View Full Version : Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
D'oh! There's no gravity according to the Evangelical Center for Faith-based Reasoning. It's all about God pushing objects 'down' called the Intelligent Falling Theory. :dizzy2: :no:
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity with new "Intelligent Falling" Theory (http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2)
"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," ~:eek:
Grey_Fox
08-18-2005, 12:09
They've reached a new low...
Ser Clegane
08-18-2005, 12:14
You are both aware that this is satire, aren't you?
Grey_Fox
08-18-2005, 12:19
Meh, I didn't actually look at the link.
in any case, God still invented gravity therefore God still deserves full credit anytime anything falls down ~D
He might not have done. It might have been a strange side effect of something else. He might have thought - "lets create mass.. whoa! Check this out - gravity seems to be function of mass. Note to self: give it a few billion years and create a bloke called Einstein to tell everyone about it".
You are both aware that this is satire, aren't you?
1) Uh, no. I didn't know it was a satirical site....
2) The idea is equally bunk as Intelligent Design, that's why it sounded genuine. ~D
in any case, God still invented gravity therefore God still deserves full credit anytime anything falls down ~D First of all, nothing is really falling down. You are pulling Earth towards you and the Earth is pulling you towards it. And the force is dependent the masses of and the distance between the two objects.
Secondly, if "God" invented gravity, then who gets credit for inventing "God"? ~:confused:
The Stranger
08-18-2005, 13:12
what is satire, i think those people really dont have a clue.
English assassin
08-18-2005, 13:59
To be fair, the internet is so mad its not always easy to spot satire.
in any case, God still invented gravity therefore God still deserves full credit anytime anything falls down
THIS certainly sent my satire-o-meter into the red zone, for instance. After all, everyone knows Newton invented gravity, just as Darwin invented evolution.
RabidGibbon
08-18-2005, 14:14
I can't belive any one would fall for such an obvious satire - It's obvious to anyone with sense that the noodly appendage of the Flying spaghetti monster is responsible for things falling to earth. ~;) .
The Stranger
08-18-2005, 14:19
what is SATIRE>What is it???????
Spetulhu
08-18-2005, 14:19
I can't belive any one would fall for such an obvious satire. ~;)
Spotting it as satire might be hard if you're still laughing at the church for the flat Earth and the Earth-centered solar system. Perhaps these guys wanted to go back to a time when answers were simple? ~;)
Ser Clegane
08-18-2005, 14:21
what is SATIRE>What is it???????
Satire (Wikipedia) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire)
Kommodus
08-18-2005, 14:36
Yes, as others have pointed out, The Onion is a well-known satirical news source, which I actually enjoy reading most of the time. I had read this article yesterday and found it mildly humorous, although many of their articles are much funnier. Of course, "Intelligent Falling" and "Intelligent Design" have nothing in common. It's reminiscent of when scientists say something to the effect of, "anyone who disputes [some point of Evolution] might as well belong to the flat-earth society." Sigh. The origins of life on earth have nothing to do with how it's shaped. I get tired of hearing such logical fallacies.
Check this out - gravity seems to be function of mass. Note to self: give it a few billion years and create a bloke called Einstein to tell everyone about it".
I think you mean Newton.
Beyond that, I'm not getting into this debate. It became clouded long ago by people on all sides who refuse to understand the other points of view, and are quick to believe the worst about them. Look at how quickly people believed that this article was legitimate, even though the satire of the article, and indeed the entire Onion site, is easy to spot. Please, if you want to comment on this subject at all, at least first try to understand both Evolution and Intelligent Design - and don't get all your research from sites that are friendly to your present point of view.
Al Khalifah
08-18-2005, 14:36
How ironic. You thought you were so superior for ridiculing a perceived Christian stupidity, yet you lacked the intelligence to perceive satire yourself. Showed you didn't it? Try harder next time before you start slagging others off.
Christianity 1
You 0
Del Arroyo
08-18-2005, 15:30
"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"
Actually, I thought the article was pretty funny.
DA
1)
First of all, nothing is really falling down. You are pulling Earth towards you and the Earth is pulling you towards it. And the force is dependent the masses of and the distance between the two objects.
Secondly, if "God" invented gravity, then who gets credit for inventing "God"? ~:confused:
um yeah, well you're just arguing semantics here. the point is still the same ~:cool:
as for your question: God invented God
So God created himseld out of what?
Anyway, so where do you draw the line between God invented this, or "This human" invented it.
If God invented everything, then you could say that Alfred Nobel didnt invent the Dynamite!? Since god must have allready invented it. In some sick way, we human can then Never be original. :bow:
Al Khalifah
08-18-2005, 17:11
God didn't create himself. God just has always been since ever, before the Universe.
God created man and gave him free will to do as he pleased. Everything man has ever achieved is to the credit of mankind and everything horror man has ever inflicted on man is to the same of mankind. Mankind has invented everything ever invented (except maybe a few crude tools invented by monkeys and such).
Nobody invented gravity, it was discovered. The Universe god created experiences this phenomenon and man discovered it.
The Stranger
08-18-2005, 17:19
Satire (Wikipedia) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire)
thanx
God didn't create himself. God just has always been since ever, before the Universe.
God created man and gave him free will to do as he pleased. Everything man has ever achieved is to the credit of mankind and everything horror man has ever inflicted on man is to the same of mankind. Mankind has invented everything ever invented (except maybe a few crude tools invented by monkeys and such).
Nobody invented gravity, it was discovered. The Universe god created experiences this phenomenon and man discovered it.
So then human kind is capable of inventing things god never thought of?
yesdachi
08-18-2005, 20:51
Well god had to come from somewhere didn't he? Where did this "God" come from? There's no explanation for HIS existence. That's where both the christiain view and the big bang view fall apart. What created the big bang? We're not sure. What created god? The pastor will hit you with a stick for asking.
Where did this "God" come from? The minds of people without answers. ~:)
Throughout history people have always used “god” as the answer to all the questions we don’t know the true answers to.
AntiochusIII
08-18-2005, 21:15
God didn't create himself. God just has always been since ever, before the Universe.
God created man and gave him free will to do as he pleased. Everything man has ever achieved is to the credit of mankind and everything horror man has ever inflicted on man is to the same of mankind. Mankind has invented everything ever invented (except maybe a few crude tools invented by monkeys and such).
Nobody invented gravity, it was discovered. The Universe god created experiences this phenomenon and man discovered it.Proof?
PanzerJaeger
08-18-2005, 21:49
How ironic. You thought you were so superior for ridiculing a perceived Christian stupidity, yet you lacked the intelligence to perceive satire yourself. Showed you didn't it? Try harder next time before you start slagging others off.
:laugh4:
LoL - I was going to post something along the lines of "Who is the idiot now?".
AntiochusIII
08-18-2005, 22:02
How ironic. You thought you were so superior for ridiculing a perceived Christian stupidity, yet you lacked the intelligence to perceive satire yourself. Showed you didn't it? Try harder next time before you start slagging others off.Well, I just happen to percieve satire myself. It's the ONION, after all.
Anyway, Creationists that don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster...oh, I don't want to flame, but really... ~;)
Infidels! ;-I
Seriously, the issue that give the motives for people to create this satire is, in every possible, pathetic. Absolute bullshit nonsensical fanatics' stupidity. They want a popular-yet-boring folktale "creation myth" be taught as the first ever absolute science. Even evolutionism is just a scientific theory, despite the overwhelming evidence, as it's supposed to be this way. So, yeah...
"Hey look! In Six Days, you can...change your image, make yourself more mature, get a new phone, fight wars, and, oh...create the universe!"
Al Khalifah
08-18-2005, 22:52
So then human kind is capable of inventing things god never thought of?
Yes
Well god had to come from somewhere didn't he? Where did this "God" come from? There's no explanation for HIS existence. That's where both the christiain view and the big bang view fall apart. What created the big bang? We're not sure. What created god? The pastor will hit you with a stick for asking.
No God didn't come from somewhere. He has ALWAYS been there - since ever. I believe the big bang theory, but something had to cause the big bang and the matter involved in the big bang had to come from somewhere. Where? What created that matter? My local vicar also has a first in chemistry - hardly the sign of a closed mind.
Proof?
I don't know for certain that my girlfriend is cheating on me right now. She might be sleeping with other men/women. I could follow her round all the time and keep her under constant surveillance, but I prefer to rely on a little something called faith. Sometimes I choose to believe in others. Scientists do the same. Not every physicist has looked through an electron microscope and seen the fundamental particles that constitute an atom, so how do they know that an atom is made up of such particles - they take it on faith.
Del Arroyo
08-18-2005, 23:00
IMO if you take it down to basics there is no conceptual distinction between an all-powerful "God" and the collective sum of everything.
Of course, if you take it from that perspective, then no group or book can have a monopoly on what "God" "says". It would have to be a process of ongoing observation and hypothesis....
DA
um yeah, well you're just arguing semantics here. the point is still the same ~:cool: Oh no. Pushing means the force is coming from one direction (i.e. pushing a car). Pulling means force from another direction (i.e pulling a car). ~:)
as for your question: God invented God :dizzy2:
How ironic. You thought you were so superior for ridiculing a perceived Christian stupidity, yet you lacked the intelligence to perceive satire yourself. Showed you didn't it? Try harder next time before you start slagging others off.
Christianity 1
You 0 Intelligent Design and Intelligent Falling are both equally baseless. They are both as ridiculous as the other ~:) If Christians can claim one, then claiming the other is not far off.
Papewaio
08-19-2005, 02:39
Got to love the Onion.
D'oh! There's no gravity according to the Evangelical Center for Faith-based Reasoning. It's all about God pushing objects 'down' called the Intelligent Falling Theory. :dizzy2: :no:
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity with new "Intelligent Falling" Theory (http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2)
~:eek:
I have seen the other responses on this thread - but I still must ask this simple question.
Did you allow your baised views concerning Religion and Christianity in particular to lead you to a false conclusion about this article being real and not satire?
I have seen the other responses on this thread - but I still must ask this simple question.
Did you allow your baised views concerning Religion and Christianity in particular to lead you to a false conclusion about this article being real and not satire?
Christians claim "Intelligent Design" which has no scientific basis.
Christians 'claim' "Intelligent Falling" which has no scientific basis.
There's no difference.
sharrukin
08-19-2005, 03:14
Duh! "Intelligence is Falling"!!!
Yes it would seem so!
