

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

insectking
4.3 / 5 (19) Jun 30, 2009
I wish creationists would stop including dinosaurs in their little Mary Sue fanfiction projects. I preferred it when they believed fossils were placed in the ground by God to test people's faith.
jsovine
3.1 / 5 (15) Jun 30, 2009
"Creationism is a theory not supported by most mainstream Christian churches."

Are you people insane? I mean, seriously?
Myria83
4.3 / 5 (16) Jun 30, 2009
What the hell...! Why should they bring classes of children to visit this crap?
mikehevans
4.2 / 5 (21) Jun 30, 2009
Creationism is a sad attempt to defend institutionalized ignorance. I don't normally approve of such actions, but burning that place down would be doing every thinking person in the world a favor.
Nik_2213
3.3 / 5 (8) Jun 30, 2009
I think article refers to jolly notion of concurrent Dinosauria and hominids...

FWIW, I've known several folk who considered '1 Million BC', yes, that one with 'snipped suede hemline' Racquel Welch, to be a re-enactment documentary.

Go figure.
VOR
4 / 5 (16) Jun 30, 2009
Of course we should continue to tolerate religion.
But we must not tolerate its intolerance of the truth. We are failing to address the real damage that the ignorant, irresponsible side of religion is doing to our collective wisdom. We must legislate controls that forbid 'education of falsehoods'. It is doing real damage, and desperateley needs real action.
Psyleid
3.6 / 5 (17) Jun 30, 2009
Why are we so 'astounded' by brain-dead religionists?

They are children. They like funny stories and murder mysteries, like when their 'god' killed all the 1st born males because the father of the household did not kill a lamb and wipe blood over the door!?! Talk about asleep at the wheel, hehe! They are the idiots of the world.

...

Geez, so many crazy people.


Just because someone is religious doesn't mean they're automatically a religious-text thumping psychopath. Most people are just fine. It's the fanatical freaks with nothing better to do that are the problem (a small percentage).

Actually, it's your kind of thinking (stereotyping, dehumanizing, antagonizing) that is the exact problem.
Palli
4 / 5 (20) Jun 30, 2009
Why are we so 'astounded' by brain-dead religionists?



They are children. They like funny stories and murder mysteries, like when their 'god' killed all the 1st born males because the father of the household did not kill a lamb and wipe blood over the door!?! Talk about asleep at the wheel, hehe! They are the idiots of the world.



...



Geez, so many crazy people.




Just because someone is religious doesn't mean they're automatically a religious-text thumping psychopath. Most people are just fine. It's the fanatical freaks with nothing better to do that are the problem (a small percentage).



Actually, it's your kind of thinking (stereotyping, dehumanizing, antagonizing) that is the exact problem.


It's really the other way around. All religion is false, it's fanatics are not nescessarily the worst because it's really the masses of those you call "just fine" that uphold and maintain this religious nonsense that has made the human race as a whole suffer through the ages.
LariAnn
3.2 / 5 (24) Jun 30, 2009
"All religion is false" - what an astounding display of sheer arrogance embodied in this statement!! Looks to me like a case of going from the frying pan (religion) right into the fire (fanatical intellectualism), if we are to substitute the positions of people like Palli for "all religion". While agreeing that religion is not science, neither are people who take a few facts and decide henceforth that they know enough to declare that "all religion is false". As vast and largely unknown as this universe is, I cannot accept that anyone can be right is asserting "all . . . is false (or true)" about anything. IMHO, that kind of person is at least as dangerous as the religious types, fanatical or not. I think it is more scientific to admit "I don't know" than to act like I know something that I really haven't got a clue about.
OregonWind
3.5 / 5 (16) Jun 30, 2009
Creationism as presented by this museum is definitely wrong and silly. In my opinion, the belief that God created the Universe and set it in motion with the laws we know would be a better theology and that is my type of philosophical (emphasis here) thinking. Attacking science and portraying scientists as demons is ridiculous. However, burning that place down would be criminal and fanatical in the other hand. Letting them, the biblical creationists, "educate" our youth with wrong doctrines without a strong voice of protest would be irresponsible.

On the other hand, we have to respect all types of oppositions in a democratic society. And thanks God for the democracy.

Going around telling that anyone who cares about religion is crazy or idiot is, well, foolish. Many scientists, in the past and today, were and are very religious or mystical without compromising their scientific work. We must neither be fanatically attached to religion nor to scientism of any form. Nobody knows what ultimate nature of the Universe is.
jimbo92107
3.8 / 5 (11) Jun 30, 2009
Creationism is a sad attempt to defend institutionalized ignorance. I don't normally approve of such actions, but burning that place down would be doing every thinking person in the world a favor.


A far more effective strategy would be to send representatives of the real scientific community to the Creation Museum on a regular basis to challenge the nonsense spouted by their tour guides. It would be good training for the future, when such confrontations will be much more common. Of course the Museum will kick out the scientists, but if you send a different person each time, there can frequently be someone to challenge these people's deceptions.

Think of it as a graduation exercise.
acarrilho
3 / 5 (15) Jun 30, 2009
"All religion is false" - what an astounding display of sheer arrogance embodied in this statement!! Looks to me like a case of going from the frying pan (religion) right into the fire (fanatical intellectualism), if we are to substitute the positions of people like Palli for "all religion". While agreeing that religion is not science, neither are people who take a few facts and decide henceforth that they know enough to declare that "all religion is false". As vast and largely unknown as this universe is, I cannot accept that anyone can be right is asserting "all . . . is false (or true)" about anything. IMHO, that kind of person is at least as dangerous as the religious types, fanatical or not. I think it is more scientific to admit "I don't know" than to act like I know something that I really haven't got a clue about.


Do you say "I don't know if Xenu or the Flying Spaghetti Monster are real"? No, because you know the likelihood of it all being a figment of someone's imagination is too great to think differently. There is absolutely NO objective reason to consider any other concept of "God" or religion under a different light, because there is absolutely NO evidence supporting even the slightest bit of rational belief in ANY kind of RELEVANT god or gods. Absolutely NONE. Unless you know something the rest of us don't, in which case, by all means, bring it up.
Towchain
2.7 / 5 (11) Jun 30, 2009
Do you say "I don't know if Xenu or the Flying Spaghetti Monster are real"? No, because you know the likelihood of it all being a figment of someone's imagination is too great to think differently. There is absolutely NO objective reason to consider any other concept of "God" or religion under a different light, because there is absolutely NO evidence supporting even the slightest bit of rational belief in ANY kind of RELEVANT god or gods. Absolutely NONE. Unless you know something the rest of us don't, in which case, by all means, bring it up.


As computing technology advances we will be able to fully simulate human consciousnesses. Each of these simulated humans will believe their reality is "real" and each will have a creator.

Are you real or a simulation? Do you have a creator or not? The only reasonable answer is "I don't know."
Palli
3.4 / 5 (9) Jun 30, 2009
Creationism is a sad attempt to defend institutionalized ignorance. I don't normally approve of such actions, but burning that place down would be doing every thinking person in the world a favor.


Call me crazy :), but not just creationism, religion in general is for this exact purpose.
EDIT: although assorting to viloence is never the answer.


LariAnn, if there was a god of some sort, then all existing religions would be wrong, except for possibly one - as they clearly state that there is only one god, well all the big players (at least christians and muslims to my knowledge) say so.

I find it sad that people seek solace in religion that shoves fear and makes little of actual life on fake promises of a richer after-life. Being enslaved to a mind dulling institution is not something I wish for others. This is not arrogance, but telling it as it is.
RJ32
3.6 / 5 (16) Jun 30, 2009
Religion is politics. Its purpose is to control people. Control is based on fear. Religion scares me.
jsovine
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 30, 2009
Of course we should continue to tolerate religion.

But we must not tolerate its intolerance of the truth. We are failing to address the real damage that the ignorant, irresponsible side of religion is doing to our collective wisdom. We must legislate controls that forbid 'education of falsehoods'. It is doing real damage, and desperateley needs real action.


I'm not sure I understand, we should tolerate other people's beliefs, but we shouldn't tolerate their resistance to theories that contradict said beliefs?

Whatever happened to live and let live, I seriously fear the world is becoming a dangerous place to openly express your beliefs/ideas. As time goes by, the more anti-religion zealots I see fanatically cramming their opinion down peoples throats. Suggestions of 1984-esk roundups of the religious and their related books and artifacts, laws against verbalizing scripture in public...

Believe me, someone is listening to these suggestions, you may just get what you all want one day, and you'll sadly find the rest of your rights being thrown in the garbage...for the greater good.
Quantum_Conundrum
2.2 / 5 (17) Jun 30, 2009
There is absolutely NO objective reason to consider any other concept of "God" or religion under a different light, because there is absolutely NO evidence supporting even the slightest bit of rational belief in ANY kind of RELEVANT god or gods. Absolutely NONE. Unless you know something the rest of us don't, in which case, by all means, bring it up.


As I have said in the past, you could no more convince me of the NON-existence of God than you could convince me my skin color was black.

While I cannot necessarily "prove" anything to anyone on this thread, at least in a way that you would accept, I can nevertheless recount personal experiences which are more than sufficient for my own needs.

The atheists often asks things like, "Why doesn't God heal people today?"

The answer is, he does.

I have personally witnessed irrefutable miracle healings (i.e. stunted limb growing out to full length spontaneously in a matter of seconds,) in respone to prayer in the name of Jesus. I would guess there were close to 40 witnesses to this miracle healing, many of whom, including myself, were standing only 2 or 3 feet away from the man who was healed; some of whom I still know by first and/or last name.

I have also experienced at least 3 prophetic visions which have come to pass a day, a week, or a few months later which were accurate and detailed to a degree rivaling even those in the Bible; this to the point of knowing the EXACT path and landfall of both Hurricane Katrina days ahead of time, and Rita weeks ahead of time (and I told people), knowing the exact content of a conversation, and the exact text on a document I had never seen before ahead of time, and accurately describing a room I had never heard or seen described nor even visited, one week ahead of time. All of this was by Jesus Christ, not anything that I did.

Now, you don't have to believe that if you don't want to, you can call me crazy if you like, but I am telling the truth.

===

Previously, some idiots have tried to tell me that this is "deja vu," but such a claim is simply absurd and irrational. I literally SAW in a dream the paths of Katrina and Rita plotted out on a tracking map ahead of time EXACTLY as the actual course of the storms went.

You want to talk irrational? Irrational is believing that the dreams I had were merely coincidence. Irrational is believing that the healing I saw was somehow coincidental or naturalistic in nature. There were no mirrors or gimmicks. It was a small gathering and as stated, I was standing about 2 or 3 feet away from the man when he was healed, and there was no possibility of a hoax.

====

But now let us examine a brief debate I once had with an atheist on youtube.

http://www.youtub...992a2h8M&feature=email

===

Here, I present the real problem of atheists and agnostics, which is that for them, it really is not a matter of "proof" that God exists. It is the fact of moral depravity. The agnostic (who later changes his position to hard atheist,) goes as far as to say that even if God show up and proved himself, and then stated that such and such was a sin, that he would tell God to go "f" himself.


Thus we see the real problem is not even one of "proofs" but rather one of morals. The atheist finds fault with God for not "proving" himself to the atheist on the atheist's terms, yet he directly says he would not serve God even if proven, and would infact tell God to go screw himself. So why SHOULD all powerful God bother "prove" himself to such a person, since he has as much as vowed to rebel all the more anyway?

We belong to God whether you like it or not. Once a person can begin to acknowledge that moral fact, then their eyes will be opened to the truth.

====

As it regards physical scientific proofs and theories, and how they relate to Christian theology, I do not necessarily agree with "answers in Genesis" on very many things at all. In fact, I have only ever read a few articles by them, and disagreed with them as often as agreeing.


"Creationism is a theory not supported by most mainstream Christian churches."


This statement epitomizes ignorance. Anyone who claims to be a Christian by definition must be a Creationist, or else they simply know so little about their own beliefs that they are just a complete fool.

The term "Christian" means that one is a follower of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, and that the individual believes that this Jesus is and was God incarnate in the flesh and died on the cross to redeem sinful man to himself.

Thus, anyone, including the scientists who were involved in this article, anyone who claims to be a Christian while at the same time claiming not to believe in creation is quite literally insane (just as isovine suggested above,) and holds foundational beliefs that directly contradict one another.
WhiteJim
3.3 / 5 (6) Jun 30, 2009
simple answer... religion should not meddle in science and science should not meddle in religion. Whatever the religions say about origin of spiecies should be deleted from the religion as unecessary specultation of our ancestors before the time of scientific discovery. Whatever science has not been able to figure out ... that is the realm of faith and religion.
Quantum_Conundrum
2.4 / 5 (17) Jun 30, 2009

LariAnn, if there was a god of some sort, then all existing religions would be wrong, except for possibly one - as they clearly state that there is only one god, well all the big players (at least christians and muslims to my knowledge) say so.


Correct. Jesus specifically stated that there is only one God, and there is only one way to right relationship with God. He also specifically stated that the way was straight and the gate narrow which leads to eternal life, the way broad and the gate wide which leads to hell, this in response to his disciples asking him, "Are there only a few which are saved?" The answer, according to Jesus, is "yes".



I find it sad that people seek solace in religion that shoves fear and makes little of actual life on fake promises of a richer after-life. Being enslaved to a mind dulling institution is not something I wish for others. This is not arrogance, but telling it as it is.


There is nothing mind dulling about Biblical christianity. Pay no attention to the CRAP you see on television or even in most local churches, as it has little to nothing to do with God or the Bible. They are apostates, and you are half right about THOSE people, as they have nothing but "clouds without water,"(see Jude,) as they are all teaching false doctrines, namely the prosperity and "Word of Faith" doctrines which are entirely un-biblical and have nothing to do with Biblical Christianity. Unfortunately, "Many false prophets(and false christs) shall arise and deceive many..."

Jesus was again very much correct when he said, "The children of the world are wiser in their own generation than the children of light." Because any idiot can see that these doctrines are false, but the so-called Christians fall for them by the millions.

----

I find it ironic that a person who does not believe in God should even care what another person does with time. If you believe there is no God, then you ultimately believe everything has no purpose whatsoever and is merely vain. Thus why should you care what I believe?
Quantum_Conundrum
1.9 / 5 (13) Jun 30, 2009
simple answer... religion should not meddle in science and science should not meddle in religion. Whatever the religions say about origin of spiecies should be deleted from the religion as unecessary specultation of our ancestors before the time of scientific discovery. Whatever science has not been able to figure out ... that is the realm of faith and religion.



Mainstream crackpottery called "science" makes so many unsubstantiated claims about various types of origins as to be laughable.

They do not believe in God, but they have no trouble believing in the Big Bang, panspwermia, and spontaneous generation(a.k.a. abiogenesis.)

Isn't it the atheist and the agnostic who are irrational, having believed that highly ordered systems come about through accident, even when all physical evidence and experience prove otherwise? Your computer didn't appear spontaneously or accidentally, nor does any other machine, and for the most part, those devices are of an almost infinitely less complex than multi-cellular organisms. How then can one possibly believe life to be a cosmic accident or coincidence?

The atheist can see a simple wrist watch, even an old fashioned pocket watch, and instantly recognize it as having been created by a human being, because it is too complex and too ordered to have appeared randomly through any imaginable process. Yet the same person believes living organisms millions of times more complex appeared accidentally.

"Fools and blind" indeed describes people who hold such a view.
electricals3
2.3 / 5 (8) Jun 30, 2009
I've done a good deal of research on both sides of this issue over the past 5 years (since it seems many evolutionists do not bother to know what creationists believe and many creationists do not bother to know what many evolutionists believe). A few things that I have concluded:

1. Both evolution and creationism require a certain degree of trust since neither one can be proven outright.

2. If you believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God, then you cannot also believe in evolution.

3. The Bible is based on the assumption that God exists.

4. If God exists, his existence cannot be disproven by science and/or the scientific method. God, by definition, is a supernatural being that the repeatable laws of science cannot test.

I just wanted to give all of you a little food for thought for the day! For the record, I used to be an evolutionist but am now a creationist.
enantiomer2000
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 30, 2009
"As I have said in the past, you could no more convince me of the NON-existence of God than you could convince me my skin color was black."

Huh? I think that his point is that there is NO evidence whatsoever for any god, therefore it is ridiculous to believe in the concept. Could I convince you of the NON-existence of the inter-dimensional purple elephant with 10 trunks who travels over the roof of each person who drives a car and only protects those he deems worthy? I shouldn't have to convince you of the fallacy of that statement because there is no evidence at all for it.

I can think of countless things that are not based on our observable reality which you should not believe in and your concept of god is one of them. Sorry, but it is time for humanity to drop this little bedtime story and move forward.
Scryer
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 30, 2009
Stop ripping on Agnostics, you're pretty arrogant if you believe we're all absolutely that ridiculous.
By the very definition of the word Agnostic you're saying it's a person that believes you can not prove or disprove the existence of God. So yeah, if I got whisked off to another dimension I sure as hell would believe in a God. but that has never happened. I doubt it ever will.

Scientists use the Scientific method, which allows them to develop theories based on repeatable data. Creationists are just arrogant people that refuse to think critically.

Creationists want to tell you that because the human body is so complex there is no other explanation, and instead of using their brain to search for one, they make up any reason and call it a divine power.

Science has proven the church wrong on many occasions, that's probably why the Vatican doesn't deny the possible existence of extra-terrestrial life.
sloppy
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 30, 2009
/sigh "The atheist can see a simple wrist watch, even an old fashioned pocket watch, and instantly recognize it as having been created by a human being, because it is too complex and too ordered to have appeared randomly through any imaginable process."
How many times does this have to be explained?? Natural selection is not "accidental" it is not "random".to say that it is so is not just wrong it is the absolute opposite of what it actually is.Because it is in fact a VERY imaginable( not to mention verifiable) entity which allows order to be imposed on a random scenario without the need for intelligent design.
Your argument based on personel incredulity is incredibly weak,not least because you paint yourself into that old proverbial corner with that maloderous chestnut about the complex watch... the classic reply of course is that if the watch is too complex to come into existance without a designer,then surely the designer must be even more complex.. so who designed him??? on so on in infinate regression to the point of nonsense..

"Mainstream crackpottery called "science" makes so many unsubstantiated claims about various types of origins as to be laughable."
this merely belies a deep lack of understanding of how the scientific model works,as no claim can be deemed scientific unless it is in fact substantiated,facts and conclusion arising from this can be challenged with a view to testing its validity.This as opposed the the religious dogmatic approach which claims to be absolute in its ascertions and will react very negatively to any who challenge its TRULY unsubstantiated claims... as u have just demonstrated with aplomb...
zevkirsh
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 30, 2009
if this were 400 years ago then evolutionists would be on the cross burned and tortured by an inquisition of people who required the 'heretics' to believe the sun circled the earth and not the other way around.

in time, this sect of people harboring their beliefs will simply subjugate themselves to technology. theyre not mennonites. their objections to evolution will be forgotten unless they somehow manage to get back political power.
Sean_W
2 / 5 (4) Jun 30, 2009
Even "mainline" Christian churches who support evolution or at least see it as compatible with their doctrine have many adherents who are creationists of some form. You can find young earth biblical literalists in Anglican and Lutheran communities. Just because you reach the leadership does not mean you have won the adherents.
Steve_L
3.6 / 5 (7) Jun 30, 2009
Creationism, the irrational religious belief of the Christians, is almost harmless. The irrational religious beliefs of the socialist atheist; of anthropogenic global warming and a magical interpretation of evolution, has lead to a world wide financial crisis and the largest tax increase in US history.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. They should also learn a little of a science called "cultural anthropology" so that they understand the importance of religion.
jerryd
3.4 / 5 (9) Jun 30, 2009

As Archie Bunker said, 'Faith is when you believe in something no one in their right mind would'

Only people with weak minds believe in god. They don't have the guts to think for themselves and so want to belong they will do, believe anything to belong.

For instance Christians say they follow Jesus but Christianity was founded by Paul who never knew Jesus and was brought back before James, Jesus' brother and others of the early church for lying 3 times and the third he was almost killed for it until the Romans saved him.

Jesus was killed because he hated people/priests from making money off of god and why he overturned the moneychangers tables.
He believed people should take 10% of their money, time and help poor people, not give it to preachers and build churches which he hated.

So what is Christianity today but a bunch of churches and moneychangers, just what he hated so much he was willing to die to get rid of.
jabo
2.3 / 5 (7) Jun 30, 2009
We should tolerate these people as much as we should tolerate arsonists. They're more dangerous, why should we be encouraged to tolerate that?
Doschx
3.2 / 5 (5) Jul 01, 2009
To stir up the hornet's nest just mention religion or evolution. I'm of a live and let live, multiple truths mentality. If you believe in a creator or divine spirit, then great. If you don't, that's great too. There's obvious pros and cons to both beliefs, and for the whole gradient between. The conflict between the two isn't an inherent clashing of the ideals*, but rather a clashing of the people who think them.

From a scientific standpoint we can neither prove nor disprove a god. If something without a physical manifestation can be proven to exist i.e. intangible ideals, can it be said there is no way for something sentient/divine/omniscient/omnipotent to exist in such a way? And on the reverse, if you take a religious standpoint, even if your chosen deus does not exist, your belief has given you hope and strength and fortitude where before there may not have been any, and it stands to argue that humanity may have torn itself apart without a unifying principle like your belief and those similar. As long as people attempt to think and empathize, humanity can minimize conflict, because whichever path you choose you can still achieve harmony with a polar opposite as long as you have a mutual understanding and respect for one another.

It's funny because, if you keep asking "why?" or "what came before that?" a scientist will ultimately have to venture into the unknown, and it's the unknown where all gods tend to exist. Likewise, evolution is apparent in religion in that the beliefs that center around a single, strong deity are the children of previous religions that have gone extinct by their hand. It's two sides to the same coin I think, and so, my only beef with this article is the hostility between the two sides.

My personal oppinion is that the physical world and its laws are far too perfect for there not to be some sort of god, but if there is one, I could not hope to fully comprehend him/her/it. I could only hope to understand the parts of this being that are exemplified within myself, and thus, only a large gathering of humanity, taken together, can discover the face and nature of a creator, and perhaps we as a race are only a small fraction of that total picture.

Anyways: dont rock the boat, play nice, love and peace, etc. That's my two cents worth.

*I dont know for certain, but some religious texts seem to have a "spread the word" and "death to nonbelievers or you fail at this religion" clause in certain places, probably as an evolutionary trait developed for survival/propagation (lol)
R3alistiCR3alism
1 / 5 (1) Jul 01, 2009
In my opinion (not necessarily fact), religion and science are supposed to go hand in hand, at least from the religious point of view. Christian's are supposed to love and respect everyone, which very obviously doesn't happen in most places. Science in a religious point of view is supposed to be a path or a way to discover the truths that God left behind for us to discover. All points of view should be respected, not ridiculed as it seems this museum does.

The theory (Definition: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact) of evolution is viable, but is incomplete and still subjective in many ways. Evolution is not complete hence the "'Theory' of Evolution". Evolution is quite factual in nature, but also has discrepancies that people who may have been of questionable nature made subjective ideas that are now believed to fact. Subjection is not fact and is many a time believed to be truth. Evolution and the scientists who study and add to it need to rid the theory of discrepancies and subjection and rely purely on scientific fact. This theory needs to be completed before it can be presented factually.

Religion and Evolution both have subjection as their base core, but both have some fact to them. Believe it or not religion is historically correct for the most part (Nothing is perfect), even secular sources have corroborated this. Fossil records also have their truth, but dating systems are imperfect and are not necessarily factual.

I'm sorry if this upsets anyone.

I'm only 17.

RAL
2.7 / 5 (3) Jul 01, 2009
I am a strong believer in evolution as a useful theory in understanding our universe.

However, creationism is far more benign in its influence than the Athropogenic Global Warming alarmists. Nowhere have I seen creationists frantically demanding we raise taxes and throttle our economies for their beliefs with trillions of dollars in artificial markets. You want to see 'wack' look at the AGW insisting that it is all 'settled' and trying to suppress opposing points of view.

The creationists have odd ideas but are far less dangerous than the zealots insisting on their right to regulate our cars, homes, light bulbs, and even the number of squares of TP we can use.
jcrow
1 / 5 (1) Jul 01, 2009
I enjoy the community aspect of religion.
My parents go to a unitarian church and they basically just talk about how to be a better person. No particular beliefs are required for that.
I like the wisdom in some buddhist thinking. Religions CAN organize to do very constructive things.

They can also

Carry a sense of superiority, (ok to take advantage of non believers).
Put incredibly stupid people in the white house.
Have a mindset that makes them vulnerable to misinformation.
Forget the message of compassion and focus on conformity.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 01, 2009
I have personally witnessed irrefutable miracle healings (i.e. stunted limb growing out to full length spontaneously in a matter of seconds,) in respone to prayer in the name of Jesus.


All of whom wanted desperately to believe. You do know about stage and street magic don't you? You seem so unaware of how illusions can be created right before your eyes. Try looking for street magic on Youtube. Perhaps then you will stop believing everything you see.

I have also experienced at least 3 prophetic visions which have come to pass a day, a week, or a few months later


Start logging them when you have these alleged visions. Check the actual vision vs. the reality. Keep track of those that FAIL as well as those you think came true. Otherwise you are simply backwards filtering. Post them somewhere that people can see BEFORE the events. Till then we only have your word and frankly I haven't seen any reason to consider you reliable.

was standing about 2 or 3 feet away from the man when he was healed, and there was no possibility of a hoax.


You simply have no idea what can be done right before your very eyes. Again try looking up street magic on the web.

http://www.youtub...ry=chris angel&search_type=&aq=0&oq=chris an

Sorry if the link doesn't work, I suspect that it will break at the '?'.

Heck you could just watch Benny Hinn. The man is a blatant fraud.

Marjoe Gortner would be educational as well. He got the same exact results as Benny the Fraud does. Only he admitted he wasn't a real faith healer.

http://www.youtub...ry=marjo gortner&search_type=&aq=0&oq=marjo go

But now let us examine a brief debate I once had with an atheist on youtub


What debate? I saw one person. A person that looked quite upset. Upset people have trouble arguing rationally. On either side of any question. That would include you as you seem quite upset in this post. Calm down before you reply. Take a day or two if you have to.

Here, I present the real problem of atheists and agnostics, which is that for them, it really is not a matter of "proof" that God exists.


Well since I see no such proof that IS the matter.

It is the fact of moral depravity.


I am sorry you are so depraved as to assume those that don't agree with are depraved. However you might try checking the contents of prisons. Sure are a lot of Christians there and very few atheists or agnostics.

The agnostic (who later changes his position to hard atheist,) goes as far as to say that even if God show up and proved himself, and then stated that such and such was a sin, that he would tell God to go "f" himself.


I see, you make up your opponents arguments for them. How convenient. That way you have no need to deal with real opponents. And no I don't care if some 14 year old said that to you. None here have. I sure haven't.

The atheist finds fault with God for not "proving" himself to the atheist on the atheist's terms,


I don't ask a god to prove itself. I as YOU to prove your beliefs before I can consider them as even remotely valid. No agnostic and few atheists would ever ask for proof from a god since they don't actually believe that one exists. It would be like demanding that the Easter Bunny come to me and prove it exists. I only ask that the believers in the Easter Bunny show some evidence.

So why SHOULD all powerful God bother "prove" himself to such a person, since he has as much as vowed to rebel all the more anyway?


You sure are desperate to paint all non-believers with a brush of your invention aren't you?

We belong to God whether you like it or not.


Like, don't like, it doesn't matter. We can not belong to something that doesn't exist. Show evidence. I am asking YOU not your hypothetical god.

I do not necessarily agree with "answers in Genesis" on very many things at all. In fact, I have only ever read a few articles by them, and disagreed with them as often as agreeing.


That is twice as often as you should. They are wrong pretty much all the time.

Do you actually believe that the Earth is young? If so your beliefs are wrong.

Do you actually have a problem with evolution? If so your beliefs are wrong.

Do you actually believe that Genesis has everything correct? If so your god is does not exist. It is possible that there is a god but the god of Genesis isn't it. The evidence against that god is overwhelming.

This statement epitomizes ignorance


At least for America that is true. Twenty five percent of Americans believe that the Bible is literally true despite the evidence against Genesis.

Anyone who claims to be a Christian by definition must be a Creationist, or else they simply know so little about their own beliefs that they are just a complete fool.


Speaking of fools. Many Christians would disagree with you. Even many American Christians. Especially non-Baptist Christians.


The term "Christian" means that one is a follower of Jesus Christ of Nazareth,


Yes, so that would mean that many that don't except the Bible as the literal word of god would qualify as Christians. You don't appear to agree with that.

Thus, anyone, including the scientists who were involved in this article, anyone who claims to be a Christian while at the same time claiming not to believe in creation is quite literally insane


That statement shows you are out of touch with reality. Which is often used as a definition on insanity. Of course I could be misinterpreting your definition of creation. If you don't believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis than I am wrong on that. Sorry if that is the case but you do seem to be a literalist.

and holds foundational beliefs that directly contradict one another.


I have yet to meet(in person or online) a literalist that doesn't have contradictory beliefs. It just takes a while to find them. The contradictions in belief usually show up when the believer attempts to patch the contradictions in the Bible.

Ethelred
smiffy
not rated yet Jul 01, 2009
Quantum_Conundrum -
Jesus was again very much correct when he said, "The children of the world are wiser in their own generation than the children of light."
Don't recognize this quote. Have you a reference?
Ethelred
3 / 5 (8) Jul 01, 2009
1. Both evolution and creationism require a certain degree of trust since neither one can be proven outright.


Evolution has a lot of evidence supporting it. None against it. Creationism COULD be proved outright if it was accurate. It can be disproved outright. The world is very old therefor the Universe was not created a mere 6000 or so years ago. There was no Great Flood or the evidence would be everywhere and the Egyptians would have noticed it since it is supposed to have happened about 4400 years ago. Right in the middle of the time the Egyptians were building pyramids.

2. If you believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God, then you cannot also believe in evolution.


True as far as I can see. Many Christians however do not believe that the Bible is inerrant.

3. The Bible is based on the assumption that God exists.


Its not an assumption in the Bible. It is quite evident that the authors BELIEVED. Belief in the Bible is based on the assumption that Jehovah, not simply god, exists.

4. If God exists, his existence cannot be disproven by science and/or the scientific method.


That depends entirely on your definition of god. Jehovah as described in Genesis can be tested against the real world. The existence of Jehovah should be provable. The evidence it overwhelmingly against Genesis as being an accurate portrayal of reality. So that god does not exist.

God, by definition, is a supernatural being that the repeatable laws of science cannot test.


So you don't really believe in Genesis? You either believe in or you don't. If you do then you should believe that the world should match the world described in Genesis. Since it doesn't I don't see how you could believe but I guess you just to engage in bogus claims like the one above.

For the record, I used to be an evolutionist but am now a creationist.


Which means that you likely never understood evolution. You seem to have problems with logic as well.

Any god that is sufficiently well defined can be tested against reality. Any such god can fail or pass the test. The world of Genesis simply is not the world we live in.

Ethelred
YouAreRight
3 / 5 (2) Jul 01, 2009
Thanks Ethelred for taking the time to respond to the above threads promoting Creationism.
I would hate to see the thread become too one sided.

Long live logic and the pursuit of understanding.

Live long and prosper V.
Baseline
4.5 / 5 (2) Jul 01, 2009
Yay, yet another battle about God.



My solution is simply this, if I am to play a game in which the ultimate outcome is for my eternal soul then I expect to be given the rules in person by the referee himself. I do not trust a single person, who themselves is just another player, to deliver the rules and expect them to be 100% accurate, or even relevant at all.



If you are are playing for your eternal soul don't you at least owe it to yourself to get the frigging rules right from the game makers mouth directly so there is absolutely no doubt?



If your answer is I have, I got them from the bible, then you dont even know the history of the book and that is not getting the rules directly from the horses mouth.



When God actually tells me what the rules to the game are then I will believe in him. Until then I will keep playing the way I see fit, just in case we only go around once.



That said believe what you want to, just dont expect me to believe what you do and I will do the same.

otto1923
5 / 5 (2) Jul 01, 2009
Ethelred the infidel: shalom shazbot shazam
"All religion is false"- is a true statement. God dont need no religion to be God.
People need religion because theyre scared to death of dying. God tells them death is inevitable, they dont like that. Their religions give them elaborate loopholes. Religions divide the people up and set them against one another in an orderly way; stability and progress are the result.
The Bible is an Ark. It tells us how things work. 'Fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom.'
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 01, 2009
Souls dont exist because religions insist that they do.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 01, 2009
Let me restate that... we can discern the fact that souls do not exist simply because religions are so adament that they do. How else are you going to believe that you can live for ever despite knowing your body will be rotting in the dirt? What other power does religion have over you in this life, than the promise of an afterlife and your desire to believe in it? They can offer this in return for service.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jul 02, 2009
"All religion is false"- is a true statement. God dont need no religion to be God.


That isn't true.

First, some religions are so nebulous that they cannot be shown false even if they are false.

Second, some ideas of gods have them needing worship to exist at all.

The Christian god is not the only way for a god to be.

People need religion because theyre scared to death of dying.


Not all religions have an afterlife. There is no sign of an afterlife in the Old Testament, at least in the early books.

The Bible is an Ark. It tells us how things work. 'Fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom.'


'I find that such a strange phrase'. To paraphrase Magneto in the first X-Men movie after asking the Senator 'Are you a God fearing man?'.

Ethelred
zilqarneyn
not rated yet Jul 02, 2009
Ethelred & sloppy,
Ironically, with your (godless, materialist) auto-genesis belief (evolutionism or otherwise), to justify the existence of the God (how He came to be), is a lot more trivial, than justifying the existence of our own Universe "godlessly."
http://www.imame....rial.htm

Then, the question that is whether the God has no hint for us to know Him, and that is the point of having holy books. Find the most accurate text, then.




Ethelred,
I wish you would list cite some sources about what is inconsistent in genesis in the Bible/Torah. I'm a muslim, but unlike what you might guess, muslims believe that those books were (in their first shape) sent by Allah (Yahweh), but those books were changed. (The Quran is kept, literally. See the commentary I wrote, in http://www.physor...135.html , too.) Ironically, those who changed their texts in those old times, might have been exactly like the clergy/people who bow to the evolutionist myths, today. Perhaps, they were not able to refute some hypocrites (or, tyrants), and they thought they would rather hack the text.

Ethelred, you seem to have blind faith in evolutionism. There, you fall with Dobzhansky. Thus, see
http://www.I-slam.info/review--1973-Dobzhansky.htm" title="http://http://www.I-slam.info/review--1973-Dobzhansky.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.I-slam...nsky.htm

Worse, you allege some falsehood in your opponent, but without noticng that evolutionism is a ludicrous faith. Most so, with the faith in "parallel evolutionism" (sequential contradictions). Wherever you see the oxymorons "convergent-" or "parallel-evolution", you know that you were in probably orse shape than even Ptolemaios. That belief is totally magical (or, auto-magical) stuff.

(( And actually, I was probably never willing to live eternally (unless going to heaven, that is). In contrast, that might be why some people want to believe in atheism? To deny hell? ))




Oh, am I talking, again? Keep posting. I might trackback within a week. For now, I prefer finally finishing & posting the documents to slam the NAS booklet(s) evolution-vs.-creationism ( through http://www.I-slam.info/ ).
Ironically, big "brothers" wrote the first of that in 1984, to have people's faith, in shape. That booklet (in 1984) was containing the gill-slits hoax, too. They should know better.


Oh, then why I came to this thread. The title of this news, was ironical. That is because, scientists believe that some others have faulty theories. Falseness, is what people keep committing. (Where in the Torah/Bible, was the word about dinosaurs?) In contrast, the genesis is telling that whales were created before people. How was that knowable, back then?
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2009
ronically, with your (godless, materialist) auto-genesis belief (evolutionism or otherwise), to justify the existence of the God (how He came to be), is a lot more trivial,


That make no sense at all.

Oh dear you linked to an Islamic nonsense site.

I find that ironic that, in forums, most of the times, that is the evolutionists who ask that question ("For existing, if we need the God, then how did the God came to exist?"). Why would they not guess that with their ideology that, Allah might have just evolved?


Sorry but that still requires an infinite regression of gods. Allah has no more substance than Jehovah by the way. The name is irrelevant as long as you insist on Genesis.

Funny how even the Moslems have the same false statements about evolution.

Merely billions of millenia (our Universe) is too short a time for us to evolve by chance


Sorry evolution is NOT dependent on chance. It is dependent on natural selection. Which is in no way chance.

but for Himself, Allah had "infinite time" (as He was not bound by time)


Sorry but Genesis disagrees and I am not beholden to the beliefs of Mohammed, assuming he actually believed what he wrote. That is, in Genesis the Earth is pretty young.

Our DNA/RNA (with the sophisticated mechanism in that), is pointing to the Creator


False, it clearly points to evolution. All those flaws and all. Not exactly something that a all-knowing creator would produce.

. but nothing is similar to Him -- and probably there was never a sophisticated-similarity


What the heck is that nonsense supposed to have to do with evolution?

# Allah has no functional-dependency to some else -- while we need our enzymes, etc.


Allah has no reality if the world is old and it is. Enzymes evolved.

Allah is most likely creatively developing Himself. Thus, Allah is self-made.


Well the Bible claims he is perfect and unchanging. You believers need to get your stories straight.

That is enough of that nonsense.

Then, the question that is whether the God has no hint for us to know Him, and that is the point of having holy books. Find the most accurate text, then.


Well we already know that Genesis, Exodus and the Koran don't match the real world.

I wish you would list cite some sources about what is inconsistent in genesis in the Bible/Torah.


I was waiting for Quantum to ask that. He hasn't replied on this thread but he is calling me an idiot on another thread. Perhaps he didn't like me saying he was gullible. Sorry but he is. I have had similar moments of gullibility myself. I try to keep it to a minimum.

All right then.

First and second Genesis have mutually contradictory descriptions of the beginning of life.

Cain is condemned to wander for all his life. Then, usually on the same page, he founds a city, he gets married and has a lot of children. They are kept track of for, I think it was, 12 generations or there about.

No one has seen the face of god is stated in several ways and places in the Bible. Yet Abraham invited Jehovah to eat and drink and he washed Jehovah's feet. It failed to state that he kept his eyes closed the whole time. I think it would mention a little thing like that.

There are four versions of Jesus's last words on the cross. Two conflict with each other.

If you want a huge list:

http://www.infide...ies.html

Sorry but I can't speak on the Koran. However that site you linked to was not exactly a paragon of reason.

Ethelred, you seem to have blind faith in evolutionism.


There is no faith needed. I understand how it works fairly well. The evidence is quite overwhelming. Only a desperate need to believe otherwise could close your eyes to this.

Sorry but that link is broken. I have yet to see any member of Islam manage to out reason the Christians on this. Lots of the same exact unreasoned thinking though.

I managed to find what were linking to. What a load of crap.

Dobzhansky's bigotry finds its full supplement in his profanity.


Never trust anyone that uses special definitions. The author of the review doesn't like the guy I haven't heard of so he calls him a bigot. Funny use of that word. Typical in a religious argument to distort English.

With evolutionism, Dobzhansky is lobbying to retire God, or else, Dobzhanky is willing to be pejorative, by calling Him various foul names -- (hasha) "senseless operation," "in a jocular mood," "blind process," "cheating," "absentminded."


Sorry but those are not pejorative towards any god. Its pointing what it would mean if the beliefs were true. That is, for instance, a god that put your and my blood vessels in front of our retinas is clearly incompetent. That is not an insult to a god since I don't believe in a god.

Believers have a great deal of difficulty with this concept.

You can't insult something if it doesn't exist.

If reflecting honestly, even anthropomorphism would suffice to empathize that Allah is sensible, programming/crafting the processes/hardware marvelously [modularly].


If Allah exists he is a lousy designer. Otherwise I wouldn't need glasses to write this. Sorry if you find this insulting but it is just trying to point out that we evolved. Nothing biological makes any sense otherwise.

The author of that review is so blinded by belief that he has no idea how silly he looks to non-believers. His entire review is based on a false assumption. That his god exists. If his god existed the world would be very different.

Do not mistake this for a claim that no god exists. I have never done that nor will I. Not intentionally anyway.

Worse, you allege some falsehood in your opponent, but without noticng that evolutionism is a ludicrous faith.


It is too bad that you too are so blinded by your beliefs. The evidence for evolutions is the entire universe. None of it makes any sense if Genesis is literally true. Its either Genesis is wrong or the whole universe is wrong. I go for Genesis being wrong. At least that way I don't have to believe in a god that would create a universe that looks exactly like it is billions of years old and the Earth is a place where life evolved.