PanzerJaeger
08-19-2005, 04:17
LoL-He still wont admit his anti-christian beliefs led him to take such stupidity as fact! ~:doh:
Christians claim "Intelligent Design" which has no scientific basis.
Which is a theory by Christians
Christians 'claim' "Intelligent Falling" which has no scientific basis.
Which is a theory made up by the Onion Writers to mock the 'Intelligent Design" theory.
There's no difference.
Someone's idealogical views has have been fooled by the master writers of the Onion.
This is the real Rev. Gabriel Burdett
http://campnelson.kentuckyregiments.org/burdett_gabriel.htm
Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning
Does not exist - try doing a google search - all it comes up with is articles from The Onion or bloggers who are just jumping all over the net concerning the article from The Onion.
You just got to love The Onion it makes fun of all sides of an issue.
Samurai Waki
08-19-2005, 04:34
hehe. I love satire. I can generally spot that kind of nonsense before it even happened. As soon as I clicked the link and it said theonion.com I instantly remembered a previous link to the same site (different story).
Soulforged
08-19-2005, 04:39
Secondly, if "God" invented gravity, then who gets credit for inventing "God"? ~:confused:
Us of course... We invented God, don't you know that. I remember the last time i did that, oathing before the "body of Christ"... :dizzy2: (this last face is for religions not for you ~D )
Samurai Waki
08-19-2005, 04:41
I was never too keen on the body of christ, but on more than one occasion I had more than my share of his blood ~:cheers: I was just thinking about the episode of family guy where peter drinks the wine and we was like "Holy Crap! Thats the blood of Christ?!? that guy must've been wasted all the time!"
Which is a theory by Christians
Which is a theory made up by the Onion Writers to mock the 'Intelligent Design" theory.
Someone's idealogical views has have been fooled by the master writers of the Onion.
This is the real Rev. Gabriel Burdett
http://campnelson.kentuckyregiments.org/burdett_gabriel.htm
Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning
Does not exist - try doing a google search - all it comes up with is articles from The Onion. Redleg,
What is the difference between Intelligent Design vs. Intelligent Falling?
If you read the Intelligent Falling Theory article in the New York Times (the real website), then according to your presumedly unbiased view, what is the difference between:
Intelligent Design as you understand it and
Intelligent Falling as presented by the article?
~:)
LoL-He still wont admit his anti-christian beliefs led him to take such stupidity as fact! ~:) You guys have the luxury of inference via previous knowledge of the Onion site. Answer the questions, I've presented to Redleg (if you wish).
Redleg,
What is the difference between Intelligent Design vs. Intelligent Falling?
Already given the answer see post #36.
If you read the Intelligent Falling Theory article in the New York Times (the real website), then according to your presumedly unbiased view, what is the difference between:
I don't subscribe to the New York Times - so lets see what is available. A search does not provide the article - to adequately answer your question - provide a link. A search of "Intelligent Falling" only brings up the Onion Satire.
Intelligent Design as you understand it and
Intelligent Falling as presented by the article?
~:)
~:) You guys have the luxury of inference via previous knowledge of the Onion site. Answer the questions, I've presented to Redleg (if you wish).
Will have to await your link to see if the article in the New York Times is just a copy of The Onion Article or if it is a seperate article. I have tried various ways to find a scientific article from any newspaper - but every article links back to The Onion's article. I can not help but conclude that The Onion's Article has played on your anti-relgious viewspoint.
Already given the answer see post #36.
I don't subscribe to the New York Times - so lets see what is available. A search does not provide the article - to adequately answer your question - provide a link. A search of "Intelligent Falling" only brings up the Onion Satire.
Will have to await your link to see if the article in the New York Times is just a copy of The Onion Article or if it is a seperate article. You can't differentiate Intelligent Design and Intelligent Falling can you? (There is no difference....)
My question was a supposition that if the Onion article was a New York Times article then how would you differentiate Intelligent Design Theory from Intelligent Falling Theory?
Your basis of dismissal of article was that it came from a known satire site, the Onion. If the whole article was from the New York Times, how can you tell if it was satire or not? ~:)
You can't differentiate Intelligent Design and Intelligent Falling can you? (There is no difference....)
My question was a supposition that if the Onion article was a New York Times article then how would you differentiate Intelligent Design Theory from Intelligent Falling Theory?
Your basis of dismissal of article was that it came from a known satire site, the Onion. If the whole article was from the New York Times, how can you tell if it was satire or not? ~:)
Well like I said - link the New York Times article - every search I have done links The Onion's article. Then again the Rev in the article is long dead and the Center mentioned is made up in The Onion's article. You want me to answer the question - provide your link to the New York TImes article - because once again every search goes back to The Onion.
Edit: I figured out what you are trying to ask now. There is absolutely no need to attempt such a comparison - the article and the information from The Onion's article is completely made up - it is satire. I don't subscribe to the Intelligent Design Theory myself as being something that needs to be taught in school. If I want my child to know Intelligent Design I will either teach him based upon my religious views or allow the church I attend to do so. I want the education system to teach him the hard science involved with evolution.
So why should I even attempt to compare a Religious based theory to a made-up theory based on poking fun at both sides of the arguement.
But I see you have ducked out on answering the question posed to you by myself.
So I will ask again
Did you allow your baised views concerning Religion and Christianity in particular to lead you to a false conclusion about this article being real and not satire?
Well like I said - link the New York Times article - every search I have done links The Onion's article. Then again the Rev in the article is long dead and the Center mentioned is made up in The Onion's article. You want me to answer the question - provide your link to the New York TImes article - because once again every search goes back to The Onion.Redleg, it was a supposition.
If you go to church and the Priest talked about an "Intelligent Falling" theory exactly the way it was presented in the Onion site - verbatim. Would you nod?
If you go to church and the Priest talked about "Intelligent Design" as you understand it from other sources. would you nod?
Aside from the fact that the article originated from the Onion, you can't differentiate Intelligent Falling from Intelligent Design. ~:)
Redleg, it was a supposition.
I gathered that - notice the edit of my post after you had already quoted. Its been a long day - and I missed the supposition at first.
If you go to church and the Priest talked about an "Intelligent Falling" theory exactly the way it was presented in the Onion site - verbatim. Would you nod?
Nope because it does not pass the common sense test of both science and religion as far as I am concerned.
If you go to church and the Priest talked about "Intelligent Design" as you understand it from other sources. would you nod?
Since I believe in the Big Bang Theory of the creation of the Universe - and that the Big Bang was caused by something. However instead of the cause being something - I believe the Big Bang was caused by the God that I believe in. Everything after that - would lead me to believe that God is behind evolution and therefor the Intelligent Design fits into my belief system.
Do I understand that this is a belief system - yes I do. However it doesn't cause me to attempt to demonize those you believe only in the evolution theory.
Aside from the fact that the article originated from the Onion, you can't differentiate Intelligent Falling from Intelligent Design. ~:)
Like I said in the above - the article which mis-quotes several passages of the bible gave itself away. So yes I can tell the difference between the two theories.
However it seems you are still ducking the question asked of you.
Edit: I figured out what you are trying to ask now. There is absolutely no need to attempt such a comparison - the article and the information from The Onion's article is completely made up - it is satire. I don't subscribe to the Intelligent Design Theory myself as being something that needs to be taught in school. If I want my child to know Intelligent Design I will either teach him based upon my religious views or allow the church I attend to do so. I want the education system to teach him the hard science involved with evolution.
So why should I even attempt to compare a Religious based theory to a made-up theory based on poking fun at both sides of the arguement. But how do you know it was a satire aside from it coming the Onion site?
What's the different of the Intelligent Falling theory satire from Intelligent Design theory in a contextual sense?
But I see you have ducked out on answering the question posed to you by myself.
So I will ask again
Did you allow your baised views concerning Religion and Christianity in particular to lead you to a false conclusion about this article being real and not satire? There is no bias. Both are scientifically unfounded and unsupported. There's no difference between Intelligent Design and Intelligent Falling theory contextually, aside from the latter originating from a satire site.
I was asking you the same question, what's the difference, contextually, between the two.
Aside from saying ID is a Christian theory and the other is a Satiric, you can't say what's the difference in context between the two.
~:)
Del Arroyo
08-19-2005, 05:36
To Quietus et al: If you couldn't tell that was satire by merely reading the headline, you are a little slow, IMHO...
I gathered that - notice the edit of my post after you had already quoted. Its been a long day - and I missed the supposition at first. Understood. ~:cool:
Nope because it does not pass the common sense test of both science and religion as far as I am concerned.See below.
Since I believe in the Big Bang Theory of the creation of the Universe - and that the Big Bang was caused by something. However instead of the cause being something - I believe the Big Bang was caused by the God that I believe in. Everything after that - would lead me to believe that God is behind evolution and therefor the Intelligent Design fits into my belief system.
Do I understand that this is a belief system - yes I do. However it doesn't cause me to attempt to demonize those you believe only in the evolution theory.
Intelligent Design: God is "behind evolution" (in your own words).
Intelligent Falling: God is behind gravity. (Onion article).
What is the difference?
Like I said in the above - the article which mis-quotes several passages of the bible gave itself away. So yes I can tell the difference between the two theories.
However it seems you are still ducking the question asked of you. I've answered your question again in my last post. ~:)
But how do you know it was a satire aside from it coming the Onion site?
Lets see a made up Religous Institution, using a dead Rev. as the individual advancing the theory, and the mis-quotes of several key bible passages. That and I read the Onion occassionally and know what they do.
What's the different of the Intelligent Falling theory satire from Intelligent Design theory in a contextual sense?
See above - I can not answer your question because I know that the Onion Article is a satire to poke fun at the "Intelligent Design" theory and to futher poke fun at those who want to find fault with Religion. They poke fun at all sides of an issue - that is what makes the Onion so great.
There is no bias. Both are scientifically unfounded and unsupported. There's no difference between Intelligent Design and Intelligent Falling theory contextually, aside from the latter originating from a satire site.
That is your opinion - you are completely entitled to have it - however again I understand that the Intelligent Design Theory is based upon Religious belief. I am not advocating teaching it to you or to students in school - because like I said - I know its a religious based thought.
However you have now answered the question - you based your initial assumption of D'oh! There's no gravity according to the Evangelical Center for Faith-based Reasoning. It's all about God pushing objects 'down' called the Intelligent Falling Theory. as being a real theory spouted by religion because you want to find fault with religion.
Face it Quietus you bought the article hook, line, and sinker.
I was asking you the same question, what's the difference, contextually, between the two.
And its been answered to the best of my ability - you want to convince me that Intelligent Design theory is a Religious based theory not based on science - which I have stated that I know its based upon religion. So your arguing in circles - I have already stated what you want to hear. Intelligent Design is a religious based theory of evolution based upon religious belief.
Aside from saying ID is a Christian theory and the other is a Satiric, you can't say what's the difference in context between the two.
It seems you are missing the my point - I also recoginzed it as false because the bible is mis-quoted. THe context of the religious teachings of the theory are completly wrong - therefore the theory is a false one even by religious standards that I know. It seems however you don't want to hear reason based upon a religious viewpoint - you want to find fault with anything to do with religion.
Okay since you seem to be against Religious thought, and soley for Scientific based thought. Answer this simple question.
What caused the Big Bang?
[sarcasm on]
Because according to what you seem to have written here - you would have to find fault with the Big Bang Theory also.
Although the Big Bang Theory is widely accepted, it probably will never be proved; consequentially, leaving a number of tough, unanswered questions.
The scientists don't even know when it happen all they have is a best guess.
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html
[sarcasm off]
Soulforged
08-19-2005, 07:25
Oooooook Redleg, but somebody already asked the question..."And before God?"...Is just human nature, as it's ceating "ideal beings" that lives in all things or in a plane where you can't see it or go to, so you can justify moral points of view, power over the earth and have the tools to say what is heaven and how to get to it.
If you still want to believe in the idea of GOD then do so, but be advised to not do such question that don't have answer. Sometime perhaps you will understand that the science have discovered that time is just another dimension (like longitude) so perhaps some day the scientists will find the answer to that question, just to discover that they are in an endless road again or to discover that before or after not always existed, that there was sometime in the live of universe when time didn't existed...
Al Khalifah
08-19-2005, 10:29
Intelligent Design: God is "behind evolution" (in your own words).
Intelligent Falling: God is behind gravity. (Onion article).
What is the difference?
Queitus, you must have very poor vision, since you seem completely incapable of percieving shades of grey. You have a very black and white picture of Christianity. You seem to believe that all Christians subscribe to a totally devoted evangelical model of the Universe and are fully behind creationism. This just isn't the case. I'm a Christian, I don't believe in 6 day creationism and I don't believe God is behind evolution (directly). What I and many other Christians believe is that God cause the Big Bang - thus creating the Universe. Why do you find that hard to comprehend? It's no more or less plausible than the scientific 'well it just kinda happened for no reason' argument. What happened from then on, happened.
I know some Christians may believe everything in the Bible literally and I fully respect that, but you can't just apply this blanket principle over the entire faith of more than 1.5 billion people - not to mention the billions more who believe in other religions that teach a similar beginning. By your thinking, because the Klu Klux Klan are Christian, therefore all Christians are white supremacists.
I've noticed that a lot of hostility and anti-Christian sentiment on this forum seems be against the 'extreme American version' of Christianity. Please bear in mind when you are rolling out your generalisations that there is Christianity outside of the CSA and it is not necessairly the same.
I think "Intelligent Falling" maybe on to something!! :balloon2:
I realise it is not intention of Onion. It is mockery of Intelligent Design, yes. :dizzy2:
But:
No sparrow falls without God's mind (will - therefore action ; God gets what God wants) ~:cool:
God causes falling of sparrow!!!! QED ~D
God is in everything's nature, therefore everything wants to be close to God, and is drawn to other thing!!!! ~:grouphug:
As said in spoof article, Gravity's workings not well understood by science community. Alternate views possible....
Ja'chyra
08-19-2005, 11:14
I think "Intelligent Falling" maybe on to something!! :balloon2:
I realise it is not intention of Onion. It is mockery of Intelligent Design, yes. :dizzy2:
But:
No sparrow falls without God's mind (will - therefore action ; God gets what God wants) ~:cool:
God causes falling of sparrow!!!! QED ~D
God is in everything's nature, therefore everything wants to be close to God, and is drawn to other thing!!!! ~:grouphug:
As said in spoof article, Gravity's workings not well understood by science community. Alternate views possible....
Except, there is no God.
Al Khalifah
08-19-2005, 11:26
Free will ! God gave man free will, therefore it probably stands that he gave sparrows free will too.
God is in everything's nature, therefore everything wants to be close to God, and is drawn to other thing!!!!
Well of course. I guess that's actually quite a nice explanation for things - would explain gravity in a relgious way.
Assuming that the bigger something is the more God is present within it, therefore:
Prescence of God = k * Mass
Graviational Attraction = - ( G m1.m2 ) / r^2
Graviation Attraction = - ( G * Prescence of God1 * Prescence of God2 ) / Distance Between Two Objects
QED God explains gravity.
Oooooook Redleg, but somebody already asked the question..."And before God?"...Is just human nature, as it's ceating "ideal beings" that lives in all things or in a plane where you can't see it or go to, so you can justify moral points of view, power over the earth and have the tools to say what is heaven and how to get to it.
LOL - your assuming that I don't know how religion comes about. Knowledge does not mean one does not have to believe.
If you still want to believe in the idea of GOD then do so, but be advised to not do such question that don't have answer. Sometime perhaps you will understand that the science have discovered that time is just another dimension (like longitude) so perhaps some day the scientists will find the answer to that question, just to discover that they are in an endless road again or to discover that before or after not always existed, that there was sometime in the live of universe when time didn't existed...
Again someone missed the [sarcasm on] [sarcasm off] buttons. But I will say this - is it not hypocritical to attack someone who believes in God for not being able to provide proof. When the theory of the Big Bang as purposed by scientists have no proof to how or why it happened. Only that it was the most likely cause. That is the reason why the on/off switch of sarcasm was clearly placed in the text.
Religion means different things for different people. However to assume because of a satire that Christianity will cause you to believe in absolute Tripe is ridiculous. The whole premise of his initial post is that he believed The Onion to be a legimate news report of a true event. His whole postion is hypocritical for that fact.
Definitely a lot of shades of grey here. I too am a Christian, continually embarrassed and frustrated by so called 'creation science'. I don't have that much of a problem with creationism itself but the widespread ignorance and (unfortunately) deception associated with Creation Science really gets to me. I'm also a BSc qualified geologist (with an MSc on the way but I'm taking my time on that one), working in the UK construction industry.
I, for one, would take issue with Creationists 'taking the bible literally'. It's not that easy when you consider authoral intent and language differences. In records of Jesus telling parables we don't read him saying "now I'm going to tell a parable." Yet most people (even Young Earth Creationists) don't consider the parables to have actually taken place. For some reason they apply a historical or scientific context to stories that weren't intended to be taken that way. Sure - there are some parts of the bible that are meant to be taken that way. Nehemiah, for instance, reads like a cross between a history report and an engineering textbook.
Anyway - my position is that some biblical passages (even varying within individual books) contain allegorical, rather than literal, truth. Add that to translational difficulties and even before we look at scientific evidence and I don't think that fundamentalist creationism is a well thought out position. Taking for example the biblical flood, which most YECs would take to be a worldwide event we run into difficulties trying to pin down what a literalistic interpretation should be. The Hebrew word generally translated 'Earth' is 'eretz'. This word is translated elsewhere in Genesis as 'land' or 'country'. So immediately we are faced with the possibility that this wasn't a global event but possibly a local one. The creationist calculations for the age of the earth are on equally shaky ground. The word 'ben' as in 'son of' can also mean 'descendant of' so we have the possibility of skipping generations. So very simply, using Biblical sources, literalist interpretation and without resorting to scientific argument, we can at least show reasonable doubt in the young earth creationist position.
Geologically speaking, I've never seen a truly well reasoned testable hypothesis from creation scientists, that can't be easily or hasn't already been refuted. I wouldn't even like to call Intelligent Design a theory in the scientific sense. If I considered Young Earth Creationism to be an essential part of my faith I either would no longer be a Christian or be living with a paradox that could distroy me intellectually and emotionally. You only need to look at interbedded or clays and sands to realise that, in a 6000 year old earth, there simply wasn't time to form all the sediments, let alone rocks. Unless we entirely suspend our understanding of physics (eg rates of sedimentation in water) entirely the Coal Measures formation (generally interbedded sandstones, siltstones, mudstones and coal) in the UK alone disproves a 6000 year old earth.
Regarding the origins of time, God etc (I'm stepping outside of my field here). The conventional understanding of the origins of our universe is that spacetime began at the big bang. Unless we accept the proposals by Hawking and others of 'imaginary time' (an unfortunately named 2nd time dimension with apparrently a very solid mathematical basis although not yet an experimental one) there was no 'before' or 'outside' the big bang. Two ways I see of understanding the nature of God are: A pandimensional being that exists in dimensions we are not aware of, and the concept that god is simply timeless outside of it and can act temporally witin it. I find these, and other models, somewhat beneficial in trying to understand the nature of God. The very concept of timeless causality is confusing so I won't go there. Most helpful for understanding the nature of God is probably the Biblical 'I AM' or more literaly 'I AM THAT I AM - I WILL BE WHAT I AM - I HAVE BEEN WHAT I AM'. Einstein (who could probably be best described as a determinalistic deist - he didn't believe in a personal or interventionist god and denied being either an atheist, theist or pantheist) regarded himself as existing both currently, in the past and in the future. I see God as being aware of and able to act in all these but not 'existing' in a physical sense unless he causes himself to (i.e. the incarnation).
In terms of a hypothesis for God's means of creation I see myself as a 'Divine Interventionalist Evolutionist'. The Genesis account of creation indicates that God speaks (whatever that means) and creation obeys. I extrapolate this to a omniscient and omnipresent God both in time and space. God would 'immediately' (I find tenses difficult when talking about timelesseness and eternity) be aware of the results of his command as the very fabric of nature obeyed it. Apart from this kind of intervention, nature seems to get along quite nicely by itself.
As I said before I don't suppose the Genesis text should necessarily be read in a scientific manner, even in this context. It speaks of process but the order of this process is nonsensical if we consider the Genesis 'days' in a temporal order. The earth created before stars? Days before the sun? God's timeless nature could go some way to explain this but I'm not sure it's necessary.
I realise that some of my ideas are a little unusual. I guess they might help some people if so - great. If it were down to just looking at the world and Christianity in general I expect I'd either be an atheist, deist or agnostic. As it is, I have to reconcile this with experience of a personal God and some very direct answers to prayer (physical healings of myself and close family etc in a christian context). Sure - there could be other interpretations (say psycoschematic or telechemical / telekenetic etc etc) but at some point you've got to chose something.