Wherever you see the oxymorons "convergent-" or "parallel-evolution",


They aren't oxymorons. Similar environments are likely to result in similar animals given enough time. You really need to learn something about evolution. Something that didn't come from a fundamentalist.

http://pandasthumb.org/

http://www.talkorigins.org/

In contrast, that might be why some people want to believe in atheism? To deny hell? ))


Funny how the religious try to invent reasons that require belief in the unbelievable. There is no reason to believe hell if Genesis is wrong. And it is wrong.

Falseness, is what people keep committing. (Where in the Torah/Bible, was the word about dinosaurs?)


Doesn't matter, the Creation Museum put them there. Ask them. I suppose it is because they couldn't pretend that they never existed. The problem they have is that they believe that there was no death before the Fall of Adam and Eve. So they try to pretend that that 9 inch steak knife teeth belonged to vegetarians. Go ask them why they have such silly beliefs if you really need an answer.

They ARE aware that the evidence is against them. Well at least some of the people that designed the place.

See this review by John Scalzi for the source of that last remark of mine.

http://whatever.s...-report/

Yes John is also an unbeliever. I think he is an atheist, unlike me, I am agnostic.

In contrast, the genesis is telling that whales were created before people. How was that knowable, back then?


For shame, you have denied the word of Jehovah. Surely you have read Genesis 2 where it clearly shows men being created before all other animals. Of course Genesis 1 has it the other way around but that is your problem and not mine. I don't feel the need to handwave away contradictions in the Bible. After all I go on the real world and not what men wrote in their ignorance of science.

Sorry but you simply aren't going to make the evidence for evolution go away in a puff of extremely bad logic.

Ethelred
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 02, 2009
18 I also thought, "As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals."
-Of all the religions in the world, at most only one of them can be right. Has somebody above already pointed this out? That makes the possibility that any of them at all are right slim indeed.
16 And I saw something else under the sun:
In the place of judgment, wickedness was there, in the place of justice, wickedness was there.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 02, 2009
Mr. Ethelred,
State-sponsored religions tend to offer you eternal life because they can get the most mileage from it. The bible is an ark- it is not about saving your eternal soul in the next life, it is about how that promise can be used to establish stability and progress in this life. A message for eternity (or until we see heaven here on earth)
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 02, 2009
I had a prophetic vision once. I dreamt I was eating a large marshmallow and when I woke up my pillow was gone.
-or maybe it was a large Eucharist
Otto1882
not rated yet Jul 03, 2009
Of course we should continue to tolerate religion.

But we must not tolerate its intolerance of the truth. We are failing to address the real damage that the ignorant, irresponsible side of religion is doing to our collective wisdom. We must legislate controls that forbid 'education of falsehoods'. It is doing real damage, and desperateley [sic] needs real action.


What an ignorant and dangerous statement! "We must legislate controls that forbid 'education of falsehoods'." And who then decides what 'falsehoods' are? The government? A body of corrupt scoundrels without an iota of scientific education each with a political agenda? Isn't North Korea currently doing the same...
This would open a whole Pandora's Box.. It is sad there are people out there like you. Obviously you yourself are lacking in education to make such a statement. I fear you far far more than those naive enough to believe in Creationism.

Stupid speech, hate speech, provocative political speech etc. are all protected, as it should be, by the American First Amendment. The only role of the government is to be sure some speech isn't being limited and that the 'other side' has adequate time to respond.

In a free society one combats ignorance and falsehoods with Truth openly in the arena of ideas. Eventually the correct side should 'win'... Did the Enlightenment not happen... There will always be a harmless minority that believes in all sorts of things most consider crazy (Flat Earthers) but it isn't necessary to persecute these people for their beliefs or make their beliefs illegal! If their ideas are false then they can be demonstrated as false and vanquished.

Sometimes I wonder whether the Enlightenment for nothing when I come across such idiotic statements..


Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Jul 03, 2009
State-sponsored religions tend to offer you eternal life because they can get the most mileage from it.


Maybe. I don't see much relevance there. I live a country that tends to frown on State sponsored religion. Well the Supreme Court still does anyway.

The bible is an ark- it is not about saving your eternal soul in the next life, it is about how that promise can be used to establish stability and progress in this life.


That is true for the Old Testament, at least to some extent. Doesn't seem to hold for the New Testament. That was no more pro stability than Lenin was. At least until Constantine co-opted the religion for his own needs.

A message for eternity (or until we see heaven here on earth)


Could you try to be a bit less cryptic about your intent? You know, just put an idea out in a clear and precise manner. You tend to write like believers do when they don't have the guts to say they are believers. Hinting around and pretending its profound and meaningful while not actually saying anything.

-or maybe it was a large Eucharist


They aren't that large. Not pillow sized anyway.

Perhaps if you cut back on all that roughage in your diet you would write more clearly. That constant need to void indigestible fabric has got to be affecting you.

Ethelred
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 03, 2009
Perhaps. I am unhetzable.
Jesus said 34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Do not mistake turmoil for chaos. There is a time for war and a time for peace. The bible describes how to make these these things happen at the proper time. The OT is about war, the NT is about revolution. Marjoe was great as a psycho national guardsman in 'earthquake' wasn't he? The shekinah is US-
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 03, 2009
"Youve got guts. I'd like to cut them out, and play with them!" -some demon to Buffy vampire slayer
Skepticus
5 / 5 (1) Jul 03, 2009
Human conflict and disharmony caused by religious beliefs are demonstrated so convincingly here. Belief leads to faith, faith taken to extreme leads to fanaticism. Fanaticism in power leads to justification for war, murder, and mass destruction as it has always been the case since religions came to existence. Buddhists are wise to stay away from these "Mine is right, yours is bullshit" arguments and just try to be good neighbors in these self-inflicted human sufferings.
lysdexia
5 / 5 (1) Jul 04, 2009
Quantum Conundrum, a prescient, a'foretelling, or profetic dream is very common--but it has nothing to do with God. You were the one with the dream, not God. I'v compiled hundreds of kilobytes in a log of my sýnkronisms (otherwise misspelt as synchronicities) which run within seconds, hours, or one or two days of another--they are /my/ doing, as a gnostic-antitheist, not God's doing. One cannot do wonders without a body, a man's or a ghost's. As your God--one of many Gods you believe in (See my, lysdexia's, posts on http://alternet.o...comments )--has no body, nor is a ghost, he can't do squat. If you knew anything about the OT you'd see it rends all of the claims in the NT; the former says God is not a man, otherwise he would be a liar. You at your liar (prayer) meetings never said the name of Jesus--you said Giizas Crayst, which of course is nothing. Maybe you mean where the pýramids are, -al Giizàh? What kind of limb was healed?--and why did you say limb rather than which one? How did he stand or sit and what was about him? What kind of clothes did he wear? (It's unlikely you'll answer by now.) See the story and follow the links in my comments for the undoing of your [and the Muslim's] Gods: http://youtube.co...ysdexia.


Mainstream crackpottery called "science" makes so many unsubstantiated claims about various types of origins as to be laughable.

They do not believe in God, but they have no trouble believing in the Big Bang, panspwermia, and spontaneous generation(a.k.a. abiogenesis.)


They believe in Big Bang--by the way, a priest came up with the theory--after astronomy gave them the hints and details. Unlikewise, your Babilim-rippoff Buybull says the Earth came first, then the Sun, and thas there's a bowl in the sky which holds back the heavenly sea until it rains. It also blames bad governments on seasnakes, and forbidden figs on talky snakes.

Scientists don't believe in panspermia or any other hýpothesis; spontaneus generation is not even a theory--that would be your maghic God-poofer. Anything under the sun, abioghenesis or bioghensis, would be powered by the sun, and therefore would not be spontaneus. As for how the first life came about, there's also a comment on the above board.

Isn't it the atheist and the agnostic who are irrational, having believed that highly ordered systems come about through accident, even when all physical evidence and experience prove otherwise? Your computer didn't appear spontaneously or accidentally, nor does any other machine, and for the most part, those devices are of an almost infinitely less complex than multi-cellular organisms. How then can one possibly believe life to be a cosmic accident or coincidence?

The atheist can see a simple wrist watch, even an old fashioned pocket watch, and instantly recognize it as having been created by a human being, because it is too complex and too ordered to have appeared randomly through any imaginable process. Yet the same person believes living organisms millions of times more complex appeared accidentally.


God is your accidend. Men made tools, of course; we see men make tools. Life makes life, which we see too. We never see God make anything, but we do see men make God.

"Fools and blind" indeed describes people who hold such a view.


Then you as a Kristian would be doomed to hellfire for callan anyone a fool--as would Krist and David after they calld others fools. As yet-another Scripture-history-sciense-ignorant God-believer, you worship liars, shysters, and mass-murderers.

LariAnn, if there was a god of some sort, then all existing religions would be wrong, except for possibly one - as they clearly state that there is only one god, well all the big players (at least christians and muslims to my knowledge) say so.


Correct. Jesus specifically stated that there is only one God, and there is only one way to right relationship with God. He also specifically stated that the way was straight and the gate narrow which leads to eternal life, the way broad and the gate wide which leads to hell, this in response to his disciples asking him, "Are there only a few which are saved?" The answer, according to Jesus, is "yes".


Nope, he never said there was one God; he said God was One. The latter means, everything of God agrees. (Which it doesn't.) But there are loads of Gods in both of your Testaments, which make evident the plagiarist nature of your faith which was grafted on other pagan religions in the Levant. Every last religion claims its God to be the first and true God, yet it's always one of many latecomers--why is that?

I find it sad that people seek solace in religion that shoves fear and makes little of actual life on fake promises of a richer after-life. Being enslaved to a mind dulling institution is not something I wish for others. This is not arrogance, but telling it as it is.


There is nothing mind dulling about Biblical christianity. Pay no attention to the CRAP you see on television or even in most local churches, as it has little to nothing to do with God or the Bible. They are apostates, and you are half right about THOSE people, as they have nothing but "clouds without water,"(see Jude,) as they are all teaching false doctrines, namely the prosperity and "Word of Faith" doctrines which are entirely un-biblical and have nothing to do with Biblical Christianity. Unfortunately, "Many false prophets(and false christs) shall arise and deceive many..."

Jesus was again very much correct when he said, "The children of the world are wiser in their own generation than the children of light." Because any idiot can see that these doctrines are false, but the so-called Christians fall for them by the millions.


Yes you do.

----
I find it ironic that a person who does not believe in God should even care what another person does with time. If you believe there is no God, then you ultimately believe everything has no purpose whatsoever and is merely vain. Thus why should you care what I believe?


No, it is /you/ who believes everything has no purpose without God. The non-believer is not such a sheepl.

Why are we so 'astounded' by brain-dead religionists?

They are children. They like funny stories and murder mysteries, like when their 'god' killed all the 1st born males because the father of the household did not kill a lamb and wipe blood over the door!?! Talk about asleep at the wheel, hehe! They are the idiots of the world.
...
Geez, so many crazy people.


Just because someone is religious doesn't mean they're automatically a religious-text thumping psychopath. Most people are just fine. It's the fanatical freaks with nothing better to do that are the problem (a small percentage).

Actually, it's your kind of thinking (stereotyping, dehumanizing, antagonizing) that is the exact problem.


A someone is not a they.

a someone -> one
the someone -> who
And do you mean children and idiots are not human? They're especially human.
Diotrephes
1 / 5 (1) Jul 04, 2009
Ignorance on both sides of the camp, among both scientistic and religious fanatics.

The big bang theory offers interesting evidence for the divine creatio ex nihilo.Evolutionary theory offers interesting evidence for the '7 days of labor' from which God created the world, the Genesis. It all depends upon how you want to look at things, upon how myopic or broad minded you wish to be.

Today we are all aware of the dangers of religious fundamentalism, but what of fundamentalism in science. Be careful 'scientists' lest you place your foot in your mouth - materialism IS a fundamentalist belief - just as scary, ignorant, and foolhardy as any other.
acarrilho
3 / 5 (2) Jul 04, 2009
The big bang theory offers interesting evidence for the divine creatio ex nihilo.


No, it doesn't. There is no evidence of "creation". If you want to "look at things" as you please, by all means do so. But don't presume they rationally qualify as "evidence" to anyone else. Personal and whimsical interpretations of something don't mean squat to someone that understands a single perspective is untrustworthy. That's why the scientific method is reliable, and the "feelings" of someone that thinks that just because something is there it had to be intentionally put there, isn't. The physical existence of something (as opposed to just conceptual existence) doesn't depend on how you want to "look at things".
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 04, 2009
People shouldn't try to participate here when drunk or stoned.
fleem
1 / 5 (1) Jul 04, 2009
Perhaps some of those fanatics would like to comment on the scripture in Genesis that says "Let the Earth bring forth [the animals]". I guess that particular scripture is the only one not to be taken literally?

Or perhaps those fanatics should consider what sort of people Genesis was written for (extremely primitive superstitious people), why it was written (to tell them there is a God, but not confuse the issue with things unimportant to their faith and which they would have a great deal of trouble embracing), that the wording of the so-called "days" of creation is far more cryptic and ambiguous than other words referring to real 24-hour periods by the same author, that the same word used to describe "day" (yod) is clearly used to describe "age" just a couple scriptures later, and that the order of the types of life created just happens to be exactly that of evolutionists.

These are not Christians and should not be called Christians. A Christian places love of Jesus as the sole thing to be professed. These are young-Earth-ites, who believe heaven will be populated not by people who have the will of God in their hearts (and are thus part of Him and thus live forever in Him), but by people that simple "know" how old the planet is. These are people that picture judgment day as God throwing people into hell regardless of whether they have His own spirit within them, but according only to how old they think the planet is. Anyone that calls such people "Christians" is nothing less than a spin doctor.
Diotrephes
not rated yet Jul 04, 2009
Acarrilho, thank you for your response, rude, but you point out that my remarks deserve explanation.

Now, allow me to explain.

Evidence comes in a number of forms. For example, that I see a tree before me is a kind of evidence. We call that empirical. Such evidence has yet to become 'scientific', however, for it first needs become universal law, which, ironically, isn't empirical at all, but quite rational.

Now consider this question - is there scientific or simply empirical evidence for the law of gravitation? You will have to admit to the latter ONLY, that in fact, there are only measurable instances which we then formulate into a rational law (whether by induction or falsification - both proceed similarly). So one can imagine that in some future time, new empirical instances will produce a 'new' physics which might actually disprove the law of gravitation, showing that, under certain circumstances, differing masses fall at different accelerations.

Now, as you can see, things start to get complicated. What is scientific evidence? Empirical? Rational? Something other?

Consider then the following - background radiation gives 'evidence' for the big bang. What kind of evidence? A universal law, or specific instances which must be rationalized in order to become universal? As a scientist - you must admit to the latter view only. Accordingly, you take empirical instances as your starting point, and from there you attempt to draw universal rational laws on their basis.

Now I'll clarify on my previous hypothesis - instances of background radiation offers evidence for the existence of God. What kind of evidence is this? Well, quite the same as the 'scientific' evidence for the Big Bang Theory. From the empirical, I proceed to the rational, to the universal, that - because there is background radiation, there must be some originating point in the universe.

I simply make the further leap on the basis of rational evidence... what is rational evidence? That A B = C.

In this case, if there is a point A, then either A accounts for its own existence or it must be caused by B. I therefore assert B, that, possibly, a divine existence was the cause of A, being the universe... and that the universe having an originating point, and this being gathered from instances of background radiation given by - empirical - evidence, therefore, I say, God... may well exist.

Do I know this? No - I only assert this on the basis of empirical evidence and rational grounds. Is this just 'looking at things' as I please? If you admit that, then you must admit the same of the entire scientific program. Make your choice.
acarrilho
1 / 5 (1) Jul 04, 2009
I guess "rude" depends on how "you look at it".

If the claim is that "there is a tree", than the "fact" that "you see a tree" (your word being accepted for what it is) is evidence that you see a tree, period. It's not evidence the tree is physically there, which would be the relevant point to someone other than yourself, in support of the claim.

No one has to believe in someone else's word that gravity exists as something that produces the effects we can ALL feel. This typical analogy does nothing to support the case for rational belief in "God".

"Expected to be empirical and properly documented in accordance with scientific method such as is applicable to the particular field of inquiry". There's NOTHING complicated about scientific evidence, and there's NO scientific evidence supporting rational belief in "God".

The FSM may well exist. The human concept may very well coincide with a real entity. That alone does not warrant rational belief in its existence. The claim "it does not warrant rational belief" does not equal "it does not exist", no matter how much some people choose to pound that straw man.
Diotrephes
not rated yet Jul 04, 2009
There's NOTHING complicated about scientific evidence


Except when the evidence itself is complicated... think it over
acarrilho
1 / 5 (1) Jul 04, 2009
There's nothing to think over. "God" does not logically follow from any scientific evidence. The evidence is only as complicated as one is uneducated. The more one understands what the evidence actually refers and does not refer to, the less prone to "logic leaps" you become. "Leaps of logic" are "leaps" because they are NOT rationally supported. They may be accurate in the end, but as far as another person in concerned, they do not warrant rational belief. So until you can backup your leaps with scientific evidence supporting the ACTUAL leap, you are left with "faith", meaningless to anyone who requires reason behind their convictions.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 04, 2009
Unless you want to think of god as Stephen Hawking supposes, that being those immutable laws which govern the universe. And why would god want to break any of these laws just because we wish it, and we believe on him so much? That would be a betrayal of the abilities he gave us to understand his laws and depend upon them. We are created in his image, therefore we should be able to understand this whole construct and use it for our benefit.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 04, 2009
I believe that we have already been given everything we need to fix things for ourselves. That is the greatest miracle, the greatest gift. That is what I believe in.
acarrilho
not rated yet Jul 04, 2009
And do you have anything objective to offer, something that doesn't depend on one's "fuzzy feelings" or indoctrinated mindset, that might result in the same belief you have? If not, what exactly is the point of merely stating your belief?
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 04, 2009
You mean any more or less so than you? Maybe I just need to say it with an attitude.
acarrilho
1 / 5 (1) Jul 04, 2009
I couldn't care less how you say it. Fact of the matter is, you didn't... because you don't have anything to say which might be objective and supports your belief with, so it doesn't mean diddly-squat to me, and it's called "faith". Glad you have it, glad you're happy with it, not so glad you presume it means something to anyone else, because it's a virus, and it spreads, and it infects impressionable minds.
Diotrephes
not rated yet Jul 04, 2009
The evidence is only as complicated as one is uneducated. .


I second that otto - as acarrilho's arguments decrease so too does his/her slander increase...
acarrilho
not rated yet Jul 04, 2009
It's not my fault if the shoe fits.
acarrilho
not rated yet Jul 04, 2009
Fact remains, both of you have failed to demonstrate these "leaps of logic" have any rational justification.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 04, 2009
I think you and I believe the same things. I believe humans have to find their own solutions and the only way to do this is trial and error, repeatability, the scientific method. Since we don't yet know all there is to know, I have faith that this method will provide; and so do you. But I think the bible describes how to herd and husband the human race brilliantly which is essential to providing the stability and progress needed for innovation [but don't tell the zealots] Why do we come to this site anyway? Because we hope to see how the latest research is going to extend our lives and give us unlimited room to live in peace. But it ain't here yet. Nevertheless it gives you and I comfort. Is it all hype, the new religion? Maybe we don't care as much as we think. I like black metal how about you?
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Jul 04, 2009
The lord is my shepherd, I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures [gettysburg, flanders] valley of the shadow of death [constant reminder of our own inevitable conclusions], rod [punishment] staff [direction] He restoreth [the fantasy of] my soul .... Brilliant. Who wrote this stuff? Baaaaa
Diotrephes
not rated yet Jul 05, 2009
1, 2, 3, 4 ... A leap of logic tells me that the next number in the ordered sequence should be 5.

A is B, B is C, Therefore ... A leap of logic tells me that it A is C

For all A, B results .... A leap of logic tells me that therefore A is the cause of B

An essential cosmological argument for a primoridial cause goes the same way. EVIDENTIAL FACT: A universe exists in time which seems to have an origin at some point (e.g. Big Bang).

Now everyone, scientists, theologians, philosophers, with a mind, must consider the following question: What CAUSED the point?

No one has the answer - YOU seem to say nothing, that's your LEAP of logic, I say maybe a First Cause.

Your position, however, actually represents an ILLOGICAL leap, for you fail to acknowledge the inherent problem here -- HOW CAN SOMETHING COME FROM NOTHING?

In fact, this IS the BIG joke of the big bang theory whenever anyone provides this for the CAUSE of the universe - and materialistic-atheistic scientists or scientist wannabes, generally unversed in philosophy - fail to see this basic error.

And one final point, because I growing weary of schooling you -

If you'd like to suggest that the universe always was, then you simply face the old problem of Aristotle and the Scholastics - how do we get to this present moment from an infinite past??

infinity.................................. present moment

But the infinite is infinitely far from the present - therefore the present could never be reached from an infinity

Therefore the universe must have been created or come into being (since we don't know the answer) AT SOME TIME.

So again the question - what's the cause?????????????
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Jul 05, 2009
that the wording of the so-called "days" of creation is far more cryptic and ambiguous than other words referring to real 24-hour periods by the same author,


And the morning and the evening was the second day is somehow terribly cryptic?

I don't think so.

nd that the order of the types of life created just happens to be exactly that of evolutionists.


Which order? Genesis one and two have contradictory orders. Haven't you read them?

But lets use Genesis one.

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.


Yes light without the Sun. OK so you are pretending that this the Big Bang I suppose. So we can say that line is right. But the Big Bang was over 13 billion years ago. And light came 300,000 years after the Big Bang began.

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.


This before the Earth so mornings and evenings would be a tad hard to define. And it is hard to call evening and morning a 8 billion years but I guess we can pretend for now since this is just the order.

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.


Still no actual Earth so where was the water going to.

And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.


Yet another day without benefit of either Sun or Earth. So cool how this fits exactly nothing.

And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.


Ah the Earth appears. Sans Sun so now we have clear error in order and only two sets of mornings and evenings are done.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.


More errors in order. Grass came much later. After the dinosaurs died out. Herbs is ill defined so it OK to have it with trees BUT trees and plants came later in the real world, well after fish who have yet to appear in this Biblical order.

And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


Fruit came before grass but after a lot of things that are still to come on this list so that is wrong also. All these plants are too early in the order and therefor wrong.

And the evening and the morning were the third day.


Amazing the way evening and morning gets rewritten to eons when it is inconvenient to your belief.

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:


[qAnd God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.[q/]

Ah finally we have a Sun.

And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.


At last a morning and evening with a Sun, I guess Jehovah took down the giant fluorescent light fixture that was keeping all those plants alive before then.

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.


Finally some animals. A tad late on the seen of course since grass was already around in the Biblical order. And flying creatures came MUCH later in the world we actually live in. So another error in the order.

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.


You do know that fish really came before fowl don't you. Yet you called the Biblical order right.

And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.


Yes another morning and evening and you are in denial about this.

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


Finally we the stuff that really came before flying life. You know, that stuff that actually trods or even creeps really came before anything got of the ground in the real world.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.


Hey something that is right. Humans came late. Except that Genesis two has humans before animals but I guess you and I can just pretend that Genesis two doesn't exist. Well I guess you can but I tend not to pretend about things like that.

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.


And another of those messy evenings and mornings you try to ignore. Along with all those inconvenient errors in order. Like four days without a Sun. Flying even before fishes. Grass before fishies.

I am so unimpressed by this order. It gets so much so very wrong.

Sorry but I have seen that ludicrous claim of yours before. You really need to learn something about reality. You might try reading Genesis one again as well. It just does not match the real world.

Your next paragraph is purely a matter of doctrine and that doesn't conflict with reality so I will leave you to thrash that out with your fellow Christians. Try not to get any blood on the floor.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Jul 05, 2009
As a scientist - you must admit to the latter view only. Accordingly, you take empirical instances as your starting point, and from there you attempt to draw universal rational laws on their basis.


In general, Laws are what is used to show how things seem to work. Theories show WHY things work that way. Think of Kepler's laws as opposed to Newton's theories.

Both were close enough for the evidence at that time. Neither has actually been shown wrong within those limits. They have not been replaced so much as they have been refined.

Now Lamarck's ideas on evolution have been replaced because his model doesn't fit the facts at all.

Now I'll clarify on my previous hypothesis - instances of background radiation offers evidence for the existence of God


That is a fantasy.

What kind of evidence is this? Well, quite the same as the 'scientific' evidence for the Big Bang Theory.


I think it is more like saying 'look at the world. That is evidence for god'. Which to me is not too far off from saying dog is god backwards therefor Jehovah exists. Yes, its nonsense.

I therefore assert B, that, possibly, a divine existence was the cause of A, being the universe..


Yet there was nothing of the divine there at all. You just added in to fit your needs. It doesn't follow from the evidence in any way. It is just another case of 'look at the world therefor my god exists'.

and this being gathered from instances of background radiation given by - empirical - evidence, therefore, I say, God... may well exist.


Or you could say you exist, therefor your god may exist. Your belief clearly follows only from belief as that logic you use isn't really remotely related to actual logic.

It is indistinguishable from this slightly modified classic:

God is love
Love is blind
Ray Charles is blind
Therefor Ray Charles is God
I've seen Ray Charles on TV a few times, so therefore God must exist.

Oh, I promised the person that posted this years ago that I would give someone besides myself credit.

"I read that someone said...."

Yes that IS what I promised.

No - I only assert this on the basis of empirical evidence and rational grounds.


That is not rational. It is clearly rationalization based on your beliefs.

Is this just 'looking at things' as I please?


Yes. You have the idea now.

If you admit that, then you must admit the same of the entire scientific program. Make your choice.


No, I don't have to agree with such faulty logic. Learn logic. Take a class if you have to. The key idea is that you can't reach a valid conclusion from faulty premises.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Jul 05, 2009
Therefore the universe must have been created or come into being (since we don't know the answer) AT SOME TIME.

So again the question - what's the cause?????????????


What is the cause of your god?

That is a unavoidable question if we are go along with your thinking. Let me make it clear.

If the Universe must have a cause then the cause must have a cause.

There is one exception that I can think of and a god is not it.

Mathematics.

As far as I can tell the principles of math would be valid even if there was no universe. Useless of course but still valid.

Ethelred
acarrilho
3 / 5 (2) Jul 05, 2009
1, 2, 3, 4 ... A leap of logic tells me that the next number in the ordered sequence should be 5.







A is B, B is C, Therefore ... A leap of logic tells me that it A is C








Where do you presume the "leap" is? Quite logically, by their own definitions, "5" follows "4". The other is quite logical as well. There is no "leaping" involved in that logic.







An essential cosmological argument for a primoridial cause goes the same way.








No, it has nothing to do with your examples.







EVIDENTIAL FACT: A universe exists in time which seems to have an origin at some point (e.g. Big Bang).








"Origin" of what, exactly? As far as I know, the Singularity WAS the Universe, in a different form. If you want to argue the Universe "as we know it" had an origin, than fine, but that doesn't address the issue, now does it?







Now everyone, scientists, theologians, philosophers, with a mind, must consider the following question: What CAUSED the point?








Assumes anything was "caused" in the first place, which is an unwarranted assumption, in light of current knowledge.







No one has the answer - YOU seem to say nothing, that's your LEAP of logic, I say maybe a First Cause.








"I don't know" isn't a leap of logic. It's intellectual honesty. Saying "maybe a First Cause" is also honest, but you're going a few steps further.







Your position, however, actually represents an ILLOGICAL leap, for you fail to acknowledge the inherent problem here -- HOW CAN SOMETHING COME FROM NOTHING?








How many quantum events do you know of that are caused?







In fact, this IS the BIG joke of the big bang theory whenever anyone provides this for the CAUSE of the universe - and materialistic-atheistic scientists or scientist wannabes, generally unversed in philosophy - fail to see this basic error.








I always thought the Big Bang was the sudden expansion of the Singularity, i.e. the Universe in a highly condensed form, which logically means the Big Bang is NOT the "cause" or "origin" of the Universe (in whatever shape or form). So don't pin that position on me.







And one final point, because I growing weary of schooling you -








Spare me...







If you'd like to suggest that the universe always was, then you simply face the old problem of Aristotle and the Scholastics - how do we get to this present moment from an infinite past??







infinity.................................. present moment







But the infinite is infinitely far from the present - therefore the present could never be reached from an infinity







Therefore the universe must have been created or come into being (since we don't know the answer) AT SOME TIME.








I'm not arguing for an "infinite past". That's another straw man you pulled out of your ass.







So again the question - what's the cause?????????????








I don't know if there was one, but I do know one isn't required.
Diotrephes
not rated yet Jul 05, 2009

You spoke of dishonest, well, its dishonest to be a narrow minded skeptic. By its nature, a skeptic must have the broadest of all possible minds. Limiting oneself alone to what is empirically verifiable is akin to admitting only visible light because you can SEE it. What about x-rays, gamma rays, etc.? Well, we can measure those, right? But what about those that we have yet to measure or simply cannot measure? Shall we be 'honest' with ourselves and say "I don't know", or perhaps stretch our minds more broadly into possibilities?

Now, the cosmological argument is really nothing like this, since its much more reasonably sound (note - not demonstrative, just sound), but it offers a good example of where skeptics such as yourself go wrong (and I know you don't like being told that!).

The fact of the matter is that almost all major scientific breakthroughs were achieved by minds which looked beyond the barriers limiting what was known or even measurable. They made assumptions which, at the time, were often considered ludicrous, fanciful, even theological (e.g. the quantum assumption, Pauli and Schrodinger).

The scientific method, the process of hypothesis, experimentation, discover, and theory --- is NOT materialism - but you seem to think they're one and the same.

Now, I could be wrong here - perhaps your not quite the skeptic that you make yourself out to be.

Well in that case, I'd have to say that I'm much more a skeptic than yourself. I just DON'Tt enjoy following the status quo of the 21st century - "Either materialism or nothing". That's a trap and if science keeps it up, its going to find itself in another dark ages, which it seems to already be falling into.

Science needs to reopen its mind - see possibilities where it only sees limits and barriers. That doesn't mean following crackpot ideas proposed by literalist creationists, but it does mean reconsidering the extent of our ideas, the scope of concepts, the possibilities of logic, and of course, where nature fits in with it all.

As far as I can tell from your rather irascible attitude - you're just going to remain a narrow-minded skeptic because you think you're smarter than everyone else.

Well then, they do say that ignorance is bliss.
ealex
Jul 05, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Diotrephes
not rated yet Jul 05, 2009
Ethelred,

You seem to have missed the point - I do not, nor cannot admit to the actual EXISTENCE of God or a first principle or what have you on the basis of evidence of background radiation. As you note, that would be illogical.

But empirical evidence is distinct from the science which describes it itself. You rightly distinguish between a physical theory and its interpretation, yet you fail to recognize that although the first is much more direct than the other, both are actually indirect rationalized abstractions (or constructions if you prefer) on the basis of our intuitive and quite empirical experience of the world.

To get to the point - the phenomenon of background radiation is a kind of empirical experience of our world (albeit measured). From this experience we then rationalize about this world. Science has its own process of dealing with this datum.

Accordingly, it is argued that such phenomena is evidence for what is scientifically developed into a theory of the "big bang", and fine, I'd agree with this to a certain point.

Now when I suggest that this same empirical phenomena of background radiation (which gives evidence for the big bang) gives further 'evidence' of a first cause, there is nothing illogical in the statement at all. It is simply dealing with the evidence differently - using a different method.

For example, if background radiation were such that it indicated that the universe always has been, or has subsisted as an eternal vacuum fluctuation (for which no evidence is given, however, certain scientists do use this argument), then I would say that their is NO empirical evidence for a first cause - the world is simply eternal, no first cause can be inferred.

The scientific method is certainly much more direct in the manner in which it deals with the empirical evidence, that's why its science.

Nonetheless, there are other ways of dealing with evidence - and these need not be illogical, nor simply positing existences like some deus ex macchina.

All of your examples are moot since you misunderstood the first point to begin with.
acarrilho
3 / 5 (2) Jul 05, 2009
You spoke of dishonest, well, its dishonest to be a narrow minded skeptic. By its nature, a skeptic must have the broadest of all possible minds. Limiting oneself alone to what is empirically verifiable is akin to admitting only visible light because you can SEE it. What about x-rays, gamma rays, etc.? Well, we can measure those, right?


See? You DO understand to some degree.

But what about those that we have yet to measure or simply cannot measure? Shall we be 'honest' with ourselves and say "I don't know", or perhaps stretch our minds more broadly into possibilities?


Stretch all you want. A lot of people do a lot of "stretching" and believe in things you do not believe in. Oddly enough, people like you do not understand that the difference between them and a "sceptic" is that the "sceptic" doesn't have double standards in their appreciation of evidence, or lack of it, that substantiates rational belief.

Now, the cosmological argument is really nothing like this, since its much more reasonably sound (note - not demonstrative, just sound), but it offers a good example of where skeptics such as yourself go wrong (and I know you don't like being told that!).


I don't care. You don't substantiate anything you say.

The fact of the matter is that almost all major scientific breakthroughs were achieved by minds which looked beyond the barriers limiting what was known or even measurable. They made assumptions which, at the time, were often considered ludicrous, fanciful, even theological (e.g. the quantum assumption, Pauli and Schrodinger).


Their assumptions are based on experimentally verified data made available by previous scientists. There is ALWAYS objectivity supporting their subjective speculation, and that's why it's scientific. Scientific speculation isn't just "looking beyond the barriers limiting what was known or even measurable". It works on top of things that ARE known and measurable. There is a logical sequence. "God" doesn't follow logically from ANYTHING.

The scientific method, the process of hypothesis, experimentation, discover, and theory --- is NOT materialism - but you seem to think they're one and the same.

Now, I could be wrong here - perhaps your not quite the skeptic that you make yourself out to be.


You're wrong.

Well in that case, I'd have to say that I'm much more a skeptic than yourself. I just DON'Tt enjoy following the status quo of the 21st century - "Either materialism or nothing". That's a trap and if science keeps it up, its going to find itself in another dark ages, which it seems to already be falling into.

Science needs to reopen its mind - see possibilities where it only sees limits and barriers. That doesn't mean following crackpot ideas proposed by literalist creationists, but it does mean reconsidering the extent of our ideas, the scope of concepts, the possibilities of logic, and of course, where nature fits in with it all.

As far as I can tell from your rather irascible attitude - you're just going to remain a narrow-minded skeptic because you think you're smarter than everyone else.


Not necessarily "smarter"... but I'm definitely not as gullible as you, nor as prone to attacking straw men.

Well then, they do say that ignorance is bliss.


That's why you should stay away from these websites. If I needed a delusion to provide me with comfort and "happiness" (intellectual integrity makes ME happy) I wouldn't want to lose it either.
Diotrephes
1 / 5 (1) Jul 05, 2009
Their assumptions are based on experimentally verified data made available by previous scientists.


Assumptions? Thank you - you've just supported my premise. .
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Jul 05, 2009
Paragraph one noise without actual semantic content.

Paragraph two ditto.

To get to the point


Learn to drop the part before that. I occasionally erase MANY paragraphs before posting.

the phenomenon of background radiation is a kind of empirical experience of our world (albeit measured).


Never mind paragraph three also has no actual content.

Accordingly, it is argued that such phenomena is evidence for what is scientifically developed into a theory of the "big bang", and fine, I'd agree with this to a certain point.


Four paragraphs to say you agree to admit to reality.

Now when I suggest that this same empirical phenomena of background radiation (which gives evidence for the big bang) gives further 'evidence' of a first cause, there is nothing illogical in the statement at all.


Nor anything logical either.

Background radiation gives evidence for a Big Bang or something akin to it. Anything else is philosophy. I have no problem with philosophy except when someone is pretending that it somehow is reality.

It is simply dealing with the evidence differently - using a different method.


Indeed. It is pushing a religious agenda as opposed to dealing with how the Universe may actually work.

For example, if background radiation were such that it indicated that the universe always has been,


If so the sky would not be black.

hen I would say that their is NO empirical evidence for a first cause - the world is simply eternal, no first cause can be inferred.


The catch is you are NOT talking about a first cause. You and I both know that you are coming from a religious and not a scientific point of view. As such you are using evidence to support your beliefs rather than to understand reality.

Nonetheless, there are other ways of dealing with evidence - and these need not be illogical, nor simply positing existences like some deus ex macchina.


If you aren't using scientific methods it is unlikely in the extreme that actual logic is involved. As for Deus Ex Machina that is exactly what you seem to striving for.

All of your examples are moot since you misunderstood the first point to begin with.


Ah yes. Avoid actual reasoned discourse as it never gets believers to their goal. Teach the controversy and never never ever actually provide support or evidence for your own position. Not a surprising tactic since there isn't any evidence.

So you wrote all that meaningless content just to evade. What a surprise that the noise was to cover the lack of content.

Again your first cause needs a first cause. Math doesn't. YOU are the one that didn't get the point. Or perhaps you did and that was the real reason for all the static masquerading as a reply.

Ethelred
Diotrephes
1 / 5 (1) Jul 05, 2009

Again your first cause needs a first cause. Math doesn't.


Get real pythagoras, and take a class beyond freshman (high school?) logic.
legonadir
not rated yet Jul 05, 2009
I would say they should have done the world a favor and burned the place down, but that's more a religious approach to teachings you don't agree with. If people want to stay ignorant with evidence to the contrary, let them.
acarrilho
1 / 5 (1) Jul 05, 2009
Assumptions? Thank you - you've just supported my premise.


I didn't realize your target audience was just people that can't tell quote mining when they see it. Again, if you have any objective evidence that warrants rational belief in a "created Universe" present it. Even some form of valid scientific speculation is welcome. Otherwise, stick to philosophy forums.
Diotrephes
1 / 5 (1) Jul 05, 2009
quote mining? no I'm baffled, but you're the forum expert (and would-be moderator) so i'll let you explain
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 05, 2009
But then again some people just likes ta argue. Perhaps all the dumping above is not just evidence of chemical imbalance but also the need of people to draw conclusions- to decide and move on. Both scientists and religionists do this and then waste lives and careers refuting evidence. Was there something before the big bang? Maybe not let's look. Does inflation really make sense? Don't really know yet. It's the need to assert authority I guess. Teachers and priests especially are compelled to say 'because it is written.' As to genesis, even Jesus hisself said you can't just tell people things, they'll only want to argue. You've got to wrap the truth up in a parable. The bible is [very] soft science- sociopolitics.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 05, 2009
And really Ethel- ad hominim? You know better than that-
acarrilho
5 / 5 (1) Jul 05, 2009
quote mining? no I'm baffled, but you're the forum expert (and would-be moderator) so i'll let you explain


No, I'll have to ignore you until you put something on the table worth spending two synapses on. Stop creating diversions, and either admit you have no objective evidence to warrant rational belief in a "created Universe", or actually present something that qualifies as such.
acarrilho
5 / 5 (1) Jul 05, 2009
Both scientists and religionists do this and then waste lives and careers refuting evidence.


What "evidence" are scientists refuting? Lay it out clearly.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Jul 05, 2009
Get real pythagoras, and take a class beyond freshman (high school?) logic


You aren't interested in reality and we both know it. You aren't going to engage in real dialog because you know can't.

I have been discussing the sort of stuff for a decade online and studying it for over 45 years.

You aren't likely to give a real response but here is the question again just to make it clear to everyone besides the two of us that you don't want to answer it.

If the Universe needs a first cause then your not really a first cause needs a real first cause.

So what is the cause of your god?

If you can't answer that how about this one?

You are the only one here that insists on the using the phrase 'empirical evidence' when everyone else just says evidence. Why? Keep in mind that I am pretty sure that I know the reason already.

Your style is familiar. If you aren't the same person you learned the same techniques. People using these techniques never actually engage in real discussions. How about you surprise me and stop the evasions?

You have plenty of time for a well reasoned reply as I as I will be shutting down soon. So try actually thinking before you respond.

Ethelred

Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Jul 05, 2009
And really Ethel- ad hominim? You know better than that-


Bull. He is trying to evade. I didn't call him anything. I am pointing out that he is just evading. I will continue to do so until he stops the evasions.

I expect him to disappear rather than stop evading but I would like to be surprised. Its not like I haven't seen this behavior before. I am wondering if the similarity is coincidence or if we have tangled before. I have used the same handle online since 2000 starting on the Maximum PC Commport forum.

Ethelred
Diotrephes
1 / 5 (1) Jul 05, 2009
This is interesting... seasoned interlocutors who yet resort to insults and diatribes.

You know nothing of me, nor my argumentation, though you imagine you might. In spite of what the bible says, there are new things under the sun.

Your problem, and it seems to me that the problem with the rest of you here is that your just used to the same old arguments, going back and forth on the same old ideas.

At this forum, as I can see -- there is nothing new under the sun, and nothing new is desired.

First of all, whether I believe in God or not has never been stated once by me, whether in argument or anywhere else on this forum.

Second, empirical means visible before the senses, an impression of the world AS IT IS, the dawning of reality, experience.

Third, evidence is what lies both directly as well as within the periphery (as measured) of the empirical.