Al Khalifah
08-19-2005, 14:43
Uriel... I agree with you. You are one of the enlightened few who can appreciate that the Bible is not to be taken literally and has lost some integrity in the translation.
Uriel... I agree with you. You are one of the enlightened few who can appreciate that the Bible is not to be taken literally and has lost some integrity in the translation.
I don't know if I entirely agree with that. Certainly, I think the Bible should not always be taken literally. There are some parts that seem to demand a literal interpretation, like Nehemiah as I mentioned earlier. It's certainly possible to take it too far the other way and not take anything literally. If you start to abandon concepts, such as the nature of Christ and his death and resurrection, Christianity becomes a rather loose theism.
Al Khalifah
08-19-2005, 17:20
Sorry, I didn't make what I meant clear. I don't think the whole Bible is to be taken as a metaphor. Obviously you can't see it totally that way or else the foundation of the whole relgion falls down. Neither is it all to be taken literally.
Now to show how as a Christian I knew right off (beside the fact it came from The Onion) and to answer the question posed of
Intelligent Design as you understand it and
Intelligent Falling as presented by the article?
And having had several hours of sleep and time to actually make coherient thought on the subject.
Notice the scripture that was being used to justify the theory in the article.
Matthew 15:14. The author's of the satire purposely misquoted the reference. The Onion Article used only part of the Chapter and verse. Here is what the satire used claiming it to be Matthew 15:14. "'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." The actual scripture taken from the King James version of the Bible - which is what the "Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning ," would have used if they truelly existed, states this; "Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."
Its not a parable about gravity - but one of something else. Jesus did not concern himself with earth and man laws - his teachings are about spirtual concerns and God - ie human morals.
If one understands the meaning of the parable being shown - one must immediate reject the teachings of anyone that wishes to pursue an alternative that contradicts the actual testiment.
[1.] They are proud and ignorant; two bad qualities that often meet, and render a man incurable in his folly, Prov. 26:12. They are blind leaders of the blind. They are grossly ignorant in the things of God, and strangers to the spiritual nature of the divine law; and yet so proud, that they think they see better and further than any, and therefore undertake to be leaders of others, to show others the way to heaven, when they themselves know not one step of the way; and, accordingly, they prescribe to all, and proscribe those who will not follow them. Though they were blind, if they had owned it, and come to Christ for eye-salve, they might have seen, but they disdained the intimation of such a thing (Jn. 9:40); Are we blind also? They were confident that they themselves were guides of the blind (Rom. 2:19, 20), were appointed to be so, and fit to be so; that every thing they said was an oracle and a law; "Therefore let them alone, their case is desperate; do not meddle with them; you may soon provoke them, but never convince them.’’ How miserable was the case of the Jewish Church now when their leaders were blind, so self-conceitedly foolish, as to be peremptory in their conduct, while the people were so sottishly foolish as to follow them with an implicit faith and obedience, and willingly walk after the commandment, Hos. 5:11. Now the prophecy was fulfilled, Isa. 29:10, 14. And it is easy to imagine what will be in the end hereof, when the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means, and the people love to have it so, Jer. 5:31.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1124470796-9417.html
That one is long - so I will also link one that is short and to the point.
14. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch--Striking expression of the ruinous effects of erroneous teaching!
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1124470917-743.html
Then the satire authors refer to Job 5:7 and again the authors used this chapter verse in an attempt to make claim based upon the satire nature of the article. The authors used "'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards." The King James Version of the Chapter and verse is - states the exact same thing - but the context of the Job Chapter 5 is not talking about earth laws - but the failings of man. Notice the two verse immediately after and before - which places the scripture in the context of the lesson from the bible.
A religious scholar interpation of Job 5:7 -
II. He reminds him that trouble and affliction are what we have all reason to expect in this world: Man is brought to trouble (v. 7), not as man (had he kept his innocency he would have been born to pleasure), but as sinful man, as born of a woman (ch. 14:1), who was in the transgression. Man is born in sin, and therefore born to trouble. Even those that are born to honour and estate are yet born to trouble in the flesh. In our fallen state it has become natural to us to sin, and the natural consequence of that is affliction, Rom. 5:12. There is nothing in this world we are born to, and can truly call our own, but sin and trouble; both are as the sparks that fly upwards. Actual transgressions are the sparks that fly out of the furnace of original corruption; and, being called transgressors from the womb, no wonder that we deal very treacherously, Isa. 48:8. Such too is the frailty of our bodies, and the vanity of all our enjoyments, that our troubles also thence arise as naturally as the sparks fly upwards—so many are they, so thick and so fast does one follow another. Why then should we be surprised at our afflictions as strange, or quarrel with them as hard, when they are but what we are born to? Man is born to labour (so it is in the margin), is sentenced to eat his bread in the sweat of his face, which should inure him to hardness, and make him bear his afflictions the better.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1124470514-8523.html
Ie Job is talking about other things then gravity. It is refering to the failings of man.
Intelligent Design follows the basic principle of Genesis from Chapter 1: Verse 1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
and futher down
Gen 1:20 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.
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
The Intelligent Design Theory follows the same pattern as the Genesis Chapter of the Bible.
So to make the point - the Intelligent Falling theory would immediately be reject by Christians for the simple issue of that the theory does not fall in line with the teachings and the meaning of the Parables in which it is based upon.
Now one can link the Intelligence Design and the Creation from Genesis to the Big Bang with no effort at all. The Big Bang is accept as being the cause of the formation of the known Universe. However scientists can not explain with any scientific proof how the Big Bang happened or what caused it. Alll scientists have are some unproven theories, which they believe to be correct.
Queitus, you must have very poor vision, since you seem completely incapable of percieving shades of grey. You have a very black and white picture of Christianity. You seem to believe that all Christians subscribe to a totally devoted evangelical model of the Universe and are fully behind creationism. This just isn't the case. I'm a Christian, I don't believe in 6 day creationism and I don't believe God is behind evolution (directly). What I and many other Christians believe is that God cause the Big Bang - thus creating the Universe. Why do you find that hard to comprehend? It's no more or less plausible than the scientific 'well it just kinda happened for no reason' argument. What happened from then on, happened.
I know some Christians may believe everything in the Bible literally and I fully respect that, but you can't just apply this blanket principle over the entire faith of more than 1.5 billion people - not to mention the billions more who believe in other religions that teach a similar beginning. By your thinking, because the Klu Klux Klan are Christian, therefore all Christians are white supremacists.
I've noticed that a lot of hostility and anti-Christian sentiment on this forum seems be against the 'extreme American version' of Christianity. Please bear in mind when you are rolling out your generalisations that there is Christianity outside of the CSA and it is not necessairly the same.
Al Khalifah,
~:) Let me explain. Here's my point when I posited this to Redleg:
Intelligent Design: God is "behind evolution" (in your own words).
Intelligent Falling: God is behind gravity. (Onion article).
What is the difference?
Both Intelligent Design and Intelligent Falling aren't science, true. But what I'm saying is that if anyone were to reject the principle context and concept of Intelligent Falling, then that someone must rebuff Intelligent Design likewise because they are the same!
If anyone disagrees with this, then what's the difference? (I've asked this so many times....)
Vice versa, if you were to embrace Intelligent Design then you can't call Intelligent Falling a "stupidity".
Myself, I strongly disagree with both, because they are the same bunk idea. One is applied to Evolution, the other to Gravity.
PanzerJaeger
08-20-2005, 02:20
Vice versa, if you were to embrace Intelligent Design then you can't call Intelligent Falling a "stupidity".
If we're in the business of arbitrarily telling people what they can and cannot do, Im tempted to say that you cannot tell the difference between satire and real article.
Al Khalifah,
~:) Let me explain. Here's my point when I posited this to Redleg:
Both Intelligent Design and Intelligent Falling aren't science, true. But what I'm saying is that if anyone were to reject the principle context and concept of Intelligent Falling, then that someone must rebuff Intelligent Design likewise because they are the same!
If anyone disagrees with this, then what's the difference? (I've asked this so many times....)
Vice versa, if you were to embrace Intelligent Design then you can't call Intelligent Falling a "stupidity".
Myself, I strongly disagree with both, because they are the same bunk idea. One is applied to Evolution, the other to Gravity.
Well it seems that someone choses now to ignore the answer to his question.
Soulforged
08-20-2005, 03:34
LOL - your assuming that I don't know how religion comes about. Knowledge does not mean one does not have to believe.
Again someone missed the [sarcasm on] [sarcasm off] buttons. But I will say this - is it not hypocritical to attack someone who believes in God for not being able to provide proof. When the theory of the Big Bang as purposed by scientists have no proof to how or why it happened. Only that it was the most likely cause. That is the reason why the on/off switch of sarcasm was clearly placed in the text.
Religion means different things for different people. However to assume because of a satire that Christianity will cause you to believe in absolute Tripe is ridiculous.
It seems that i've a serious problems with your sarcasm... ~:)
The problem with explaning to someone that God's doesn't EXIST, that's just an idea, is turning more and more complicated.
Again, going as far as i can tell ok:
- I don't hate religious people, all my family is pretty religious, and i respect them, because i respect everybody (well maybe not yankees ~;). But it's very simple to understand it all. When the human first looked at the stars, probably he believed it was for eating, but he realized that he cannot touch it so he started to saving the image on his memory. Then he imagined a story of beings looking to him in the sky and he draw pictures of it. Later he told this to his partners and planned to tell this to everyone. Telling this to everyone on the society he demonstrated that he could show the creators of the universe to everyone, and so he did, everyone believed it, and praised it, and so praised the man who discovered it. Thus born religion. With the time religion was used to explain everything, being a good influence to education and to the eventual appearing of philosophy and later of science. But when a new true explanation, based on true knowledge and facts, was born to replace the old given by religion, many times this fhought and many times it adapted to the "new world". Some guy (i would not give names because this is a hypothetical parallel to known history) discovered that One god would be invencible in adaptation matters, because, in difference of many gods and deities, you could move him behind everything, saying that he was the creator, and the good, and all that he wasn't was evil, thus creating a new morality almost implacable that lasted for centuries and costed many lives and larger knowledge. So the things came back to what they were. People became the "channels" of God's will on earth, some were just named by the institutions, others showed "evidence", signs that God touched them, some made miracles. In little time society begun to fear and respect this "facts" and praised to God in this mans, calling them saints, calling them saviors. Thus religion gained an almost impenetrable position of power in earth society governing from the heavens. All misterious things that human could not explain by science (or that they don't believe that was science deeds) were "explained" by religion (tough technically talking the word explanation can be given to religion in any way). But in the actual world almost all fenomenums that were before "explained" by religion are explained by science, and all people (or almost all) believe that the Earth turns arround the Sun (if they don't belive it, well it will turn anyway...). There're things that science cannot explain so people sticks to the metaphysical idea (like all ideas) of God, like death and what comes after it. To finish my little story i will tell this: i know as many scientists (i'm not one, but i only "know", i don't have "faith") that death is not inevitable and that all things in universe have an actual explanation...My point is that this kind of institutions and organizations that mocks on science and have actual power on earthly issues should not exists. And i ask you a question: Let's suppose that in some time in history science finds the true explanation to the Big Bang, or another beggining and what originated it. What will you do? Perhaps believe that the God is behind that and in everyplace. Ok, but let's say that science finds the explanation for EVERYTHING...Then where will you place God in the "existence" of Universe? I'm curious if, when that happens, suddenly there's no more God...(but i wouldn't be surprised). All will come back to the first time that the man viewed the stars and believe it was to eat...
"Uriel... I agree with you. You are one of the enlightened few who can appreciate that the Bible is not to be taken literally and has lost some integrity in the translation."
I don't think that any body takes the bible literally, just that Christians take some parts of it as literal. The Bible is just like another fictional book partially based on true facts (there's a lot of true facts in the Bible, but this doesn't matter to the faith), those true facts affects only reality not faith or ideality, while the invented facts, like "Jesus makes the water turn into wine", affects perception and ideality. You are intitled to believe that Jesus actually did that, thus proving that he was the son of God (tough othes religions state the same of other "mans", it's a paradox don't?), but the strange thing is that Jesus acts like a "nuts" all the time, like he was high. There's a chapter of "Boston Public" when some guy get's a blow on the head and obviouly goes wacko and starts to act like Jesus, i don't have anything against "different" people, but the fact is that Jesus acted like one, or at least like a fanatic. How can you prove that Jesus did those miracles? Well you can't, is like God itself (or himself?), is like "magic", you just believe in it. I respect some of the believes of Jesus, but that's all, there's nothing that makes Jesus more than a visionary man or a crazy profet, or any other "saint". (Notice that i'm not talking about God himself, that's above, so for starters the most simple explanation is "God doesn't exists, so Jesus for instance is not son of God"). And that's the principal problem with religious people, they believe in a superior being that rules all (then they have no problem to be ruled), and even in a man that rules all.
Anyway this is going to far. Creationism isn't an explanation, is a piece of the past ways in the modern society, it doesn't have any facts that support it and there will never be, unless you actually believe that there's a physical "heaven" and a material "God". I prefer to look for truth, and to be just denpendent of other mans. If you always will need a man to praise for and knee and treat him like the origin of all "good" and the salvation of man then do it, but for humanity's sake don't support creationism and don't buy the Bible, download it from the net in any case. Some people laugh when they see a "wacko" or a guy that believes he does magic and forms a club of mages (with all the reason, but they should help him, not just laugh), but is curious why they don't laugh at their own religion...My opinion is that everybody should look with interest to this obsolete belief and maybe laugh, but keep it like all fantastic stories.
If nobody wanted to read the post i will ask the question again: Let's suppose that in some time in history science finds the true explanation to the Big Bang, or another beggining and what originated it. What will you do? Perhaps believe that the God is behind that and in everyplace. Ok, but let's say that science finds the explanation for EVERYTHING...Then where will you place God in the "existence" of Universe? I'm curious if, when that happens, suddenly there's no more God...(but i wouldn't be surprised). All will come back to the first time that the man viewed the stars and believe it was to eat...
It seems that i've a serious problems with your sarcasm... ~:)
The problem with explaning to someone that God's doesn't EXIST, that's just an idea, is turning more and more complicated.
That is the problem with a belief system.
Again, going as far as i can tell ok:
- I don't hate religious people, all my family is pretty religious, and i respect them, because i respect everybody (well maybe not yankees ~;). But it's very simple to understand it all. When the human first looked at the stars, probably he believed it was for eating, but he realized that he cannot touch it so he started to saving the image on his memory. Then he imagined a story of beings looking to him in the sky and he draw pictures of it. Later he told this to his partners and planned to tell this to everyone. Telling this to everyone on the society he demonstrated that he could show the creators of the universe to everyone, and so he did, everyone believed it, and praised it, and so praised the man who discovered it. Thus born religion.
Oh I understand that very well - The concept of a belief system is that it provides you comfort and hope when faced with situations that seem overwhelming to the individual.
With the time religion was used to explain everything, being a good influence to education and to the eventual appearing of philosophy and later of science. But when a new true explanation, based on true knowledge and facts, was born to replace the old given by religion, many times this fhought and many times it adapted to the "new world". Some guy (i would not give names because this is a hypothetical parallel to known history) discovered that One god would be invencible in adaptation matters, because, in difference of many gods and deities, you could move him behind everything, saying that he was the creator, and the good, and all that he wasn't was evil, thus creating a new morality almost implacable that lasted for centuries and costed many lives and larger knowledge. So the things came back to what they were. People became the "channels" of God's will on earth, some were just named by the institutions, others showed "evidence", signs that God touched them, some made miracles.
Again none of this disproves or proves religion.
Sorry to break down your writing into bite size peices - but I am honestly trying to find the natural break point so that I can understand what you are saying.
In little time society begun to fear and respect this "facts" and praised to God in this mans, calling them saints, calling them saviors. Thus religion gained an almost impenetrable position of power in earth society governing from the heavens. All misterious things that human could not explain by science (or that they don't believe that was science deeds) were "explained" by religion (tough technically talking the word explanation can be given to religion in any way). But in the actual world almost all fenomenums that were before "explained" by religion are explained by science, and all people (or almost all) believe that the Earth turns arround the Sun (if they don't belive it, well it will turn anyway...).
This is all true - and even as a believer in God - I understand that certain religous truthes are now outdated because science has shown it to be true by natural law.
There're things that science cannot explain so people sticks to the metaphysical idea (like all ideas) of God, like death and what comes after it.
Hence the problem - those who believe in God use for the foundation of their belief (well some of us anyway). While the very nature of this those who say that God does not exist can not prove his non-existance. But in the same sense - we who believe in God can not prove his existance to those who dis-believe either.
To finish my little story i will tell this: i know as many scientists (i'm not one, but i only "know", i don't have "faith") that death is not inevitable and that all things in universe have an actual explanation...My point is that this kind of institutions and organizations that mocks on science and have actual power on earthly issues should not exists. Yes the Religous Organizations should not mock science - I agree with that statement.
And i ask you a question: Let's suppose that in some time in history science finds the true explanation to the Big Bang, or another beggining and what originated it. What will you do?
Well frankly we know that is not going to happen. But if it does - then those that believe some will have a loss of faith and lose all meaning in their lives - or like I image I will - understand that the belief in God has allowed me to think that I have a higher purpose in life other then just worrying about myself. No harm and no foul to my conscience or my being - since I don't let religion overwelm by understanding what I must do in regards to society and human laws.
Perhaps believe that the God is behind that and in everyplace. Ok, but let's say that science finds the explanation for EVERYTHING...Then where will you place God in the "existence" of Universe? I'm curious if, when that happens, suddenly there's no more God...(but i wouldn't be surprised). All will come back to the first time that the man viewed the stars and believe it was to eat...
Well again - since man is always questing for answers - I doubt very seriously that science finds the explanation for Everything. Hell science doesn't even understand how the Human Brain functions completely yet.
"Uriel... I agree with you. You are one of the enlightened few who can appreciate that the Bible is not to be taken literally and has lost some integrity in the translation."
I don't think that any body takes the bible literally, just that Christians take some parts of it as literal. The Bible is just like another fictional book partially based on true facts (there's a lot of true facts in the Bible, but this doesn't matter to the faith), those true facts affects only reality not faith or ideality, while the invented facts, like "Jesus makes the water turn into wine", affects perception and ideality. You are intitled to believe that Jesus actually did that, thus proving that he was the son of God (tough othes religions state the same of other "mans", it's a paradox don't?), but the strange thing is that Jesus acts like a "nuts" all the time, like he was high. There's a chapter of "Boston Public" when some guy get's a blow on the head and obviouly goes wacko and starts to act like Jesus, i don't have anything against "different" people, but the fact is that Jesus acted like one, or at least like a fanatic. How can you prove that Jesus did those miracles? Well you can't, is like God itself (or himself?), is like "magic", you just believe in it. I respect some of the believes of Jesus, but that's all, there's nothing that makes Jesus more than a visionary man or a crazy profet, or any other "saint". (Notice that i'm not talking about God himself, that's above, so for starters the most simple explanation is "God doesn't exists, so Jesus for instance is not son of God"). And that's the principal problem with religious people, they believe in a superior being that rules all (then they have no problem to be ruled), and even in a man that rules all.
Actually the last part is slightly incorrect - God rules heaven and earth but has granted man free will.
Anyway this is going to far. Creationism isn't an explanation, is a piece of the past ways in the modern society, it doesn't have any facts that support it and there will never be, unless you actually believe that there's a physical "heaven" and a material "God". I prefer to look for truth, and to be just denpendent of other mans. If you always will need a man to praise for and knee and treat him like the origin of all "good" and the salvation of man then do it, but for humanity's sake don't support creationism and don't buy the Bible, download it from the net in any case. Some people laugh when they see a "wacko" or a guy that believes he does magic and forms a club of mages (with all the reason, but they should help him, not just laugh), but is curious why they don't laugh at their own religion...My opinion is that everybody should look with interest to this obsolete belief and maybe laugh, but keep it like all fantastic stories.
You were making some sense until this last paragraph. Now all I see is someone who wants to critize those who are religous as being "wacko's" or obsolete. So now your attempting to force me into your belief system. Something that I as a Christian have not done to you.
If nobody wanted to read the post i will ask the question again: Let's suppose that in some time in history science finds the true explanation to the Big Bang, or another beggining and what originated it. What will you do? Perhaps believe that the God is behind that and in everyplace. Ok, but let's say that science finds the explanation for EVERYTHING...Then where will you place God in the "existence" of Universe? I'm curious if, when that happens, suddenly there's no more God...(but i wouldn't be surprised). All will come back to the first time that the man viewed the stars and believe it was to eat...