Fifth, on the basis of the empirical every science finds its foundation.

Sixth, human reason has the capacity to move beyond empirical experience. In doing so, it becomes capable of formulating a science.

Seventh, in itself scientific knowledge is universal. (e.g. the law of gravitation)

Eigth, universal knowledge is not empirical - it only has foundations within the empirical - it is rational, abstract, conceptual.

Ninth, on the basis of the universal, using logic as its guide, the human mind may speculate upon the nature of things which have yet to enter within the purview or periphery of human empirical experience.

Tenth, the concept of a multiverse or vacuum fluctuation is an example of number 9, and so too the theory of a first cause. Each responds to essential questions about the universe --- arising on the basis of our basic and very real, experience of the world.

Now - I recognize that none of you will be persuaded by anything that I've written here - you'll probably just toss in more of your bullshit antics, but the fact of the matter is that none of you, not a single one, has produced a single idea - you just excel at the use and abuse of the ideas of others. .
rbarrett1844
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 05, 2009
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

John 1:1-5
Diotrephes
1 / 5 (1) Jul 05, 2009
And I did forget to mention one thing...

What would the universe WITHOUT a cause be?

The uncaused cause, i.e., the first cause.

What then is the first cause in a universe WITH a cause?

Something like that.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 05, 2009
Superhuman? Ah, you're all just having fun I guess. Nothing wrong with that. I suggest you go get some exercise, get your systems working properly. You know how long it takes to scroll to the bottom of this thread on an iPhone?
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 05, 2009
In the beginning was the Word ... I like the original term Logos- more descriptive. Trouble with the bible- people have translated it to mean completely different things through the ages. For example 'all is vanity' is really 'all is in vain', for naught, or everything is meaningless. Instead of admonishing human self-interest, Solomon was lamenting his own powerlessness over the future.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 05, 2009
Look up Logos in wiki- apparently before the Logos, there was ... Philo. As in philo-sophy. The ancients were largely concerned with philosophies which had practical application in this world. Actionable theories which could effect change. The people responsible for the bible cared little what happened to you after you were dead. They cared a great deal about what you thought and did in this world. After all where would god be if everyone who believed in him were dead?
BinaryArtist
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 05, 2009
It is interesting that evolutionists never try to argue their case based on facts but rather simply attack creationists and make the claim that anyone who believes in God is obviously insane or mentally challenged. Which takes more faith to believe, that God created the Universe and life as we know it, or that a giant explosion produced a molten planet that then cooled, all of the right elements happened to come together to spontaneously create a single celled life form, and that life form then proceeded to continuously change to eventually create all of the diverse life that exists on our planet today?

As much as evolutionists say that creationists are blind to the truth because their claims cannot be substanciated, evolutionists try to pass off their theories as facts. The day that evolutionists admit that they are argueing to defend their theories and not scientific fact then a real debate can begin. Until that time comes evolutionists will only be doing what their assumed ancestors(the monkey) would do...throw shit at the things that they fear.
MorituriMax
not rated yet Jul 05, 2009
I wouldn't count Buddhism among all the other Religions, I look at it more as a way of life or a philosophy. As far as I know nobody has ever tried to convert anyone to Buddhism.
AdseculaScientiae
not rated yet Jul 05, 2009
@BinaryArtist



Someone who happens to confuse the big bang theory and abiogenesis with the theory of evolution and thinks he's a clever fellow just asks for the shit to come his way.



Blah.

*throws some poop at Arty*
acarrilho
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 05, 2009
This is interesting... seasoned interlocutors who yet resort to insults and diatribes.


Don't be a hypocrite, you've been no less abrasive.

You know nothing of me, nor my argumentation, though you imagine you might. In spite of what the bible says, there are new things under the sun.

Your problem, and it seems to me that the problem with the rest of you here is that your just used to the same old arguments, going back and forth on the same old ideas.


Yours ARE the same old arguments. You've said nothing new here. It's the same old dancing and word juggling.

First of all, whether I believe in God or not has never been stated once by me, whether in argument or anywhere else on this forum.


It's quite logically inferred from "CREATED Universe".

Third, evidence is what lies both directly as well as within the periphery (as measured) of the empirical.


Because you say so? I'm not at all surprised to have you presume to define "evidence" in such a personal and whimsical manner, because I suppose you also get to define what falls inside the "periphery" and what doesn't. That is NOT objective evidence (the only kind there is that is relevant to more than one individual), and no one else is bound to your whimsical understanding of the word.

Fifth, on the basis of the empirical every science finds its foundation.

Sixth, human reason has the capacity to move beyond empirical experience. In doing so, it becomes capable of formulating a science.

Seventh, in itself scientific knowledge is universal. (e.g. the law of gravitation)

Eigth, universal knowledge is not empirical - it only has foundations within the empirical - it is rational, abstract, conceptual.

Ninth, on the basis of the universal, using logic as its guide, the human mind may speculate upon the nature of things which have yet to enter within the purview or periphery of human empirical experience.

Tenth, the concept of a multiverse or vacuum fluctuation is an example of number 9, and so too the theory of a first cause. Each responds to essential questions about the universe --- arising on the basis of our basic and very real, experience of the world.

Now - I recognize that none of you will be persuaded by anything that I've written here - you'll probably just toss in more of your bullshit antics, but the fact of the matter is that none of you, not a single one, has produced a single idea - you just excel at the use and abuse of the ideas of others.


Personally, I excel at sniffing out bullshit. And yours is quite odorous. You haven't presented a single piece of objective evidence to support your claims. I await.
acarrilho
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 05, 2009
And I did forget to mention one thing...

What would the universe WITHOUT a cause be?

The uncaused cause, i.e., the first cause.

What then is the first cause in a universe WITH a cause?

Something like that.


"Something like that"? Uncaused Universe=uncaused cause=the first cause??? THIS is the kind of logic you rely upon which to base your convictions?

Leaving that... "logic" aside... are quantum events CAUSED or UNCAUSED? Simple question, just answer that.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 05, 2009
Ooh I know- we don't know yet whether quantum phenomena are caused or uncaused. Some tend to think they are statistical approximations of causal events. Also binaryArtist-you are magnificently uninformed. Do you realize that?
acarrilho
3 / 5 (2) Jul 05, 2009
Ooh I know- we don't know yet whether quantum phenomena are caused or uncaused. Some tend to think they are statistical approximations of causal events.


We don't know? Than what rational justification is there to assume the Universe is caused?
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 05, 2009
Buddhism- violent nonetheless; don't rival groups of monks get into fights now and them? And self-immolate in order to make a point? I'm sure I could find other examples. When cornered, humans will tend to fight like hell, just like any other animal.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 05, 2009
I don't think I said I believed it was or was not caused.
Diotrephes
1 / 5 (4) Jul 05, 2009

Don't be a hypocrite, you've been no less abrasive


You want abrasive - fine, let's play hardball.

Time to give you a piece of your own medicine.

I've answered your questions - you just don't like what you read so you carry on like a baby, whining about everyone else, saying nothing of your own, and when you do actually have something to REPEAT or QUOTE - not offering a single iota of sense or argument to back-up other people's claims. Obviously.

Tell me genius, what's experience? What's evidence? Likely you'll balk at answering or find some wiki quote or text book answer from a better man. Your like a school girl with a big mouth, a bitch in heat, a mosquito sucking blood for nourishment leaving a disease in its wake, a 250 lb bugbear, worn out, crippled by life, waiting for scraps at forums, hiding behind your c o m p u t e r screen, moving round the mouse, writing this, erasing that, scurrying into www-holes and toilet bowls.

So is this what you consider accomplishing your goals? Is this what you mean by
sniffing out bullshit
?

Smearing the stink of your own intellectual impoverishment, covered perhaps by a physics degree, maybe a professorial seat and a book or two with your name in the roster - effecting nothing more than a fleas nest to bother dogs.

And believe me, I'm not bothered - this is all game to me.. but tell me - are you having fun any longer?

So go ahead, get your fill of "Bewundrung von Kindern und Affen"... this is your moment of glory, soak it in minute man - cause its all your ever gonna get.

And by the way..

are quantum events CAUSED or UNCAUSED?


answer that yourself - @#$hole.
BinaryArtist
1 / 5 (1) Jul 05, 2009
AdseculaScientiae you prove my point. You post no facts, yet as I predicted, you are fully capable of throwing "poop". Lucky for you there is no requirement for intelligent debate on this site.



Your selected name (AdseculaScientiae) accurately reflects your status as a follower of science, not a leader or one who can think on their own. Listening to someone else's theory and then accepting it as stated is an indication of an inability to think for one's self. The fact that neither believers in God nor believers in evolution are able to produce scientifically acceptable evidence to prove they are correct should not result in outright rejection of either theory. To reject a theory solely because you do not subscribe to that theory does not prove you are correct. It does prove that you are narrow minded. If you are capable of flinging more than shit, then why not make a legitimate arguement, based on facts and not unproven theories or the rantings of an immature mind?

acarrilho
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 05, 2009
You want abrasive - fine, let's play hardball.


Oh my...

Time to give you a piece of your own medicine.


Oooh, what a rush!...

I've answered your questions - you just don't like what you read so you carry on like a baby, whining about everyone else, saying nothing of your own, and when you do actually have something to REPEAT or QUOTE - not offering a single iota of sense or argument to back-up other people's claims. Obviously.

Tell me genius, what's experience? What's evidence? Likely you'll balk at answering or find some wiki quote or text book answer from a better man. Your like a school girl with a big mouth, a bitch in heat, a mosquito sucking blood for nourishment leaving a disease in its wake, a 250 lb bugbear, worn out, crippled by life, waiting for scraps at forums, hiding behind your c o m p u t e r screen, moving round the mouse, writing this, erasing that, scurrying into www-holes and toilet bowls.

So is this what you consider accomplishing your goals? Is this what you mean by
sniffing out bullshit
?

Smearing the stink of your own intellectual impoverishment, covered perhaps by a physics degree, maybe a professorial seat and a book or two with your name in the roster - effecting nothing more than a fleas nest to bother dogs.

And believe me, I'm not bothered - this is all game to me.. but tell me - are you having fun any longer?

So go ahead, get your fill of "Bewundrung von Kindern und Affen"... this is your moment of glory, soak it in minute man - cause its all your ever gonna get.

I'm strangely unaffected...

And by the way..
are quantum events CAUSED or UNCAUSED?


answer that yourself - @#$hole.


Is that it? Whining over? Alright, now enumerate some objective evidence supporting rational belief in a "created Universe". Still waiting...

acarrilho
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 05, 2009
I don't think I said I believed it was or was not caused.


Notice the question was "what rational justification is there to assume the Universe is caused"? I didn't say you believed in it, but apparently the shoe fits, in which case I'm giving you a chance to present something objective that might convince me. You can assume I don't care about evidence contrary to my mindset, but I can assure you that it wouldn't classify as "evidence" to begin with. I'm bound to factor in objective evidence in my perspective of reality. At least in my case, it's not a matter of choice.
Diotrephes
1 / 5 (1) Jul 05, 2009
Ha, ha, your a good sport..

Here's your evidence:

According to the bible, Adam was created in the image of God.

What does a monkey and a creationist have in common?

The same common ancestor.

Q.E.D.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 05, 2009
Ockarillo Dude, wipe the spittle off the screen. I think you are trying to talk to two people at the same time. See, this is why I like black metal- no mosh pit.
acarrilho
5 / 5 (1) Jul 05, 2009
You two seem to just want to play games, but I'm actually being serious. And I'll repeat myself. I cannot help but to factor in objective evidence into my perspective of reality. Someone else's experience and unwarranted assumptions works great for THEM and eventually leads them to finding objective evidence that others can benefit from. Until they do, what they say has as much credibility as their own reputation for doing just that, bringing up objective evidence from their speculations. Unless you presume to have that kind of reputations, your speculations don't mean anything to me.
acarrilho
3 / 5 (2) Jul 05, 2009
Especially since they lack sound logic to begin with.
Diotrephes
1 / 5 (1) Jul 05, 2009
Don't think so acarrilho - you're creating your own comedy - reading into words too quickly without attempting to understand the meaning of the author.

For example, you referred to point two of my earlier argument as follows:

Because you say so? I'm not at all surprised to have you presume to define "evidence" in such a personal and whimsical manner.


Now there's nothing whimsical about defining 'evidence' in terms of empirical experience. The problem here is the word "experience", by which I certainly don't mean to include, e.g., inner spiritual experiences, visions, encounters, or whatever, but plain and simple EMPIRICAL EXPERIENCE, meaning experience by the senses, pure sense-perception. Every level-headed scientist agrees and affirms this.

So, this is a problem regarding terminology and also making assumptions, which you seem to do left and right, not just of my own but of everyone elses arguments.
acarrilho
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 05, 2009
Don't think so acarrilho - you're creating your own comedy - reading into words too quickly without attempting to understand the meaning of the author.

"Reading into words too quickly" is generally what I think I'm a victim of. But it's good that you bring up an example.

For example, you referred to point two of my earlier argument as follows:
"Because you say so? I'm not at all surprised to have you presume to define "evidence" in such a personal and whimsical manner."

Now there's nothing whimsical about defining 'evidence' in terms of empirical experience. The problem here is the word "experience", by which I certainly don't mean to include, e.g., inner spiritual experiences, visions, encounters, or whatever, but plain and simple EMPIRICAL EXPERIENCE, meaning experience by the senses, pure sense-perception. Every level-headed scientist agrees and affirms this.


No, they don't. It's not the "experience" that stands as evidence. It's what is experienced. Very big difference, and assuming differently IS whimsical. Something that can be experienced empirically can stand as evidence of something. Semi-empirical is also up for debate, but any "God" or "Creation" theory doesn't even qualify as that.

So, this is a problem regarding terminology and also making assumptions, which you seem to do left and right, not just of my own but of everyone elses arguments.


Anything I assume unwarrantedly stands there to be corrected.
derricka
not rated yet Jul 05, 2009
All religions are now essentially marginalized. They are forced to feed from, and squabble over, the dubious lesser scraps of knowledge left by the new alpha wolf: science. Watch here, as the former alpha wolf vainly tries to convince the pack that it's little scrap is the entire carcass, and that it's still top dog, or perhaps, dog spelled backwards.
acarrilho
3 / 5 (2) Jul 05, 2009
*yawn*
jeffsaunders
not rated yet Jul 05, 2009
come the revolution all those religious nuts will get lined up against the wall.

First the politicians then the lawyers then the religious peoples of the world oh and other thieves too like actual bandits, corporate managers - there must be other categories nearly as bad.

I know - you think there will be no one left? well don't worry about it, I think there will still be plenty when the dust settles we may have to look for some others.

Like those people with an unnatural affiliation with dogs and cats. Yep when the above have gone I think we can take out all those crazy animal loving loonies, better than cleaning up after them.
lysdexia
not rated yet Jul 06, 2009
But I think the bible describes how to herd and husband the human race brilliantly which is essential to providing the stability and progress needed for innovation [but don't tell the zealots]


as sheepl?

Nevertheless it gives you and I comfort.


gives I? shit-wit. And there is no "phenomena is" or "agenda is".

There were/are no infinities or points. The univers is finite in time and room and work, forever. It may look so neat or few%u2014notwithstanding BinaryArtist's ignoranse/nesciense%u2014but clear (dark) matter drove former's order with its messy ash. If he wants facts, why doesn't he read talk.origins or the sites about evolution? He's afraid of them, how every faith's creation story has been debunked. He doesn't even know all theories are proven already; otherwise, they'd be hýpotheses. BinaryArtist, why do fossils make a neat and smooth cladoghenetic timeline of tacsa rather than randomly or a burst of fossils which look lik God-poofing? Any jumps in the timeline are linked with natural environmental disasters.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Jul 06, 2009
This is interesting... seasoned interlocutors who yet resort to insults and diatribes.


Interesting, more evasion. By someone that is insulting people.

You know nothing of me, nor my argumentation,


Really. Then I guess you haven't actually argued here. No wait you haven't, you have pontificated and then evaded. I recognize the style even if you are yet another person than the previous evaders.

In spite of what the bible says, there are new things under the sun.


Well when you do something I haven't seen before I will let you know. And I really don't consider the Bible to a fount of wisdom so quoting it won't impress me.

Paragraph 3 evasion by claiming others are going on old ideas. Interesting coming from someone that is getting his ideas from a 2,000 year old book.

there is nothing new under the sun, and nothing new is desired.
]

Sure there is. I am still waiting for you to say something new. So far you are pretty much boring since you truly have not said anything new.

First of all, whether I believe in God or not has never been stated once by me, whether in argument or anywhere else on this forum.


It is a standard evasion. It is clear by your behavior. And your quoting the Bible as if it would have a standing in this discussion since there is no reason to think it is any more than the word of man with no education in science nor any special understanding of how the world came to be the way it is.

Of course I could be wrong. All you have to do is say what your beliefs are. I am Agnostic. Said before on this site but I just want to make it clear for you if you hadn't already figured it out.

Second, empirical means visible before the senses, an impression of the world AS IT IS, the dawning of reality, experience.


Which is understood by all. The only reason to keep saying 'empirical' is if you think you have another source of evidence.

Sixth, human reason has the capacity to move beyond empirical experience. In doing so, it becomes capable of formulating a science.


That is merely another way to say that evidence is what we base theories on and evidence is used to support or overturn new theories.

Seventh, in itself scientific knowledge is universal. (e.g. the law of gravitation)


Actually that is an assumption. We make that assumption because we wouldn't get very far if we assumed that universe worked differently elsewhere. However if we find evidence that other places and times had different rules than we would have to consider that assumption to only hold in special circumstances.

Eigth, universal knowledge is not empirical - it only has foundations within the empirical - it is rational, abstract, conceptual.


Another sign of religious thinking. Special definitions that are not the same as used in science.

he human mind may speculate upon the nature of things which have yet to enter within the purview or periphery of human empirical experience.


That is not science. That is philosophy.

Tenth, the concept of a multiverse or vacuum fluctuation is an example of number 9,


Incorrect. The multiverse is philosophy and I do not deny it. Vacuum fluctuations fit actual observations.

, and so too the theory of a first cause.


Speculation and not a theory. The multiverse is an idea and not a theory. Although Wheeler has shown it to be mathematically valid and that it fits the Universe we live in. He did not show that it is only idea that fits. The Copenhagen Model also fits and I suspect my other method of dealing with Uncertainty also fits but I haven't the math to check. I don't even think there is a way to figure which of those, if any, is true.

Each responds to essential questions about the universe --- arising on the basis of our basic and very real, experience of the world.


Only vacuum fluctuations fit that. The other two do not. They are responses to questions we cannot answer based on actual evidence. Wheeler's idea of the multiverse is a response to the questions of probability in QM. You idea is based on religion.

- you'll probably just toss in more of your bullshit antics,


No antics just reason. You are the one that has been evading. Still doing it as well. I have made my position clear. You deny that we can even suspect what your is despite the evidence of your behavior.

but the fact of the matter is that none of you, not a single one, has produced a single idea -


Now that is plain false.

If the Universe must have a cause then the cause must have a cause.

There is one exception that I can think of and a god is not it.

Mathematics.

As far as I can tell the principles of math would be valid even if there was no universe. Useless of course but still valid.


I sincerely doubt you have seen that before. If you did then either we HAVE talked on the net before or you got it from someone that got it from me. And I don't think I have convinced many of this since it seems to take years to become comfortable with the ideas.

Ethelred
Diotrephes
3 / 5 (2) Jul 06, 2009
Acarrilho (Ethelred - see below)

It's not the "experience" that stands as evidence. It's what is experienced.


I fully concord with and appreciate your distinction, and admit that I hadn't seen this very important point before. If you don't mind, I'll make use of it in future discussions, since it does seem an excellent way to distinguish professed inner 'mystical' experiences, from what is termed scientific and empirical, at any rate what science accounts for its own evidence. Indeed, it is the content of experience which determines what is and what is not evidence, not the content of my experience of this experience.

Only one further point - I do not admit that evidence for God enters into the content of what may be accounted for as scientific evidence. My only contention was that from the scientific evidence, one may consistently reason to a first principle; and perhaps stating that there is 'evidence' for this is going to far - nonetheless, consistent reasoning is here valid, which doesn't hold for say 'unicorns' or some other fabrication - its rather a logical ascent from plurality to unity.

Ethelred - I appreciate your fully considering the above views and your critique. First of all, rather than evading as I may have done, I'll freely admit that regarding God, I am at this present point uncertain, so you might say I'm agnostic. I have inclinations toward belief, which is evident in my argumentation, but regarding the issue itself, I'm undecided, and my interest - as a philosopher (which you rightly discern) and as a philosopher of science - is to discern the truth in matters.

If compelling reasoning and/or experience reveals the irrationality or nonexistence of God, then I will concede to a more athiestic view - though I strongly disagree with materialism. There are many more intelligent views out there than materialism which have no god at source.

Still at this point, I see no contradiction in adhering to a kind of 'creationism' (which in fact goes as far back as Plato and pre-christianity), though the views espoused by those having constructed the above 'creationist museum' ridicularize the entire program itself - which is sad for indeed one can think of a 'first principle' outside of the criterion of religion, which may very well have existence - in which case this principle would be more akin to a 'source' than a godhead, a kind of will-in-nature in a more Schopenhauerian sense.

Again - the scientific evidence offers neither contradiction nor affirmation of such a view - and my interest is attempting to discuss what seems to me a CONSISTENT line of argumentation from the ground of empirical experience to the 'first principle'.

Now - this proves nothing, I freely admit that. It is a 'philosophical' idea akin to the concept of a multiverse (regarding vacuum fluctuations, I do not means those on the quantum scale, but views which attempt to remove the difficulty of accounting for the singularity of the big bang by asserting that the universe is simply an infinite series of vacuum expansions and contractions to singularity - which seems to me, as with the multiverse theory, to just beg the question).

Now, I did read your description previously of mathematics - and in philosophy, I have to admit that it is a rather old view, originally espoused by Pythagoras (all is number), and later described by Plato in terms of the Platonic heaven, wherein mathematics were considered 'eternal ideas' or just intermediaries between the first principle and the world (this debate rages on as to which view is correct).

That does not mean that your own views are not novel (ok, I was word-spinning for a while), for indeed in modern times with modern ideas, the account of such entities would be radically different, and perhaps a book would truly be worth the effort here and necessary.

At any rate, there - no evasion - but, I don't see your criticisms as having refuted my line of argumentation. Perhaps you've brought up difficulties, but it seems to me that the argumentation remains crystal clear.
InterPur
not rated yet Jul 06, 2009
To Quantum_Conundrum:

Based upon your comments, you could easily win "The Amazing Randi" 1 million dollars.

Why not go for it?
GunslingerX
3 / 5 (2) Jul 06, 2009
IMO it takes more faith ( in science ) to not be religous.

To be quite honest, it isn't hard to see your Creators finger prints in nature. Ignorance is ignoring them because of a grand theory that you're own eyes will never behold.
MenaceSan
1 / 5 (1) Jul 06, 2009
I've always found fiction to be fun and interesting. Actually it sounds like something i'd like to go see.
Though it is a bit sad that some people believe it is the absolute literal truth.
TrustTheONE
1 / 5 (2) Jul 06, 2009
Yes,you need more faith to believe that a gas explosion create the universe than a Superior Power.

The truth is that there is a global moviment to de-christianise the world. So everything that implies the existence of a God or a Savior is marked as dumb, silly, ignorant and is not heard or considered.

The real issue is if it is possible to God to exist, then maybe the bible would be right, and then I cannot live my life anyway I want, I would need to comply to all do's and dont's "crap", so its better to believe in anything else.

Some belive in fairy tales, others in infinite gods or godesses, I, as a super clever cientist, need a intricate and smart collection of beliefs to substitute that old god idea... i think evolution will suit ;)
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 06, 2009
already; otherwise, they'd be hýpotheses. BinaryArtist, why do fossils make a neat and smooth cladoghenetic timeline of tacsa rather than randomly or a burst of fossils which look lik God-poofing?

People shouldn't try to participate here when drunk or stoned.
Remember, 'the meek shall inherit the earth' is a promise and a goal. Are you wheat or are you chaff?
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 06, 2009
Well when you do something I haven't seen before I will let you know. And I really don't consider the Bible to a fount of wisdom so quoting it won't impress me.

-Good one heehee. Except that, the bible is wisdom itself- it describes nothing less than how to save the human race from itself. 'For God so loved the WORLD ...' -that he would promise the people on it just about anything in order to save it from them. What is more profound than that??
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Jul 06, 2009
Yes,you need more faith to believe that a gas explosion create the universe than a Superior Power.

"That is the biggest fool thing we have ever done. The [atomic] bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives." -Admiral William D. Leahy to Harry Truman
HaHa
alq131
5 / 5 (1) Jul 06, 2009
Maybe the creationists should stop using things that actually HAVE evolved...like cell phones evolving from radios, or computers from calculators, or any technology. In fact, it could be argued that people evolve from babies, to children to adults. Maybe the Creationists could just eschew all other people and technology, become hermits and follow their faith to the logical conclusion...extinction.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (1) Jul 06, 2009
All I want to know, is who created the Creator. After all, the Creator -- who is even more complex and infinite than the universe -- can't have just always been there. The universe can't just have, according to the believers -- so the Creator can have even less...

One other thing: any adherent to any particular religion automatically claims that the majority of humans are wrong (because the majority of humans believes something else.) So how is this any less arrogant than saying that I don't believe in ANY religion, because they are all EQUALLY wrong? In my opinion, the latter is a much more egalitarian and fair-minded point of view. :-P
acarrilho
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 06, 2009
Yes,you need more faith to believe that a gas explosion create the universe than a Superior Power.


One doesn't need faith to "believe" in the Big Bang because there is objective evidence that corroborates the theory. Do you know what "objective" means? It means it's independent of your perspective and biases. Doesn't matter if you're religious or not. The evidence stands for all to acknowledge or refuse. No one says there isn't a measure of trust involved. But one simply has to look around to be reassured the scientific community filters itself. "Superior Power" has no objective evidence corroborating it. I believe that's known as a "no-brainer".

The truth is that there is a global moviment to de-christianise the world.


We should help the addicted drop their habits. Unfortunately, some addictions are tougher than others.

So everything that implies the existence of a God or a Savior is marked as dumb, silly, ignorant and is not heard or considered.


It's been heard ad nauseam, considered ad nauseam, and rejected ad nauseam.

The real issue is if it is possible to God to exist, then maybe the bible would be right, and then I cannot live my life anyway I want, I would need to comply to all do's and dont's "crap", so its better to believe in anything else.


Such hypocrisy. You already cherry-picked all the Christianity's "dont's" according to your own personal "version" of Christianity, which probably matches the prejudices of your community, haven't you? I could be a Christian like that, retrofitting the religion to my taste.

Some belive in fairy tales, others in infinite gods or godesses, I, as a super clever cientist, need a intricate and smart collection of beliefs to substitute that old god idea... i think evolution will suit ;)


"Scientist".
acarrilho
3 / 5 (2) Jul 06, 2009
The real issue is if it is possible to God to exist, then maybe the bible would be right, and then I cannot live my life anyway I want, I would need to comply to all do's and dont's "crap", so its better to believe in anything else.


And why aren't you a Muslim, than? Far more "do's" and "dont's" for you to follow and prove your point. Maybe you don't "believe" in the Koran's divinity so you don't have to follow all their "do's" and "dont's", which are probably not to your "taste". Now tell me you're not a hypocryte.
acarrilho
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 06, 2009
AND even as a militant atheist I inadvertently follow more of Christianity's "do's" and "dont's" (at least the more sophisticated versions of "Christianity", retrofitted to suit modern society) than the vast majority of Christians around me, with their repressed sexuality and overwhelming sense of guilt, bottling up pressure until it explodes.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 06, 2009
I dont know, hardcore Xians like most believers follow the First Mitzva, 'Be fruitful and multiply, fill up the earth [faster than the other side can.] Even your mission-specific religions like Mormon [populate the frontier, mine borax] or Sikh [guard the passes, fight the mongols] were designed around this. The family enables this. Look at Islamic fundamentalism- everybody looks the same, women all covered up- no comparison shopping, no trading up- women make and raise children and thats it. This is all fundamentalism IS- everything else is just talk and throwing rocks.
enantiomer2000
5 / 5 (1) Jul 06, 2009
"Yes,you need more faith to believe that a gas explosion create the universe than a Superior Power."

Actually if you are referring to the big bang, no, it wasn't a gas explosion, it was an explosion of space-time. Although I am not a cosmologist, I apply the scientific method in my reasoning. I don't speculate on what caused the big bang because there simply isn't enough information. "I don't know" is sufficient for me. Further, from what I understand, even cosmologists don't theorize on what happened before the big bang since they don't have enough information. These scientists produce theories based off of mathematics and observable data. They produce these theories to help explain the universe and discard them (reluctantly sometimes) when they are disproven. You on the other hand just want to believe something that is entirely untestable and that is where I draw my objections from. You are free to have your opinions about your religion and I am free to have my own opinions (somewhere along the lines of better left on the shelf with the belief in Zeus and Oden).
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2009
First of all, rather than evading as I may have done, I'll freely admit that regarding God, I am at this present point uncertain, so you might say I'm agnostic.


You were writing in manner that was indistinguishable from a fairly standard religious point of view. Generally I don't think of Agnostics as being ambivalent in religion. Just unwilling to say that there is categorically no god. Not all agree with me on this but, to me, many Atheists insist that there is no god rather then there that there probably is no god. You could say I was a soft Atheist but I find the term Agnostic more fitting.

I keep seeing people claiming to be ex Atheists. Ex-Agnostics are hard to find except as Atheists.

If compelling reasoning and/or experience reveals the irrationality or nonexistence of God, then I will concede to a more athiestic view - though I strongly disagree with materialism.


I go for realism, if you want to call it materialism I will have to ask you to step outside. 'Materialism' has the feel of a Madonna video. One I actually like.

Again - the scientific evidence offers neither contradiction nor affirmation of such a view


Nor can it. Its too vague to be tested.

The use of 'empirical', which seems redundant to me, implies, as I said before, that there is another kind of evidence. The most likely thing to be claimed as evidence in a discussion that involves religion is revealed truths. Which aren't always truths and have yet to be shown as revealed, as in from a divine source.

In at least one religion the revealed truths may have come from a psychiatric patient. But the Urantians refuse to reveal who the revealed truths came from. I have only run across one Urantian so far. No one has admitted to being a Scientologist in any discussion that I have been involved in. Not even in those rare cases that I troll for one.

And now for that Scientologist troll.

Scientology has only one religious belief, L. Ron Hubbard shalt not pay taxes.

So far not one bite. I am so disappointed.

Perhaps you've brought up difficulties, but it seems to me that the argumentation remains crystal clear.


I think it may be clear in your mind. Its your writing that is unclear for me. Carefully considered words and, more to the point, testing them in public can help refine what you write.

Then again I have tried to refine some funny stuff and then wished I had kept the original since it didn't seem to work as well when looked at later. My humor works best when I short on sleep. Even when I look at it later.

Most of the time. Several times what was supposed to be funny turned out to be incomprehensible the next day. No drugs involved except fatigue. Then again maybe it was supposed to be a brilliant argument. It was that hard to tell.

Ethelred
trackactor
not rated yet Jul 07, 2009
Religion is fine, if you want to believe it, that's your business. However, when it pretends to be science that's another matter. When it pretends to explain it's dangerous - it's like an alcoholic on meth. Still, science doesn't have answers for everything and it generates as many questions and problems, if not more, than it resolves. But that's fine, one can still take a critical approach to its findings. If religion wants to play science it has to be subject to the same caveats of refined criticism. The Bible is steeped in myth, not all of it Judaic. All peoples have their myths of origin, but we would be wise not to mix them up in our science because we would simply be leading ourselves astray, like people who are searching for Noah's ark in modern Turkey. Nevertheless, science's idea how everything began is equally conjectural, one would be astounded if anyone came up with hard facts. When the chips are down on the table, a good scientist could declare the first moments of life went unrecorded, but that's just a sophisticated way of saying, "We don't really know!" So, for anyone to get heated over the impasse between religion and science is a BIG laugh. Come on, people, who do we think we're kidding?
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2009
Did anyone else get a 419 personal message recently?

Hello My Dear ,
My message may come to you as a suprise since is someone you have not meet before i am contacting you in this regard. My name is Cecy Williams From ivoiry coast,i saw your profile and i decided to write to you concerning $16.500 Million U.S.A Dollars my late father deposited in a bank, here in Abidjan Cote D'ivoire. I will give you all details and informations about this when i receive your reply.
Email: misscecywilliams@hotmail.fr
Thanks you
Cecy Williams.


I have replied in a PM. Going to see if I can string it out but I suspect that the alleged Cecy will only reply in email. The only clever thing was that it doesn't claim to be from Nigeria. I think the spammer is under the impression that Ethelred is woman's name. So it might the only apparent women will receive this 419 spam.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2009
IMO it takes more faith ( in science ) to not be religous.


It only takes a preference for reality. No faith is needed.

To be quite honest, it isn't hard to see your Creators finger prints in nature. Ignorance is ignoring them because of a grand theory that you're own eyes will never behold.


I am not ignoring nature. I am going on nature. I see no need in nature for a creator.

In fact in nature we see evidence that a number of religions are wrong. All religions that think the world is young are wrong. All religions that insist that evolution doesn't exist are wrong.

Now if you happen to know of a clear finger print of a creator how about you post it in this discussion. Then we can discuss its clarity or more likely what you are missing. I have seen a number things claimed as evidence of a creator. I haven't see a single claim hold up under scrutiny.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2009
Yes,you need more faith to believe that a gas explosion create the universe than a Superior Power.


I don't think that is quite accurate. The faith required would be equal since there is no evidence for either.

Now the Big Bang has actual evidence.

he truth is that there is a global moviment to de-christianise the world.


I have news for you. There are 6 billion humans and the majority are not Christians despite the very long movement to Christianize the world.

So everything that implies the existence of a God or a Savior is marked as dumb,


I don't see anything the implies a god besides believers. However many believers are not dumb or even ignorant. Now the Creationists are ignorant in almost every case, keep in mind, ignorance is curable. A few actually know that their faith goes against the evidence. Some even worked on that silly museum.

The real issue is if it is possible to God to exist, then maybe the bible would be right, and then I cannot live my life anyway I want, I would need to comply to all do's and dont's "crap", so its better to believe in anything else.


Now that is a load of crap. Look at the US prison population. Very few non-believers. Much less than in the general population. However Christians make up 80 per cent of the inmates. Lots of moslems as well. So based on actual measurable morals the Agnostics and Atheists are far more moral than the Christians.

Some belive in fairy tales, others in infinite gods or godesses, I, as a super clever cientist, need a intricate and smart collection of beliefs to substitute that old god idea... i think evolution will suit ;)


That is sad. Are you really that incompetent that you can't argue your side without resorting to straw men? So far you only seem to be able to do that. Not just on this thread either.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2009
Except that, the bible is wisdom itself


Yeah that must be why it has light and morning and evenings and growing grass,

And no Sun. That is so wise.

t describes nothing less than how to save the human race from itself.


Actually it describes how to appease a non-existent god that is alleged in the Bible to have slaughtered all life on Earth except the contents of Noah's Big Ass Boat. Fortunately for many believers that don't go in for Genesis the Flood is only a tale told by ignorant men since it never happened.

'For God so loved the WORLD ...'


That he killed nearly everything in it. See Genesis.

What is more profound than that??


The Entity that is alleged to have killed so many is just a fantasy. That is profound.

You can't have real promises from non-existent beings. Since the Jehovah you think you are quoting is supposed to be the same god as the Jehovah in Genesis we can be sure it does not exist since Genesis is just plain wrong about the world. Couldn't even get even manage to have a Sun for the light for three days.

What could be sillier than that?

All right the Fish Slapping Dance in Monty Python is sillier. I will give you that.

Ethelred
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 07, 2009
Ethelred sir thanks for acknowledgement. The flood story is a metaphor for something far more salient. In the original sumerian, the enuma elish, god decided to empty the world because the din of humanity became too loud- in other words, it became too overcrowded. Zeus created the Illyrian war to accomplish the same thing. I see the this story as a description of the inevitable flood of humanity upon the earth, and the ark as the preserver of knowledge, a priesthood of enochians dedicated to preserving it through this flood. To Xians, their religion offers an escape from reason, which most people have little capacity for. That's why you can't use logic against them, or point out for instance that archeology has pretty much proved Solomon, Moses, and Joshua didn't exist. Better to make fun of them-
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 07, 2009
We both know that it is people that are ruining the world. The Sumerians knew this. What's a priesthood to do, but to begin to conspire against the human race? They knew that their offspring were their only hope at immortality, as Dawkins might tell you. Over time these priests became very good at turning the people against one another. -Book of Enoch
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 07, 2009
No matter what, people will die. If there isn't war there will be war. If there isn't famine there will be famine. If there isn't disease there will soon be anyway. Priests spread plague throught Europe in the dark ages, as an effective way of 'emptying the world'. There is a season for everything.
PinkElephant
not rated yet Jul 07, 2009
So in case anyone cares, I actually have a decent logical argument against the notion of Creator. That is, the notion of Ultimate Creator of Everything: a Creator that exists before ANYTHING else, and from whom/which EVERYTHING else springs forth. And the argument is actually quite simple, relying on basic concepts like information and computation:

An intelligent creator must have structure. After all, intelligence implies, at a minimum: long-term memory (as a repository of facts/knowledge), working memory (as contextual record of 'what I'm up to right now'), computational capacity (to string along concepts and thoughts), means for obtaining information (particularly if one is omniscient!) -- that is sensorium, and means for effecting change upon whatever is the surrounding environment -- motorium. All such faculties require an underlying structure that can encode state and support state transitions (interactions), and this underlying structure (e.g. in case of humans, at a minimum: space/time, and atomic matter) is more fundamental than the intelligent entity constructed and operating on top of it. Thus, before any Creator can exist, the fundamental substrate of the Creator's existence must exist first. Ergo, any such putative Creator cannot be and is not the fundamental and primary cause and source of everything; even if it existed, it would merely be a consequence or side-effect of something even more primary and fundamental: something which I would call the Universe in its totality.
LBrender
1 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2009
I would offer that evolution is certainly no more plausible than a creator. That bodies as incredibly complex as a human's could spring from primordial amino acids, no matter the time frame, is in itself a dramatic leap in faith. I too see that the world is incredibly old yet to say that the incredibly efficient natural world around us is nothing more than lucky happenstance over geologic ages is no less fantastic than the belief in a divine being. Furthermore, I would offer that the only way belief seems "crazy" in reference to our beginings is if you are predicated on the assumption that there just can't be a God, which certainly no one here knows for beyond a doubt. Perhaps it is just as much that the learned don't *want* to believe in God as much as any evidence or reasoning.

But in reference to the emotions running so high about it; that some marvel at the animosity the "religious" of the world have for the learned astounds me. The arguements are as much character attacks against the "stupid hoi polloi" and their quaint ways as anything reasonable, perhaps more so. The irritating arrogance of the attacks of the intelligentsia, as if that were a group who could agree on anything, on people of faith conveys to me a disdain for any notion that might mean they are not better or smarter than other people and that they maybe, just maybe, might be be responsible for their actions and thoughts to more than their own excusatory selves. Anyone who would claim the moral high ground over people of faith, his or her neighbors, family, and friends, yet disdains, mocks, and speaks with unconcealed contempt about them presents a very thin case for their own superiority.
LBrender
1 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2009
I would offer that evolution is certainly no more plausible than a creator. That bodies as incredibly complex as a human's could spring from primordial amino acids, no matter the time frame, is in itself a dramatic leap in faith. I too see that the world is incredibly old yet to say that the incredibly efficient natural world around us is nothing more than lucky happenstance over geologic ages is no less fantastic than the belief in a divine being. Furthermore, I would offer that the only way belief seems "crazy" in reference to our beginings is if you are predicated on the assumption that there just can't be a God, which certainly no one here knows beyond a doubt. Perhaps it is just as much that the learned don't want to believe in God as much as any evidence or reasoning.

But in reference to the emotions running so high about it; that some marvel at the animosity the "religious" of the world have for the learned astounds me. The arguements are as much character attacks against the "stupid hoi polloi" and their %u201Cquaint ways%u201D as anything reasonable, perhaps more so. The irritating arrogance of the attacks of the intelligentsia, as if that were a group who could agree on anything, on people of faith conveys to me a disdain for any notion that might mean they are not better or smarter than other people and that they maybe, just maybe, might be responsible for their actions and thoughts to more than their own excusatory selves. Anyone who would claim the moral high ground over people of faith, his or her neighbors, family, and friends, yet disdains, mocks, and speaks with unconcealed contempt about them presents a very thin case for their own superiority.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2009
@LBrender

I would offer that evolution is certainly no more plausible than a creator.


That's certainly not much of an offering, guy.