I read it all - and the answer is in the post. Since you asked - I will also ask you two questions, what will you do when science finds they can not discover the answer to how the Big Bang happened? What will you do when faced with a major crisis in your life - and you have absolutely no human being to look to for comfort? (The old saying there are no athiests in foxholes).
Now to show how as a Christian I knew right off (beside the fact it came from The Onion) and to answer the question posed of
Intelligent Design as you understand it and
Intelligent Falling as presented by the article?
And having had several hours of sleep and time to actually make coherient thought on the subject.
Notice the scripture that was being used to justify the theory in the article.
Matthew 15:14. The author's of the satire purposely misquoted the reference. The Onion Article used only part of the Chapter and verse. Here is what the satire used claiming it to be Matthew 15:14. "'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." The actual scripture taken from the King James version of the Bible - which is what the "Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning ," would have used if they truelly existed, states this; "Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."
Its not a parable about gravity - but one of something else. Jesus did not concern himself with earth and man laws - his teachings are about spirtual concerns and God - ie human morals.
If one understands the meaning of the parable being shown - one must immediate reject the teachings of anyone that wishes to pursue an alternative that contradicts the actual testiment.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1124470796-9417.html
That one is long - so I will also link one that is short and to the point.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1124470917-743.html
Then the satire authors refer to Job 5:7 and again the authors used this chapter verse in an attempt to make claim based upon the satire nature of the article. The authors used "'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards." The King James Version of the Chapter and verse is - states the exact same thing - but the context of the Job Chapter 5 is not talking about earth laws - but the failings of man. Notice the two verse immediately after and before - which places the scripture in the context of the lesson from the bible.
A religious scholar interpation of Job 5:7 -
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1124470514-8523.html
Ie Job is talking about other things then gravity. It is refering to the failings of man.
Intelligent Design follows the basic principle of Genesis from Chapter 1: Verse 1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
and futher down
Gen 1:20 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.
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
The Intelligent Design Theory follows the same pattern as the Genesis Chapter of the Bible.
So to make the point - the Intelligent Falling theory would immediately be reject by Christians for the simple issue of that the theory does not fall in line with the teachings and the meaning of the Parables in which it is based upon.
Now one can link the Intelligence Design and the Creation from Genesis to the Big Bang with no effort at all. The Big Bang is accept as being the cause of the formation of the known Universe. However scientists can not explain with any scientific proof how the Big Bang happened or what caused it. Alll scientists have are some unproven theories, which they believe to be correct.
Redleg,
I'm speaking of context and concept. You seem to be saying that because Gravity wasn't mentioned in the bible, then Gravity doesn't exist ~:confused: . What is the relationship between God and Gravity then?
Also, saying God is driving Evolution is similar to saying God is driving the Cars and Gravitational force!!
- Cars are DRIVEN by the driver, the engine, the fuel, the friction between the wheel and the pavement etc.
NOT because God is turning the wheels or pushing from behind.
- Evolution is DRIVEN by random mutation and natural selection.
NOT because of God is picking the animals and molding them.
- Gravity is DRIVEN by Gravitational force which is the function of masses and the distance between the two objects.
NOT because God is pushing them 'down'.
There's no contextual and conceptual difference between Intelligent Design and Intelligent Falling!! It's either you embrace both or disgrace both.
And either way, God has zero input in driving cars, driving gravitational forces and driving evolution.
Soulforged
08-20-2005, 04:55
I didn't mean to treat any religious people as "wacko" but then you're treating the wackos with disrespect. I only called Jesus a "guy who acted like a wacko or a fanatic". In any case, sorry if i hurt your feelings...and for the last paragraph, well i said it's my opinion, but you can't deny that this story is similar to the "Nibelungenlied", so you can't treat like wackos those that believe that Siegfried killed a dragon, bathed in it's blood and became immortal.
And God granted free will (i've listened to that since i was a child so don't, i don't missed it), but then he sends a son who tells (following the Bible):"Those who live by me will be saved, and those who only live for themselves will be lost" (or something like that, since i don't remember the exact part of the Bible). That was Jesus speaking, so you only find salvation if you follow that moral, and that moral only, again is a way to get power, but it's just to demonstrate that the Bible contradicts itself in many places because of the differences on ages and the interpretation made of it also contradict, many times, as many teachers of my found and didn't have an answer.
Well now to your questions (i like this really ~D ):
To the question about the Big Bang: First i don't know if this teory is right, but as the teory given by Newton it gives practical results and explanation based on facts. The point is that i believe that in teory science can find the answer to every natural fenomenum, but i don't need that to happen to prove my point. The problem is that if that happens then the thing that survived for all that time "the existence of God" will fall, and a superior being that was the creator of everything, the One, will be suddenly what it's, nothing. That's my point and you comfirmed it with your next question, that God's "exists" as long as we've answers then it suddenly disappears...
Your second question is pretty philosophical and a very good one (one that has been asked to me many times), i would say this: if that happens, then i will find myself in a irrational state (an probably i'll try to do anything to save myself even kill, or everything to be with one even kill myself) wich i'll not be surprised if it leads me to believe in a higher being. But in a rational state i would never do that.
Redleg,
I'm speaking of context and concept. You seem to be saying that because Gravity wasn't mentioned in the bible, then Gravity doesn't exist ~:confused: . What is the relationship between God and Gravity then?
That is not what I stated - what I stated is that the two passages used in the Satire from The Onion are not about gravity but man's teachings of God, and man's failings or sins. The authors of The Onions Satire used those try to make the theory to poke fun at both sides of the Intelligent Design arguement. It seems that you instead of seeing the Satire for what it is - chose to believe that the concepts are the same - even though anyone who has read the bible knows that the two verses used are taken out of context and even the concept of what they mean in the bible. Not that hard to understand unless of course your baised in your views about religion.
Also, saying God is driving Evolution is similar to saying God is driving the Cars and Gravitational force!!
[sarcasm on] So nature drives cars to - using your logic[sarcasm off].
- Cars are DRIVEN by the driver, the engine, the fuel, the friction between the wheel and the pavement etc.
Actually you would be incorrect - cars are driven more then just what you have mentioned - the power transfer (transmission) which transfers the engine's energy to the axles where a gear transfers that energy causing the wheels to spin (the important piece that you forgot to mention) - which transfers by friction the energy of the wheel to the pavement forcing the car to move forward or backward based upon which direction the transmission is turning the drive train. However the concept of driving a vehicle is not complete without the inclusion of one other additional and just as important mechanism the Steering wheel in the driver hands which goes through a process much like the engine to transfer the human's energy in turning the steering wheel to cause the tires to pivot on the pavement but without the steering mechanism the feat of driving a car does not happen.
NOT because God is turning the wheels or pushing from behind.
LOL - you missed the point of what I stated in the last post. The concept of Intelligent Falling is a Satire - and was not a theory expoused by any religous person. I have already shown how the haox of the Satire is not in line with the teachings of the Bible - so its already been discounted
- Evolution is DRIVEN by random mutation and natural selection.
I know how evolution is conducted - I can also force it by breeding animals of different lines together within the same species. I can create new types of plants by forcing two different plants together.
Man does intelligent Design all the time with several things. The different Breeds of dogs are an example of that - guess how many breeds were created by man. Their are several fruits that are man's creations.
[sarcasm on]
So even here man has altered the concept of evolution being driven by random mutation and natural selection. So using your own logic - science has disproved evolution and has shown that intelligent design is a valid concept.
[sarcasm off]
NOT because of God is picking the animals and molding them.
See above - man does it all the time.
- Gravity is DRIVEN by Gravitational force which is the function of masses and the distance between the two objects.
Oh gravity is a function of more then just mass and distance.
NOT because God is pushing them 'down'.
Seems someone still believes in the Satire of the article.
There's no contextual and conceptual difference between Intelligent Design and Intelligent Falling!! It's either you embrace both or disgrace both.
Oh there is a conceptual difference - but because you wish to discount religion - you discount the explanation concerning the difference. Intelligent Design is based upon the Genesis Chapter of the Old Testimate. If one looks at the Big Bang as the Creation of the Universe - one can believe that God might have caused it. The Intelligent Falling is a Theory - that is not based even on the teachings in the New and Old testiment verse that the authors used in their satire.
And either way, God has zero input in driving cars, driving gravitational forces and driving evolution.
[sarcasm on] Your assumption - can you prove it.[sarcasm off]
Which I am sure is beyond your ability to understand.
I didn't mean to treat any religious people as "wacko" but then you're treating the wackos with disrespect. considering my wife is bi-polar and so is my step-son I doubt very seriously that I treat such people with disrepect.
I only called Jesus a "guy who acted like a wacko or a fanatic". In any case, sorry if i hurt your feelings...and for the last paragraph, well i said it's my opinion, but you can't deny that this story is similar to the "Nibelungenlied", so you can't treat like wackos those that believe that Siegfried killed a dragon, bathed in it's blood and became immortal.
Like I said - I doubt very seriousily that I treat them as wacko's - just like I treat those that follow Islam with respect.
And God granted free will (i've listened to that since i was a child so don't, i don't missed it), but then he sends a son who tells (following the Bible):"Those who live by me will be saved, and those who only live for themselves will be lost" (or something like that, since i don't remember the exact part of the Bible). That was Jesus speaking, so you only find salvation if you follow that moral, and that moral only, again is a way to get power, but it's just to demonstrate that the Bible contradicts itself in many places because of the differences on ages and the interpretation made of it also contradict, many times, as many teachers of my found and didn't have an answer.
Its really rather simple - you either believe or you don't believe that Jesus is the savior - many people don't believe. Which is fine - I chose to believe in God and that Jesus Christ is my savior and that he died for my sins.
Well now to your questions (i like this really ~D ):
To the question about the Big Bang: First i don't know if this teory is right, but as the teory given by Newton it gives practical results and explanation based on facts. The point is that i believe that in teory science can find the answer to every natural fenomenum, but i don't need that to happen to prove my point.
Which is the same dilemnia and situation with someone that believes in God. The Big Bang theory supports Genesis because of the theory.
The problem is that if that happens then the thing that survived for all that time "the existence of God" will fall, and a superior being that was the creator of everything, the One, will be suddenly what it's, nothing. That's my point and you comfirmed it with your next question, that God's "exists" as long as we've answers then it suddenly disappears... Then you misunderstood my point on that. The belief in God does me absolutely no harm - and futhermore does you absolutely no harm. My statement once again was understand that the belief in God has allowed me to think that I have a higher purpose in life other then just worrying about myself
Your second question is pretty philosophical and a very good one (one that has been asked to me many times), i would say this: if that happens, then i will find myself in a irrational state (an probably i'll try to do anything to save myself even kill, or everything to be with one even kill myself) wich i'll not be surprised if it leads me to believe in a higher being. But in a rational state i would never do that.
Exactly my point - the difference is I chose to belief in God and a higher purpose even in a normal state of affairs. I have faced enough stressful situations in my life, Combat in a foreign land, the Troubled birth of my son who was born 7 weeks pre-mature (and is thankfully 100% normal with only one minor joint issue from the pre-mature birth.), the feeling that I had to get home one night while at work - where I found my wife attempting to commit suicide because of her bi-polar state. If I had of left work at my normall scheduled time - I would of found my wife dead - not in the state that I found her in. Several other minor things that leave me convinced that if God does exists. If this existance is only in my mind and allows me to face life in a manner in which I can function without subcoming (SP) to the pressures of life - what is the harm to the world or myself?
Absolutely none that I can see.
Soulforged
08-20-2005, 06:02
Ok you've your belief i've mine. But you've to accept that institucionalized religions leads to problems, especially if it mixes with politics, and that's the harm that i'm worried about. The harm that you do or you don't do to yourself is your problem, and i know that religion can give you hope, in fact i never said anything against it, but i believe in having true knowledge and hope in humanity. And if i pass throught all that you have passed then perhaps i will believe in that idea again (but i doubt it), but that doesn't change the fact that God doesn't exists...
That is not what I stated - what I stated is that the two passages used in the Satire from The Onion are not about gravity but man's teachings of God, and man's failings or sins. The authors of The Onions Satire used those try to make the theory to poke fun at both sides of the Intelligent Design arguement. It seems that you instead of seeing the Satire for what it is - chose to believe that the concepts are the same - even though anyone who has read the bible knows that the two verses used are taking out of context and even concept of what they mean in the bible. Not that hard to understand unless of course your baised in your views about religion. So anything in the bible doesn't exist. Eg. Gravity. What is the relationship gravity and your god? (hint: it's not in the bible).
[sarcasm on] So nature drives cars to - using your logic[sarcasm off].Certainly not god.
Actually you would be incorrect - cars are driven by the steering wheel and the power transfer (transmission) which transfers the engines energe to the axles where a gear transfers that energy causing the wheels to spin - which transfers by friction the energy of the wheel to the pavement forcing the car to move forward or backward based upon which direction the transmission is turning the drive train. However the concept of driving a vehicle is not complete without the inclusion of one other additional and just as important mechanism the Steering wheel in the driver hands which goes through a process much like the engine to transfer the human's energy in turning the steering wheel to cause the tires to pivot on the pavement but without the steering mechanism the feat of driving a car does not happen. I did say 'etc.' And there is no God there either, which was the virtue of the analogy.
LOL - you missed the point of what I stated in the last post. The concept of Intelligent Falling is a Satire - and was not a theory expoused by any religous person. I have already shown how the haox of the Satire is not in line with the teachings of the Bible - so its already been discounted Despite it being a satire, the context is similar to Intelligent Design by substituting God for Gravity/God for Evolultion.
I know how evolution is conducted - I can also force it by breeding animals of different lines together within the same species. I can create new types of plants by forcing two different plants together.
Man does intelligent Design all the time with several things. The different Breeds of dogs are an example of that - guess how many breeds were created by man. Their are several fruits that are man's creations. That's not Evolution at all. God has ZERO input in mutation.
[sarcasm on]
So even here man has altered the concept of evolution being driven by random mutation and natural selection. So using your own logic - science has disproved evolution and has shown that intelligent design is a valid concept.
[sarcasm off] There's no input from a God in evolution.
See above - man does it all the time. Mutation is random. There's no input from man or god, it is naturally, inherently and independently random.
Oh gravity is a function of more then just mass and distance. Mass and distance are the variables.
Seems someone still believes in the Satire of the article. If you buy Intelligent Design, don't mock Intelligent Falling, because the concept is the same.
I don't buy neither. What I'm saying is buy both or drop both.
Oh there is a conceptual difference - but because you wish to discount religion - you discount the explanation concerning the difference. Intelligent Design is based upon the Genesis Chapter of the Old Testimate. If one looks at the Big Bang as the Creation of the Universe - one can believe that God might have caused it. The Intelligent Falling is a Theory - that is not based even on the teachings in the New and Old testiment verse that the authors used in their satire. So anyting not in the bible doesn't exist?
[sarcasm on] Your assumption - can you prove it.[sarcasm off]
Which I am sure is beyond your ability to understand. As sure as you are in your God I am sure. ~:)
Ok you've your belief i've mine. But you've to accept that institucionalized religions leads to problems, especially if it mixes with politics, and that's the harm that i'm worried about. The harm that you do or you don't do to yourself is your problem, and i know that religion can give you hope, in fact i never said anything against it, but i believe in having true knowledge and hope in humanity. And if i pass throught all that you have passed then perhaps i will believe in that idea again (but i doubt it), but that doesn't change the fact that God doesn't exists...
Can you prove that he does not exist?
Soulforged
08-20-2005, 07:07
Yes i can. It's an idea. It doesn't actually "exists", it's just the result of the electrochemical work on the brain. Mountains exist, doors exits, love i doubt it very much (unless you refer to the chemical exchange between to beings), God is the same as love, if you want to idealize (create realities from ideas) then do so...Again no harm intended. ~:cheers:
So anything in the bible doesn't exist. Eg. Gravity. What is the relationship gravity and your god? (hint: it's not in the bible).
That is not what I stated now is it?
Certainly not god.
LOL
I did say 'etc.' And there is no God there either, which was the virtue of the analogy.
No the analogy is not correct - A car is a physical thing that man made. In Religous belief - Man is a physical being made by God.
Despite it being a satire, the context is similar to Intelligent Design by substituting God for Gravity/God for Evolultion.
Not even close - the Intelligent Design is based upon Genesis in the Old Testimate. The Intelligent Falling is not based upon any scripture in the bible.
That's not Evolution at all. God has ZERO input in mutation.
Don't be so sure - From Wikipedia
In biology, evolution is a change in the traits of living organisms over generations. The common definition of the word in popular science includes the emergence of new species as a product of evolution as well. Since the development of modern genetics in the 1940s, evolution has been defined more specifically as a change in the frequency of alleles (alternative forms of the same gene) in a population from one generation to the next. In other fields evolution is used more generally to refer to any process of change over time.
The clementine is a new species of plant which was formed by joining two different fruits together.
A clementine is the fruit of Citrus reticulata, and may be a cross between a mandarin orange and an orange created by the Algerian priest Pierre Clément in 1902. However, there are claims it originated in China much earlier. Clementines are sometimes mistaken for tangerines, but the clementine has a thinner and more easily removed skin, a sweeter fruit, and very few seeds.
Like all fruits, "clementine" can also refer to the tree.
On dogs
Dog breeds were created by man choosing for select phenotypic traits such as size, shape, coat color, conformation, and behavior. Rigorous phenotypic selection likely resulted in a loss of genetic information. The present study extends previous dog population observations by assessing the genotypic variation within and across 28 breeds representing the seven recognized breed groups of the American Kennel Club (AKC). One hundred autosomal microsatellite markers distributed across the canine genome were used to examine variation within breeds. Resulting breed-specific allele frequencies were then used in an attempt to elucidate phylogeny and genetic distances between breeds. While the set of autosomal microsatellites was useful in describing genetic variation within breeds, establishing the genetic relatedness between breeds was less conclusive. A more accurate determination of breed phylogeny will likely require the use of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12692167&dopt=Citation
So in essence the scientific community does not agree with you. Man does get involved in causing evolution.
There's no input from a God in evolution.
Mutation is random. There's no input from man or god, it is naturally, inherently and independently random.
Again the scientific community seems to have a different opinion.
Mass and distance are the variables.
Again dont be so sure -
Gravity is the force of attraction between massive particles due to their mass. Weight is determined by the mass of an object and its location in a gravitational field. While a great deal is known about the properties of gravity, the ultimate cause of the gravitational force remains an open question. General relativity is the most successful theory of gravitation to date. It postulates that mass and energy curve space-time, resulting in the phenomenon known as gravity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity
Lets see distance does not enter into this defination of gravity.
Lets try another - just for giggles - it seems scientists can not agree what gravity is either. [sarcasm on] Always changing the concept of a natural occuring thing[sarcasm off]
In this new theory, two things are required for gravity to work. First, two bodies of some energy density to interact with each other, and second, connecting diallel lines which provide not only particle flow between the bodies, but also the flow of photon and gravitational information as well.
http://www.allanstime.com/UnifiedFieldTheory/gravity.htm
If you buy Intelligent Design, don't mock Intelligent Falling, because the concept is the same.
Of course I have not mocked it - I have shown it does not follow the basis of its claim to being - ie the context and the concept of the quotes used from the bible are not discussing gravity but human failings and incorrect teachings
I don't buy neither. What I'm saying is buy both or drop both.
[sarcasm on] Ah trying to tell someone how to think - are we into brain washing now?[sarcasm off]
So anyting not in the bible doesn't exist?
Didn't say that either - the Bible is a book that tells things to people who care to read and learn from it. It has God's message for man in it, and it has the teachings of Jesus in it also.
As sure as you are in your God I am sure. ~:)
~:grouphug:
Yes i can. It's an idea. It doesn't actually "exists", it's just the result of the electrochemical work on the brain. Mountains exist, doors exits, love i doubt it very much (unless you refer to the chemical exchange between to beings), God is the same as love, if you want to idealize (create realities from ideas) then do so...Again no harm intended. ~:cheers:
If that works for you - ~:grouphug:
Papewaio
08-20-2005, 07:19
Yes i can. It's an idea. It doesn't actually "exists", it's just the result of the electrochemical work on the brain. Mountains exist, doors exits, love i doubt it very much (unless you refer to the chemical exchange between to beings), God is the same as love, if you want to idealize (create realities from ideas) then do so...Again no harm intended. ~:cheers:
Ideas exist. And I am a scientist.
Soulforged
08-20-2005, 07:20
What? Prove it and i'm out of this forum ~;) .
Papewaio
08-20-2005, 07:21
Which part of my statement?
Soulforged
08-20-2005, 07:34
Obviously the part "Ideas exist". I'm not so interested about the second part, and i believe you.
bmolsson
08-20-2005, 07:40
Can you prove that he does not exist?