That bodies as incredibly complex as a human's could spring from primordial amino acids, no matter the time frame, is in itself a dramatic leap in faith.


I'll grant you, that IS pretty unbelievable: like most other contorted misinterpretations of science by people who never bothered to first study that which they nonetheless endeavor to criticize...

...to say that the incredibly efficient natural world around us is nothing more than lucky happenstance over geologic ages is no less fantastic than the belief in a divine being.


Again, as fantastic as most other bunkum that comes out of people who never managed to grasp the concept of natural variation, nor the concept of natural selection. Concepts, incidentally, simple enough for a child to understand... Unfortunately, with no such grounding in reality, of course the rest of it all appears like a fantastic random happenstance.

...the only way belief seems "crazy" in reference to our beginings...


There are a lot of aspects to any religion, which are far more manifestly "crazy". When it comes to belief in reference to beginnings, "crazy" isn't the word I'd use. I think "anthropomorphic", "naive", "solipsistic", "egocentric", "frivolous", and even "capricious" would all fit the bill much better. Oh, let's also add "ontologically worthless" and "epistemologically counterproductive" to the pile.

...predicated on the assumption that there just can't be a God, which certainly no one here knows beyond a doubt...


Really?? Where did this concept of "a God" come from, if not from the human brain. Certainly nobody has seen this entity; it's certainly not an objective truth. We also can't be certain without a doubt that Leprechauns don't exist; but I think it's safe to assume they do not.

I'll also call your attention to your phrasing of "a God". What, so certain -- are we -- that it's just one God? Why not 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, .... 1,000,000,000,000,003?
zilqarneyn
1 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2009
Ethelred pretends to respond to what I said (July 2). Typical evolutionist.


There is no infinite regression there. That is the point of the word "godless" there. There is no nonesense in what I link to. Vice versa, that lists the nonesense of evolutionists. Ignorance is your option, of course -- whether by not reading, or by getting lost in your own noise.

Surely, Allah is Yahweh (Jehovah). But muslims maintain that those old books (other than the Quran) have been changed. Thus, not precisely reflecting what Allah (Yahweh, Jehovah, Rahman) told people wit His true words. So far, I have not read Bible or Torah fully (or, at any significant length), but so far as I have seen the first portion of genesis, that makes sense to logic. (That is why I would like to have the list of objections, why people object to that, in the first place. Perhaps, just how Ethelred is thoughtlessly opposing what I wrote, people oppose genesis, just the same. Why should I take the loudest opinion as the truth?)

Evolution is dependent on mutationgod. Go to your local McDonalds, persist to have chinese food. If they would not change their menu to have chinese food, you have no chance of "selecting" that there, naturally. :-)) There, you do not even have the chance -- surely, unles they would like to kick you out before midnight, but otherwise, thousands of millenia would not suffice. There need to be some chance. Furthermore, that needs to act in the time we have (merely billions of millenia, or perhaps less). Thus, evolution's mutationgod is essentially trying to rival Allah. (Allah provides our fate list of choices, but free-will is only for humans & genies. The rest of the Universe live strictly by instinct, thus your mutationgod is only half-baked observations. With more data, the Universe will acknowledge the Creator even more. But your blind faith in "convergent/parallel evolutionism" as if they were supporting evolution ("tree"), might keep you in your false belief.)

Evolutionists believe in that most absurd (doublethink) chancegod, that is, mutationgod. That is your god-of-the-gaps.

Infinite time I'm referring to is, before the Universe, that is, the time for the Creator himself. Not bound by time, that is. Besides, couldyou cite the passage in genesis that tell the Earth is young? I know a herd of simpletons (hypocrites) who try to poke to the Quran with absurd mockery. So, perhaps you thouht some wrong hypotheses about genesis. How might I know that the genesis in the current Bible, is one of the changed portions? If not changed, and if translated right (or, kept in the Torah), then you are fooling yourself. This is the question.


What flaws in DNA? DNA is a massively sophisticated system. (By "flaws," you might be referring to the dogma of mutationgod working wonders through flaws? That is your ignorance, your god-of-the-gaps. Time might tell how things are even more orderly than we know today. Besides, satans/genies have free-will. The "mutations"/cancer/abortions might have been partly satans' transgressions, that we counteract by praying (with words & manually). I hope, the satan will be pinpointable with instruments, too. (Nanowires of bacteria, have been in the report.)


The text (I wrote) that Ethelred is quoting, is about times before the Universe, mainly. (The point in there, is about the path to perfectness. After becoming perfect, Allah might or might not have changed Himself. How is that our business? Our question is about the godless genesis, without infinite regression.) Again, as I've said, all this "cosmology" is in the face of materialists trying to suggest "godless" scenarios. The true story of Allah existing first, miht have been through some story that we have no clue of (unless one of those we think about materialism now). I'm not telling a story, but telling the fitting logic concerning the pervasive stories materialists like to tell.

Besides "not changing" in the Bible, might refer to Allah keeping His word. (Like how I'm firm, and not changing. But I'm getting white hair.) That is, Allah is principled. (But I have no opinion whether He would like to change Himself. He is perfect, but not restrictable not to shift to some vaious states of perfect looks/etc. No sense of talking what we do not know.)

Ethelred is obviously lieing when listin the Quran, too. (But next, repents himself? Confesses that he has not seen the Quran.) Where does he know the Quran not to reflect the real world? Cite examples? I guess, you would list what hypocrites (simpletons) like to guess about. If you do nt understand all of the content of the Universe in one pass, how would you know what all of the Quran is telling? Time is telling that, the Quran is keeping fresh. (And Torah/Bible might not be entirely changed, either. Thus, there is life in portions of those, too.)

The blunt opposition of Ethelred, coupled with his reservation that there might exist some god, suggests the old hat, masonic "enlightenment" submission.

((BTW, when talking of (sunni) Islam, I'm not subscribing to submitters, alevi/qizilbash, "protestant Islam," wahhabi, or shia types of sects. Some of those might have similarities, but I might not know how they relate or not. The word "moslem" that Ethelred is listing, is how some submitters talk. That hints a type of misunderstanding. Likewise, next, I'm not expecting to get accusations of (heretically) suggesting all people being "Allah," because I've told that I'm not alevi/qizilbash, either. Wikipedia lists their view, if you would like to know. That is not (sunni) Islamic, though.))

Thanks a lot for that list of "Bible"-contradictions, but I have such lists/books (written by muslims) at home -- in the category of what the old books became, because of the hacks of old people. What you list, are heretical from Islamic point-of-view. (Not interested in Cain's wanderings, though.) I was looking to find why materialists oppose genesis, with science.

No, Ethelred does have blind faith in evolution. Belief in parallel-evolutionism, is blind faith. Fossil records show that.

Dobzhansky (next, Ayala, and through support, Ethelred) swearing at the concept of the Creator, is a self-important, profane strategy. That Russian bully (upon vodka?), then his student Ayala (wine?), keep telling lots of unjustifiable statements, together with calling foul names about the Creator. Trying to refute this point, is pointing at your self-centric faith concept. After foolng yourself with absurd evolutionisms, you start assaulting the Creator. What a profane thoughtlessness.


Allah never told you that, you would be perfect in this world (but, the best of His creation). Just the vice versa, about perfectness. Allah is perfect, not yourself. (But in the next world (for heavenly people), there is a perfect state of living.) What kind of religious reading told you that you would be perfect in this world?! What is the target you are objecting, that is?

Interim summary: The list continues like this. Ethelred is opposing all of what I've said, but thoughtlessly. If so, then do not read the Quran, either. There is more than enough a list of simpletons who tell absurd things about that, too.


That review I wrote, is a review (as the word is telling).
http://www.I-slam...nsky.htm
Its target text is assaulting to the concept of the Creator (and Dobzhansky is profanely name-calling Him). Thus, appropriately, I point out that the concept of the Creator creating the Universe, is entirely sensible. Refuting Dobzhansky.


The Universe is not a subject of evolution. (Big bang is a highly delicate process, people have been pointing out.) The evolution is thought to have been in this World. Right? Or else, you escape to some meteor, because of failing to support evolutionism in this World? Is that the "Universe" thing about your evolutionism? Yet another god-of-the-gaps? meteorgod?

By environment, do you think some templateod (world-wide standards committee)? :-)) Ludicrous. "Convergent- & paralel-evolutionisms" have been your blindfaith. You accuse young Earth creationists (some of the christians) about merely opposing some geological dating techniques, but you commit to logical fallacies, and inventing lots of gods who were furthermore standardizing their products. That is ludicrous. Ludicrous. Ludicrous. That is how (false) faith blinds people.

Seeing how you fall to logical fallacies, even when I'm explaining those, supports even the young Earth creationists, unfortunately. If "scientists" are so fanatical to believe in para-evo, how would ther reports be [entirely] trustable? They lack the most basics of the thinking ability. If "para-evo" is your dogma, there is no type of "test" to test the concept of evolution.


So, why was Sartre opposing the Creator? (The story of him involves having felt the God intensely when he was burning a carpet. Just not willing to acknowledge the God, and he sought refuge in the infinite-regression problem, too.) Thusly, hell is opposing lots of bad behavior in this world. See, even "ethicists" find causes to escape. (I'm not neglecing that Sartre or others, might have been opposing some bad church people, some hierarchies. But, that is no problem of Allah.)


Ironically, Ethelred's contrasting the genesis1 vs. genesis2, in this case, reminds me of something else, that might help the genesis texts, too. I have thought this for a lot more, but fits this, too. That is, I acknowledge that Allah is the Creator. For what we witness, the Universe (big bang), fossil records, that is the typical Creator's footprint. That is, He first created the plan (top-down, from humans (specifically, Muhammed (s.a.s.)) then to the Universe that would contain humans), next He kick started the big bang.
zilqarneyn
1 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2009
Ironically, Ethelred's contrasting the genesis1 vs. genesis2, in this case, reminds me of something else, that might help the genesis texts, too. I have thought this for a lot more, but fits this, too. That is, I acknowledge that Allah is the Creator. For what we witness, the Universe (big bang), fossil records, that is the typical Creator's footprint. That is, He first created the plan (top-down, from humans (specifically, Muhammed (s.a.s.)) then to the Universe that would contain humans), next He kick started the big bang. Building contractors work that way, too. (From the Bible, not reading first person, but I saw the like-minded, Perry White site, referring to "first, there was the word." Thus, the Bible is actually telling the point, too. But hypocrites have some troubled double-standard in processing texts. (The sites for indoctrinating the evolutionists, which Ethelred lists are well-known, and widely ridiculed, already. I surely slam those, but without necessarily listing their names. They have no new opinion. Only dogma.) I surely respond to the tiniest shred of any evolutionist dogma. Firmly.


I could list lots of aspects of how Allah is creative the way we know creativenes (and I keep telling those). For example,
1) fossi records in the rock strata are severely discontinuous and have lots of "convergent/parallel-evolution" both of which point at the Creator. Some stack of old computers would have exactly that pattern, too. At the bottom, CP/M, and Unix, then MSDOS, then Win 3.0 & 3.1 with MSDOS, then Win95, then WinXP, and all with suitable, well-fitting (cohort similarity of) applications. All with massively sense-of-purpose.
2) journals/research ublish incrementally, too. Referring to the prior art modules, and having a sene-of-purpose with their time/cohort.

Thus, all the data (beyond gaps of knowledge), certainly point to the Creator's past-&-living creatures. No doubt that, Allah is creating modularly, how we know in the software business.
http://www.imame....-frz.htm

That is, what "antropomorphism" I'm telling of, is fitting to. But Ethelred might have been some bureaucrat somewhere, or secretary of some masonic lodge. Then, no sense of telling about creative people, perhaps.

Thus, Allah is in the best tradition of the creators we know, and He has not hidden that. Vice versa, Yasin(36):78 in the Quran, is fitting to respond to the evolutionists, too. (Evolutionism was old stuff, besides, Allah knew the future.) That ayet is telling that, in the context of fossils, "he (either the opponent of afterlife, or, the evolutionist) struck an example, forgetting his creation."




This responds to all of what Ethelred was supposedly responding to me, on July 2, 2009. But Ethelred is only heckling. Rather than post in this cacophony, I might list things in what I publish, because people would not like to go through all of such pretenses of responses, until they find what I'm telling back to that. (As I have told, I was trying to finish those texts (to publish through http://www.I-slam.info/ ). But came back, not to pass a week without responding back. Getting off, for another week now. See tweeting until then http://www.twitte...lqarneyn )




P.S: Worse, this list is too long to waste time. If somebody posts something responding to something I wrote, then send me some e-mail pointing to the URL of this/that thread, so that I might zoom in quickly. Address to "zilqarneyn" in your response, for me.
zilqarneyn
not rated yet Jul 08, 2009
Oops. The name of that man I quoted the Bible through, is Perry Marshall, not Perry White.

I wonder what this mutation might have been achieving, so far. :-))




((So, who was Perry White? I'll look up. I had forgotten the surname, it turns out. Now I noticed the fault, upon seeing the name "Perry Marshall" in the bookmarks.))
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2009
hat's why you can't use logic against them, or point out for instance that archeology has pretty much proved Solomon, Moses, and Joshua didn't exist.


I can use logic. I just don't expect instant changes. Or frequent changes.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2009
I would offer that evolution is certainly no more plausible than a creator.


You can offer a 16 million dollars like the 419 spam that I recently received in a PM here but it won't mean anything more that the spam did. There is vast evidence for evolution and none for a creator.

That bodies as incredibly complex as a human's could spring from primordial amino acids, no matter the time frame, is in itself a dramatic leap in faith.


No. The time frame is billions of years and I for one don't expect Humans to come out if the whole thing is done again. What evolves is what evolves. There is no map and therefor no specified complexity(a noise that means whatever Dempski wants it to mean).

3.8 billion years is a VERY long time. I don't go for amino acids only. RNA and amino acids both seems more likely to me. However evolution is NOT about biogenesis. Its what happens after life gets started.

Furthermore, I would offer that the only way belief seems "crazy" in reference to our beginings is if you are predicated on the assumption that there just can't be a God,


No. I see no need for a god to shape life. Evolution covers it quite well.

which certainly no one here knows for beyond a doubt.


Sure are a lot of people on both sides that think they have no doubt. You are seem to be one of those. I am not. Doubt doesn't really enter into it for me though as doubt implies that I care more than I do which way it is. There may or may not be a god. But there is no reason that I can see to believe in one besides wishful thinking. And I am not into wishful thinking.

Perhaps it is just as much that the learned don't *want* to believe in God as much as any evidence or reasoning.


Or perhaps it the total lack of evidence for a god. That is the case for most Agnostics anyway and the majority of Atheists as far as I can tell.

Anyone who would claim the moral high ground over people of faith, his or her neighbors, family, and friends, yet disdains, mocks, and speaks with unconcealed contempt about them presents a very thin case for their own superiority.


You seem to like straw men very much. How did you get so enamored with creating false opponents to attack?

Any time you want to engage in actual debate go right ahead. In the meantime I think I can point out a few problems with morals in that last bit.

Christians make up the vast majority of the prison population. Unbelievers less than one per cent, a fraction of the percentage in the general population. Tens if not hundreds of millions of people have been killed for being a member of the wrong religion over time. Murdered by members of other religions. I think the fanatics of the past and the fanatics of the present that has lead some to a bit of hyperbole in regard to the hazards of religion. Unfortunately it is only mildly hyperbolic as can be seen by a perusal of history and the frequent religious killings that are still taking place.

So you might want to stick to physical facts and leave the moral questions alone as they do not speak well for religion in general. I look forward to rational discussion with you without claims that I am immoral for not believing as you.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2009
Ethelred pretends to respond to what I said (July 2). Typical evolutionist.


I can see that this is going to go well. Right off the bat a false statement and a ludicrous attempt at a personal attack.

You were the one that wanted this. If you can't handle a reasoned and fact based response that is your problem.

There is no infinite regression there.


False. If the Universe needs a god a god needs a god. Its the exact same reasoning.

. There is no nonesense in what I link to.
]

Sorry but that site was loaded with bad pseudo logic. If you don't want it critiqued don't post the link.

Vice versa, that lists the nonesense of evolutionists.


It didn't do that. It made some false statements and made a lot of claims that did not proceed from any evidence at all or just plain ignored reality.

Ignorance is your option, of course -- whether by not reading, or by getting lost in your own noise.


I read it. It was crap. You are lost in your own unverifiable beliefs.

This is going so well. Pure emotional reasoning on your part and no effort whatsoever to show any errors on mine. Just bare faced unsupported claims, much worse than I expected.

Surely, Allah is Yahweh (Jehovah).


Only if either exists and even then there are those that would disagree. There is certainly a considerable difference in the rules of the two versions of the Middle Eastern god.

But muslims maintain that those old books (other than the Quran) have been changed.


Maintain what you like but you have to prove it to carry any weight in a discussion. Besides I don't really care about YOUR problems with Christianity as I find both religions to be at odds with reality.

but so far as I have seen the first portion of genesis, that makes sense to logic.


There isn't a lot of logic in Genesis.

Perhaps, just how Ethelred is thoughtlessly opposing what I wrote, people oppose genesis, just the same.


Thoughtless is you. Not me. I have thought rather a lot on Genesis. Please see the errors in the order of creation above.

Why should I take the loudest opinion as the truth?)


You shouldn't. So start by ignoring the Imams as they have the loudest voices. Next the Televangelists would be good to ignore. I go on facts myself rather than opinion. True there are opinions involved and points of view but I try to base those on reality and not the teachings of people that haven't tested their beliefs against reality.

Evolution is dependent on mutationgod.
]

I don't quite get that last word. I am going to pretend that you meant to say mutations. There is no god involved. Just basic organic and bio-chemistry. Mutations are unavoidable so no god is needed. And mutation is only part of evolution. Natural Selection is the real key and anyone claiming otherwise is either ignorant or lying. Ignorant is the cause in most cases but there are a few liars out there.

Furthermore, that needs to act in the time we have (merely billions of millenia, or perhaps less)


You really are ignorant on this aren't you? Its time to learn something and fix that. I know that calling people ignorant tends to make them mad BUT ignorance is curable. You CAN learn if you want to. Only if I were to call you intentionally ignorant would it be an insult. Then again many fundamentalist ARE intentionally ignorant.

Not billions of millenia as that would be a thousand times the age of the universe. Several paths of evidence show the Solar System to be around 4.6 billion years old and the Earth to be nearly that. The oldest known rocks of earthly origin are about 3.8 billion years old.

Thus, evolution's mutationgod is essentially trying to rival Allah.


You really don't get it. Allah or Jehovah are not involved so there isn't a rivalry as there is no god involved in mutations, just basic bio-chemistry.

(Allah provides our fate list of choices, but free-will is only for humans & genies.


Do let us know when you come across a Djan.

thus your mutationgod is only half-baked observations.


No god. No half baked observations either. Extensive evidence and a lot of testing is the reality. How the heck can you argue that evolution is a crock when you don't know the first thing about it? Arguing from ignorance is a really poor path to wisdom.

. But your blind faith in "convergent/parallel evolutionism" as if they were supporting evolution ("tree"), might keep you in your false belief.)


Its simply reality and not belief.

Evolutionists believe in that most absurd (doublethink) chancegod, that is, mutationgod. That is your god-of-the-gaps.


Sorry but the god of the gaps is for the religious. I don't have a god. I see no evidence for one.

. Besides, couldyou cite the passage in genesis that tell the Earth is young?


Genesis one. Really you should read it. Six days and the days have mornings and evenings. A fairly simple counting of the ages of people in the Bible results in the age of the Earth being a little over 6,000 years. But only if you take the longest versions of the ages as there are contradictory ages for some the people.

Keep in mind that it is believers that have done the math not me. They just use the actual numbers from the Bible. Blame the Bible not me.

So, perhaps you thouht some wrong hypotheses about genesis.


Perhaps you are engaging in wishful thinking. Go read up on it instead of making guesses and hoping I won't notice that you don't actually know what you are talking about.

How might I know that the genesis in the current Bible, is one of the changed portions?


Look at the oldest version you can find. They are alleged to be similar and of course believers in a revealed truth claim them to be almost exact. I have seen the rules for copying the Bible and they are exceedingly exacting. The error rate is likely to be quite low.

If not changed, and if translated right (or, kept in the Torah), then you are fooling yourself. This is the question.


More like an accusation but you are the one that has to check on this. I already did it but you clearly are unwilling to take my word despite the fact that I have been as accurate as I can be.

A good online collection of Bibles and tools for studying it. Found it years ago.

http://www.bluele...ndex.cfm

Genesis one King James version. Because you would be surprised at the way some people hate anything but the KJV. Positively toxic.

http://www.bluele...fm?b=Gen&c=1&v=1&t=KJV#top

Picking out one verse to show the tools available.

Gen 1:5
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.


And the evening = `ereb

`ereb eh'·reb

even, evening, night, mingled, people, eventide, eveningtide, Arabia, days, even, evening, evening, eventide

So you can check what it really says in the original Hebrew. I have done this for a number of verses in Genesis while discussing it with a guy called 68Nate on the Maximum PC Comport forum and occasionally with other since then. Then was 2000.

What flaws in DNA? DNA is a massively sophisticated system.


I am wearing glasses. Some people have one hit mutations and are choking on there own mucus BUT if they had only one copy of the mutation, as many do, they would be highly resistant to intestinal diseases. If you think there are no flaws in anyone's DNA you simply don't have a clue.

That is your ignorance, your god-of-the-gaps.


No god. Not ignorance. You really haven't taken a single biology class have you? Not even read a book. OK I haven't taken any biology classes myself. But I have read a fair number of books. Biology sucked when I was in High School so I bypassed it for chemistry.

Besides, satans/genies have free-will.


They also don't exist. You have hard time thinking in non-religious terms I see. That will make it pretty much impossible for you to discuss things rationally unless you start trying real hard.

The text (I wrote) that Ethelred is quoting, is about times before the Universe, mainly.


Try being more clear then. However we know nothing of the times before the Universe. It seems possible we never will.

After becoming perfect, Allah might or might not have changed Himself. How is that our business?


For a guy that wanted a discussion you sure seem to be avoiding one. Unless you can show evidence to support your god I am not interested in your beliefs as they depend on things that simply are not in agreement with the real world.

Again, as I've said, all this "cosmology" is in the face of materialists trying to suggest "godless" scenarios.


I will try to explain this to you. I fear that your religious thinking will get in the way but I will try anyway. Just for the moment try to think about something without bringing your religion into it.

It is unscientific to assume that a god did it. Whatever IT is. This is because such an assumption makes it VERY unlikely that you will ever find an answer besides claiming that god did it. That is not science that is avoiding finding the truth. If a god is not responsible for the way things happen in EVERY detail than it is possible to find out the laws for the way things work. But to do so you must first assume that there is something to find. If you assume there is nothing except a supernatural being than you won't find the law that is there.

Do you understand this concept? If you don't there is no way to discuss science with you because you won't be willing to explore the possibility that there are rules and laws for the way the universe works. Thinking that way was a large part of the Dark Age in Europe. They thought that everything was a separate act of god and that there was no way to understand anything except through religion.

You seem to be this sort. Please surprise me.

Besides "not changing" in the Bible, might refer to Allah keeping His word.


Not a Christian belief. You are welcome to it if you want.

Ethelred is obviously lieing when listin the Quran, too.


Lying is for life and death. You are neither.

But next, repents himself? Confesses that he has not seen the Quran.)


I cannot repent for something I did not do. The Quran was written by a man. We have only his word for anything in it. It is clear that this concept is presently one you have extreme difficulty even understanding that others would ever feel that way.

guess, you would list what hypocrites (simpletons) like to guess about.


You sure are into personal attacks aren't you?

If you do nt understand all of the content of the Universe in one pass, how would you know what all of the Quran is telling?


It is considerably smaller than the Universe or haven't you noticed.

The blunt opposition of Ethelred,


Blunt hell. Its sharp and well reasoned.

The list continues like this. Ethelred is opposing all of what I've said, but thoughtlessly.


Well THAT is a thoughtless statement. I have spent considerable time thinking of these replies. Even the mere word count should show that.

If so, then do not read the Quran, either. There is more than enough a list of simpletons who tell absurd things about that, too.


You give me evidence that is the revealed word of a real god and then I will read it. In the meantime I have seen not a single reason from you. I have seen a considerable amount of unreasoned hate.

I did not go looking for you. You came to me.

Its target text is assaulting to the concept of the Creator (and Dobzhansky is profanely name-calling Him).


Rubbish. He can't profane something he doesn't believe in.

Thus, appropriately, I point out that the concept of the Creator creating the Universe, is entirely sensible. Refuting Dobzhansky.


You only flapped your fingers. And I see that I guessed right. It is your site.

With evolutionism, Dobzhansky is lobbying to retire God, or else, Dobzhanky is willing to be pejorative, by calling Him various foul names -- (hasha) "senseless operation," "in a jocular mood," "blind process," "cheating," "absentminded."


I did this before and you seem to have missed it. There is nothing there that is an accusation towards any god. Just what people claim the god did. The Flood for instance is completely senseless. Fortunately it never happened.

If reflecting honestly, even anthropomorphism would suffice to empathize that Allah is sensible, programming/crafting the processes/hardware marvelously [modularly].


Even if Allah existed that would not be true. There is nothing marvelous about having to kill to live. Its a pretty bad design.

Dobzhansky's evolutionism is probably following that of Henry F. Osborn (of the "Nebraska man" blunder/hoax)


Really. Amazing. Then again anyone that has learned anything about evolution has NEVER used Nebraska-not-a-man for any scientific ideas. Indeed there never was a Nebraska Man. Even the man that found the pigs tooth knew that he might be wrong. The whole concept of Nebraska Man came from the news services. It wasn't a hoax and it wasn't even a blunder by scientists. Just by the reporters.

You seem to think that is all there is.

His self-contradictions must have confused people sufficiently that, Dobzhansky is reporting that,


Boy did you blow that one. He and especially Richard Dawkins are frequently quoted out of context or even misquoted to support Creationist ideas. The contradictions come from the Creationists.

When evolutionists propagandize something as "perfectly tuned by evolution", I trivially know that, they confess that, Allah created that phenomenon perfectly.


Amazing. The way you are completely unable to read anything at all without putting a religious spin on it that turns it inside out.

Sorry but your 'review' is even more ridiculous the second time around. One straw man after another and everything so distorted that even Allah, if he existed, would have difficulty figuring out how you managed to mess it up so badly.

By environment, do you think some templateod (world-wide standards committee)? :-)) Ludicrous.


Yes it would be ludicrous if I had meant that.

Straw man straw man always you create a straw man
Reason and logic do make you sick
All of that of nonsense for you to pick

"Convergent- & paralel-evolutionisms" have been your blindfaith.


Faith is not involved. Just evidence and reason. Evolution cannot not happen. Mutations occur, that is a fact. All but the most intransigent Creationist has given up on pretending that it doesn't happen. Natural Selection is inherent when there are differences in the chances of reproduction due to those mutations. That means pretty much in all circumstances. This is not faith in anyway. All the lying won't change that.

http://www.talkorigins.org/

http://pandasthumb.org/

Do try learning something about the things you rant about. It is ranting and not reason.

You accuse young Earth creationists (some of the christians) about merely opposing some geological dating techniques,


Oh no. I accuse them of much more. They lie about Nebraska Man for instance. Thank you for bringing it up.

but you commit to logical fallacies,


Funny how are unable to show one. Go ahead, find one.

and inventing lots of gods who were furthermore standardizing their products.


Sorry but I don't invent gods. I leave that to believers and frauds. 'Standardizing'? Sometimes I can't even make a wild assed guess as to where your bizarre ideas come from.

That is ludicrous. Ludicrous. Ludicrous. That is how (false) faith blinds people.


Indeed it is ludicrous the way you invent my position instead of quote me.

Seeing how you fall to logical fallacies, even when I'm explaining those, supports even the young Earth creationists,


Where did you do that? You haven't supported yourself much less others.

If "scientists" are so fanatical to believe in para-evo, how would ther reports be [entirely] trustable?


Its just reality. You are so fanatical you can't see past your hatred for the truth.

If "para-evo" is your dogma, there is no type of "test" to test the concept of evolution.


Never trust a religious fanatic when they use special words that no one else does. "para-evo", really where did you come up with that garbage?

Have you ever seen even one fossil? Apparently not.

http://porites.ge...owa.edu/
http://www.pterosaur.co.uk/
http://www.oceans...ex2.html
http://home.entou...nsit.htm
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/

So, why was Sartre opposing the Creator?


Don't know. Don't care.

Sartre in his first book wrote about wrote about

Pretty much nothing that interests me except that he inspired a good Monty Python sketch.

. But, that is no problem of Allah.)


Since there is no evidence for the existence of Allah I am not surprised that Allah has no problems. Things that don't exist rarely do.

Ironically, Ethelred's contrasting the genesis1 vs. genesis2, in this case, reminds me of something else, that might help the genesis texts, too. I have thought this for a lot more, but fits this, too. That is, I acknowledge that Allah is the Creator.


Talk about logical fallacies. Your acknowledgment in no way follows from what preceded. I can't even figure what strange idea passed through your head in claiming irony.

Gee that was a bunch of badly thought out crap you posted. And that is giving you the benefit of the doubt that any thought besides religion was involved.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2009
So, who was Perry White?


Editor of the Daily Planet in Superman.

Ethelred
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 08, 2009
" I can use logic. I just don't expect instant changes. Or frequent changes"

-We bring the weapons we are good with to the battle. You may convert some and deter more but certainly not museum- and temple-builders. I can imagine the concocters of the Xian variant:



'So we're agreed the 'love' angle will most effectively consolidate the Germanic tribes. But the Trinity? And really, how can the god of all have a mother?'



'Listen, if they accept Mary and the Trinity they will swallow just about anything we give them. It provides much work for future priests and the people will never stop fighting over it. How and when they're told of course.'



'Excellent. Augustine, you have the stones of Jesus himself! [laughter]



-Get them to abandon reason [easy] for something they would die for [immortality]. now that's funny.
acarrilho
1 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2009
After all this, not one shred of objective evidence was put forth to support rational belief that a "God" created the Universe. Here it would be understandable, but I spent over two years in the "Debating Christianity and Religion" debate forum, and there was absolutely no difference even there. Either the believers that actually know something are all shy of sharing, or there simply is no rational reason to believe in "God", and it really is nothing more than a mental virus, with the indoctrination of helpless children as the infection vector.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2009
After all this, not one shred of objective evidence was put forth to support rational belief that a "God" created the Universe. Here it would be understandable, but I spent over two years in the "Debating Christianity and Religion" debate forum, and there was absolutely no difference even there. Either the believers that actually know something are all shy of sharing, or there simply is no rational reason to believe in "God", and it really is nothing more than a mental virus, with the indoctrination of helpless children as the infection vector.


Who says beliefs have to be rational? YOU?

Sorry, but you're not the thought or belief dictator of the world. You go in your little corner and pick your nose and believe what you want...the rest of us will believe whatever we want for whatever reasons we want.

As an aside I find it hysterical that people talk about "rationally" believing in the big bang without a first cause when thermodynamics clearly states that it's impossible...but BOY it sure "shows" those God freaks doesn't it....*rolls eyes*
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2009
Here it would be understandable, but I spent over two years in the "Debating Christianity and Religion" debate forum, and there was absolutely no difference even there.


There is no way to prove the existence of a god if the god doesn't care about worshipers and created a universe that looked exactly like there was no god.

Why anyone would worship such an entity is hard to comprehend.

On the other hand if the Universe had been created as described in Genesis the evidence would be there. We would all be descended from Noah.The Egyptians would have been drowned in the middle of building pyramids. The oldest rocks would measured in thousands of year and we wouldn't be able to see any stars farther than 6000 or so light years away.

Ethelred
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2009
Now to the point of the article I think these scientists have the manners and public graces of three year olds.

Can you imagine if they were going through a native american museum about their religious beliefs and acting in the same fashion?

They're all socially backward cretins.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2009
As an aside I find it hysterical that people talk about "rationally" believing in the big bang without a first cause when thermodynamics clearly states that it's impossible


Thermodynamics may not be involved. QM of some sort most likely is. On top of which the first law of thermodynamics is just a law we made up to match what we see TODAY. Which seems reasonable but there a number of ways that appear to allow for a Universe to come into existence.

Nearly any first cause needs a cause. Your god requires a first cause and if the second law applies to the universe I see no reason for it not to apply to your god.

In any case that isn't relevant to whether the Big Bang occurred or not. The evidence is that it happened. How it happened may never be understood.

Ethelred
acarrilho
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2009
Who says beliefs have to be rational? YOU?


I don't believe I said that. I'm aware you probably interpret anything you read in a highly personal manner, as you were probably indoctrinated that way. It is the sky-daddy believers that presume their beliefs are rational. Haven't met a single one that thought differently.

Sorry, but you're not the thought or belief dictator of the world. You go in your little corner and pick your nose and believe what you want...the rest of us will believe whatever we want for whatever reasons we want.


I know you do not acknowledge the beliefs of everyone on this Earth, and their consequences, and that makes you an "honest-to-God" hypocrite.
acarrilho
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2009
Can you imagine if they were going through a native american museum about their religious beliefs and acting in the same fashion?


Do you really think for a second that the situation is comparable?
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 08, 2009
Yes yes, have at it ha ha! Don't you see, the fights the thing. You've been divided and conquered, according to Plan. Next up- can the Eucharist be considered cannibalism and is that a bad thing? Depends on who you ask I guess-
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2009
Do you really think for a second that the situation is comparable?


And I'M the hypocrite...baahahahahhahahahahahaaaa
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2009
I don't believe I said that.


You sure keep asking for the rest of us to give reasons for our beliefs. I don't believe you HAD to say that.

I'm aware you probably interpret anything you read in a highly personal manner, as you were probably indoctrinated that way. It is the sky-daddy believers that presume their beliefs are rational. Haven't met a single one that thought differently.


Oh the irony LOL....

I know you do not acknowledge the beliefs of everyone on this Earth, and their consequences, and that makes you an "honest-to-God" hypocrite.


I don't have to, all I have to do is tolerate them. It's much easier to tolerate some than others. The only ones I DON'T have to tolerate are those who demand intolerance themselves...like most MILITANT atheists for instance...
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2009
@Modernmystic

As an aside I find it hysterical that people talk about "rationally" believing in the big bang without a first cause when thermodynamics clearly states that it's impossible...but BOY it sure "shows" those God freaks doesn't it....*rolls eyes*


Errrrr..... Are you, by any chance, trying to use thermodynamics to argue FOR the existence of a "God" -- an entity which utterly and consummately VIOLATES thermodynamics prima facie?

I'm just trying to make sure... Are you REALLY that much of an idiot??

P.S. I don't know about "big bang without a cause"; probably most people are inclined to believe there is indeed a cause, just that we don't have enough information (yet? ever?) to know what it was. But a "first cause"? Please! That is just as bad as "big bang without a cause". Every cause has its own cause. As soon as you posit "first cause", you've entered the territory of magic and fairies.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2009
Errrrr..... Are you, by any chance, trying to use thermodynamics to argue FOR the existence of a "God" -- an entity which utterly and consummately VIOLATES thermodynamics prima facie?


Errrrr...a Supernatural being doesn't have to worry about thermodynamics. He can either follow or violate the rules at will.

The natural universe on the other hand DOES have to follow them....go fish for your explanation bud. OH you don't HAVE one...that's right. The only one you seem to spew is that God DIDN'T do it. I see...very logical, consistent...blah blah blah...

You weren't trying to use thermodynamics to DISprove something that by its very nature as a concept CREATED thermodynamics were you...

Or are YOU really that much of an idiot?

BTW a Big Bang without a cause IS magic fairies and noodle monsters. It's outside the realm of science until science has an explanation for it. Lack of an explanation isn't an explanation BTW...it's what we call a cop out.







otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2009
@modernMastic
I'm not sure but you are defending god right? If he's perfect and the laws which he created are thus perfect, why would you think he would have to break them from time to time to grant favors? And, if he gave us these senses and brains to learn about his creation, then why would he confound reason from time to time to betray them? Wouldn't that mean he's a deceptive god who wants us to have less confidence in his creation rather than more? What's up with that?
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2009
[I already know your answer]
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 08, 2009
@modernMastic are you censoring me sir? I submit valid questions and I would expect to see your answers in print. Pixels. I am not a philistine to be smitten on the fly.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2009
I thought it was worth a couple of 1s to ask peurile questions you think you already know the answers to...

If anyone can think of a reason to rate higher I'm listening....
acarrilho
not rated yet Jul 08, 2009
The only ones I DON'T have to tolerate are those who demand intolerance themselves...like most MILITANT atheists for instance...


I'm particularly "militant" in what regards the perversion of Science, when god-followers presume their irrational beliefs are corroborated by the Scientific Method, which is why your analogy with a "native american museum" is idiotic.

BTW a Big Bang without a cause IS magic fairies and noodle monsters. It's outside the realm of science until science has an explanation for it.


I'll let that stand as a testament to your idiocy.

Lack of an explanation isn't an explanation BTW...it's what we call a cop out.


"We"? No, my idiot friend. It's what ignorant people call a "cop out". "Goddit" is a cop out, because it's used to avoid having to provide logical and scientifically corroborated explanations to events honest people can't explain yet, so the sheep don't get too critical about any lack of answers.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 08, 2009
OK sir I shall give you your answer:
 14 God said to Moses, "I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' "
-meaning we wouldn't understand it even if he told us, right? Am I right?
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 08, 2009
-That was wierd. OK let endeavor once and yet again:
 14 God said to Moses, "I am who I am . [a] This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' "
-meaning, god don't need to offer any explanations. Out of the mouths of babes-

PinkElephant
5 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2009
@Modernmystic

a Supernatural being doesn't have to worry about thermodynamics. He can either follow or violate the rules at will.


Naturally. In other words, don't argue with me because argument implies deductive reasoning, and my starting premises by definition violate deductive principles. Therefore, since I start with paradoxical thinking, I can arrive at any damn conclusion I want, by any chain of derivation I please, regardless of how ridiculous. You know, usually argumentum ad absurdum is used to DISprove assertions, not to argue for them based on an up-front acknowledgement that they are absurd to begin with. By the way, a Pink Elephant just told me that time and the universe began exactly 3 seconds ago, just as He was having a particularly satisfying bowel movement.

The natural universe on the other hand DOES have to follow them....go fish for your explanation bud. OH you don't HAVE one...


"Explanation" by definition requires a precise statement of mechanisms involved. It REQUIRES laws, it PRESUPPOSES definable state, and PREDICTABLE state transitions; without laws all you have is CHAOS, and in pure chaos, no "explanations" for anything are even in principle possible at all.

Oh, and you don't HAVE one either. All you got is an obviously man-made fairy tale, and one of analogous thousands at that. Believing in unicorns is a very touching and delightful aspect of childhood; but when it comes to adults such beliefs are little more than mental masturbation.

You weren't trying to use thermodynamics to DISprove something that by its very nature as a concept CREATED thermodynamics were you...


To "CREATE" something you must have a SEQUENCE of events. Follow me here:

1) "something" does not YET exist
2) an act is PERFORMED
3) "something" NOW exists

Such SEQUENCES require and imply the existence of TIME. TIME requires and implies existence of PROCESSES that unfold in time (if nothing at all happens, then there is no time.) PROCESSES require and imply STRUCTURE and RULES. STRUCTURE and RULES imply something akin to natural laws, or "thermodynamics" as you call it.

If you cared to analyze your own language and thinking a bit deeper, you would see it's riddled with such circular loops and logical fallacies. You routinely contradict yourself with virtually every sentence you put down.

BTW a Big Bang without a cause IS magic fairies and noodle monsters.


My view exactly. As is ANY entity or event without a cause (your notion of "God" inclusive.)

Lack of an explanation isn't an explanation BTW...it's what we call a cop out.


No, it's what we call intellectual honesty. Making up fairy tales out of whole cloth, on the other hand, and PRETENDING they are true, is what we call a cop out.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2009
I'm particularly "militant" in what regards the perversion of Science, when god-followers presume their irrational beliefs are corroborated by the Scientific Method, which is why your analogy with a "native american museum" is idiotic.


Oh so they don't REALLY believe in their religion? What if they did try to mix their beliefs and science...I've known several who do. Then that gives you the right to be an ignorant bigot with the manners of a chimp?

"We"? No, my idiot friend. It's what ignorant people call a "cop out". "Goddit" is a cop out, because it's used to avoid having to provide logical and scientifically corroborated explanations to events honest people can't explain yet, so the sheep don't get too critical about any lack of answers.


I see you lack an answer but you KNOW how it didn't happen...

You lack an answer but have faith it didn't happen in thus and so a way...

Did someone say testament to idiocy earlier?
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2009
Naturally. In other words, don't argue with me because argument implies deductive reasoning, and my starting premises by definition violate deductive principles. Therefore, since I start with paradoxical thinking,




Not paradoxical...God has always existed. I've heard this used on the other side of the fence (ie the universe has always existed)...it works well both ways.



"Explanation" by definition requires a precise statement of mechanisms involved. It REQUIRES laws,




No it doesn't. You stamping your feet and saying it does doesn't make it so.



Oh, and you don't HAVE one either. All you got is an obviously man-made fairy tale, and one of analogous thousands at that. Believing in unicorns is a very touching and delightful aspect of childhood; but when it comes to adults such beliefs are little more than mental masturbation.




It's at least more intellectually honest than saying I don't know how it happened, but I sure as heck know how it DIDN'T. *rolls eyes*







To "CREATE" something you must have a SEQUENCE of events. Follow me here:




No you don't. If something has always existed then by definition you need no sequence of events for it to have been created...



Really it's not that hard a concept to grasp, oh and try not to have an anurysm explaining how you think things MUST be...all the tantrums in the world won't make you right.



Incidentally were you one of those kids when you didn't get your way you'd throw yourself backward and hit your head on the floor? If so it would explain many things...







If you cared to analyze your own language and thinking a bit deeper, you would see it's riddled with such circular loops and logical fallacies. You routinely contradict yourself with virtually every sentence you put down.




The only people contradicting themselves here are those who have faith in a naturally caused universe in which the laws of that universe clearly state it couldn't have had a natural cause...


otto1923
not rated yet Jul 08, 2009
@modernmystic
--OK ive cleansed it of irreverence. The question remains:
If he's perfect and the laws which he created are thus perfect, why would you think he would have to break them from time to time to grant favors? And, if he gave us these senses and brains to learn about his creation, then why would he confound reason from time to time to betray them? Wouldn't that mean he's a deceptive god who wants us to have less confidence in his creation rather than more?
-It is still rhetorical- this is a science website after all- but it is certainly not original and it is pertinent. We live on a finite world in a dangerous universe. Why would god want us to waste our limited time trying to discover a physical basis for fatima or the Red Sea/Reed Sea phenomenon, when we need to concentrate on other things, like intercepting asteroids and defeating superbugs?
acarrilho
not rated yet Jul 08, 2009
Oh so they don't REALLY believe in their religion?

What they "really" believe in is irrelevant. What they pass off as compliant to the scientific method isn't. The fact that you don't even attempt to refute that suggests you agree, which is why I cannot understand your passive stance. Sadly, whether or not you care what is fed onto your children is your prerogative.
What if they did try to mix their beliefs and science...I've known several who do.

They don't "mix" their beliefs and science, they pervert science to accommodate their beliefs.

I see you lack an answer but you KNOW how it didn't happen...

Yes. Like you know the Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't create the Universe. Because you know it's a human fabrication.

You lack an answer but have faith it didn't happen in thus and so a way...

No, idiot. No "faith" is required to appreciate the available evidence, and see that none of it indicates a "created" Universe, thus rendering belief in it, irrational and illogical, and not something that should be taught to impressionable children. If a "God" chooses to, it can allegedly manifest to each one individually. But of course, there is no evidence a "God" ever did.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2009
If he's perfect and the laws which he created are thus perfect, why would you think he would have to break them from time to time to grant favors?


Because we're not perfect....

And, if he gave us these senses and brains to learn about his creation, then why would he confound reason from time to time to betray them? Wouldn't that mean he's a deceptive god who wants us to have less confidence in his creation rather than more?


It's only deceptive if you don't believe. If you do believe you EXPECT it...nothing deceptive, nefarious, or evil about it. Unless of course you're asking from your point of view I can see where YOU might feel this way.

Why would god want us to waste our limited time trying to discover a physical basis for fatima or the Red Sea/Reed Sea phenomenon, when we need to concentrate on other things, like intercepting asteroids and defeating superbugs?


You're making a lot of assumptions about God for someone who doesn't believe. I don't know what he wants beyond a few things and I do believe...you sure you don't talk to him?
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2009
Only one thing in that morass of contradictions and insults worth responding to...

Yes. Like you know the Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't create the Universe. Because you know it's a human fabrication.

Prove it....

And no I DON'T know it wasn't a FSM...I BELIEVE it wasn't.

Unlike you I'm at least intellectually honest about my faith...







PinkElephant
not rated yet Jul 08, 2009
Why there can be no such thing as "the supernatural":

To exist, is to unfold in time, to interact, to be defined within a context by contours within that context and effects upon that context.

But an idealized "supernatural" has no structure. It obeys no laws. It is outside time. Therefore it is pure chaos. It is incapable of supporting any notion of "entity" or "concept", because all such things imply a coherent set of constructs that would defy the lawless, timeless, purely chaotic nature of the "supernatural".

So for any kind of "supernatural" to exist, it must admit structure. It must obey laws. It must unfold in time. Only then can it have a definable contour, or have any veritable effect upon anything or even any part of itself. But then it is no longer "supernatural" in an ideal sense. It may be outside of our thus-far known space-time-energy matrix; it may be "supranatural" in that respect. Yet, it must nonetheless be part and parsel of the Universe.

And here I define the Universe not merely as everything we can currently perceive and presently know, but as EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS (per prerequisites of "existence" as outlined above.) Such is the only definition that makes any sense if we are to suppose that we cannot yet see everything there is, and that we do not yet know everything there is: both of which are manifestly and empirically true. But if the Universe is everything that exists, then by definition nothing can exist and yet not be part of the Universe. Then, if we define as "natural" everything that is part of nature -- i.e. everything that is part of the Universe -- then this time by definition there is and can be no such thing as "the supernatural".

Quite simply, the Universe is all there is. A corollary of the definition is that the Universe can have no cause (because any such cause would have had to exist, and thus by definition would have been part of the Universe, and thus could not have caused the Universe to exist because the Universe already existed.)

So then, the fundamental quibble between "believers" and skeptics, is the necessity for the Universe to have always contained a fantastical entity: one with near-infinite powers, near-infinite knowledge, one with intelligence, motivations, plans, emotions -- in other words, one that is quite blatantly made in man's own image, except with superlative attributes tacked on for good measure. The believers want the Universe to contain some sort of a Superman (at a minimum, or an entire Supermankind in case of polytheism), and cannot imagine a Universe that exists just fine without such a thing. The skeptics see no necessity for such frivolous assumptions, since first of all there's no evidence to hint at any such entities, and secondly since purporting the existence of any such entities does not help address ANY of the fundamental questions about the nature and structure of the Universe, that we'd like answered. Indeed, such fanciful and elaborate concoctions not only fail to provide any real answers, but indeed introduce hundreds and thousands of new conjectures and assumptions, none of them supported by any evidence, that in turn would require additional explanations and assumptions to elucidate. Not only that, but they discourage or at least strive to impede any objective investigation of the ACTUAL state of nature of things (written history is replete with examples of such obstruction and impediment.) By Occam's Razor, such worthless armchair speculation is thus rejected by the skeptics as sheer unproductive waste of time and energy: and rightly so!
acarrilho
5 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2009
Prove it....

And no I DON'T know it wasn't a FSM...I BELIEVE it wasn't.


As per wiki:

"The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is the deity of the parody religion[1][2] "The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster".[3] It was created in 2005 by Bobby Henderson as a satirical protest to the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to biological evolution in public schools. Since the intelligent design movement used ambiguous references to an unspecified "Intelligent Designer" to avoid court rulings prohibiting the teaching of creationism as a science, this presumably left open the possibility that any imaginable thing could fill that role."

You wouldn't regard anything else of this nature, something that isn't challenged by ANYONE else on the planet, as a "belief". You're doing it now, arbitrarily and whimsically, to fit a fallacious point you've been resuscitating for the last few posts. But it's dead, let it go.

Unlike you I'm at least intellectually honest about my faith...


By your own statements, you're anything BUT intellectually honest.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 08, 2009
@Modernmystic
Well, I do believe, though i havent had an epiphany reboot as of yet. I believe we've been given everything we need to save ourselves in this world, including the ability to concoct religions which could begin to establish order in the midst of the chaos which was the ancient world. I believe that if either Christianity or the Enlightenment or the other man-created Agencies and doctrines hadnt occured, the remnants of a race with great potential would now be subsisting in small pockets amidst global ruination. Agencies which have fulfilled their Purpose need to end- people may not need Shepherds any more. Give up your penchant for belligerant overpopulating and maybe you can stay. Or be like Shakers.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 08, 2009
As to our imperfection, god only knows I agree with that. But if we are to begin to fix ourselves and improve our lot [and we have] then we have to have complete confidence in the fact that gods laws are immutable despite our imperfection. He would not have done otherwise.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2009
You wouldn't regard anything else of this nature, something that isn't challenged by ANYONE else on the planet, as a "belief". You're doing it now, arbitrarily and whimsically, to fit a fallacious point you've been resuscitating for the last few posts. But it's dead, let it go.


No I'm not the simple fact of the matter is that neither YOU nor I can say for certian what created the universe...as such nothing can be HONESTLY ruled out on a purely rational basis...FSMs included.

Simple logic, you may not like it, and you're entitled to your own opinion. The one thing your not entitled to is your own facts.
acarrilho
5 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2009
No I'm not the simple fact of the matter is that neither YOU nor I can say for certian what created the universe...as such nothing can be HONESTLY ruled out on a purely rational basis...FSMs included.


The FSM can and should be ruled out, because it's a factual human fabrication, and you're not even disputing that, because you know you don't have a case. It cannot rationally be acknowledged as a potential creator of the Universe, anymore than you can.

Simple logic, you may not like it, and you're entitled to your own opinion.


Apparently it's not so simple, because you just don't get it.

The one thing your not entitled to is your own facts.


I never heard anyone else presuming that the FSM isn't a factual human fabrication. It definitely takes balls to forsake any remaining intellectual integrity you might have had before this.
PinkElephant
not rated yet Jul 08, 2009
@Modernmystic

No I'm not the simple fact of the matter is that neither YOU nor I can say for certian what created the universe...as such nothing can be HONESTLY ruled out on a purely rational basis...FSMs included.


If you're going to go that route, then nothing is certain. Every fact has a probability (however tiny) of being wrong. Including the fact that you yourself exist at this instant. You cannot be absolutely, mathematically certain of anything. However, that level of certainty is usually not what is meant in vernacular use of the word.

In the vernacular, to say you're certain of something is equivalent to saying that the probability you're wrong is somewhere around 0.001% or less.

So now, let's apply this heuristic to the notion of the FSM, or any other religious hypothesis. How many possible religious hypotheses are there? Theoretically, the number of possible religious hypotheses is infinite, if we allow hypotheses so complex that they would take an infinite amount of time to even express. But for practicality's sake let's just limit our universe of speculation to 1 billion possible hypotheses (FSM among them), and postulate that one of them is right.

Given one randomly chosen hypothesis out of that population, what is the probability THAT PARTICULAR ONE is the correct one? Well, lacking any empirical evidence to bias the odds in favor of any particular hypothesis, the probability is simply 1 divided by the total number of hypotheses.

So if there are 1 billion alternatives, then the probability of FSM being the right one is mathematically 0.0000001%.

In most people's mind, that is as close to nil as it gets. In other words, in layman's terms it is all but CERTAIN that the FSM hypothesis (and any given religious premise) is false. If you allow the universe of possibilities to grow by orders of magnitude beyond 1 billion in number, then the confidence for rejecting any particular one only increases... In the limit of this process, we can confidently reject, out of hand, any groundless speculation on the matter. Q.E.D.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 08, 2009
-You know, it just occured to me, that there is something of the Hand of Man in the verse I quoted earlier:
14 God said to Moses, "I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' "
15 God also said to Moses, "Say to the Israelites, 'The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob has sent me to you.' This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation.

-When Moses first meets God and receives his holy mission. God says "I am what I am" or "I am that I am". God is nothing more and nothing less than all that there is. Further, He says this will be his 'name' forever. His 'name' will not change. To me this says that what "is" is knowable as is a name, and it will remain unchanged forever. I think we have here a disclosure of a faith in the immutability of Gods creation, by those who composed this magnificant work. He does say these things from the inside of a burning bush, but is that just to hold the attention of the hard-hearted? God is what is- a metaphor for a comprehensible and reliable universe in its entirety- now get to work and understand him.

-Another bible mystery solved in record time by OTTO the unhetzable Hetzer. Ich habe doch gut gemacht, nicht war?
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 08, 2009
Was that an epiphany? I dunno, I feel pretty good. A little thirsty. Aw wait- someday I'm gonna die, crap-
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 08, 2009
One more thing- you want a parable? I found one. Kirk and crew have found themselves trapped on an earth-like planet amidst two strangely familiar warring cultures. Kirk realizes their holy book is an old earth document. Lets listen ...
Look at these three words
written larger than the rest
with a special pride never written before or since --
Tall words proudly saying ...
"We the people".
That which you called Ee'd Plebnista
was not written for chiefs or kings
or warriors or the rich and powerful,
but for all the people!
Down the centuries,
you have slurred the meaning of the words
"We the people of the United States,
in order to form a more perfect union,
establish justice, ensure domestic tranquillity,
provide for the common defense,
promote the general welfare,
and secure the blessings of liberty
to ourselves and our posterity...
do ordain and establish this constitution".
These words and the words that follow
were not written only for the Yangs,
- but for the Kohms as well! - The Kohms?
They must apply to everyone or they mean nothing!
Do you understand?
I do not fully understand,
one named Kirk.
But the holy words will be obeyed.
I swear it.
-I think your faith has obscured the true meaning, and I'm speaking to both sides of the debate here, of the bible. It is not about saving souls it is about saving the best of what we all are, and the best that we have produced, on this world, in this life.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2009
The FSM can and should be ruled out, because it's a factual human fabrication, and you're not even disputing that, because you know you don't have a case. It cannot rationally be acknowledged as a potential creator of the Universe, anymore than you can.


Just bluster and bull...you didn't even attempt to refute the point.


Apparently it's not so simple, because you just don't get it.


No you don't.

I never heard anyone else presuming that the FSM isn't a factual human fabrication. It definitely takes balls to forsake any remaining intellectual integrity you might have had before this.


Uhhhh the fact in dispute here was that you can't rationally rule out a possibility of how something was accomplished if you don't KNOW how it was accomplished....period.
acarrilho
5 / 5 (1) Jul 09, 2009
Uhhhh the fact in dispute here was that you can't rationally rule out a possibility of how something was accomplished if you don't KNOW how it was accomplished....period.


Oh... "period"... that settles it then... guess I can't rationally rule out the possibility that I just flushed the creator of the Universe down the toilet. Come on, just say it yourself so I can laugh some more...

"You can't rationally rule out the possibility that the turd you just flushed down the toilet was the creator of the Universe".

Logically, there's no rational reason to mock the "Church of the Flushed Turd".

Simple logic, indeed. You're logically quite the buffoon. I must say I'm very entertained by your stupidity. Please keep it going.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jul 09, 2009
Errrrr...a Supernatural being doesn't have to worry about thermodynamics. He can either follow or violate the rules at will.


It still needs a cause if the Universe needs a cause. The logic is identical.

And yes I still say math covers the cause. The Universe exists because it can mathematically.

The natural universe on the other hand DOES have to follow them.


No. Not if a supernatural being created it. Then there are no rules and math does not apply.

BTW a Big Bang without a cause IS magic fairies and noodle monsters.


There is no noodle monster there is only Zool.

Or perhaps the Invisible Giant Orbiting Aardvark.

. Lack of an explanation isn't an explanation BTW...it's what we call a cop out.


And saying a god did it somehow isn't a cop out? That IS magical thinking. Pretty much by definition.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Jul 09, 2009
Not paradoxical...God has always existed. I've heard this used on the other side of the fence (ie the universe has always existed)...it works well both ways.


If it works both ways why are you claiming that the Universe requires a first cause?


No it doesn't. You stamping your feet and saying it does doesn't make it so.


That goes for you as well. You stamp your feet a lot when somebody says something about religion you don't like.

No you don't. If something has always existed then by definition you need no sequence of events for it to have been created...


You could use some evidence for it. Of course we have mathematical and logical principles and I don't see how they need a creator to exist.

The only people contradicting themselves here are those who have faith in a naturally caused universe in which the laws of that universe clearly state it couldn't have had a natural cause...


And since you are so knowledgeable about ALL the laws of the Universe how about you clue us in on what law makes the Universe impossible. Thermodynamics won't do since Uncertainty means that we can't have absolutely nothing. That would be certain.

Ethelred
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Jul 09, 2009
Oh... "period"... that settles it then... guess I can't rationally rule out the possibility that I just flushed the creator of the Universe down the toilet. Come on, just say it yourself so I can laugh some more...


Is English your first language or are you REALLY that stupid? Did you read my post? Go back and re-read it.

See the tiny difference here is that you DIDN'T flush the creator of the universe down the toilet, it's something that WAS NOT ACCOMPLISHED therefore it's ruled out by definition...whereas the universe was created and therefore if you don't have and explanation you can't rule out anything. Apples and oranges moron.

Can't you grasp the SUBTLE difference there? No obviously you can't and won't. Your intellect is pathetic beyond belief and your so totally self deluded, and intellectually dishonest, AND an incredibly insulting jerk (like most atheists) that this conversation can serve no further purpose...

Oh and Ethelred I've red enough of your blowhard long winded screed on this board to know I don't want to get into a discussion with you about ANYTHING (might as well debate with a three year old about wether or not the sky is blue) much less this topic...
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Jul 09, 2009
Because we're not perfect....


Can a perfect god create imperfect beings and still be perfect?

It's only deceptive if you don't believe. If you do believe you EXPECT it...nothing deceptive, nefarious, or evil about it.


So then, if you believe, you expect the Universe to look exactly unlike the one described in the Bible. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were attempting to say.

That is a very strange excuse for reality and beliefs not coinciding. And I congratulate you on it for it is original. A very rare thing.

Its still crap but it is original crap.

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

Unlike you I'm at least intellectually honest about my faith...


I think you would get upset less often if that was true.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Jul 09, 2009
Oh and Ethelred I've red enough of your blowhard long winded screed on this board to know I don't want to get into a discussion with you about ANYTHING (might as well debate with a three year old about wether or not the sky is blue) much less this topic...


Yes, refuse to deal with logic and reason and the one person here that doesn't call you an idiot.

Even after you insult me without call or reason. That makes just as much sense as many of your other posts.

None whatsoever.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Jul 09, 2009
"The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is the deity of the parody religion[1][2] "The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster".[3] It was created in 2005 by


Ah Ha. The Giant Orbiting Aardvark preceded the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I call precedence.

I ran across the Giant Orbiting Aardvark on the Maximum PC Comport Forum in 2000.

Ethelred
acarrilho
5 / 5 (2) Jul 09, 2009
See the tiny difference here is that you DIDN'T flush the creator of the universe down the toilet, it's something that WAS NOT ACCOMPLISHED therefore it's ruled out by definition...whereas the universe was created and therefore if you don't have and explanation you can't rule out anything. Apples and oranges moron.


No, moron. Bobby Henderson created the FSM in 2005 and satirically proclaimed it the intelligent designer of the Universe. According to you, we have to rationally acknowledge it as a potential creator of the Universe. Some hours ago, I created a turd and satirically proclaimed it the intelligent designer of the Universe. Just so happened it was flushed, but that has little to do with the actual point, moron. It just makes it more humorous.

Your intellect is pathetic beyond belief and your so totally self deluded, and intellectually dishonest, AND an incredibly insulting jerk (like most atheists) that this conversation can serve no further purpose...


"Incredibly insulting jerk"? As opposed to someone who wrote:

Is English your first language or are you REALLY that stupid?


Then that gives you the right to be an ignorant bigot with the manners of a chimp?


Or are YOU really that much of an idiot?


Your intellect is pathetic beyond belief and your so totally self deluded, and intellectually dishonest


I'm fairly sure you can't be simultaneously "intellectually honest" and a "hypocrite", except probably under your own twisted sense of "logic". I, for one, am quite aware of how insulting I'm being, you idiot. I don't mind letting readers decide whether or not your stupidity deserves being pointed out.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 09, 2009
Can't you grasp the SUBTLE difference there? No obviously you can't and won't. Your intellect is pathetic beyond belief and your so totally self deluded, and intellectually dishonest, AND an incredibly insulting jerk (like most atheists) that this conversation can serve no further purpose...

I, for one, am quite aware of how insulting I'm being, you idiot. I don't mind letting readers decide whether or not your stupidity deserves being pointed out.

-So does it always end in a slapfight, this noble dialectic, this ecumenical GUT? See, this is why Stalin never tried to reason with his opponents- he just KILLED them. See how easy it is? Humans?

@Modernmystic
It's only deceptive if you don't believe. If you do believe you EXPECT it...nothing deceptive, nefarious, or evil about it. Unless of course you're asking from your point of view I can see where YOU might feel this way.

These words and the words that follow
were not written only for the Yangs,
- but for the Kohms as well! - The Kohms?
They must apply to everyone or they mean nothing!
Do you understand?

-The immutable laws of nature were written for everybody to understand, you as well as your enemies, in exactly the same way.   
5"Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies...' We all sit at the same table. 
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 09, 2009
See, this is why Stalin never tried to reason with his opponents- he just KILLED them. See how easy it is? Humans?

-So did the Crusaders, by the way.
acarrilho
not rated yet Jul 09, 2009
So does it always end in a slapfight, this noble dialectic, this ecumenical GUT? See, this is why Stalin never tried to reason with his opponents- he just KILLED them. See how easy it is? Humans?


And what exactly is wrong with you? Do you honestly think this is the appropriate venue for that kind of language?
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 09, 2009
Eh? Your donnybrook above is of the type well-predicted and often used to instigate armed conflict around the world, throughout history. Disputes over the status of the virgin Mary for instance, among other things, led to the Thirty Years War which killed over 30% of the Germans in Europe. I was just pointing this out. Maybe I said it wrong, or maybe not. Still feelin scrappy, eh?

Lots is wrong with me, I admit that freely. Doesnt mean I'm wrong though, does it? Theres lots wrong with most humans. We're the unfortunate result of a million years of unnatural evolution caused by endemic Tribal warfare. Our brains are far too large and fragile. Our immune systems are overdeveloped due to chronic overcrowding and disease, and attack healthy cells as often as bad ones. We are conceived with defective genes, damaged in the womb by addicted mothers and after birth by idiots of all kinds, not to mention poisons, contagions, accident, etc. Maybe thats why we have a sense of humor. Maybe your opinions are only the result of relative damage to one side of your brain while Mr Mystics other half is dysfunctional. A battle of the hemispheres with the 2 of you relatively uninvolved? I see double all the time, SFW :-)
Someday Man will establish heaven on earth and we will all be cured and comfortable forever. Its in the bible.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 09, 2009
One more time- there is never any resolution to conflicts such as this. Thats what Dogma is FOR. Why do you think that silly museum was sanctioned in the first place? Why do you think most people learn physics from Roadrunner cartoons?? We are flawed and there is no god which can save us; only the pristine minds and unflagging will of a very few, very well-informed Individuals. Priests perhaps. Humans.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 09, 2009
21"Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 22All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. 
 34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn 
   " 'a man against his father, 
      a daughter against her mother, 
   a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.... -und so weiter.
-I know I'm just digging a deeper hole. Peace be with thee [and with thy Spirit]
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Jul 10, 2009
And what exactly is wrong with you? Do you honestly think this is the appropriate venue for that kind of language?


So what is wrong with YOU? With all your name calling.

Yes Oxymystic(sorry but modern and mistic just do not go together. Its worse than when I use Ethelred Hardrede) often has ill reasoned posts but that doesn't excuse all the name calling.

Next time HE calls you names just point it out that it counts as surrender in any remotely rational discussion.

And yes he surrendered to me again. I really don't feel like figuring out which of you surrendered first because clearly you both have.

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

Otto, could you perhaps quit reversing directions. I am getting dizzy watching you spin in circles.

Ethelred
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 10, 2009
I'll try. I am benign.
Cassius:
"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings."
-We can thank God that somebody in this world knows what the hell they're doing. :-)
acarrilho
not rated yet Jul 10, 2009
So what is wrong with YOU? With all your name calling.


Oh, I'm just communicating with Modernmystic in a language he apparently acknowledges. Is that inherently wrong? One way or another our arguments are getting across to each other. I suppose others shouldn't judge either of us for the tone of our exchange. Someone told me in a discussion forum where I said I wouldn't go down that road that I was too sensitive, and that philosophers are typically abrasive. And I have to say it's rather fun. Gets the adrenaline going. Particularly when you're not interested in upholding a reputation. Hasn't always been the case, and still isn't in other forums. One has to "vent", after all. No punching bag in my place yet, but I'm working on it.

And yes he surrendered to me again. I really don't feel like figuring out which of you surrendered first because clearly you both have.


The appropriate word might be "armistice".

Otto, could you perhaps quit reversing directions. I am getting dizzy watching you spin in circles.


I figure Otto subscribes to that weird "universal perfection still liable to change" thingamajig. Think I met one of those before. But one could actually make sense of what he wrote, which is why his "logic" could be seen to make little actual sense.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 10, 2009
Ach du liebe Augustine-
I think the People who actually run this world have a god far different than the gods they use for crowd control. This god is a truly fearsome god but to them he is undeniable. This god is 'that which is Inevitable'. They do not worship him but they do fear him, and this fear is only the beginning of wisdom. Overpopulation is inevitable and the resulting wars and revolts are thus inevitable. Disasters are inevitable. Drought, famine, disease are all inevitable. At first they realized they would have to foresee these things, but at some point they realized if they could affect the timing or location or magnitude of these events then it could help them to protect the things which mattered most to them- their own families, and the accumulated store of knowledge which becomes impossible to replace. The strange mystery of this is that the process is described, in detail, in this wonderful doorstop of yours called the bible. Even more amazing is that this manual for the preservation of the species is ensconced within a collection of stories, parables, half-true history and such, which can serve as a basis for these crowd-control religions the public adores. Their God is a metaphor for 'what is'. Scientists are those who are busy finding out what this means. Religionists are those who are keeping the people from breaking your doors down. It might not seem so, but if the people were not so busy fighting each other they would be burning you all at the stake. And destroying the planet along with this civilization of ours. Thank god for Jesus gentlemen, he is the greatest thing ever invented. But maybe his time is up. Ask nietzsche.
Klar? I've talked about nothing else here.
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Jul 10, 2009
Do you understand?
I do not fully understand,
one named Kirk.
But the holy words will be obeyed.

HeeHee. Roddenberry is the new Nietzsche.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 10, 2009
"Theyre both dead." -God
yeah yeah. Shaddup.
Abby
2.3 / 5 (4) Jul 10, 2009
How terribly sad it is for me, an 18 year old girl, to find such hatred for the creation museum. Do you realize that evolution is the main stream education system? I had to put up with that for 12 years of schooling.. And you get mad for one Creation Museum being built.. How come we (christians) have to tolerate your religion (evolution) but you cannot tolerate mine? You really want to burn down the museum? I'd like to let you know that i am attending that Creation college 3 conference, and I will visit the Creaiton Museum for my second time, and I pray that I will be filled with knowledge, and that the Lord God will give me courage to stand up to people who believe that Christians and God are hurting the world. I am praying tonight for everyone who believes that the Creation Museum, and their organization should be annihilated.
acarrilho
5 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2009
How terribly sad it is for me, an 18 year old girl, to find such hatred for the creation museum. Do you realize that evolution is the main stream education system?


Do you realize that it is because tons of available evidence, with new stuff being discovered daily, corroborates the theory?

I had to put up with that for 12 years of schooling.


I had to put up with many more years of society's constant attempts to indoctrinate me.

And you get mad for one Creation Museum being built.


I've been mad at pseudo-scientists, perverting the scientific method, the compliance to which made this contact between us possible, and to which a lot of trust is due, for a long time. Hardly an issue of "one Creation Museum being built".

How come we (christians) have to tolerate your religion (evolution) but you cannot tolerate mine?


Evolution is a scientific theory. Why would you call a scientific theory a "religion"? This is typically done because you want to attribute the faults you recognize in religion to something that rejects its rational validity, and thus engage in a "tu quoque" of sorts. Even as such, it would be fallacious.

You really want to burn down the museum?


Of course not. I want it shut down, and the people responsible for it made accountable for its social irresponsibility.

I'd like to let you know that i am attending that Creation college 3 conference, and I will visit the Creation Museum for my second time, and I pray that I will be filled with knowledge, and that the Lord God will give me courage to stand up to people who believe that Christians and God are hurting the world.

I am praying tonight for everyone who believes that the Creation Museum, and their organization should be annihilated.


You can pray, or you can read, and learn.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Jul 11, 2009
Oh, I'm just communicating with Modernmystic in a language he apparently acknowledges. Is that inherently wrong?


Generally yes, though perhaps not in all cases. I have seen a few people that I feel deserve exceptions, HOWEVER that doesn't mean the people reading this deserve it. I prefer making them FEEL like idiots to actually someone that.

Someone told me in a discussion forum where I said I wouldn't go down that road that I was too sensitive, and that philosophers are typically abrasive.


I might tell them that philosophers of that sort aren't invited to dinner parties. Except that I hate dinner parties and it might encourage me to be even MORE abrasive than I already am. It reminds of the Word grammar check complaining about 'passive sentences' to which I responded(who me? talk to stupid software. YES) Well it sure ticked people off for something called passive.

Just look at how much ModernOxymoron doesn't want to deal with me and I rarely call people morons or idiots. Maroons maybe. Silly versions of their handle too often. Humor is better.

Particularly when you're not interested in upholding a reputation.


Interested or not people get reputations. Of course online you can change your handle.

The appropriate word might be "armistice".


That would NOT be appropriate. More like a shit smearing contest with bare hands and strong grips.

I figure Otto subscribes to that weird "universal perfection still liable to change" thingamajig.


Well the weird part is certain.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Jul 11, 2009
How terribly sad it is for me, an 18 year old girl, to find such hatred for the creation museum.


Generally people are more appalled by it than they hate it. I find it one of the silliest places on Earth. Accidental parody.

Do you realize that evolution is the main stream education system?


If only it was. Unfortunately few are actually taught anything about evolution at least until they go to college. Clearly YOU haven't learned a thing about it, except from Creationists. Schools generally avoid it like the plague except for those that are trying to pretend that evolution is somehow controversial in biology.

I had to put up with that for 12 years of schooling..


Now now don't exaggerate. I don't think anyone teaches evolution in first grade. Or pretty much any other grade in most schools.

And you get mad for one Creation Museum being built..


No, not mad. Just appalled at the astounding level of ignorance on display. Even many of the people that worked on it knew that they have not a shred of evidence to support them. Some of the claims are false on there face. Dinosaurs with long serrated razor sharp teeth on display yet they claim they didn't eat flesh. Stupid is what that is, since it is well past ignorance.

How come we (christians) have to tolerate your religion (evolution)


It isn't religion. It is reality, it can be seen easily in the fossil record, the genes we have in every cell, test after test in the labs and just by contemplating the fact of mutations and differential rates of reproduction.

You really want to burn down the museum?


No. Neither do most other people despite its idiocy. If you want to fill your mind with fantasy I would recommend Disneyland though. At least there it is labeled as fantasy.

I'd like to let you know that i am attending that Creation college 3 conference, and I will visit the Creaiton Museum for my second time, and I pray that I will be filled with knowledge,


There is not a shred of evidence to support the idea of Creation as described in Genesis. You will not be filled with knowledge by either prayer or the Creation Museum. Go read books, take classes on science from people with degrees in science from accredited institutions not theology schools.

Just look around you and think for a moment.

What would the world actually look like if it was 6000 years old? What signs would there be if a great flood had destroyed almost all life on Earth a mere 4400 years ago?

And I mean really think on it and don't take the words of those that believe that stuff.

Which way would the Grand Canyon flow? Too the south west or would the water have run downhill. The North Rim is 2000 feet higher than the South Rim so if the flood had created the Grand Canyon it would flow to the South EAST.

What would our genomes be like? Four women so four and only four lines of mitochondrial DNA. ONE father so only one line of Y chromosomes. Which is not what we find.

New stars lighting up the sky every day since we would only be able to see as far as the age of the Universe which would be about 6000 years. Yet we see for billions of light years into the sky.

The world we live in simply is the world that silly place thinks it is.

and that the Lord God will give me courage to stand up to people who believe that Christians and God are hurting the world.


Gods that don't exist can't hurt the world. Christians do exist and they help or hurt the world. Some help and some hurt. A simple survey of history would show rather a large amount of both.

. I am praying tonight for everyone who believes that the Creation Museum, and their organization should be annihilated.


Praying won't help at least in part because I don't see anyone demanding annihilation for believers. I am, however, aware of rather a large number of people that are hoping to see all the unbelievers like me go to Hell.

Yes, one idiot on this thread said he would like it burned down. Even that imbecile didn't ask for annihilation. Just because it is one the stupidest, most ignorant places masquerading as a museum doesn't mean that it should be burned down. Ignorance is its own reward and filling your head with it will just hold you back.

Ethelred
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 11, 2009
My turn-
@Abby
A parable, which I am sure you are familiar with:
Josephs brothers want to throw him down a well but sell him to Egyptians instead. In Egypt Pharoah has a strange dream and someone says 'Lets ask Joseph what it means.' Joseph says it means that there will be 7 years of feast followed by 7 years of famine. Pharoah says 'Oy! What do we do?' Joseph says you better build graneries to store enough food to last 7 years. Joseph is put in charge, the grain is stored, the famine comes, and the great bulk of people who do not know how to save for the future give everything to Pharoah and Joseph in return for food. The 2 of them end up owning everything in Egypt. Like Solomon they have all the power and control they could want; but Joseph is soon forgotten and his people are made slaves because they cant stop procreating. Egypt is invaded by Hyksos, Sea People, Greeks et al and ends up buried in sand.

You would say the moral of this story is that faith in god will provide salvation. Scientists would say that the ability to foresee disaster is the key to salvation. The rich and powerful would say that knowing the future can make you fabulously rich and powerful. Solomon would say that it is all meaningless because you cant control the future no matter how rich and powerful you are. But then the People who do Control this World might tell all of you 'You need to think Bigger ... much Bigger.' What a great story. The bible has something in it for everybody.

Scientists dont have a lot of answers and are kind of in the middle of things, but they have confidence they are on the right track because of all they have discovered about Gods works so far. And they can get very testy when they are interrupted, kind of like your little brother when you knock over his ant farm. So unless you want your favorite doll buried in the backyard, you'll stay out of his room. His ants might get out and crawl under your pillow; but maybe when he grows up he'll find a way to keep the locusts from devouring your fathers grain. And your family from starving as a result. Have faith in the abilities that God has given man to solve his own problems. We can only do that if we get to know how things actually are instead of how we might want them to be. Have patience.
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 11, 2009
@Abby
By the way I'm sure your brother loves you very much as you do him. He wants to learn because he does love you and he wants to protect you. Understand?
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 11, 2009
[Guys- I'm using God as a metaphor but dont tell Abby]
I like the wierd. I like the mysterious. From what I've been reading I might be a high-level Freemason and didnt even know it. Must be because I cannot keep a secret.

"I look forward to a future, a Utopian future, where secrets will be made illegal.' -Robt. Oppenheimer
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 11, 2009
ModemMystic was that you again? Scientists do care about the world and the feelings of the people in it. Or, I just got zapped by a true Satanist who wants scientists to appear as monsters-
LBrender
not rated yet Jul 11, 2009
Ethelred,

There's a lot of emotion flying around from a lot of people. I want to take a step back from that and apologize if I offeneded you.

Being that not many people who have a long-held opinion, yours or mine, are likely to change there mind from an online blog, I'll settle for explaining my position, if no one else's. It is neither a critique of what you think nor me trying to evangelize what I think.

First, I don't think I'm speaking from much less education than most others here. I have completed my bachelors, been a math and science teacher, and will complete my master's likely in 2011. Slow but I'm also working. I am not unschooled about evolution and have as much of a grasp of it as most people outside of the research community.

From my point of view, I think the arrival of intelligent life, while it might be the accidental byproduct of evolution, seems more fortunate than time and chance could create. I personally do not interpret the creation story literally, though I do not know, but feel is is an accurate way to convey the essence of humanity spiritual birth as a people and our estrangement from God. The earth and universe certainly looks very, very old and I do not believe God would create a world with deliberate deceptions to test people. I do, however, believe the progression of the physical and biological world seems ordered, more so than physical laws alone could bring about. I realize that is not proof of a God but it is enough to make me, and many others, think seriously about it.

Moreover, I am not and have not drawn atheists as immoral. I know many who are outstanding individuals. But then again I know many Christians, Muslems, and Wenatchi native americans who are, too. And yes, there are many incarcerated believers, but there are also very many social activists, philonthropists, and everyday good people who are believers. Belief in God does not necessarily make one moral, though I think it should if one claims to be a Christian. But neither does divorce from religion make one moral; the Soviet state was vehemently athiest and it achieved no greater level of morality than any other society. A mere belief in the beginnings of the world does not significantly influence someone%u2019s morality but rather a commitment to love those around you honestly and with good will, whether they like that person or not. And that is a motivator to my own beliefs since, incidentally, those are Christian precepts. Christianity, in the person of Jesus, espouses that we should love our God and love our neighbor, even when they don%u2019t love us. I find this to be profound and worthy of emulation, as are other Christian doctrines (though there is endless debate about what those are, in the specifics, but not in the generals). I offer: no more than I can consider all atheists immoral because they deny God can anyone consider all believers immoral because they don%u2019t. To speak to the statistics of how many believers are in jail, I submit that everyone should admit there are many more factors involved in who is in jail than whether or not they believe in God; and also, I would say, that perhaps those who realize they need help with their lives are more open to giving a Creator a chance than those who are convinced they don%u2019t need help.

In closing, Ethelred or anyone else who doesn%u2019t believe in God, I am not trying to ridicule you or even really to win you to my camp. I wanted to state my beliefs, which I think I share with many who also believe in God. I would hope, though, that perhaps all of us can acknowledge the good in both parties and the evidence in both cases while debating our positions. And to those Christians who read this, I remind them that as Jesus did not hate not hate those who were against him, even killing him, neither should we be hateful or make fun of those who disagree with us, especially when the stakes are just an internet thread.
I look forward to your reply.

Lance Brender
acarrilho
not rated yet Jul 11, 2009
From my point of view, I think the arrival of intelligent life, while it might be the accidental byproduct of evolution, seems more fortunate than time and chance could create.


Who claims it was "accidental"? Do bacteria "accidentally" get more resistant to antibiotics? Intelligence didn't just pop up into existence, you know? It didn't "arrive" as such. It evolved as everything else, over a long time.

Belief in God does not necessarily make one moral, though I think it should if one claims to be a Christian.


Belief in "God" also makes them believe "moral" is what "God" wishes as per some bronze age storybook, and this is an inherently dangerous mindset for obvious reasons. If someone is "allowed" to believe in a god, than they must acknowledge the potential truth of said god's holy text, and the validity of the rules therein. After the acknowledgement of the god belief, there is no rational reason to object its alleged rules. "Alright, you can believe in that god and create an organization but you can't acknowledge rule x and y..." That doesn't make any sense.

But neither does divorce from religion make one moral; the Soviet state was vehemently athiest and it achieved no greater level of morality than any other society.


As far as I know the people themselves weren't vehemently atheist at all. Real atheist populations, as with some European nations, are a very recent phenomenon. You want to look at atheist population figures and statistics, you should look at them now.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 12, 2009
There's a lot of emotion flying around from a lot of people. I want to take a step back from that and apologize if I offeneded you..


Its fun. For me anyway.

From my point of view, I think the arrival of intelligent life, while it might be the accidental byproduct of evolution, seems more fortunate than time and chance could create


I don't think chance is relevant here. Without intelligence there would be nothing to be surprised. That is, the odds may be very low but things that don't exist can not notice that they don't exist. There are a lot of planets in the Universe. It only takes one for that one to have a species that thinks it is some sort of US.

personally do not interpret the creation story literally, though I do not know, but feel is is an accurate way to convey the essence of humanity spiritual birth as a people and our estrangement from God.


That would require the existence of a god. We cannot be estranged from something that does not exist.

The earth and universe certainly looks very, very old and I do not believe God would create a world with deliberate deceptions to test people.


I go one step farther. I don't see a reason to believe in a god. If the Bible is not the word of god then it is the word of men. I see no reason to believe it is the word of god and I see a lot of reasons for believing it to be the word of men. Thus, why believe in a god that men invented.

I do, however, believe the progression of the physical and biological world seems ordered, more so than physical laws alone could bring about.


You are looking at the world from the wrong end of the telescope. We are an accident. Any signs of an order that exists solely to lead to us is purely illusory. We could not exist if those things didn't happen. But that doesn't mean that they happened for our benefit. It means that life evolved to fit the world. I think this is one of the major sticking points for those that insist that a creator is involved. They think that because we exist there must be a reason and purpose for our existence.

The reason seems to be chance. The purpose seems, like all life, to be to make more of us or at least to continue the species. Even this some people tend to overstate. We do not exist to continue the species so much as IF we don't continue the species then it dies out. Thus removing species that don't have continuation as an imperative, from the world.

Kind of like the Shakers. They decided their purpose was to NOT reproduce. They no longer exist and we have is some neat furniture and many Darwin Award winners.

Moreover, I am not and have not drawn atheists as immoral.


I don't recall you implying that. Someone else did though.

But neither does divorce from religion make one moral; the Soviet state was vehemently athiest and it achieved no greater level of morality than any other society.


That is more a case of being divorced from humanity. I see Communism as a religious type of thinking. Not a religion of course but a similar way of thinking in one aspect. That the idea is more important than the people. Especially when the people don't fit the idea.

Of course the Soviet Union had the extra added attraction of Stalin and other power hungry people for whom the State was a means to their own ends.

. And that is a motivator to my own beliefs since, incidentally, those are Christian precepts.


No they aren't. That is, they are in no way exclusive to or even required by Christianity. That it is part of your thinking is not a sign that it is part of all Christian thinking. There have been many a Christian that thought that promoting Christianity was more important than love or honesty.

"Kill them all and God will know his own."

To speak to the statistics of how many believers are in jail, I submit that everyone should admit there are many more factors involved in who is in jail than whether or not they believe in God;


That was there for those that claim Men are evil unless they are Christians. Even after pointing of the prison population such people usually simple change the definition of evil to something that is totally non-standard.

Don't put on a shoe that doesn't fit. But if the Foo shits I recommend getting clear rather than wearing it.

Ethelred
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 12, 2009
From my point of view, I think the arrival of intelligent life, while it might be the accidental byproduct of evolution, seems more fortunate than time and chance could create

Religionists invariably beg the question, consciously or not. "Since god exists then ..." They work from the conclusion backward. It is not a theory a priori but a factor in their equation. Scientists [the best of them] still have a possible goal in mind but that goal is always followed by a question mark, subject to revision or elimination as the facts reveal themselves.
Us high-level Freemasons tend to believe that this particular universe has an undeniable Structure because that's what the evidence tells us. This structure allowed for the existance of at least one intelligence capable of understanding it, which implies this structure is reflected in the composition of humans, humankind, and the human mind. Gods image if you will. Understanding ourselves and the ways we interact can lead to a deeper understanding of the universe which produced us. That is why this is so much fun.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 12, 2009
I can understand why Plato preferred the dialogue, Hegel the dialectic, etc- it's so much easier to write when you have something to respond to. And isn't that exactly what evolution is, a dialogue? Why would the 'Great Architect' create a dynamic universe and then not expect the life within it to change and adapt in concert? And why wouldn't we? We are the World. Thanks Michael.
acarrilho
not rated yet Jul 13, 2009
Why would the 'Great Architect' create a dynamic universe and then not expect the life within it to change and adapt in concert?


If you have any objective evidence of a "Great Architect" please share it with the rest of us.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 13, 2009
Secret Freemasonic stuff [sarcastic metaphor] I recommend 'Rule By Secrecy' by Jim Marrs if youre interested.

I thought the idea that evolution as a sort of dialogue between life and its ever-changing environment could be a good way for creationists to see how scientists understand it. Back when most religions were formed people thought the earth was the perfect, non-changing center of the universe. We know better now. It changes and life can and must change with it, improving itself in the process. Speciation is a form of protection. I thought it fit well with comments here on discussing things. What do you think?
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 13, 2009
So acarrilho what do you have against the idea of 'God' as a metaphor? Its certainly easier than saying 'the sum total of all the laws which govern the universe both known and yet to be discovered, and all the stuff which they govern'. I know- youre going to say that it has too much religionist baggage attached to it. But what personally do you have against it? You raised in a restrictive religionist environment?
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jul 14, 2009
I thought the idea that evolution as a sort of dialogue between life and its ever-changing environment could be a good way for creationists to see how scientists understand it.


Other than being an anthropomorphism its not bad. Dempsky fans want to know where the information in the genome comes from. It comes from the environment.

Effectively, mutations say 'is this a good idea' and the environment says yea or nay. Thus removing the bad mutations from the gene pool and leaving mutations that are neutral or an improvement.

Ethelred
zilqarneyn
1 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2009
Ethelred, when you happen to merely heckle, coupling that with words such as "nonesensical," then you are implicitly requesting the rating about yourself, too. Ethelred, you are merely heckling. No thought in your writing, "except" blind faith in evolutionism (inclusive of the mutationgod having parallel-templates all around the world).

((Rating: Ethelred believes "personal attacks" should be the evolutionists' tool -- and we know, they try to fool people with that kind of blather.))


There is no infinite regression about how the Creator could become. http://www.imame....rial.htm

Besides, no need to understand that page. If you only happen to believe some type of "godless genesis" then you have to admit that, the Creator could have been existing through that, in the first place. ((Rating: How are you critiqueing this? You have no criticism, at all. Merely denying, is your heckling style.))




The double-think of evolutionists, is reflected well in the term "mutationgod." What you expect from mutations, is illogical. A worldwide-template which comes up with the same patterns (and supposedly globally-optimizing the features, although working through local-optimization). ((Rating: Believing that "mutation" is the last word, is your ignorance. (If to give material example, that is how atom was thought to be what its name implies. But we now know that, atom is actually divisible.) ))

What is ignorant about "billions or millenia or perhaps less." That is a lot beyond the upper bound currently told by scientists, and the genesis within the Universe has to act within that given time. The Creator for His becoming, had no such time-bound (because, not bound with the time within the Universe). ((Rating: You are totally lacking any reading comprehension? How are you not able to understand something told within a sentence or two? How is your attention so lost?))


Where in the basic biochemistry, have you proven that something you suggest "must" have occurred? Nowhere. Trying to prove the concept of some "godless genesis," if succesful, would provide merely the possibility of the "godless genesis" and that nullifies the infinite regression lore. The Creator is the most likely thing to exist, therefore.


Ethelred's, opposition to terms, and not seeing the link between those, is just the sort of example, how evolution would work, if without the Creator. That is, the style of "thinking" in evolutionists, reflects evolutin they believe in. Ethelred, first opposes the concept word "mutationgod" but when next he brags "convergent- & parallel-evolutionism" myths to be "reality," he is only presuming that something is providing the patterns, all around the world.

Mutationgod is a god-of-the-gaps of evolutionists. Their heckling, won't change the truth about their blind-faith. The gaps in the knowledge, if attributed to something not seen to achieve the said, then that is a faith. (Rating: This sentence was not difficult, but sloganeers will stick with their denial. Tell the truth to other people. That is, actually what this talk is about. Not tellling to Ethelred for his understanding, but for people to witness what evolutionists are.)


Six days is not the issue. From Islamic knowledge, we know that the Judgment Day is hundreds of millenia or more (500 millenia, at least). That concept of "day" is relativistic, and exists in Islam, too. In this case, one might not accus Ethelred, if he had not known the time-relativity concept. But lots of simpletons have that attitude of looking into a portion of the Quran, and without looking into even the most-widely known logical explanations, they try their simpletonian guesses. Would we be rating Einstein's theories, through the guesses of the most stupid people, or through the people who truly understand the thing as the working law? Ignorance of the ignorant, binds himself, not Him.

The Quran is teling of "dehr" (understood as "long times") that even the name of humans was not on Earth. After Noah, there is understood to be some lost. (Whether that is lost elsewhere, or within that chronicled list, is a guess.) Adam (a.s.), if living almost a millenium, how long have the following generations lived?

Islam is opposing the doctrines of "original sin" (as passing to children) and "trinity" (but upholding the virgin birth of Jesus (a.s.) as a pure human). Except what Islam opposes in Christianity, I would guess the genesis is not among the changed portion, and so far not seeing the scientific cause, to revise this opinion. (As far as genesis is not a political thing, and if the Hebrew text is there, that is probably kept well. But hypocrites might have had a lobby, just how we see evolutionists now shelve the genesis. Besides, what might have been taken out, might have been "politically-incorrect" in the face of some tyrants.) In summary, I prefer upholding the genesis so far as respect is sufficient. (Evolutionists have gross double-standard, obviously.) I have not intensively read genesis. I'm listing the method of processing old texts (and our hadiths).

Again, I might thank about a good link, but again, I have the (current) Bible text (from Gutenberg project). What I need is a full list of science-vs-genesis list, and especially if that is available throuh internet (preferrably, through archive.org) so that, I might cite that, when I'm writing somehing (and the link would hopefully persist, if through archive.org, or so).

"Flaws in DNA" implies flaw in the DNA as a system? No. A film having "bad guys" would not list that a "bad film" but "a film that contains both good & bad guys." (Rating: Wow, I told a good example. But unfortunately (if I were trying to convince Ethelred, himself), that would be lost, I guess. But, people see the comment I wrote, furtherore, I might keep this for what I write elsewhere, too.)

You see, what you call "mutation" is something that is widely known. (I suspect, those that they uess to "recently evolve" might have been lurking in somewhere since before our forefather Adam (a.s.) was on his planet.) Look into the software I propose reflects the genomic flexibilities. Not coded for that. Plain software, but has macro-hierarchies internally, that change the behavior of the software.
http://www.imame....-frz.htm]http://www.imame....-frz.htm[/url]]http://www.imame....-frz.htm[/url]

Besides, mental illness genes are not recessive, so far as I know. If you have that somewhere in your family, you might have that illness.


I like talking in pure-science terms, but evolutionism is an illogical dogma. Furthermore, if the holy books tell something, the people with those faiths, might well think hypotheses/theories from that. How is that "not scientific?" I have no intention to think in "non-religious terms" especially given that evolutionism is pathetic with mutationgod (convergent/parallel evolutionism absurdities). The terms how I list, are widely understood. Genies basically correspond to microbes (working similarly).


I discuss the point about that supposed "infinite regression" and I refute that. Next, talking about whether the Creator is or is not changing Himself (now), is what I'm not interested about. That would be the kind of paparazzi stuff, such as about Zeus, that people wrote, to their taste. Why would I get into such extraneous topics? ((Rating: Ethelred is trying to divert the topic, rather than noticing the issue of "infinite regression" non-existing.))


Social science is science, too. If the law of the Book is holding, how might you ignore that portion of the truth? Besides, Islam is not changing. The Quran and hadiths (and old books) are on the record. Even when the laws in those hold, you deny their valid statements. But next, you expect respect to your "scientific" guesses about "inactivity of some god." ((Rating: Ethelred pretends agnosticism, quite obviously only to avoid the burden of proof of refuting the Creator. The two kinds of statements of Ethelred, contradict. If admitting that the Creator might exist, Ethelred must admit that the science might work about that, too. Denying the latter, is not science. That is blind faith in godlessness or in some "inactive-god."))

Social scientists study how people behave, because social scientists believe that people exist.

Art/etc critiques critique people's works in the context of their old works (filmography, etc.), because they believe there were people who were trying to express those films.

Knowing that the Creator exists, is how people have been relating the nature for millenia. Naturalists who had been catalogueing the typology, had been studying His creation. There is nothing refuting this view. I told that,
http://www.I-slam...nsky.htm

((Rating: Ethelred is totally out of this planet, or not knowing history. The materialist propaganda, does not make science materialist. (Nor, vice versa http://www.I-slam...body.htm ) Science is material, but not material"ist". Materialism believes in the "futuregod" & "mutationgod" to bring some material goodies. They are their god-of-the-gaps. They have no substance, in that potency. Thus materialist type of "science" is with cheeky oxymorons ("scientific-guess is the truth, but might change"). In contrast, the holy books make statements about the Universe, that remain in the book, and testable millenia later. The Quran is holding well, almost 14 centuries later. Isn't that miracle?))


What is "considerably smaller than the Universe?" What is the mass of your DNA? The Quran is the key for lots of (or, all of) the universal concepts. ((Rating: Ethelred has no concept of knowledge or technology. Give loads of bricks, and he would think that is as good as a valid text?))




The Islamic principle is to not accept what other people tell, if they do not have their proof about it. ((Rating: Evolutionism is rubbish.))

Dobzhansky is not showing that respect to other people's faith. Not merely not believing, but profanely assaulting to the concept of the Creator. Those personal-attacks to the Creator, target the people who believe in that, too. (I'm logical. Evolutionists are not.) If you try to make some "logical" point of refuting what I believe in, you need to think. Dobzhansky pretends so. Then, when I look at how Dobzhansky is trying to refute that what he is assaulting, I found that, Dobzhansky's text is profanely rubbish. ((Rating: Ethelred is thoughtlessly repeating his false point of faithlessness-being-a-license-to-assault-the-opponent's-faith, again, again. Do I need to respond to that, again, and again?))




What is supposedly "senseless" about the flood? (But that might not necessarily be world-wide. Why need to flood all the world, to sink a single tribe? The word "arD" in Arabic, might stand for a piece of land, or some continent, or all of the World. Thus, the thing might be lost in translation. What is the Hebrew word about that? I might look that up, too.)



The World is the test ground, Islam is telling us. This is good design. People pass away, after some time. Heaven & hell, are the perfect lives. Childbirth would be baseless, if none would die. ((Rating: Ethelred thinks that, unless the Craetor would create people in one shot altogether, that is (supposedly) bad design. That is his limit in thought.))




The Ethelred statement "Evolution cannot not happen." exposes his faith, yet again. The belief in "convergent- or parallel evolution" is totally a templategod, mutationgod. Totally ludicrous, illogical things. Obviously false faith.

There Ethelred goes again, by pointing to talkorigins.org, which I debunk by debunking the "modern synthesis" of evolutionism, because that is what talkorigins.org supports (and the link I point in what I publish is to UC Berkeley, but that, in turn, points to their comrade, talkorigins.org). See how their "modern synthesis" is rubbish.
http://www.I-slam...nsky.htm

In summary, their "modern synthesis" hopes that, if subspecies might have gaps, then that would be proof toward having new genomes, too. But breaking something is a lot more trivial than building. Besides, that is normal in sufficiently complex genome structures, if I might reflect from the software metaphor.
http://www.imame....-frz.htm]http://www.imame....-frz.htm[/url]]http://www.imame....-frz.htm[/url]

BTW, this view is holding well with the research people publish, so far. The genome is probably internally, somehow like the software I publish (with formal nets).




The wishfulness of Osborne is well-documented. The reporters only put a picture to that story. The rest is what "scientists" were guessing.

BTW, whether intentionally or not, the Nebraska man hoax was well-timed, before the Scopes trial. They tell of not bringing that up in the trial, but that is defaulting to the big noise of the newspapers, then.

Ironically, although I had not told anything about "scientists" incorporating "Nebraska man" into their current theories, Ethelred was reflexively opposing that. Next, he lists that site with that other hoax/blunder (of "vestigiality") in its title. Do scientists incorporate that to their current thinking? Ludicrous.

The ludicrous thing is there, Ethelred lists "pandasthumb.org" again. (First, a typo, I might correct what I wrote the last time. I knew that talkorigins.org is old and false stuff, because I know that the "modern synthesis" is entirely garbage. In the case of "pandasthumb.org," though, I told that is "old stuff" because the name is a hoax, or evolutionist-thoughtlessness, thus a site which has that name, is obviously not execting to be taken serious except by evolutionist dogmatics. See links (by other people, christians, but that is the same if muslims would write, too),
http://www.ideace.../id/1477
http://www.answer...anda.asp

While looking about that, this past week, I saw the wikipedia article, too. Wow, is our listening apparatus supposedly "vestigial" because we have "lost" that ability to move our ears? What fun is that? How is that opposing the Creator's design about us? Evolutionists fool their own followers, with such false things.

Creationists (again, a christian link, but muslims surely agree), point out that, there is nothing vestigial in humans.
http://www.answer...gial.asp

Thus, we return to the perfect creation, with divine purpose. Get rid of the evolutionists' pretenses/lies about refuting the Creator.




The whole concept of "convergent- and parallel evolutionisms" (para-evo) requires that standardizing, worldwide -- in opposition to some true evolutionary-tree which would bring up unrelated species. You would not need to guess what I am talking about, because I have told that repetitively. Para-evo is a ludicrous, entirely illogical faith, a logical fallacy, especially if you at the same time try to suggest that evolutionism were refutable. Para-evo refutes that, entirely. But you stick with evolutionism. (I know that Richard Dawkins is atheist, but that is just how Ethelred is. Their supporting para-evo to be "godless" does not make that godless. That makes the "templategod" or "mutationgod" the god-of-the-gaps of evolutionists.)

The thing about "modern synthesis" is pointing out a logical fallacy of evolutionists, too. They try to go from micro-evolution, to macro-evolution, but there is no such pointer there. I told this,
http://www.imame....-frz.htm]http://www.imame....-frz.htm[/url]]http://www.imame....-frz.htm[/url]


Ethelred is totally lost in his own blather. How is the word "para-evo" not understood, as referring to "parallel-evolutionism?" Just trying to neglect what I'm telling? Your choice. Who cares? But people see how baseless evolutionists have been. That is why people refute evolutionism.


The point about why genesis1 vs. genesis2 might have different order, is that one is the conceptual creation (like planning a machine), the next is the building of that (applying that first plan). Lots of us create things, that way. (I have not gone into the exact words of the two genesis texts, let alone contrasting, but so far as the concept of time-order is told, that resembles what I had thought about the Universe, inspired from the Quran and hadiths.) This was understandable, I guess. ((Rating: But Ethelred is content with merely heckling.))


In summary, I wasn't that who first put the roughness on the table. Dobzhansky and his followers, and lots of evolutionists like to talk pejoratively, all at the same time of their subscribing to evolutionist myths, logical fallacies.

By pure science, evolutionism is a hoax. Get the title "faith" to evolutionism, or else if you will persist in calling that a "truth" or "fact" to impose that on logical people, then people will have to point out that evolutionism is a hoax, and your comrades will be types like Ethelred. What a bad choice, even if you do not believe in afterlife.

Quoting Orwell's "1984" the point of pure science "When 2 2=4, the rest might follow." That is for freedom. But if you would add "mutationgod" or "templateod" or "futuregod" into that, then you are evolutionist or materialist of some sort. Trying to tell us the "truth" true "Ministry of Truth" (NAS/etc, with oxymorons, and logical fallacies).


Ethelred:
There is no way to prove the existence of a god if the god doesn't care about worshipers and created a universe that looked exactly like there was no god.

That was the point of Dobzhansky, and obviously false. The Universe (the fossil reords, etc.) is intricately how creators create things.

As I told, the fossil records reflect just how people create. Referring to multiple (prior art) modules, while crafting something new. That is what the oxymoron of "convergent evolutionism" is trying to hide.


modernmystic,
About thermodynamics, the point from a hadith is that Allah's hand is going up and down (I understand that as waves, especially that the hadith starts with His throne being on fluid ("mai" is fluid or water)), and that fits our understanding the Universe, now. Namely, the Universe is made of waves (guided by Allah, that hadith is telling). Then, that hadith continues that, Allah has not lost any of His capability ("energy") since the beginning. Thus, thermodynamics does not apply Him. He works without adding fuel. (Hey, that fits to the Bible, too? What Ethelred quoted as "unchanging" fits not only to the principles of Him as He told us, but also to His not losing any "fuel." Both hold.)




otto1923,

I wonder what you suggest as the Creator supposedly "breaking His own law." What is His law, if not in the holy books?! Something about intercession? Then, I might offer the Islamic point about that.
http://www.imame....faah.htm

If the God would not explain anything, He would not have sent the holy books. Thus, that is not the point. But if He is not explaining everything, that is His choice. Do you truly explain everything about yourself to all people? Let alone, trying that in a tweet of 140 bytes? Surely, we might be lacking the capacity to fully understand Him, but hopefully not to the point of having confusion. I told this before (for Islam),
http://www.zilqar...slam.htm




P.S: After that point, I'm getting off for another week. Not even looking into what people have been writing, but I might in the future. If addressing something to me, better state that so (listing "zilqarneyn" so that I might find that in this long list), and you might e-mail me (or, tweet to http://www.twitte...lqarneyn ), especially if I won't return to respond to that in a week. ((BTW, most issues in this thread, seem to be getting nowhere. Old stuff. So far as I've seen, this thread might only help trainiing people's nerves for dogma-facing, if they have the time to.))
zilqarneyn
1 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2009
The link to the software for the genome metaphor, is garbled. That was,
http://www.imame....-frz.htm

Try this, if that is not visible.
http://www.imame.org/4/gf
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 14, 2009
Yappa yappa-
'His law' is cause and effect. 'His law' is what was, what is, and what is yet to be. Humans have the potential capacity to understand all.
@Ethelred- Lets not forget how life has affected it's environment. An oxygen atmosphere, limestone mountains, 'global warming' etc.

otto1923
not rated yet Jul 14, 2009
@zilqarnehn
Sorry, but almost anywhere I look in the Quran I see 'believers will be blessed but unbelievers will pay for it.' I see little else there but 'us vs you' no matter where I look. Most parables are rehashed bible stories with little content, easy for clerics to interpret any way they want. Same old story- suffer now for paradise later. Please don't write another book trying to change my mind. 
OTTO is GOD spelled by esoteric rules-
Notice the twin pillars Joachim and Boaz
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 14, 2009
God thought about writing a book but he said 'why should I? I shall give the people senses to experience all that I have created and a brain to understand it, so that they shall know me.' But the people like the animals they came from were hard-hearted and overly prolific. Their leaders were dismayed. 'Jesus! If we don't do something this whole place will look like the Syrian desert.' so they decided to write some books and present them to the people with great fanfare, so the people would know that their leaders could read and they could not. These books contained rules of conduct which made managing the multitudes possible. They were crude, full of mistakes and spelling errors, and the rulers couldn't help but change them from time to time. But they were portable and made the spread of order throughout the world easier. And the people were thus convinced to suffer with less than their parents had, and to fight and die when they were told. 
For all who have ears, let them hear! 
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 14, 2009
As I told, the fossil records reflect just how people create. Referring to multiple (prior art) modules, while crafting something new. That is what the oxymoron of "convergent evolutionism" is trying to hide.
modernmystic,
About thermodynamics, the point from a hadith is that Allah's hand is going up and down (I understand that as waves, especially that the hadith starts with His throne being on fluid ("mai" is fluid or water)), and that fits our understanding the Universe, now. Namely, the Universe is made of waves (guided by Allah, that hadith is telling). Then, that hadith continues that, Allah has not lost any of His capability ("energy") since the beginning. Thus, thermodynamics does not apply Him. He works without adding fuel. (Hey, that fits to the Bible, too? What Ethelred quoted as "unchanging" fits not only to the principles of Him as He told us, but also to His not losing any "fuel." Both hold.)


Waa? Your books reflect just how people create. Your 'interpretations' reflect how open they are to interpretation [no real content]. Thats painfully obvious to anyone except believers.

acarrilho
not rated yet Jul 14, 2009
So acarrilho what do you have against the idea of 'God' as a metaphor? Its certainly easier than saying 'the sum total of all the laws which govern the universe both known and yet to be discovered, and all the stuff which they govern'.


I cannot logically separate "Universe" from the laws in effect "therein" (in quotation marks because I also cannot logically argue for a "thereout" in this specific context). "Material Universe" might be an adequate distinction, if the need arises. The ambiguity brought about by such a needless metaphor leads to all sorts of abuses, as we can all see.

I know- youre going to say that it has too much religionist baggage attached to it. But what personally do you have against it? You raised in a restrictive religionist environment?


Hardly. Most of what pisses me off takes place in the USA. A country with which I have an odd love/hate relationship.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 14, 2009
The ambiguity brought about by such a needless metaphor leads to all sorts of abuses, as we can all see.

"We also need to emphasize that neither the Quran nor its miracle are accessible to the disbelievers or idol-worshipers. It is God's system that they are blocked from seeing the truth as they chose not to believe in God or to associate others with God already."
-I found this on an Islam website. See, THIS is why we dont understand. Powerfully dangerous stuff. Very well designed... by Men, not gods. Modernmystic said the same thing earlier. "You cant see it if you dont want to." Didnt Peter Pan also?
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 14, 2009
[9:111] GOD has bought from the believers their lives and their money in exchange for Paradise. Thus, they fight in the cause of GOD, willing to kill and get killed. Such is His truthful pledge in the Torah, the Gospel, and the Quran - and who fulfills His pledge better than GOD? You shall rejoice in making such an exchange. This is the greatest triumph.


From the Quran. And who attains paradise? Who knows? It doesnt matter. These books were written to affect what people do in this life. And they do it SO well. This says it better than I ever could. Magnificent.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 14, 2009
Notice the verse number: 9:111 ...a combination of the Trinity and the Call to Action. These People [The Ones Who Rule] sure do love their symbolism.
smiffy
not rated yet Jul 15, 2009
Otto, man, you are joking? You're not seriously suggesting that some of the Koran is numbered with the phone code for emergency services in the USA?

Now, might it not be you who loves symbolism? Your serious points are much better.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 15, 2009
Thankyou sir or madam. Freemasonic types do love their symbolism. Remember that religionists hang on every word of every phrase that god utters in his books. A chance coincidence can turn into an eternal mystery. Jam on toast can be a visitation worth $$$ on eBay. Just read holyman zilqamehn's post above. Eclipses and conjunctions are good times to invade. Rubes eat it up. Also, 9x11= the 99 names of Allah, proof positive of shekinah (shock and awe) right there. I recommend Jim marrs, dan brown of course, and the pleasant nutter David Icke-
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jul 16, 2009
This post is going to be broken into three parts. Its all one reply but the middle part pertains to things that zilqarneyn linked to on his site.

These is probably completely futile but I will reply to zilqarneyn despite his efforts to invent my position for me. To abuse the English language with invented words like Mutationgod and to generally engage in no logic whatsoever. Like the line that comes below:

Ethelred, you are merely heckling


Nonsense. I was fairly specific. YOU started this not me. Quit acting like I went looking for you.

No thought in your writing, "except" blind faith in evolutionism (inclusive of the mutationgod having parallel-templates all around the world).


For someone with blind faith in non-existent gods that is pretty rich. And written in a way that shows you simply don't have a clue as to how evolution works.

THERE IS NO TEMPLATE.

Anyone claiming such hasn't a clue. There are no gods in evolution. Constant use of special definitions and words that have no scientific meaning shows you are the one that is reduced to heckling.

((Rating: Ethelred believes "personal attacks" should be the evolutionists' tool -- and we know, they try to fool people with that kind of blather.))


I didn't attack you as a person. I have attacked your unsupported claims.

There is no infinite regression about how the Creator could become.


The logic is inherent. If a universe requires a creator than a creator requires a creator. It is the same exact logic and you simple gainsaying won't change that.

If you only happen to believe some type of "godless genesis" then you have to admit that, the Creator could have been existing through that, in the first place.


If is not DID. The Giant Orbiting Aardvark could have always been there too since there is no evidence that either Allah or the GOA exist and not evidence that the GOA doesn't and there is evidence against Genesis, which you seem to think is needed for your beliefs, the GOA wins out over Allah.

That is, materialists contradict their own ideology, when they question "So, who created the God, then?"


Interesting the way you make up logic. There is no contradiction and you didn't even try to show one.

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

From his link:

# Merely billions of millenia (our Universe) is too short a time for us to evolve by chance


True. Its not by chance. Its by Natural Selection which is NOT chance. Funny how you Creationist just keep pretending that it is.

# Allah has no functional-dependency to some else -- while we need our enzymes, etc.


Nor does the Universe need enzymes. We do but they existed before we did. We inherited them from previous lifeforms. There is no reason to believe that the earliest self-replicating molecules needed enzymes.

The Quran is stating the "gods" issue. "If there were "gods", the Universe would not be so orderly."


The Universe isn't orderly. It is mostly disordered.

No matter what "root-cosmology" we might think (evolution, spontaneous-first, survival-of-the-fittest, etc), we have to supplement that with the point that, Allah has consciousness. Now, active.


Well so has the Giant Orbiting Aadvark. The source of the information about Allah and the GOA is identical. Human beings.

Allah is most likely creatively developing Himself. Thus, Allah is self-made.


It is interesting the way Creationist rewrite what has been written to fit the needs of the day.

Now that was heckling. But its still relevant.

After reading that I saw no logic at all that supported the idea that Allah does not need a creator.

The principles of Mathematics already exist, we call it a discovery and not an invention when we find principles that are new to us.

Math needs no creator thus mathematically valid Universes would not absolutely require one.

Besides, there is the Quran.


Written by one man.

Allah sent us that text, with Muhammed (s.a.s.) that now we have been informed muslims.


And I should believe that for what reason? Because YOU tell me to? Because Muhammed did?

By that reasoning I should be a Mormon. After all Joseph Smith is more recent and thus clearly in better touch with the present thinking of the alleged creator.

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

Return from link.

The double-think of evolutionists, is reflected well in the term "mutationgod."


Well double think is what you are doing by using magic words that have no relevance.

Have you read 1984? I have.

What you expect from mutations, is illogical. "


I find it very logical and based on your total lack of comprehension of how it and logic works I don't find it surprising that you refuse to think about it.

al. A worldwide-template which comes up with the same patterns (and supposedly globally-optimizing the features, although working through local-optimization).


Again there is no world wide template. Where the hell did you get that idea?

Parallel evolution is rare. It only happens when animals are in similar environments and start from similar structures. It NEVER is exact. Nor does anyone expect it to be so.

What is ignorant about "billions or millenia or perhaps less."


You said:

Furthermore, that needs to act in the time we have (merely billions of millenia, or perhaps less)


OF not OR. Which is ignorant since the Universe isn't trillions of years old. Its billions.

That you changed what you said without admitting that you got it wrong the first time is cheating. Much like making up my position for me.

That is a lot beyond the upper bound currently told by scientists, and the genesis within the Universe has to act within that given time.


Actually millennia is only in the bounds of Genesis and billions is well within the bounds of science. About 13.7 billion is the best present estimate. YOU said something quite different the first time and that worked out to trillions.

The Creator for His becoming, had no such time-bound (because, not bound with the time within the Universe). (


Unfortunately for you the Creator in Genesis IS time bound. To about 6,000 years. If you want to change that show cause. Actual Biblical cause since it is the Bible that has it so wrong. Its OK to use the Quran in your case. But actually post quotes from the Quran and not stuff you make up, which you do all over your site.

((Rating: You are totally lacking any reading comprehension?


Are you? I quoted you exactly and you CHANGED what you said.

How are you not able to understand something told within a sentence or two? How is your attention so lost?))


How are you unable to quote yourself accurately?

If you want to clarify something I don't have a problem with that. You didn't say you were clarifying. You marked it as a quote.

Where in the basic biochemistry, have you proven that something you suggest "must" have occurred? Nowhere. T


No one knows how life got started. There is no expectation of ever knowing. Otherwise I must assume you meant basic biochemistry. It supports evolution in the way it works.

The Creator is the most likely thing to exist, therefore.


A creator is not needed to explain the Universe. So it is just isn't science to claim there is a need for one.

That is, the style of "thinking" in evolutionists, reflects evolutin they believe in.


Well that is kind of inherent. The science that is behind evolution does tend to lead to think in evolutionary terms. The thinking in religion seems to result in thing that god did it and deny all evidence to the contrary.

Ethelred, first opposes the concept word "mutationgod" but when next he brags "convergent- & parallel-evolutionism" myths to be "reality," he is only presuming that something is providing the patterns, all around the world.


There is no god in science. Simply abusing English won't make it true.

There is NO PATTERN except the environment. If the environment and the needs of a species are sufficiently similar there is every reason to expect similar but not identical results.

However I must repeat that parallel evolution is fairly rare. And never actually parallel.

Mutationgod is a god-of-the-gaps of evolutionists.


There is no god in science.

heir heckling, won't change the truth about their blind-faith.


Calling science that is based on evidence blind faith is simply lying. A favorite lie of Creationist everywhere it seems.

The gaps in the knowledge, if attributed to something not seen to achieve the said, then that is a faith.


Not faith. Just a reasonable expectation based on the evidence that is available.

Now believing in a god because ONE MAN claimed it existed is quite an act of faith. Especially if that god is dependent on things that are in Genesis.

Six days is not the issue.


It is in Genesis.

That concept of "day" is relativistic, and exists in Islam, too.


Genesis is pretty clear about it. Mornings and evenings and all that.

Still you are right that the six days don't matter. The order of creation in Genesis is wrong. BOTH orders in Genesis are wrong. Genesis one and two have different orders.

In this case, one might not accus Ethelred, if he had not known the time-relativity concept.


I know about it. It just doesn't match what is actually in Genesis. Are you authorized to rewrite it?

Ignorance of the ignorant, binds himself, not Him


You do seem bound and determined to remain ignorant about evolution.

After Noah, there is understood to be some lost.


Very little as his son Shem overlaps in time with Abraham. The site I am looking at has 427 years between the Flood and Jehovah's pact with Abraham.

Similar at Blue Letter Bible. Where they have Egypt founded 2170BC which is longer after they started building the pyramids in the real world. Hey don't blame the messenger.

Same at a site you are fan of Answers in Genesis.

http://www.answer...ible.pdf

Adam (a.s.), if living almost a millenium, how long have the following generations lived?


Fundamentalist Christians have worked out the numbers. They don't admit to any gaps in there numbers. Even the guys that know the numbers have problems couldn't find a way to extend the time available.

I would guess the genesis is not among the changed portion, and so far not seeing the scientific cause, to revise this opinion.


Try to find some evidence to support the flood. There is none. Yet it should be everywhere. Even in Mecca and Medina. Even outside your door and mine. In the pyramids and our genes.

I have not intensively read genesis.


I have. It doesn't match the world we live in.

Again, I might thank about a good link, but again, I have the (current) Bible text (from Gutenberg project).


Blue Letter Bible has a lot of tools as well as many translations. Plus the original Hebrew and Greek.

What I need is a full list of science-vs-genesis list, and especially if that is available throuh internet


There is one on this thread for Genesis one. I wrote it myself and it is accurate. No one even tried to show so much as a single mistake.

"Flaws in DNA" implies flaw in the DNA as a system?


Nothing in the biological world is perfect. There are even some viruses that don't use DNA. HIV for instance is a RNA virus.

You see, what you call "mutation" is something that is widely known.


Indeed it is. Even Answers in Genesis admits that mutations are undeniable and they deny things with a lot of evidence to support them.

Besides, mental illness genes are not recessive, so far as I know. If you have that somewhere in your family, you might have that illness.


You know so little. Some genes that result in mental illness are recessive and some are dominant but most are dependent on the interactions of multiple genes, and probably some environmental effects as well.

If you have that somewhere in your family, you might have that illness.


So might you, even if it doesn't show in any one that you know of.

like talking in pure-science terms, but evolutionism is an illogical dogma.


Let me know when you actually use a single scientific term with the original meaning intact. There is nothing illogical about evolution.

Let me go over this with you since you clearly haven't read ANYTHING about evolution in a book that is about evolution except perhaps for books by Creationists.

Mutations happen. This is incontrovertible and all but the most head-in-the-sand Creationist admits that they happen. So take your head out of the sand.

Mutations effect survivability.

ALL species have more offspring than the environment can support.

Thus mutations that lower the odds of reproducing will be selected out and mutations that improve the odds will increase in the gene pool of any species.

This is something that cannot not happen. As long as there are mutations there will be evolution.

So claiming that evolution is not logical is an exercise in exceeding bad logic.

Furthermore, if the holy books tell something, the people with those faiths, might well think hypotheses/theories from that. How is that "not scientific?"


Its based on the writings of men and not evidence. That is how it is not scientific.

Genies basically correspond to microbes (working similarly).


Is that Djann you are referring to? I thought they were not microscopic. The ones in Scheherazade's tales certainly were a tad larger than microbes.

I discuss the point about that supposed "infinite regression" and I refute that.


No you did not. You simply denied it. You failed to show any logic that applied to the Universe that didn't also apply to Allah.

Next, talking about whether the Creator is or is not changing Himself (now), is what I'm not interested about.


I will skip over that stuff since it is purely theological and has nothing to do with evolution or science.

Social science is science, too.


There are those that would disagree.

If the law of the Book is holding, how might you ignore that portion of the truth? Besides, Islam is not changing.


Of course not. That is why Muslims never kill each other over religion. Oh wait they do. Much like Christians used to in larger numbers and now in very small numbers.

Even when the laws in those hold, you deny their valid statements.


Actually I only deny claims of divine origin.

But next, you expect respect to your "scientific" guesses about "inactivity of some god."


No, I don't expect that from you. You clearly DON'T respect science or you wouldn't use ludicrous words like "mutationgod".

((Rating: Ethelred pretends agnosticism, quite obviously only to avoid the burden of proof of refuting the Creator.


I don't 'pretend'. I am Agnostic and have had silly arguments with Atheists over it. The silliness was theirs and the jokes tended to be mine.

quite obviously only to avoid the burden of proof of refuting the Creator.


Actually I have refuted the Creator in Genesis. I simply don't think it is possible to refute all possible gods. Only those that are defined with sufficient specificity to test against the real world. Like Jehovah in Genesis for instance or the god of the Mormons.

If admitting that the Creator might exist, Ethelred must admit that the science might work about that, too.


Actually I have pointed it out that Jehovah, as described in Genesis, is provable if true. However the evidence is to the contrary so Jehovah is disproved.

Social scientists study how people behave, because social scientists believe that people exist.


No. Because they have evidence that people exist. Belief is not needed.

Knowing that the Creator exists, is how people have been relating the nature for millenia.


BELIEVING that a creator exists is not the same as knowing. If the world was 6,000 or so years old with evidence for a world wide flood than people would KNOW that Jehovah exists.

Again the evidence is to the contrary.

Naturalists who had been catalogueing the typology, had been studying His creation. There is nothing refuting this view. I told that,


The entire Universe refutes the view.

Materialism believes in the "futuregod" & "mutationgod" to bring some material goodies.


You do like to make things up don't you? I guess its easier than dealing with what I actually write.

That paragraph was about the worst written piece of nonsense I have run across in some time. It made up my side and supported nothing of yours.

Everything you say applies equally to the Giant Orbiting Aardvark. I wrote about myself so I know it to be true.

The Quran is holding well, almost 14 centuries later. Isn't that miracle?))


A miracle of an ever increasing denial of reality anyway.

What is "considerably smaller than the Universe?"


Everything smaller.

What is the mass of your DNA?


Several million daltons.

The Quran is the key for lots of (or, all of) the universal concepts.


The Giant Orbiting Aardvark is the key. And I have exactly as much evidence. More really since only one man made up the Quran and I am not the first to make stuff about the GOA.

((Rating: Ethelred has no concept of knowledge or technology. Give loads of bricks, and he would think that is as good as a valid text?))


Again you disdain actually dealing with pretty much anything I really say. You just make something up, pretend that I said it and then claim I am wrong without even bothering to show that your straw man was indeed wrong.

The Islamic principle is to not accept what other people tell, if they do not have their proof about it. ((Rating: Evolutionism is rubbish.))


But of course it is OK to take Muhammed at his word even when it is in conflict with reality.

Rating - your ratings are rubbish.

Dobzhansky is not showing that respect to other people's faith.


Not much to respect when your faith denies reality.

Not merely not believing, but profanely assaulting to the concept of the Creator.


Or rather pointing out that is a concept without evidence to support it. At terrible thing that is. Actually wanting evidence from believers.

Those personal-attacks to the Creator, target the people who believe in that, too.


It is not possible to make personal attacks against something that does not exist. As for your beliefs, you are the one that put them at hazard by posting here.

(I'm logical. Evolutionists are not.) I


And I have your word on that. I am reassured that your total lack of logic and evidence is not a sign that you don't actually have some. Perhaps it is as invisible as the Giant Orbiting Aardvark.

I found that, Dobzhansky's text is profanely rubbish


The key word is PROFANE. You don't like it so it is rubbish in your mind. Unfortunately it isn't otherwise rubbish.

((Rating: Ethelred is thoughtlessly repeating his false point of faithlessness-being-a-license-to-assault-the-opponent's-faith, again, again. Do I need to respond to that, again, and again?))


No, you could accept reality and become an Agnostic.

I am under NO obligation to kowtow to your beliefs. Nor is Dobzhansky under such an obligation. He and I have the right to disagree with your beliefs. We have the right to do so publicly. If you don't like it there are number of countries where they are willing to kill unbelievers.

What is supposedly "senseless" about the flood?


It didn't happen.

(But that might not necessarily be world-wide.


Genesis disagrees.

Why need to flood all the world, to sink a single tribe?


To kill all that crawled upon the Earth. Where do you get that single tribe idea?


Gen 7:4
For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

Gen 7:19
And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered.

Gen 7:20
Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.


Hey its not my fault that they thought fifteen cubits would cover the mountains. I didn't write this stuff. Perhaps it means that even the mountains were under at least 15 cubits of water. Which is about ten feet.

Gen 7:21
And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

Gen 7:22
All in whose nostrils [was] the breath of life, of all that [was] in the dry [land], died.

Gen 7:23
And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained [alive], and they that [were] with him in the ark.


All told its a pretty thorough slaughter of all life on land at least.

What is the Hebrew word about that? I might look that up, too.)


Its pretty much the same as the English translation as far as I can tell.

Childbirth would be baseless, if none would die.


Yep. Childbirth is just a tad painful and dangerous for something from a perfect creator.

The Ethelred statement "Evolution cannot not happen." exposes his faith, yet again.


Actually it isn't based on faith. Just the evidence and logic.

The belief in "convergent- or parallel evolution" is totally a templategod, mutationgod. Totally ludicrous, illogical things. Obviously false faith.


Since you made all that up I don't believe it either. Why do you make up things like that? It isn't even close to evolutionary theory.

which I debunk by debunking the "modern synthesis" of evolutionism,


You seem to think that claiming you have done things is the same as doing them. You have yet to debunk anything.

Oh dear that link was to your Dobzhansky rant. The nonsense you posted before.

In summary, their "modern synthesis" hopes that, if subspecies might have gaps, then that would be proof toward having new genomes, too


That is such a total botch that is hard to find anything that is right in it. Well the words are all spelled right. That's about it.

Go get a book on evolution so you can talk about it without looking completely ignorant.

Break point
Part one of three.

Ethelred
acarrilho
5 / 5 (1) Jul 16, 2009
Ah, Islam... working under the premise that Muhammad's poetry was so darn good it had to be divinely inspired. 'Cause we all know the very strict criteria under which "good" poetry is written. *sigh* The most amazing display of stupidity I have ever come across is accepting the validity of Muhammad's "challenge" for someone to write better poetry when it was accepted a priori that, by his own rule, his was divinely inspired and as good as it gets, making challengers liars by default. Any other fault of Islam pales in comparison to the inherent stupidity at its very core.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 16, 2009
Here here. Nonsense meant to be sung like Kurt Cobain music. If it was anywhere close to reality it would be easier to disprove. As dawkins points out in 'the God Delusion', attacking a faith is legitimate due to the damage it causes. May be the reason for the following:
[1996] "Pope John Paul II has proclaimed that the theory [of evolution] is 'more than just a hypothesis' and that evolution is compatible with Christian faith. In a written message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the pope said the theory of evolution has been buttressed by scientific studies and discoveries since Charles Darwin ..." If there was a Caliph I bet he would do the same- a new Islamic Golden Age. Still very bad I know, but possible-
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jul 17, 2009
Part two of three

From his link:

# Merely billions of millenia (our Universe) is too short a time for us to evolve by chance


True. Its not by chance. Its by Natural Selection which is NOT chance. Funny how you Creationist just keep pretending that it is.

# Allah has no functional-dependency to some else -- while we need our enzymes, etc.


Nor does the Universe need enzymes.

The Quran is stating the "gods" issue. "If there were "gods", the Universe would not be so orderly."


The Universe isn't orderly. It is mostly disordered.

No matter what "root-cosmology" we might think (evolution, spontaneous-first, survival-of-the-fittest, etc), we have to supplement that with the point that, Allah has consciousness. Now, active.


Well so has the Giant Orbiting Aardvark. The source of the information about Allah and the GOA is identical. Human beings.

Allah is most likely creatively developing Himself. Thus, Allah is self-made.


It is interesting the way Creationist rewrite what has been written to fit the needs of the day. Especially when one single man is the entire source for the belief in a god that one created.

Now that was heckling. But its still relevant.

Now after reading that I saw no logic at all that supported the idea that Allah does not need a creator.

Now the principles of Mathematics aready exist, we call it a discovery and not an invention when we find principles that are new to us.

Math needs no creator thus mathematically valid Universes would not require one. The Universe exists because it can.

Besides, there is the Quran.


Written by one man. Who you believe only because you believe. A thoroughly circular system.

Allah sent us that text, with Muhammed (s.a.s.) that now we have been informed muslims.


And I should believe that for what reason? Because YOU tell to? Because Muhammed did?

By that reasoning I should be a Mormon. After all Joseph Smith was much more recent and thus clearly in better touch with the present thinking of the alleged creator.

Thus endeth part the second.

There will be a general commentary that is not a specific reply after wards.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jul 17, 2009
I seem to have lost track of where I was. Please pretend that the previous post never happened.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jul 17, 2009
Part Two of Three. No really this the real second part. I promise.

These things are getting too bloody long.

From zilqarneyn's links.

The genome of a species is able to express lots of variety.


I don't think you understand biology at all. Species as such do not have genomes, individuals do. Species have gene pools. Yes there is room for a variety of combination's of the genes from the gene pool within any species. However that is not the basis of evolution, mutations that ADD to the gene pool is where evolution comes from.

Biologists document that. For example, the fruit fly (drosophila).


Yes they do. They use drosophila to test MUTATIONS and evolution in the lab. The fruit flies of Hawaii have mutated and speciated. Just saying Allah did it is not science. It is religion and you clearly are not capable of thinking any other way.

The genome is not able to self-modify to become the genome of a different species.


No one with any science has ever claimed such a thing. Straw man argument.

Allah is able to publish new species -- how Adam (a.s.) was the first human.


Neither Allah or Adam has any evidence to support their existence. Now a god of some sort might still exist but Adam is right out. If there had a been an actual Adam and even more to the point Noah, the evidence would be so overwhelming that I would be a believer in some sort of creationism. I am not because the evidence simply is not there.

The genome is not able to self-modify to become the genome of a different species.


Of course not. That is Lamarkian. Mutations are not self-modification.

frozen@mid80 1.1 was not containing all of the 1.4 content. No amount of formal-net expressing within 1.1, would get to the 1.4 -- although they look almost similar. New.


Which is still a different species from the original. Redefining thing with non-standard meanings is a typical Creationist trick. No one in science expects one species to become another species.

And congratulations. This a NEW CREATIONIST FALLACY. I haven't seen a new one in years.

Convergent evolution is in no way whatsoever a theory that one species will change to match another already existing species. While a new fallacy, it is still typical. Invent something ridiculous, then call it by a word in common usage that does not match the fallacy and then use the bogus meaning in place of the real meaning of the word.

Knocking-out some gene (or, a few), to see what would not work, is not guaranteeing that, that gene is the single gene necessary for that thing to work.


Hey you actually managed to get something right. Of course it says nothing about evolution, it only says that a set of genes are needed. Knocking out any of the set will change the results and sometimes knocking out any gene in the set will get the same result.

frozen@mid80 is refuting the evolutionist fallacy of confusing genetics with Darwin's sci-fi.


Can't be done. Genetics supports Darwin's ideas. Sci-Fi is a horrid term, coined by Forrest J Ackerman, many fans of Science Fiction agree with Harlan Ellison on this. SF is a better shortcut term. Just look at what the Sci-Fi Channel has done to itself by changing its name for the vastly worse with SYFY which makes many think of syphillis.

Thus, frozen@mid80 is able for (micro-)"speciation" -- although not able to evolve.


Micro evolution is nothing but short term evolution. Long term evolution can easily result in speciation and the fossil record supports this exceedingly well.

There might be two types of changes to a software

* internally-settable (then, revokable)
* internally not available. Might only patch externally, or publish new software.


Go learn some biology. There is no evidence to support these wild assed inventions.

Only with a full knowledge of the gene-expression, we might know what are the genomic flexibilities.


We know plenty. We KNOW there are mutations.

End of Part the Second. This time for sure.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Jul 17, 2009
Part Three.

Commentary to come. Maybe tomorrow.

The genome is probably internally, somehow like the software I publish (with formal nets).


Surprisingly so. It has lots of stuff that is messy.

BTW, whether intentionally or not, the Nebraska man hoax was well-timed, before the Scopes trial


There was no hoax. One man found a tooth he THOUGHT MIGHT be a human tooth. He asked for help and found that it was not human.

Go read something honest about it.

They tell of not bringing that up in the trial,


The defense wasn't allowed to present any evidence for evolution. So a mistake by an amateur wasn't going to be allowed either.

Go read up on the Scopes trial. The late L. Sprague De Camp wrote a pretty good book on it. The movie Inherit The Wind is surprisingly accurate, except for the name changes.


Ironically, although I had not told anything about "scientists" incorporating "Nebraska man" into their current theories, Ethelred was reflexively opposing that.


I am merely pointing out that it wasn't a hoax and is not used by anyone except ignorant Creationists.

Next, he lists that site with that other hoax/blunder (of "vestigiality") in its title.


Would you care to actually quote me upon occasion instead of making things up?

I have to guess at what you are referring to. My guess it the Panda's Thumb.

Its not vestigial. Its not an actual thumb either.

I knew that talkorigins.org is old and false stuff, because I know that the "modern synthesis" is entirely garbage


The things you think you know are garbage.

In the case of "pandasthumb.org," though, I told that is "old stuff" because the name is a hoax, or evolutionist-thoughtlessness,


Your ignorance is overwhelming. Its not a hoax. Pandas have a pseudo thumb.

See links (by other people, christians, but that is the same if muslims would write, too),


Well then the Muslims would be equally wrong.

Creationists (again, a christian link, but muslims surely agree), point out that, there is nothing vestigial in humans.


I am not aware of any truly vestigial organs in humans myself. Maybe the muscles for the hairs on our arms and such. The appendix seems to have some use. There is a disease or two that you can only get if you have it removed. Generally however you can survive quite well without one.

Again go learn some actual science. You won't get any at Answers In Genesis. You cannot learn about evolution there.

Get rid of the evolutionists' pretenses/lies about refuting the Creator.


Do show evidence for the flood please.

You would not need to guess what I am talking about, because I have told that repetitively. Para-evo is a ludicrous,


Absolutely. You made it up so no wonder it looks amazingly stupid.

Ethelred is totally lost in his own blather.


Let me know when you do something besides blather. No, wait, you invent straw men as well.


The point about why genesis1 vs. genesis2 might have different order, is that one is the conceptual creatio


I don't care why they are different. They remain different and both are wrong.

This was understandable, I guess. ((Rating: But Ethelred is content with merely heckling.))


An exact step by step comparison of the Bible vs reality is not mere heckling. If you don't like what I said then show where I made a mistake.

Dobzhansky and his followers, and lots of evolutionists like to talk pejoratively


Apparently disagreeing with your beliefs counts as a pejorative. In that case disagreeing with reality must count as a great deal worse.

By pure science, evolutionism is a hoax.


By pure science you don't have a clue as to what qualifies as a hoax. Scientology is a hoax. I wouldn't be surprised if a number of other religions started as hoaxes. Evolution simply fits the evidence.

But if you would add "mutationgod" or "templateod" or "futuregod" into that, then you are evolutionist or materialist of some sort.


Actually you would be YOU. And no one else. Mutationgod is only in your mind.

I don't believe it he actually quoted me accurately for once instead of making up something and pretending I said it.

That was the point of Dobzhansky, and obviously false. The Universe (the fossil reords, etc.) is intricately how creators create things.


Really, and where is the evidence for that Flood? The fossil evidence fits evolution quite well. It fits Genesis not at all.

As I told, the fossil records reflect just how people create.


It reflects evolution and not how people create. Gee I am getting the hang of this technique he has. Don't bother to prove anything just make wild assed claims and pretend that they make sense. Hey wait what I said does make sense. The fossil record DOES fit evolution and not design. If it reflected design than humans would not have blood vessels in front of the retina. Only a complete idiot would design things that way. But evolution has to work with what is available and if the blood vessels started out there it would hard to get them behind the retina.

What Ethelred quoted as "unchanging" fits not only to the principles of Him as He told us, but also to His not losing any "fuel." Both hold.)


Actually I was pointing out that creating the Universe would change a god. Indeed it couldn't create a Universe without changing FIRST. If Islam has a changing god then it has an advantage over the Christians that claim an unchanging god.

Thus Endeth the Third Part.

Ethelred
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 17, 2009
Especially when one single man is the entire source for the belief in a god that one created
the claim with prophets and oracles is that god speaks through them and the words are recorded exactly. At Delphi a young woman, high on natural gas or something, would mumble something and a whole community of priests was there to interpret these in a politically meaningful way. Jesus had his apostles and Paul who never met him, Hitler even had Hess and others to help with mein kampf. These world-class religions are too effective and too important to let any one man concieve them. They are designed, discussed, implemented, monitored. Xianity was discussed and refined for decades. Muhammad was surrounded by scribes and followers who edited and refined what he said. Islam was a committee project. Macht's güt Ethelred, kick butt-
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 17, 2009
Hey, physorg article with new evidence to support speciation-
http://www.physor...268.html
zilqarneyn
1 / 5 (3) Jul 20, 2009
@ otto1923 (July 14, 2009),
Sorry, but almost anywhere I look in the Quran I see 'believers will be blessed but unbelievers will pay for it.' I see little else there but 'us vs you' no matter where I look.


I understand that you are sensitive to emotionally charged statements. They stand out, and actually, they might or might not be the core of the holy books. After all, if not to warn the people, why would He bother to send books? Actually, even people who oppose the religious establishments, try to rationalize why the faith exists, by pointing at at that, making-behave function. But, as I have said, no holy book is only the warnings. There is a lot more.

@otto1923,
Most parables are rehashed bible stories with little content, easy for clerics to interpret any way they want.

Yes and no.
Yes, surely, Allah is Yahweh, as He Himself is referring to Moses (a.s.) and all that. Therefore, there is a history that He finds valuable. Especially that, the Quran is pointing out the changednessof the old books, those similar portions are extra valuable, for affirming that not all of the old books had been changed. (In contrast, for example, lots o people guess that, Confucius and/or Buddha might have been among the hundreds of thousands of old prophets, but because their names do not list in the Quran (openly, or at all), we have no certainty whether they were truly Islamic prophets, or not.)

No, tell that to a submitter, the (supposedly) "Quran alone" people. I am not a submitter. I am a (sunni) muslim. The sunni mezhebs (sects) have established the rules by studying the Quran and hadiths, more than a millenium ago. There is nothing left in the wind to fluctuate. Today, you might find lots of hypocrites tryin to nullify the mezhebs, but when I look into what they would propose, I notice that, they are only that. Hypocrites. Surely, beware of such people.

I told that in the Dobzhansky review, too.
http://www.I-slam.info/review--1973-Dobzhansky.htm" title="http://[url=http://http://www.I-slam.info/review--1973-Dobzhansky.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.I-slam...nsky.htm]http://www.I-slam...nsky.htm[/url]
That is, just how we need to work with the methods of physics or embryology, when we would study those issues in the Quran, we have to take the word of the field expert (that is, Muhammed (s.a.s.)), when interpreting the Islamic aspects of the Quran.

@otto1923,
[p] Same old story- suffer now for paradise later. [/p]

Where in the Quran, does it write that? You might have been too selective to pinpoint that.
http://www.imame....orld.htm




@Ethelred (July 14, 2009),
Ethelred, you are merely heckling

Nonsense. I was fairly specific. YOU started this not me. Quit acting like I went looking for you.


(( Rating: Ethelred keeps heckling, and probably is with no concept of what "specific" or "answering" is. Surely, presumably, nobody is looking for anybody, in this post, but when you pretend to respond, so thoughtlessly, then you are heckling. That is what Ethelred does, without understanding what para-evo ("parallel/convergent evolution") or Dobzhansky's false macro-evolutionism of "modern synthesis" were suggesting. If you are ignorant, then when I am telling their bankruptcy, that is your trouble if you would not understand. But actually, people probably understand. What normal people would not understand, is how that kind of absurd dogma had been thought as if scientific.))






Why need to flood all the world, to sink a single tribe?


To kill all that crawled upon the Earth. Where do you get that single tribe idea?


I get that from a single tribe being the warned. Then, all of the statements with "all" might relate to that vicinity. But one or two of the quotes you list, might suggest something else. Specifically, "that I have ever created" (if not restrictable). The rest is not looking as if all the world, but all of the land they knew. Fowl had no land to land for forty days, and might therefore pass away. The 15 cubits would make the point, too. But in that geography, taller mountains are there, so ar as I know. (Perhaps, that was "above the mountains, 15 cubits?" (Otherwise, the ship's bottom might have hit some mountain's tip?) Anyway, a few inaccuracies, would not delete the full text, when I'm looking back at that, because I would expect that (as muslims know that, people changed their texts before the Quran, but not entirely).





No thought in your writing, "except" blind faith in evolutionism (inclusive of the mutationgod having parallel-templates all around the world).




For someone with blind faith in non-existent gods that is pretty rich. And written in a way that shows you simply don't have a clue as to how evolution works.



THERE IS NO TEMPLATE.


If there is no templategod of evolutionists, then how would dolphins and sharks look the same? How would the marsupials and non-marsupials look the same? Atheists "solve" that by making that a dogma. ((Rating: Ethelred is hopeless case of heckling, but the rest is not a lot better, if you would expect those to justify their faith in such evolutionist myths.))


Probably, all people understand the lore of evolutionism, but well-thinking people further understand that, lots of unstated "gods" lurk there. That is your double-think style scienticism. Not science, but garbage.

I have no fath in non-existent "gods." Allah exists, and has sent us the Quran. Furthermore, people find scientific miracles there (because they were told almost fourteen centuries ago). For example,
http://www.qurana...nce.com/]http://www.qurana...nce.com/[/url]]http://www.qurana...nce.com/[/url]





((Rating: Ethelred believes "personal attacks" should be the evolutionists' tool -- and we know, they try to fool people with that kind of blather.))



I didn't attack you as a person. I have attacked your unsupported claims.


Dobzhansky attacks, and a lot more evolutionists attack. Actuall, the news on the foregoing page, is how they were "brought to laughter and tears" while they support a lot worse, obviously false dogma. From at home, I have no way of refuting that "creation museum" with certainty (because "what if the scientists told lies?") but I might certainly refute the evolutionist myhs, because they have logical fallacies. ((Rating: If Ethelred is still oppposing me, there is no sense of telling to him/her.))


There is no infinite regression about how the Creator could become.



The logic is inherent. If a universe requires a creator than a creator requires a creator. It is the same exact logic and you simple gainsaying won't change that.



If you only happen to believe some type of "godless genesis" then you have to admit that, the Creator could have been existing through that, in the first place.




If is not DID. The Giant Orbiting Aardvark could have always been there too since there is no evidence that either Allah or the GOA exist and not evidence that the GOA doesn't and there is evidence against Genesis, which you seem to think is needed for your beliefs, the GOA wins out over Allah.



That is, materialists contradict their own ideology, when they question "So, who created the God, then?"




Interesting the way you make up logic. There is no contradiction and you didn't even try to show one.



The logic I told, is obvious.

((Rating: Ethelred is again trying to avoid the infinite-regression's non-existence, by diverting the issue to the inaccuracies of (biblical) genesis. Not that, he/she would have conclusive something to list, in that issue, but erely to hide the materialist fallacy of "infinite-regression," now.))

((Rating: Ethelred would not pass the Turing test, probably. Trying to heckle what I tell, sentence by sentence. There is no question of infinite-recursion "regression" but as usual, materialists are infinitely regressing to childish denial, when their fallacies are told in their face.))




From his link:



# Merely billions of millenia (our Universe) is too short a time for us to evolve by chance




True. Its not by chance. Its by Natural Selection which is NOT chance. Funny how you Creationist just keep pretending that it is.


I told the McDonalds example (in this list). If they sell no Chinese food, then you have no chance to buy that. Either you need to have some mutationgod (and/or templategod) to bring up that food, or "natural selection" would have nothing to select. ((Rating: Ethelred keeps heckling. If he/she is lost in a sentence or two, like in "infinite regression" problem, then what would you expect?))




# Allah has no functional-dependency to some else -- while we need our enzymes, etc.




Nor does the Universe need enzymes. We do but they existed before we did. We inherited them from previous lifeforms. There is no reason to believe that the earliest self-replicating molecules needed enzymes.


((Rating: Ethelred is lost even in obvious fallacies. What is the sense of getting into arguing about "infinitely small chances" of transitions, and "happens to have been existing" things? Just their dogma. Furthermore, I keep pointing out that, that a concept proof for "godless genesis" refutes the "infinite regression" fallacy.))



The Quran is stating the "gods" issue. "If there were "gods", the Universe would not be so orderly."


The Universe isn't orderly. It is mostly disordered.


((Rating: That is the ignorance of Ethelred, or that is a bot that heckles me.))






Allah is most likely creatively developing Himself. Thus, Allah is self-made.


It is interesting the way Creationist rewrite what has been written to fit the needs of the day.

((Rating: Ethelred is probably a bot, just dropping that cliche statement. But that is not fitting the context.))

What "need of the day?" That is the normally understood thing. But, not necessarily about now. That was, presumably before the Universe was created. But we have no data about His personally "developing" Himself, now. What I'm telling is that, He is capable of that. I told that,
http://www.imame....rial.htm]http://www.imame....rial.htm[/url]

BTW, surely, if we will study science with the holy books, some of the scientific understandings might re-interpret the text, but so far as the text would truly allow. If science found nothing about Him (and won't, because He is not constrained within the Universe, but His works are known, inclusive of the holy books), then there is no need to fit the day.


Besides, there is the Quran.


Written by one man.

Go, write some similar book. The challenge is from the Quran. Lots of people told "they might write" but none have. Merely heckling. ((Rating: Thus, that bot called Ethelred is listing that heckling category, too. Trivial bot. Probably, I could write one, if I would like to. But you see, that is tastelessly heckling. What is the fun of writing that bot, then chatting with that?))



By that reasoning I should be a Mormon. After all Joseph Smith is more recent and thus clearly in better touch with the present thinking of the alleged creator.


If interested in finding the true faith, looking into this or that, is understandable. ((Rating: If Ethelred is not even able to understand the obvious fallacies I point out, then he/she/it would just lose himself/erself/itself.))

That is not about the "last is the truth." The truth is the truth. ((Rating: I suspect this thread is so asurd, beause Ethelred thinks that "the last heckling person, is right." I plan not to continue this garbage beyond one more month. I have told what I intend, sufficiently in this list. I might tell in other posts, too. Why waste the time with badly-programmed bots?))

BTW, Muhammed (s.a.s.) was a true messenger from the God. And that was the final prophet, we muslims maintain. There were false prophets, that were fought against. When something becomes popular, charlatans want that status, too. That is so, in the case of Ph.D. titles, too.
http://www.mid80....ties.htm



BTW, I have no exact opinion about what mormons believe in, but I know those in the category of christian churches. If so, the word "prophet" there, is something in the category of "scholar" or "saint" christians? Do mormons offer some new book? One might investigate that in the category of a philosophy/scholarly book.





The double-think of evolutionists, is reflected well in the term "mutationgod."



Well double think is what you are doing by using magic words that have no relevance.


The terms that I coin, are exactly capturing the fallacy nature of the evolutionist myths. Evolutionists commit to that double-think style dogma, but they refrain from telling the word "mutationgod" as is. The word "mutations" as they guess about macro-evolutionism, is ony that mythical mutationgod (or, templategod).





al. A worldwide-template which comes up with the same patterns (and supposedly globally-optimizing the features, although working through local-optimization).



Again there is no world wide template. Where the hell did you get that idea?


Parallel evolution is rare. It only happens when animals are in similar environments and start from similar structures. It NEVER is exact. Nor does anyone expect it to be so.


What is rare? Go search for the keywords. Besides, single example would need to explain. How is that so pervasive, but you still ignore?





What is ignorant about "billions or millenia or perhaps less."




You said:



Furthermore, that needs to act in the time we have (merely billions of millenia, or perhaps less)




OF not OR. Which is ignorant since the Universe isn't trillions of years old. Its billions.



That you changed what you said without admitting that you got it wrong the first time is cheating. Much like making up my position for me.

What is the cheating there? Obviously, there was that typo in the post. The first that I had written, is right ("of" not "or").



Actually millennia is only in the bounds of Genesis and billions is well within the bounds of science. About 13.7 billion is the best present estimate. YOU said something quite different the first time and that worked out to trillions.


Yes, trillions. So what? ((Rating: Ethelred is heckling even about things that were written not to allow any opposition.))

I said that, the "millenia" is how some might interpret genesis. I am a muslim, and not interpreting the days as our 24 hours. I said that, in hadiths, the Judgment Day is told to last 500 millenia (or, more). How many times do I have to repeat what I have told? ((Rating: Ethelred is lost in a sentence or two, let alone remember such extra information.))



The Creator for His becoming, had no such time-bound (because, not bound with the time within the Universe). (


Unfortunately for you the Creator in Genesis IS time bound. To about 6,000 years. If you want to change that show cause. Actual Biblical cause since it is the Bible that has it so wrong. Its OK to use the Quran in your case. But actually post quotes from the Quran and not stuff you make up, which you do all over your site.

((Rating: Ethelred is unable to understand that "before the Universe" is not after the sixth day.))




((Rating: You are totally lacking any reading comprehension?


Are you? I quoted you exactly and you CHANGED what you said.


What have I changed, at all? Except one typo, nothing is there. ((Rating: Ethelred is hypocritical. Neglecting all of the evolutionist fallacies, but stuck with a single typo I wrote in this post, and even the true text was there in what I had published before.))



No one knows how life got started. There is no expectation of ever knowing. Otherwise I must assume you meant basic biochemistry. It supports evolution in the way it works.


The (so-called) micro-"evolutionary" phenomena, would not relate to the macro-evolutionist myths. That was Dobzhansky's fallacy. Telling again,
[url][url][url]http://www.imame.org/4/gf[/url][/url][/url]
http://www.I-slam.info/debunk-Dobzhansky.htm" title="http://http://www.I-slam.info/debunk-Dobzhansky.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.I-slam...nsky.htm



Ethelred, first opposes the concept word "mutationgod" but when next he brags "convergent- & parallel-evolutionism" myths to be "reality," he is only presuming that something is providing the patterns, all around the world.


There is no god in science. Simply abusing English won't make it true.

There is NO PATTERN except the environment. If the environment and the needs of a species are sufficiently similar there is every reason to expect similar but not identical results.



In oceans, not all species are in the shapes of fish, but sharks & dolphins look the same. That begs the question. What "environment?" Why are the marsupials not all the same, but look like some non-marsupials?

((Rating: There, I expose their double-think succinctly, and Ethelred is neglecting that, too.))




heir heckling, won't change the truth about their blind-faith.


Calling science that is based on evidence blind faith is simply lying. A favorite lie of Creationist everywhere it seems.


((Rating: Ethelred is continuously lieing by neglecting the fallacies. Then, wants the title of "science" to those lies. Then, would we need to show respect to all charlatans, about what they try to abuse?
http://www.zilqar...iors.htm ))


((Rating: If Ethelred is not able to conprehend, will I rewrite what I wrote? Why should the Creator rewrite the genesis? I told the responses in this post, too.))


After Noah, there is understood to be some lost.


Very little as his son Shem overlaps in time with Abraham. The site I am looking at has 427 years between the Flood and Jehovah's pact with Abraham.


The Quran is only telling of the existence of generations we do not know. I have no opinion about whether that portion of Bible now at hand, is accurate, or not.


Same at a site you are fan of Answers in Genesis.


I searched the "panda's thumb" hoax (through google), that I knew was a hoax, and found those links, and they were good. Thus, wise to post those, to point out a case.


I have not intensively read genesis.


I have. It doesn't match the world we live in.


List those not fitting things, then. ((Rating: But I hope, someone other than Ethelred would list that, as he/she/it is not understanding even the sentences I'm writing.))




"Flaws in DNA" implies flaw in the DNA as a system?


Nothing in the biological world is perfect. There are even some viruses that don't use DNA. HIV for instance is a RNA virus.

Prove some imperfection, or link to some site. Where do you know that those "imperfections" were not built in, as flexibility? ((Rating: Repetition, again.))
[url][url][url]http://www.imame.org/4/gf[/url][/url][/url]

I would not like to comment about the RNA lore, in this list. Waste of the time. But in summary, RNA is a huge thing, too. (More so, if that is in need of having the capability to act as its own enzyme.)



Besides, mental illness genes are not recessive, so far as I know. If you have that somewhere in your family, you might have that illness.


You know so little. Some genes that result in mental illness are recessive and some are dominant but most are dependent on the interactions of multiple genes, and probably some environmental effects as well.


Surely, I know the environmental need for triggering the mental illness, and I had written about that. For example,
http://www.zilqar...o-ph.htm (That is about Islamic knowledge of genies, and mental illness.)

But that is not lessening what I told. Just, the vice versa. The dominant genes might also remain as if recessive.





I like talking in pure-science terms, but evolutionism is an illogical dogma.


Let me know when you actually use a single scientific term with the original meaning intact. There is nothing illogical about evolution.


All of what I'm teling is intact, "but" I'm not accepting the fallacies which evolutionists try to sell as a theory (or, "fact!?").



((Rating: If Ethelred was not able to comprehend what I have written, he/she/it has nothing to explain to anyone. But a bot surely might list all of its knowlede-base, repetitively.


[p]This is something that cannot not happen. As long as there are mutations there will be evolution.[/p]

How many times will I have to explain that again? Micro-"evolution" does not justify macro-evolutionism.
[url][url][url]http://www.imame.org/4/gf[/url][/url][/url]



Genies basically correspond to microbes (working similarly).


Is that Djann you are referring to? I thought they were not microscopic. The ones in Scheherazade's tales certainly were a tad larger than microbes.


How they interact with people's organism, is what is thought microbic -- and new findings, such as the nanowires of bacteria, support that.

Scheherazade's is not a holy book of anybody, so far as I know. ("But" when the Quran was coming, the polytheists were trying to rival the Quran, by telling those old stories.)




If the law of the Book is holding, how might you ignore that portion of the truth? Besides, Islam is not changing.


Of course not. That is why Muslims never kill each other over religion. Oh wait they do. Much like Christians used to in larger numbers and now in very small numbers.


People fight for lots of stuff. If they fight something wrong, or merely would like to hold the power (or, not relent to some other authority). Will we need to eliminate whatever is wantable? Rather than going to that extreme, first quit the evolutionist excess baggage.

BTW, the people in that museum in this news, rightfully, point at the evolutionism in that category of genocidal ideology, too. If materialists believe in evolutionism, they might have that to justify their offenses, and that is trivial, we know.

The religious issue was not I was talking about. The text is. Theology has its methods t re-interpret, and that might beget fights. But if science would work that out for scientific matters, that is nothing about theology. ((Rating: Futile to tell to Ethelred, but what I'm telling is workable. People have that method, for finding scientific miracles from the Quran and hadiths.))



Even when the laws in those hold, you deny their valid statements.


Actually I only deny claims of divine origin.


So, how would Muhammed (s.a.s.) know that scientific knowledge, fourteen centuries ago?



quite obviously only to avoid the burden of proof of refuting the Creator.


Actually I have refuted the Creator in Genesis. I simply don't think it is possible to refute all possible gods. Only those that are defined with sufficient specificity to test against the real world. Like Jehovah in Genesis for instance or the god of the Mormons.


((Rating: At that point, any self-respecting muslim would offer to the opponent to read the Quran, but not probably to Ethelred, because he/she/it is only heckling. Others might go try the Quran, though.))



Social scientists study how people behave, because social scientists believe that people exist.


No. Because they have evidence that people exist. Belief is not needed.


((Rating: Heckling again. The belief word is not refuted. Furthermore, we rarely have evidences about people's truly existing. We rust the sources. But that was not the issue. Ethelred had told that believing in the Creator, would obviate scientific study. But knowing that artists exist, does not obviate literary or art study. Ethelred is heckling.))





Everything you say applies equally to the Giant Orbiting Aardvark. I wrote about myself so I know it to be true.

That thing you mock to suggest, has not sent a holy book to test.



The Quran is holding well, almost 14 centuries later. Isn't that miracle?))


A miracle of an ever increasing denial of reality anyway.


((Rating: Ethelred is heckling again. Try this,
http://www.qurana...nce.com/]http://www.qurana...nce.com/[/url]]http://www.qurana...nce.com/[/url]



((Rating: Ethelred has no concept of knowledge or technology. Give loads of bricks, and he would think that is as good as a valid text?))


Again you disdain actually dealing with pretty much anything I really say. You just make something up, pretend that I said it and then claim I am wrong without even bothering to show that your straw man was indeed wrong.


((Rating: Is Ethelred denying that he/she/it was contrasting the mass of the Universe with the Quran? The Quran is the text/information, as we have in technology.))



The Islamic principle is to not accept what other people tell, if they do not have their proof about it. ((Rating: Evolutionism is rubbish.))


But of course it is OK to take Muhammed at his word even when it is in conflict with reality.


Where is that conflict? I have seen only simpletons who try to understand with their insufficient minds, rather than accept te systems of the Islamic mezhebs that explain things with a sound logic. ((Rating: Ethelred thinks to slander would suffice.))






((Rating: Ethelred is thoughtlessly repeating his false point of faithlessness-being-a-license-to-assault-the-opponent's-faith, again, again. Do I need to respond to that, again, and again?))


I am under NO obligation to kowtow to your beliefs. Nor is Dobzhansky under such an obligation. He and I have the right to disagree with your beliefs. We have the right to do so publicly. If you don't like it there are number of countries where they are willing to kill unbelievers.


Criticism is one thing, and that is acceptable. The Quran is opposing false gods, a lot But profanity against what some people think as their "gods," is absurd. Why would you need to be profane, if that is non-existent? And in this case, Dobzhansky is false. Thus, profanity is in the context of assaulting to what truly exists.
http://www.I-slam.info/review--1973-Dobzhansky.htm" title="http://[url=http://http://www.I-slam.info/review--1973-Dobzhansky.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.I-slam...nsky.htm]http://www.I-slam...nsky.htm[/url]








@acarrilho (July 16, 2009)
Ah, Islam... working under the premise that Muhammad's poetry was so darn good it had to be divinely inspired. 'Cause we all know the very strict criteria under which "good" poetry is written. *sigh* The most amazing display of stupidity I have ever come across is accepting the validity of Muhammad's "challenge" for someone to write better poetry when it was accepted a priori that, by his own rule, his was divinely inspired and as good as it gets, making challengers liars by default. Any other fault of Islam pales in comparison to the inherent stupidity at its very core.


Then, go write that yourself, and advertise that as the book that meets the challenge of the Quran. Nobody has been able to, although lots of missionaries bragged that was possible. People keep patiently waiting. :-))

If you pretend challenging, and not at all producing the challenging text, then what else is you, but liar, truly?


BTW, that was when poetry was the king, and that was the miracle they understood. Nowadays, go check about the scientific miracles. For example,
http://www.qurana...nce.com/]http://www.qurana...nce.com/[/url]]http://www.qurana...nce.com/[/url]





Ethelred (part two), (July 17, 2009)

I'm happy that the genome is demonstrated with that software I publish.
[url][url][url]http://www.imame.org/4/gf[/url][/url][/url]

In summary, the software is able to have what scientists call "mutations" (& "modern synthesis" micro-"evolutionary" portions) and has lots of flexibilities, but not capable of macro-evolving. QED.

((Rating: Ethelred heckles again. TThe hecklings of a heckler, does not change that.))


Redefining thing with non-standard meanings is a typical Creationist trick. No one in science expects one species to become another species.

No creationist (but lots of evolutionists) suggest that.

BTW, that page is not about para-evo, but Dobzhansky's "modern synthesis." Para-evo is the mess about the templategod or mutationgod of evolutionists. That is in the list of issues of the upcoming article to slam Ayala,NAS,SigmaXi gangs publishing the NAS booklet about creationism. I'm writing some of those things, before I publish through http://www.I-slam.info/


We know plenty. We KNOW there are mutations.

That software is telling how a flexibility might be built-in, and that is reflecting the structures in genetics. Thus, mutation is not a "flaw" but only the built-in flexibility. Therefore, "knowing" that mutations exist, does not justify the mutationgod (let alone the para-evo templategod fallacy).

((Rating: All commentary is actually waste, because these were obvious from what I had published. Ethelred is only heckling.))





Ethelred (part three), (July 17, 2009)

The defense wasn't allowed to present any evidence for evolution. So a mistake by an amateur wasn't going to be allowed either.

So, the sentence that came oout of the scopes trial was nothing about weighing anything of evolutionism? That is interesting! That explains that wrong sentence they came up with.


Actually I was pointing out that creating the Universe would change a god. Indeed it couldn't create a Universe without changing FIRST. If Islam has a changing god then it has an advantage over the Christians that claim an unchanging god.

No, Islam is not suggestin a changing god (or, necessarily vice versa). But in the case of "why" Ethelred thinks so, the hadith that I have quoted, the way I interpret that, is suggesting that the God is not losing anything over time. (Not commenting about the process before the Universe was created, but not "losing fuel" after the Universe was created.)

((Rating: I have no opinion why Ethelred finds that more plausible, nor I'm at all interested in the changing-God issue, except for refuting the "infinite-recursion/regression" falsehood.
http://www.imame....rial.htm]http://www.imame....rial.htm[/url] ))




P.S: Getting off, for another week. Remember to list "zilqarneyn" to address me, in this list. (I hope I have no typo this time, but I'm even less looking for typo-checking than the last week. Almost nothing new is said. I'm only responding to hecklings. Who cares, if at the zillionth time, I might have told that with a typo? (If Allah would create people to type perfectly, none would type falsely.)
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 20, 2009
Looks like we got another book-
After all, if not to warn the people, why would He bother to send books?

No sale. I know where these books come from and I know what theyre for, specifically because I dont believe. These books are sociopolitics, the third collection in a series. Obviously. To get you all to walk in a straight line.

"Same old story- suffer now for paradise later."
Where in the Quran, does it write that?

[9:111] GOD has bought from the believers their lives and their money in exchange for Paradise. Thus, they fight in the cause of GOD, willing to kill and get killed. Such is His truthful pledge in the Torah, the Gospel, and the Quran - and who fulfills His pledge better than GOD? You shall rejoice in making such an exchange. This is the greatest triumph.

-Here most blatantly, and in many other places. Even fasting is suffering, yes?

Long ago, somebody looked at the state-sponsored religions and decided that a simpler, more direct, more basic vehicle was needed. Us vs Them, Us vs Them, Us vs Them. Repeat this over and over and over, they said. The other religions say this certainly, but Islam says little else BUT this. Submission. Resistance is futile. If you dont believe then youre displacing believers and jeopardizing my chance at nirvana.
'No Hell below us, above us only sky.' Lennon/Lenin/bin Laden [he's on our side- Egypt, Somalia, and now Taliban, all ruin thanks to Osama. Duped yet again by books.]
acarrilho
not rated yet Jul 20, 2009
Then, go write that yourself, and advertise that as the book that meets the challenge of the Quran. Nobody has been able to, although lots of missionaries bragged that was possible. People keep patiently waiting. :-))


People have written poetry in arabic and claimed it "better" than the Qur'an. Obviously, I don't acknowledge that claim either, since there is no fixed criteria to tell which poetry is "better". If YOU don't agree, however, you have the burden of proof to explain WHY the poetry isn't better. Of course, you won't be able to, and will simply claim the Qur'an is "better"... just because. It was stupid when Muhammad issued the "challenge", threatening liars (which any challenger was by default) with death, it is even more stupid when no one is coerced to accept the rule... in the civilized world, of course.

If you pretend challenging, and not at all producing the challenging text, then what else is you, but liar, truly?


I do not acknowledge a fair "challenge" to begin with. Others have, and have responded, and they are obviously not refuted except by Muhammad's own rule that none can be "better".

BTW, that was when poetry was the king, and that was the miracle they understood. Nowadays, go check about the scientific miracles. For example,
http://www.qurana...nce.com/]http://www.qurana...nce.com/[/url]]http://www.qurana...nce.com/[/url]


Yeah, yeah... like the "expanse of the Universe" expression, used to claim the poetry refers to the Big Bang, when any scholar worth a penny will tell you the original arabic made no mention whatsoever of "expanse", and the expression was introduced much later when the notion became mainstream. Been there, done that... The Qur'an is no less liable to be retrofitted than the Bible is.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 20, 2009
@zilqarneyn
BTW, I have no exact opinion about what mormons believe in,
Mormons believe in exactly what they needed to believe in in order to fruitfully multiply and fill up Utah; including polygamy until the job was done. Islam was DESIGNED to spread rapidly throughout the middle east and north africa, to overrun all lesser cultures and prevent the rise of new ones. It was DESIGNED to establish order in that part of the world, to resist Mongol incursion and to protect Europes flank and rear so the American conquest could proceed. Why were there no moslem colonies in the new world? Why no mongols? Thank Ottoman martial law and Islam which made it possible.
Right now Islam is being used to collect all malcontents in south asia and send them to Allah; while all the pragmatic moderates are packing up and heading north. It has been done this way for millenia.
otto1923
5 / 5 (2) Jul 20, 2009
The Five Pillars
1. The Oath- shortest of all, easiest to blurt out to save your neck. Do not become apostate or your neck is lost.
2. Pray 5 times a day- constant reminder of the faith, makes apostates easier to spot.
3. Charitable giving- to the faithful who cannot support their large families; assists agressive reproduction
4. Fasting- saves food for the faithful who cannot support their large families; assists agressive reproduction
5. Pilgrimage- rite of passage, dangerous adventure, sign of commitment
-This is a well-conceived, time-tested formula for growth and consolidation.
zilqarneyn
1 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2009
@ otto1923 (July 20, 2009),
"Same old story- suffer now for paradise later."

Where in the Quran, does it write that?



[9:111] GOD has bought from the believers their lives and their money in exchange for Paradise. Thus, they fight in the cause of GOD, willing to kill and get killed. Such is His truthful pledge in the Torah, the Gospel, and the Quran - and who fulfills His pledge better than GOD? You shall rejoice in making such an exchange. This is the greatest triumph.

-Here most blatantly, and in many other places.



But that is exactly what I responded right away. That is not suffering, at all.
http://www.imame....orld.htm

Actually, I resposded to more of that last time, because I was taking the case of mavericks who persevere to fight against tyrannies, in view. The quote you quote, is the most basic logic of statehood. The mass of law-abiding good people, fighting against the opponent. If to list U.S. cases, that is, for example, not only G.W.Bush when twin towers went shreds, but likewise F.D.Roosevelt when he was fighting against the MAFIA in 1930s Chicago (ah, next, in WWII, too).

In summary, unlike the last time Jesus (a.s.) was around, Muhammed (s.a.s.) got to the point of seeing a this-worldly state, too -- like David (a.s.) and Solomon (a.s). Surely, when opponents assault (and the polytheists of Mecca surely had lots of torture, before fightings began), then fighting back is not quite the suffering, but relief. Thus, that ayet you quote from the Quran, is actually the relief (or, not to fall uder the paws of the polytheists, again). The polytheists had told "get rid of your faith, or we will oppress." Even after having left his (s.a.s.) homeland in Mecca, they waged war against his (s.a.s.) new city, Medina. That is a context. Furthermore, that portion is telling that there is not only the value-of-the-masses in setting the happy living for all of us, but even that who is passing away to the other world, is immediately winning something big.

From a hadith, we know that, martyr (shehid) is not necessarily getting the highest reward. Surely, a reward, but not necessarily better than living more than that, after having fought. I wrote that in
http://www.zilqar...ened.htm

The shehidness attitude is the key, not the living or dieing. That is what only Allah might know. Suicide is sin. Period.
(I hope you are not confusing that with the desperations of that late twentieth century innovation, namely, suicidal assaults, which import a Japanese style.)


Next, the concept of "feth" (opening) is the follow up to that self-defense fight. That is, if Islam is forbidde in some nation, that is a hostility -- because the people who live there, will not know what Allah told to people. That is a fighting cause, too. (I happen to not have the third cause in mind now, if there is any third.)

That is all about life-"loosing" matters.




their money in exchange for Paradise.

How is that a suffering? When rich people "suffer" by paying 1/40 of theirs as zekat, the poor people have sth. to spend.
http://www.zilqar...taxz.htm]http://www.zilqar...taxz.htm[/url]

The payment for war finance, is in the previous category. National wellness.
http://www.zilqar...maze.htm

USA is collecting taxes. The Islamic "tax" system is even more free-market friendly, I think.




Even fasting is suffering, yes?

I fast half the year. David (a.s.) was fasting half the year, too. So what? How is that a suffering?





@ acarrilho (July 20, 2009),
If you pretend challenging, and not at all producing the challenging text, then what else is you, but liar, truly?


I do not acknowledge a fair "challenge" to begin with. Others have, and have responded, and they are obviously not refuted except by Muhammad's own rule that none can be "better".


If the case were that neutral, lots of anti-muslims would surely list poetry to challenge the surehs of the Quran. Haven't you seen any two literary figures people contrast to reflect which one is better? The issue is not about only your uninterest in the subject. Nobody else is achieving anything against the Quran, in that almost-fourteen-centuries old case.

The problem is getting a lot more difficult, in time, because of the scientific accuracies of the Quran. Again, your uninterest is interesting.

BTW, that was when poetry was the king, and that was the miracle they understood. Nowadays, go check about the scientific miracles. For example,

http://www.qurana...nce.com/[/url]


Yeah, yeah... like the "expanse of the Universe" expression, used to claim the poetry refers to the Big Bang, when any scholar worth a penny will tell you the original arabic made no mention whatsoever of "expanse", and the expression was introduced much later when the notion became mainstream. Been there, done that... The Qur'an is no less liable to be retrofitted than the Bible is.

So far as I recall that, people infer that from the edge of the Universe not being able to be seen by looking [from the World]. That is a truly scientific accuracy, in statement. Because the Universe is expanding, we have no way of seeing the edge of the Universe (how that is now, or at all) by looking from the World. No telescopic technology would help. The science is advancing, but you see, the statement of the Quran is not getting old, but the vice versa. We people love upholding the Quran, as accurate. What is wrong in that?


BTW, that site ( http://www.qurana...nce.com/ ), the last time I was looking there, was listing cases of embryology, too. Precision terms. Would acarrilho's poetry have such miraculously fitting statements that the science one millenium after now would find? Have the people who challenged the Quran, written that type of miracles in their statements?

See? The "poetry" of the Quran you talk about, is not getting more trivial to challenge. Just how the Universe is expanding, the Quran's list of miracles is expanding. For example, when the Rosetta Stone was found, the word accuracies in referring to the Egyptian officials, became noticed.
(I saw in .pdf through http://www.haruny...5_01.php BTW, I differ from that author (Harun Yahya) in the issue of "mind vs. body" -- http://www.i-slam...body.htm )




@ otto1923 (July 20, 2009),
The Five Pillars
1. The Oath- shortest of all, easiest to blurt out to save your neck. Do not become apostate or your neck is lost.
2. Pray 5 times a day- constant reminder of the faith, makes apostates easier to spot.
3. Charitable giving- to the faithful who cannot support their large families; assists agressive reproduction
4. Fasting- saves food for the faithful who cannot support their large families; assists agressive reproduction
5. Pilgrimage- rite of passage, dangerous adventure, sign of commitment
-This is a well-conceived, time-tested formula for growth and consolidation.


1. The oath is not compulsory, for non-muslims. Making peace suffices. Only males who convert out, have that neck-trouble -- that is, after they were (presumedly) muslims (or, some missionary con-artists pretending so, sometimes, to next convert out of Islam).

2. Praying at home, is normal. (I was guessing that Taliban was enforcing that, because they had their Afghan trouble of narcotics. If people would report to the mosque five times a day, they would have little chance of doping at home.)

3. There is no such rule to give to families. Singles, especially students are payable, too. Actually, singles might have more fragile personal economic statuses vs. the social support of system of multiply-working families.
http://www.zilqar...taxz.htm]http://www.zilqar...taxz.htm[/url]


4. Fasting is not for saving food (unless you happen to have no food, at home). Fasting is for training us about hunger. Good for empathizing with the poor. (Well, all right, actually, diet people might tell that, the body is becoming more economic about calories, when fasting, but you would hardly tell that by looking at the huge evening or nightly food consumption at times of fasting. Thus, that is not quite the case of food-saving.)

5. Pilrimage is a big thing, surely. But hardship was so (today, a lot more trivial with air travel and air-conditioning). The big thing is still big, in the sense of the point of view, unifying all muslims in minimal uniforms, without class herarchies. There, Malcolm X saw to his surprise that, his white muslim brothers saw no color in him.
http://www.zilqar....htm#haj

But, if you would like to interpret toward reproductiveness (and biologists love to think in that way?), well, there is a hadith that motivates toward that. Thus, not probably from the pillar list, but from that hadith, your view (or, statistics citing?) is justifiable. But, what is "aggressive" there, with families?



P.S: Getting off for another week.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 26, 2009

But that is exactly what I responded right away. That is not suffering, at all.
You misunderstand me sir. Aggression, fighting, suffering have always been inevitable in this world. These religions enable that conflict to be managed and the results of it predetermined. I Understand these well-conceived religions. They allow combatants to be called up, equipped, supplied, and pointed in the right direction. Like Joshua and the Israelites these religions can ensure that conquerors will reliably slaughter infidels, pagans, and apostates without conscience because it is GOD's WILL and not theirs. This makes war dependable, reliable, predictable. The potential rewards for such a system is incalculable; and I'm not referring to riches as Solomon found were worthless in the long run. I'm talking about stability, progress, and the preservation of knowledge.

You think Islam is about what you will find in the next life. I say it is all about the results it produces in this one. They all are, these religions designed by MEN, not gifted by God. Amen.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 26, 2009
Only males who convert out, have that neck-trouble -- that is, after they were (presumedly) muslims (or, some missionary con-artists pretending so, sometimes, to next convert out of Islam).
-You mean like young Barak Obama? :-)

I know the reasons as you understand them, for the 5 Pillars; and I also Understand the great effect they can be used for in times of strife. There is a time to be born and a time to die, a time to love and a time to hate, and a time to fight and to die in the cause of God. Your religions allow Leaders to evoke these things at the proper time. They are designed mainly to conquer by aggressive reproduction and to capitalize on the tension and conflict which result. "Fill up the earth" with more of you and less of them. Look at Gaza, Kurdistan, Kashmir, France, -? And if by chance Islam is meant to conquer the world then the People who manage it will divide it up and continue the process of Creative Destruction, praise whatever gods might be. For my unconquerable soul.  Huk huk.   
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 26, 2009
Remember the Assassins? Lucky for you all the Mongols showed up, eh? :-)
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 26, 2009
Aggressive reproduction- to clarify- is typically a rate which cannot be sustained; in the west it is anything over 2.1 children per family. Afghanistani population was set to double in 20 years. Half the pop in gaza is 15 or under. This inevitably means conflict. Teddy Roosevelt called it 'Warfare of the Cradle.' Amish are set to double in 15 years- all they have is pitchforks though. Hasidim, west bank settlements, you catch my drift. Cultures designed for the purpose. One fact to swallow- worldwide over 1 BILLION abortions in the last 60 years and it's still overcrowded. God cannot fix this- we must, and are. Creative Destruction.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 26, 2009
Of course if the Amish beat their plowshares into swords there could be trouble. Their buggys into chariots?? Hey- why am I talking to myself here? Where is everybody?? Crusaders unite!!!
zilqarneyn
1 / 5 (1) Jul 27, 2009
I would keep off for a week, but now back to list a few points, relating to the previous.







@ acarrilho (July 20, 2009),

BTW, that was when poetry was the king, and that was the miracle they understood. Nowadays, go check about the scientific miracles. For example,



http://www.qurana...nce.com/



You think Islam is about what you will find in the next life. I say it is all about the results it produces in this one. They all are, these religions designed by MEN, not gifted by God. Amen.


That is only denial -- through rationalization. Ironically, that is the fallacy of "if it is valuable, that might not have been from Allah." If that would be the vice versa, that would be your argument, too. Getting ost in such twin-false logics (neither of which is loical), would make you only an agnostic. Try evaluating what exists, rather than trying to conceive the faith from our own logic.



Trying to think "why" the faiths have been, is the type of rationalizations of the enlightenment philosophy. They knew that anarchy was no good, and they would like to have some system but not the church hierarchies they were hating (in France, the church property was extensively looted in revolution). Therefore, enlightenment guys thought lots of such "this would work" philosophisizing.



Interestingly, some of those French have been quoted sympathetic to Islam (Comte "Islam as the closest to positivist faith." and Napoleon quoted to consider Islam as his prospective world system).









Only males who convert out, have that neck-trouble -- that is, after they were (presumedly) muslims (or, some missionary con-artists pretending so, sometimes, to next convert out of Islam).
-You mean like young Barak Obama? :-)


Oh, was he? In any case, there is a time that people have some choice, if I recall that right. At age 18 or so? To choose your faith. Consult the closest fatwa authority. :-)



BTW, Obama is not living in a country that has Islam asthe state religion. The logic is probably just to walk out, if you would convert out of the state religion. (Some relate the issue to the warrior status that males might have, but that kind of re-thinking would relate to warrior women, too. All right, probably that is the point. That is, who would fight against you, as in the hadith, two apostates ran away after killing the muslim shepherd.)









P.S: Now, getting off for another week.

zilqarneyn
1 / 5 (2) Jul 27, 2009
((Reposting the grabled text.))

I would keep off for a week, but now back to list a few points, relating to the previous.



@ acarrilho (July 20, 2009),
BTW, that was when poetry was the king, and that was the miracle they understood. Nowadays, go check about the scientific miracles. For example,

http://www.qurana...nce.com/


Yeah, yeah... like the "expanse of the Universe" expression, used to claim the poetry refers to the Big Bang, when any scholar worth a penny will tell you the original arabic made no mention whatsoever of "expanse", and the expression was introduced much later when the notion became mainstream. Been there, done that... The Qur'an is no less liable to be retrofitted than the Bible is.


Where do you find a scholar that opposes the word "expanse" there? The expansion became scientific in 20th century. The Quran was translated to English, long ago. For example, Rodwell (available in Gutenberg project) seems to be 19th century
And the Heaven-with our hands have we built it up, and given it its expanse;


Furthermore, that is the translator's wording. Not exactly the Quranic statement from Arabic, but that word "expanse" is even there. (Sale, in 18th century, wrote that as "extent.") Both were inaccurate in translating the grammar, but the word is there, in both.

That is in the Zariyat(51):47, and with no problem. Looking up the word "vusat, vusa" (from Arabic) in a 19th century Istanbul vocabulary (Kamus-i Turki), that is "plenty, wideness" (or, expanse, or extent, if you will). Then, exactly, the verb from that root, might suggest the expansion. Which scholar would oppose that, at all? The Quran is truly fitting the expansion concept. That perfectly is referring to the context of science. The Universe is expanding? All right. The Quran is telling that Allah, the Creator, is in that business of expanding the Universe.

BTW, I knew that grammar, and I had told that, from the word dwd (David(a.s.)), Midyat/Midyad is derivable.
"where Dawud is", or "the Dawud'ness business/functioning"

@ http://www.zilqar....htm#dwd




I have told countless times that, the Quran is like the Universe. Your first having a wrong guess about that, would not change the truth. (But that is about the scientific matters, not religious issues (such as what a "cover" is), because they were explainable only by Muhammed (s.a.s.)) The word is there, obviously accurate, for understanding, now. Translators try to translate with their contemporary limitations, and in case the time would tell further fitness, muslims would not shrink, but point out the truth. That is the value of having authentic copies of the Quran, in the first language it was sent, and actually, lots of people know that language. Thus, the thing is not necessarily even a conscious effort to rewrite, but that is natural, like when your friend might tell you "hey! look at that cute red thing" and you might think that is a ferrari, but turns out that, that was a furniture. You would not have the right to persist in expecting what you were expecting. Worse, I know that there have been simpletons who try to find unfitting senses to words. That is like vaudeville/comedy (of understanding the words wrong), with which they try to mock the obviously commonsense words, by neglecting those who explain the thing right. When translators tell the truth pre-emptively, the simpletons oppose that, because they would like to invent nonesense, rather than find the truth told upfront, by people who know what fits right.


To relate to the case of YoungEarthCreationists, I have no opinion whether acarrilho is in or against those. But, I might relate the case, both style. If they oppose what they do not observe or verify (chemical dating techniques), then that is a lot more undertandable than acarrilho opposing the written word that is available in old vocabularies and grammar books. (The verbs-deriving text, "emsile" for Arabic, is said to have been from 7th century.)




Oops? Wow? The Mulk(67):3-4 I was referring to yesterday, is presumably interpretable toward how I told, too. ("fTr" is normally understood as gap/crack, but perhaps, the concept of "edge" (such as the iftar is the "end" of a (fasting) day), might fit, too.) I forgot what source was interpreting that thus (if not by chance, false quote-guess of mine, happening to fit truly, upon looking into that). Incidentally, if we were to find some "cracks" in the Universe, this way of interpreting that as the "terminating/end" point of the Universe, would be the exclusive way of interpreting. But so far, the word "cracks" might fit both, together, because we have no way of looking from the world, to see that "crack" point (edge/border of the Universe).




BTW, while I'm quoting the Quran, I prefer to convey what I had told of relativity, with example from the Quran. The relativity of the "day" concept, is there, for example, in Maarij(70):4, talking of a 50 millenia long day, that angels and the Spirit ascend to Him. I quote this, partly because the 500-millenia-long Judgment Day, that I had told, might have been not the case. The relativity is right, though. The Judgment Day is either a millenium long, or the times given in the Judgment Day context would multiply with that millenium ratio. (Single millenium, or hundreds-of-millenia-or-more.) But you see, single millenium is sufficient to convey the concept of relativity. Not our 24-hour day, that is. Thus, there is no confusion in concepts, so far I understood and told (and was understood, hopefully).






To clarify a point I told yesterday, the missionary trick of pretending to convert in then out of Islam, was publicized by a newspaper a few (5-15) years ago. I do not know how often they apply that guideline, or whether they had success, at all. (Now, I fail to recall whether there were such cases in the last century, or two. Perhaps there were.)

BTW, that sounds like the "Nigerian" type of internet exploits, too? Pretense of input, to actually get output.

I recall no news of anybody being killed because of becoming apostate, in the country where I'm living (not by the state law, any way, as Turkey is not an Islamic state).
http://www.zilqar...l/TC.htm







@otto1923, (July 26, 2009)
But that is exactly what I responded right away. That is not suffering, at all.
You misunderstand me sir. Aggression, fighting, suffering have always been inevitable in this world. These religions enable that conflict to be managed and the results of it predetermined. I Understand these well-conceived religions. They allow combatants to be called up, equipped, supplied, and pointed in the right direction. Like Joshua and the Israelites these religions can ensure that conquerors will reliably slaughter infidels, pagans, and apostates without conscience because it is GOD's WILL and not theirs. This makes war dependable, reliable, predictable. The potential rewards for such a system is incalculable; and I'm not referring to riches as Solomon found were worthless in the long run. I'm talking about stability, progress, and the preservation of knowledge.

The point I told, is that, the bad guys also do exist. They call up combatants, etc.
http://www.zilqar...buse.htm

Anarchists might think that the world would work better without any states, or systems. But that is not probably workable, because, you know, I point out that, tyranny is a type of anarchy, too. (There is no rule, but leader.)
http://www.zilqar...Phil.htm

There, you would be lost in a world of personal- and herd-anarchists, and progress would not exist.

Assassins (hashhashis) were living on narcotics, they say. That was a weird cult [that was a millenium ago, or so]. Not (sunni) Islam.

BTW, even they (assassins/hashhashis) were not bombing marketplaces or killing civilians, so far as I know. The thing we witness today, is contemporary garbage. Perhaps, anti-christ stuff.
http://www.zilqar...rist.htm

You think Islam is about what you will find in the next life. I say it is all about the results it produces in this one. They all are, these religions designed by MEN, not gifted by God. Amen.

That is only denial -- through rationalization. Ironically, that is the fallacy of "if it is valuable, that might not have been from Allah." If that would be the vice versa, that would be your argument, too. Getting ost in such twin-false logics (neither of which is loical), would make you only an agnostic. Try evaluating what exists, rather than trying to conceive the faith from our own logic.

Trying to think "why" the faiths have been, is the type of rationalizations of the enlightenment philosophy. They knew that anarchy was no good, and they would like to have some system but not the church hierarchies they were hating (in France, the church property was extensively looted in revolution). Therefore, enlightenment guys thought lots of such "this would work" philosophisizing.

Interestingly, some of those French have been quoted sympathetic to Islam (Comte "Islam as the closest to positivist faith." and Napoleon quoted to consider Islam as his prospective world system).




Only males who convert out, have that neck-trouble -- that is, after they were (presumedly) muslims (or, some missionary con-artists pretending so, sometimes, to next convert out of Islam).
-You mean like young Barak Obama? :-)

Oh, was he? In any case, there is a time that people have some choice, if I recall that right. At age 18 or so? To choose your faith. Consult the closest fatwa authority. :-)

BTW, Obama is not living in a country that has Islam as the state religion. The logic is probably just to walk out, if you would convert out of the state religion. (Some relate the issue to the warrior status that males might have, but that kind of re-thinking would relate to warrior women, too. All right, probably that is the point. That is, who would fight against you, as in the hadith, two apostates ran away after killing the muslim shepherd.)




P.S: Now, getting off for another week.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 27, 2009
That is only denial -- through rationalization. Ironically, that is the fallacy of "if it is valuable, that might not have been from Allah." .... Try evaluating what exists, rather than trying to conceive the faith from our own logic.
Mr. Zilqarneyn; I believe you are addicted as anyone is to any addictive substance. You are addicted to a dream and the feeling it gives you, of peace, joy, and a life without fear. You are held by your past and by the addicted who surround you. This is no little thing; our memories and our imaginations terrify us and without the wonderful illusions that religions [or drugs] can provide, most of us could not bear life at all. It is a form of insanity, this fall from grace into the cold, stark reality of what was, what is, and what will be no matter what.



"I have seen the burden God has laid on men. 11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also SET ETERNITY in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end." -But they try, and can try and must try, for it is the only way for us to survive in the long run.



-I can see you have a strong intellect and a valiant spirit. So do many many scientists.



"To succeed it is necessary to accept the world as it is and rise above it."



-Michael Korda
acarrilho
not rated yet Jul 27, 2009
If the case were that neutral, lots of anti-muslims would surely list poetry to challenge the surehs of the Quran. Haven't you seen any two literary figures people contrast to reflect which one is better? The issue is not about only your uninterest in the subject. Nobody else is achieving anything against the Quran, in that almost-fourteen-centuries old case.


Anyone with an ounce of common sense can recognize that a "challenge" pertaining to an inherently subjective matter, such as poetry, is pointless. With a religion with so many followers based around the assumption that the challenge is pretty much rhetorical and that the Qur'an has been simply decided as being divinely inspired, there is no point in even trying to right something just to show that the claim will not be refuted objectively because, again, there is no criteria to tell if it would be better or not.

The problem is getting a lot more difficult, in time, because of the scientific accuracies of the Quran. Again, your uninterest is interesting.


I know of no "scientific accuracies". With the proper subjective and biased interpretation of the poetry some apparent coincidences are bound to appear. Some may be accidental, others are clearly created.
But by all means, list those "accuracies" in bullet form here, clearly and succinctly, and I'll go over each of them, clearly and succinctly.

So far as I recall that, people infer that from the edge of the Universe not being able to be seen by looking [from the World]. That is a truly scientific accuracy, in statement. Because the Universe is expanding, we have no way of seeing the edge of the Universe (how that is now, or at all) by looking from the World. No telescopic technology would help. The science is advancing, but you see, the statement of the Quran is not getting old, but the vice versa.


http://www.talkor...531.html
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 27, 2009
@Zilqarneyn
Napoleon quoted to consider Islam as his prospective world system[q/] Napoleon was a despot. He was referring to the brutal Ottoman martial law method of rule. He also knew that these religions were designed by rulers and for rulers.
Napoleon was a despot who admired Ottoman martial law efficiency. He also knew that these religions were designed by rulers, for rulers.
zilqarneyn
1 / 5 (1) Aug 02, 2009
otto1923 (July 27, 2009),

If I would like to addict myself, I would be wasting time by watching TV or with novels. They have lots of tranquilzing stories, special craft to make people into whatever senses they would like to plunge into.

I have said (in this list (to Ethelred), or other PhysOrg news list), that I would have no problem with not existing. Vice versa, I ould choose not existing if I would go to hell otherwise. (Denying hell, might be motivating some of atheists.) I know that lots of people commit suicide, while not believing in afterlife. Thus, minor troubles (or, even senselessness) in this world, is sufficient for lots of people to jump into that "nothing, darkness" they believe in. The Quran, I think, is supporting the point I make (but some Islam commentators try to make your point, too). The Quran is listing that, in the Judgment Day, those who will go to hell, will wish not existing. Why do you think "non-existing" is the most terrible thing, at all?

I only acknowledge that we were put in a test by Allah, and I work to pass the test right. Perhaps, there is no big this-worldly advantage to boast against the non-believers, but not left behind, either. I had said (about health) that, Islam is with good senses, but satans try to bug, too.
http://www.zilqar...alth.htm

Thus, religiousness is a truth, rather than some magic bullet for this-worldly gains. You have to keep up hardily for living in this-world, whether you believe or not. (But, if that were your question, yes, faithless people might find that worthless to keep up in this life, then, commit suicide, but that is not probably most about their lack of some strength, but rather their not having that religious ban against suicide.)

Well-principled people oppose the satans's suggestions, thus living good. Then again, the faithless people might have "no problem" about that -- only if not forbidden by law, or their guilt is not caught. Thus, what I would value, might not necessarily be what you would also value. (But I guess, almost nobody would like to be puppets of evil types.)
http://www.zilqar...buse.htm
http://www.zilqar...aths.htm


this fall from grace into the cold, stark reality of what was, what is, and what will be no matter what.

Is that the thing about passing away from this-world? That was what I was explaining.

If that is about Adam (a.s.) & Eve case, that was the written test. A hadith is tellling that, that "fall" was not escapable. Perhaps, that story could have been something else, but this-world would exist. (BTW, Islam does not support the original-sin as passing to babies. Babies are born sinless, and this-world is quite fertile for living. Lots of faithless people like living.)




@ acarrilho (July 27, 2009),
If the case were that neutral, lots of anti-muslims would surely list poetry to challenge the surehs of the Quran. Haven't you seen any two literary figures people contrast to reflect which one is better? The issue is not about only your uninterest in the subject. Nobody else is achieving anything against the Quran, in that almost-fourteen-centuries old case.


Anyone with an ounce of common sense can recognize that a "challenge" pertaining to an inherently subjective matter, such as poetry, is pointless. With a religion with so many followers based around the assumption that the challenge is pretty much rhetorical and that the Qur'an has been simply decided as being divinely inspired, there is no point in even trying to right something just to show that the claim will not be refuted objectively because, again, there is no criteria to tell if it would be better or not.


The Quran is refuting that "subjectiveness" point upfront. That is not a "poetry" but obvious words.

Literary art is not only "subjective." Condensing herds of literary arts, is marvelous -- especially when the text is not sounding esoteric. Lots of techniques goes into a pun, or other literary prowess. Those people living in more than a millenium, ago, were not looking for excuses to believe in something. They knew poetry, they knew literary art cases, and then when such a straightforward text, with lots of openly-understood portion, had such a huge list of literary intricacies, and they acknowledged that. Your denial, is not common sense. Vice versa.

The Quran is pointing out that, some of the words are obviously esoteric (muteshabih), but they are left for the future, people with knowledge. Then, science is helping to reflect about some of those, too.



The problem is getting a lot more difficult, in time, because of the scientific accuracies of the Quran. Again, your uninterest is interesting.


I know of no "scientific accuracies". With the proper subjective and biased interpretation of the poetry some apparent coincidences are bound to appear. Some may be accidental, others are clearly created.

But by all means, list those "accuracies" in bullet form here, clearly and succinctly, and I'll go over each of them, clearly and succinctly.


The example you were trying to oppose, is refuted. What is your objection to that now? Isn't that accurate?

Furthermore, try the list in that site I point at.
http://www.qurana...nce.com/
Why haven't you? Are you selectively neglecting what I'm writing? ((Rating: Or, is acarrilho yet another bot, which wants me to list what already exists in that site, to waste time?))

Interestingly, I had written a "code19" related e-mail to a site that was telling that the first paragraph of declaration-of-independence had that, too. I told that, that was the most-fitting explanation I saw that far, because that paragraph was teling of "Nature's God" and that is Allah, thus, Allah might have taken code19 as a signature from the Quran, and put that into the first paragraph of DoI, too. I told that author to look elsewhere, whether he would find that kind of miracle-or-not case (other than, perhaps, Adam Smith's, because that talks of the "invisible hand").

BTW, I'm not a submitter, but that was a point about co-incidences. After I might finish the stuff I work about now, I might look into the code19 cases, too. But that is only a type of scientific-miracle sort of thing. No justification of the submitters (or, Mehmet Aydin) prophecies in guessing the words, arbitrarily, to fit the cultures they live in today. Perhaps, acarillho was a witness to such salesmanly arbitrary guesses with lots of hypocritical neglect they commit. But, I'm not a submitter. I'm (sunni) muslim, as I told to otto1923's commentary like "some clerics guess anything they wish." The (sunni) Islamic system, is for systematizing all -- without lots of ijtihad/whimware, beause the constraint list is sufficiently binding.




So far as I recall that, people infer that from the edge of the Universe not being able to be seen by looking [from the World]. That is a truly scientific accuracy, in statement. Because the Universe is expanding, we have no way of seeing the edge of the Universe (how that is now, or at all) by looking from the World. No telescopic technology would help. The science is advancing, but you see, the statement of the Quran is not getting old, but the vice versa.

http://www.talkor...531.html


I wrote the further points, in the post after that (July 27, 2009). (That next post was garbled the first time, in the PhysOrg mechanism. But I did post that, again. See, there.)

Evolutionists (talkorigins, Ayala/Dobzhansky or pandasthumb/Gould) have that pathetic lousy style of denying the Creator's marvels, by trying to assume the thing were not perfect. The supposedly "good translations" talkorigins quotes, would not make the fingernail of what I wrote in this list (July 27, 2009, and even that July 26,2009 paragraph that acariilho quotes). I wrote (in this list), that the grammar in arabic, is perfectly stating that the business/functioning of expansion is that of Allah. (The old people might have not imagined that as continuing, thus translating wrong, but the word is fitting the continuing expansion case. Perfect wording.)

((Rating: Again, probably acarrilho is neglecting what I'm writing. Another repetitive bot competition? I should start coding bots, too, I suppose.))

The single point talkorigins is guessing right, is that the Bible might have told some of that, before. Then, who had sent that? Allah, the Creator. But Bible is now obviously not exactly what Jesus (a.s.) was holding as the Bible. ( http://www.imame....esus.htm
) Four books, and with stories after him (a.s.), that is probably only a best-effort to retain what there was. I take that as a hadith book, that contains portions of the true Bible, too.





otto1923 (July 27, 2009) 2,
Napoleon was a despot who admired Ottoman martial law efficiency. He also knew that these religions were designed by rulers, for rulers.

Is that your opinion, or quoting Napoleon's true intention from some text?

Hitler, Stalin, were with their efficient systems, too. Not religious, not Islamic. Rulers thrive by guns, etc -- whether religious or not. (Some were listing their own selves as "gods.") Your case is probably about the Roman Catholic church having some this-worldly system? But christians were persecuted through centuries, until they met the emperor to integrate that intt the Roman system.

BTW, if you would like to rationalize, maybe you should think that Napoleon was trying to take some support against the Catholic establishment, by relating to the Islamic base.

BTW, that all, is assuming that he truly told those words, and was not truly choosing Islam as a faith.


Napoleon was a strategy man, and his appreciating Islam even for rational causes, would fit how I thought that, R-world is a point for endorsing Islam, by pointing out that the Islamic world-view is marvelous.
http://www.zilqar...slam.htm

R-world is a free-market style. (The good old Islamic style, now with modern technology.)
http://www.zilqar...ndex.htm



P.S: I get off for another week. (As I had said, I plan to get out of this list's turns, within this month. After at most three or four weeks, if need to teel me something, then e-mail to me or tweet through http://www.twitte...lqarneyn . I might keep commenting in various PhysOrg news, though. This list is just too long to suggest people to casually look into.)
otto1923
not rated yet Aug 02, 2009
Oy, you're wearing me out man. Allah teaches persistence, don't he? You throw up what you believe, and I can only throw up what I believe in return. 
You're right, I didn't research that Napoleon info (post link) but I BELIEVE we can infer napoleons true intent by the greatest results of what he did. He destroyed antiquated cultures, ruined antiquated infrastructure, and significantly depopulated Europe. The most significant RESULT of this was that the Industrial Revolution could take place unencumbered. He established an environment that was absolutely essential for future events to occur, events which presaged even more beneficial developments in the spread and consolidation of modern culture.  

I see this as an act of Construction, proceeding according to a Plan, by People who know enough about the future to prepare for it. I BELIEVE we can infer from this that, because of the power and sweep that Napoleon commanded, he was fully aware of this Plan and the reasons for it.

Inference is a valid form of investigation when you assume the facts are beyond your reach (string theory dimensions) or, in the case of world conquest, they are necessarily hidden, destroyed, misinterpreted, or otherwise suspect. We can INFER whether a religion might have been created or commandeered, as christianity was by the Romans for instance, because of the ways it functions and the proximate effects it has in this world. I believe I can look at the wild success of Islam in conquering strategic areas of africa and eurasia, in preparation for an ottoman empire, and INFER that it was motivated by men not a higher power. It went so far and stopped. It enabled Europe to conquer the new world while not participating in this conquest itself. It stopped the mongols and prevented other problematic cultures from arising spontaneously.

I understand I am not clear sometimes, partly because I do this on an iPhone... My comment re the Fall from Grace was about eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge (of good and evil) and the way it relates to Ecclesiastes 3. We can remember the past when we were all young, and know we're mortal. We can envision the future and know that we have got to do something about it now. This is what I think the Teacher meant about God putting Eternity in the Hearts of Men. I don't think we have the capacity to handle it, a design flaw, the results of a million years of tribal war and a system of improvement- evolution- that never before had to deal with an emerging sentience. It caused our brains to swell and birthing mothers to suffer great pain for it; that too is in genesis. A little knowledge ruined paradise for us and set us on an irreversable course of conflict and learning how to survive despite it. That's what I believe.   
zilqarneyn
1 / 5 (2) Aug 08, 2009
@otto1923 (Aug.2, 2009),
I BELIEVE we can infer napoleons true intent by the greatest results of what he did. He destroyed antiquated cultures, ruined antiquated infrastructure, and significantly depopulated Europe. The most significant RESULT of this was that the Industrial Revolution could take place unencumbered. He established an environment that was absolutely essential for future events to occur, events which presaged even more beneficial developments in the spread and consolidation of modern culture.

So far as I recall now, Napolen had little or most likely no part, in the reign of terror. (He was in Egypt, then?)

Any way, if you list the supremacy fighting within Europe, or the colonnialism in their out of Europe cases, Napoleon was not the first, nor the last. Actually, the British language (that we now converse with), has lots of French-sourced words, because France had occupied Britain in older times. Next, British went to visit (executing Jan D'Arc, you know). They had that fighting all the time. (Today, the fight is more in the jokes fashion, and I like their culture-bashing jokes, back and forth. Like sitcom (persistent, with opinion, and no progress, because that is the matter of taste/culture, issues). Snail-food, tasteless-food. Victories, etc.)

A point that Napoleon might have had extra, is his strategy ability. In the case of rallying the masses, I had seen a quote of Napoleon (but not able to verify that he said that) that, his ability in rallying the nation to war out of Europe (to rival Britain, in colonies, or maybe to Russia, too), was his noticing that, people seem to be willing to die for a medal. (In social psychology terms, that might be the similar of how people support their groups. Think about the sports rivalry, in lots of cases.)



I believe I can look at the wild success of Islam in conquering strategic areas of africa and eurasia, in preparation for an ottoman empire, and INFER that it was motivated by men not a higher power.

People dynamics, is not what people could foresee before centuries. Ottomans were founded in 1299, five centuries after Islam.

I doubt social engineering would work even in the time you live. Ironically, lots of people have been opposing the rules sent by Allah throughout the history (the Quran is listing lots of old cases).


It went so far and stopped. It enabled Europe to conquer the new world while not participating in this conquest itself.

Ottomans were trying the conquest of the old world. While short of that, new world might have been not their first wish.

Ottoman State's final stop, in Europe: I might list points from both Islamic and other/external points of view.

From external (purely materialist) view: The Ottoman fighting was stoppable by Europe, following the renaissance (technology) advances. Or, perhaps Austria (& beyond) was/were relatively hard to conquer, in contrast to the Balkans that Ottoman had got hold of. Materialists acknowledge that the personality of the king/sultan (or, compensating officials) is critical in the success. After a point in time, the Ottoman State sultans were into luxuries, not warrior kings going to conquests. (Truman has the quip that, the state presidency is not like military. But I think, when the king is not in personal charge of the military, that question is the same, in the military case, too. "Do this, do that." might not manage toward anything.)

From Islamic point of view: The famous thought is that, Ottomans were succesful when they were keeping the command of Allah high. In contrast, got unsuccessful when Islam was left aside. (You, otto1923, seem to agree with that conclusion, in some material sense.)



It stopped the mongols

In the case of who was able to stop mongols, now I might need to look up history, but that was not Ottomans.

BTW (so far as I know), some of the mongols converting to Islam, was functional in stopping mongols, too. (Then, partially, that sounds similar to Rome finally accepting Christianity, rather than persecuting.) But, I'm not listing this as necessary, in the case of Islam. Probabl, there were muslims who were fighting back, too. (Allah knows best. Perhaps, the period of ruin was necessary.)

In the cities mongols hurt, some became martyr. Furthermore, in the case of some old Jewish times, when they were neglecting the words of their prophets, Allah is informing us that, He let the pagans ruin the Jewish state. Perhaps, that was His rule, working again, in the case of Baghdad (in the last millenium), when mongols were ruining there. Bad rulers, or elite, neglecting the Islamic lifestyle, perhaps. Then, the martyrs and sinners were passing away together to the other world. Allah knows best, and He will sort those out, in the Judgment Day.




A little knowledge ruined paradise for us and set us on an irreversable course of conflict and learning how to survive despite it. That's what I believe.

Interestingly, co-incidentally, this morning, I was looking back into the famous Quran&Science booklet written by Zindani, and there he was contrasting the genesis view ("knowledge is awful, because knowledge-tree caused people to get out of heaven"), vs. the Quran point (angels thought that Adam (a.s.) was a worhless and savage species, but Allah taught Adam (a.s.) the words, and angels came to accept that Adam (a.s.) was valuable). Thus, Islam is not opposing knowledge.

BTW, I think the problem there, is that the genesis is lacking the portion in the Quran. Otherwise, nothing is necessarily anti-knowledge, in genesis, either. The knowledge-tree was a bad/burdensome knowledge. That is not a general statement against all knowledge, but if there is no statement for endorsing knowledge, then the single statement that opposes, might have been understood as "knowledge is trouble" by (some) christians.




So, this brings me back to the issue of Islamic miracles.




acarillho,

First of all, all of the miracles that I have said (with links), have been without problem
1) universal-expansion case is how I told. (All of the senses of the word, fit. Expanded from the start, and expanding now. Thus, neither only-past, nor only-now would fit. The universe is not a rubber sheet, therefore, when that is expaning, there is obvious enrichment (galaxies forming), too.)
2) accuracies in listing the Egypt official titles, through various times, are precision terms, too. (See, Harun Yahya listing those, in http://www.haruny...3_01.php )




So far as I know, Zindani was the first who was mentioning the embryology cases, by talking with western scientists.

This week, I noticed that talkorigins.org is opposing the embryology cases, supposedly "accuracies and inaccuracies reflect Galen." That is again simpletonian, circular logic. For example, I wonder, is the word that Galen was listing as "blood clot," open to interpreting as a leech/relating, too? If not, they have to admit that, Galen was wrong, and exegetes (tafsir authors) who were trying to interpret the Quran with the science they knew in their times, thought "alaqa" was corresponding to the second phase of what they knew (Galen). Now that we know better, surely we need to interpret wisely. The precision is in the Quran, not in what Galen said.

BTW, Allah had sent lots of prophets (Adam (a.s.) was the first prophet). Galen could have got that from Jewish sources. (The Jewish came to question the knowledge of Muhammed (s.a.s.) in a hadith, thus they probably had some knowledge of the fetal process, too.)

Furhermore, see what I tweet ( http://www.twitte...lqarneyn ). While into the case of embryology, to respond to the simpletons (talkorigins.org and the gang of simpletons where they get such stupid opinions), I noticed that I might interpret/find new scientific fitness, too. (That is not necessarily getting rid of the pattern noticed by Moore & Zindani. The Quran key is explaining the patterns of various phenomena. Like "metaphor," but actually the law. Like, knowing how a capacitor works, might facilitate people to know how lots of electronics circuits work. Plug into the new context. As far as the Moore & Zindani pattern is fitting to what we know today, the new patterns might list together, as yet new patterns, not as "the" specific application of the law.)




BTW, one of the simpletons thinks Epicurus (or, his student, Lucretius) was "foretelling" something. Well, if you would ignore Democritus (atoms), Aristotle (great chain of being), you might think so. But Epicurus was probably only a hedonist philosopher (or, perhaps a fine-thinking type in people-matters, but not in the scientific category).




BTW, this week, I found yet another Harun Yahya list of scientific miracles. Looks good. Go bite that, if you have the teeth.
http://www.docsto...he-QURAN




P.S: Getting off, for another week. (Hopefully, no typo in what I wrote.)
zilqarneyn
1 / 5 (2) Aug 19, 2009

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.