Well, when he knocked on heaven door, a voice said that there was nobody there....... ~;)
Well, when he knocked on heaven door, a voice said that there was nobody there....... ~;)
It could be cause he was out solving one of my many problems in life. ~:grouphug:
Papewaio
08-20-2005, 08:37
i·de·a
n.
1. Something, such as a thought or conception, that potentially or actually exists in the mind as a product of mental activity.
2. An opinion, conviction, or principle: has some strange political ideas.
3. A plan, scheme, or method.
4. The gist of a specific situation; significance: The idea is to finish the project under budget.
5. A notion; a fancy.
Well you have a mind, its not dead, therefore it is active. Proves 1.
Well the opinions in the Backroom proves 2.
TCP/IP is a method of transmitting information on the internet... you are using it, even if you don't know it. So that proves 3.
Key point of a concept is the idea. Every Action has an Equal and Opposite Reaction is the gist of conservation of momentum. Proves 4.
I fancy a chocolate. Enough proof for 5.
Soulforged
08-20-2005, 08:56
Well you have a mind, its not dead, therefore it is active. Proves 1.
Well the opinions in the Backroom proves 2.
TCP/IP is a method of transmitting information on the internet... you are using it, even if you don't know it. So that proves 3.
Key point of a concept is the idea. Every Action has an Equal and Opposite Reaction is the gist of conservation of momentum. Proves 4.
I fancy a chocolate. Enough proof for 5.
Nop. That doesn't prove anything. The real thing behind the idea, what supports it is what exist, the idea is just a conceptualization of it. You can't touch an idea, nor sense it in any way. If we look for the concept (again concept) of existence in the dictionary (at least in mine) it sais this:
exist:
1-Having real existence.
2-Have life.
3-To have, to be.
So you have it in the mind, but as always, it doesn't have any real form in the outside world, is like every conceptualization, mental construction,tought, etc... So it doesn't exist. The idea itself doens't have a material form, is a logical contradiction, therefor it's not real, therefor it doesn't exist. :duel:
Papewaio
08-20-2005, 08:58
So the mind is outside this universe?
You have just proven that God exists as easily as does our own mind...
So your choice : You can have: no idea or God
Papewaio
08-20-2005, 09:12
A cookbook is written ideas on how to make food. It is a concept, plan, method, but the food itself does not exist until created.
Words are ideas, that have meaning when parsed by the reader.
The mind itself contains ideas by using neural networks.
Computers use electrical charge, magnetic, physical media all to contain ideas about things.
An idea does not need a physical version of it to exist. Works of fiction are purley ideas with little or no physical real version.
This is a key point about science. It is about having ideas, and seeing if you can find a physical version of it. Or vice a versa, see a phenomena and figure out how it works, the gist of it.
Soulforged
08-20-2005, 09:26
A cookbook is written ideas on how to make food. It is a concept, plan, method, but the food itself does not exist until created.
Words are ideas, that have meaning when parsed by the reader.
The mind itself contains ideas by using neural networks.
Computers use electrical charge, magnetic, physical media all to contain ideas about things.
An idea does not need a physical version of it to exist. Works of fiction are purley ideas with little or no physical real version.
This is a key point about science. It is about having ideas, and seeing if you can find a physical version of it. Or vice a versa, see a phenomena and figure out how it works, the gist of it.
I agree with the last, but you're missing the point here. Mind exists outside the universe, yes, it's metaphysical, the universe is physical, all that exists beyond it is metaphysical.
I think this has become the continuation of the discussion in that other thread about communism. Any given idea is a conceptualization, a taking of reality, that performs in your mind as electrochemical fenomenums. Now that electrochemycal activity is real, the idea of idea isn't real, because, again is a logical contradiction. If it's not real, it doesn't exist, because if we say that something not real exists then well :dizzy2: ... Again the food and the cookbook exists the idea of that food and the cookbook not. I think that you're missunderstanding the semantics of "exist" and "existence". The ideas have importance, yes, they exist, just as a electrochemical activity inside your brain.
That is not what I stated now is it? Question from me: What is the relationship between God and Gravity (hint: it is not in the bible)
LOL Ok. Enjoy.
No the analogy is not correct - A car is a physical thing that man made. In Religous belief - Man is a physical being made by God. Man is a machine just like a Car. And both physically respond to the physical world.
It is an apt analogy.
Not even close - the Intelligent Design is based upon Genesis in the Old Testimate. The Intelligent Falling is not based upon any scripture in the bible.Anything that's not in the bible doesn't exist? Gravity isn't in the bible either. What is the relationship between God and Gravity?
Don't be so sure - From Wikipedia And? Do you want to elaborate? LOL. I mean you want me to debate Wikipedia. Just to make you sure you actually understand what you are quoting. What's your point?
The clementine is a new species of plant which was formed by joining two different fruits together.So what? It doesn't change anything. What's the difference in the genetic level?
Mutation is still naturally, inherently, and independently random.
On dogs
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12692167&dopt=Citation
So in essence the scientific community does not agree with you. Man does get involved in causing evolution.
Again the scientific community seems to have a different opinion.~:confused: And this is supposed to mean what to you? In your own words. Clue: Breeding dogs doesn't change the mechanism of mutation.
Again dont be so sure -Please, say something, especially in your own words. Be specific if you must.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity
Lets see distance does not enter into this defination of gravity.
Lets try another - just for giggles - it seems scientists can not agree what gravity is either. [sarcasm on] Always changing the concept of a natural occuring thing[sarcasm off] Do you want to type anything specific? Or do you want me to debate Wikipedia? ~:)
Also, there's no mention of God is there? (which was the original purpose of the analogy).
http://www.allanstime.com/UnifiedFieldTheory/gravity.htm Write down your arguments, in your own words. Don't just give me links.
Of course I have not mocked it - I have shown it does not follow the basis of its claim to being - ie the context and the concept of the quotes used from the bible are not discussing gravity but human failings and incorrect teachings
If I say 'Rock Star Kurt Cobain told me 1 + 1 = 3'. You can say Kurt Cobain didn't say it because it is dead, and 1+1=3 is wrong. 1+1=3 is always wrong whether Kurt Cobain is dead or not.
Your only argument there is that it wasn't explicitly mentioned in the bible. The idea that God is behind gravity is similar to the idea that God is "behind evolution" in your own words.
[sarcasm on] Ah trying to tell someone how to think - are we into brain washing now?[sarcasm off] No. It only meant you are biased and inconsistent because you accept the concept that God is behind evolution but God behind gravity is preposterous.
Again, let me ask you, what is the relationship betweeen God and Gravity (hint: it cannot be found in the bible)
Didn't say that either - the Bible is a book that tells things to people who care to read and learn from it. It has God's message for man in it, and it has the teachings of Jesus in it also. God is behind Gravity. Do you agree or not?
You say NO, because it's not in the bible. ~:confused:
God is "behind Evolution". Your quote, so YES, because it is in the bible.
~:grouphug: ~:cool:
Gawain of Orkeny
08-20-2005, 15:41
In little time society begun to fear and respect this "facts" and praised to God in this mans, calling them saints, calling them saviors. Thus religion gained an almost impenetrable position of power in earth society governing from the heavens. All misterious things that human could not explain by science (or that they don't believe that was science deeds) were "explained" by religion (tough technically talking the word explanation can be given to religion in any way). But in the actual world almost all fenomenums that were before "explained" by religion are explained by science, and all people (or almost all) believe that the Earth turns arround the Sun (if they don't belive it, well it will turn anyway...).
This is all true - and even as a believer in God - I understand that certain religous truthes are now outdated because science has shown it to be true by natural law.
What religous truths were taken from the bible. Where does it say the sun orbits the earth? Religous men explained these things not religion or the bible.
Yes the Religous Organizations should not mock science - I agree with that statement.
And science should not mock religion.
Most christains believe all science does is uncover some of gods handiwork. Just because you discover how something works doesnt mean that god didnt design it. As to where god fits in the universe whos to say thats all there is? Our universe could be no bigger than an atom in the greater scheme of things for all we know.
Well Quietus it seems you just want to hate religion and are baised in your views toward it. The initial article was satire and a work of complete fiction. However you bought it hook, line, and sinker because it fits into your belief system about religion. This arguement has shown that.
Futhermore you have shown by your own words that you don't really understand how evolution works or the man's involvement in selective breeding of animals to create new types of dogs is indeed evolution also, which is a forced mutation of the animal.
The same can be said for almost all domestic animals. Man has been forcing small mutations on animals for years. It would take many pages and a complete thesis to show you how incorrect you are, but even then you will try to counter it with some attempt that really only digs you deeper into the false premises you have about evolution, mutation and selection.
Okay I am done being polite and will point out very clearly how little you know of evolution. For examble mutation is not Mutation is still naturally, inherently, and independently random.
Mutation can be forced by man. It can be forced by nature based upon the change of environment.
Some scientific studies on selective breeding and how it relates to evolution.
Here is the Wikipedia reference about artifical selection and how it relates to evolution - a term that was initially coined by Darwin himself. You might want to actually read some of what Darwin wrote - since he posulated exactly what I have been saying in regards to selective breeding by man of animals to force mutations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_selection
the theory of evolution, artificial selection is the process of intentional or unintentional modification of a species through human actions which encourage the breeding of certain traits over others. When the process leads to undesirable outcome, it is called negative selection.
Charles Darwin originally coined the term in order to contrast this process from what he called natural selection. He noted that many domesticated animals and plants had special properties that were developed by intentionally encouraging the breeding potential of individuals who both possessed desirable characteristics, and discouraging the breeding of individuals who had less desirable characteristics.
[sarcasm on] Oh wait just in case you refuse to acknowledge Wikipedia as a source of information - here is another [sarcasm off]
http://www.biofact.com/cloning/
Natural Selection
Natural Selection is nature's own form of genetic engineering. The most fit organisms survive through natural selection. The rate of evolution of new species through natural selection is incredibly slow, but methods have been discovered by which nature has optimized the process.
The entire genome (all the genes) of higher animals and plants are broken up into functional components known as exons and separated by regions called introns. Special genes known as transposable elements serve to mix and match functional components of genes in an effort to maximize the likelyhood of creating better genes and organisms. There is some evidence that bacteria, one of the simplest organisms, had introns and exons in some past era, but lost them in favor of efficiency and other means of acquiring new DNA.
Selective Breeding
Selective Breeding or "Unnatural Selection", is man's most basic effort at genetic engineering by creating our own selective pressures. Many conventional farm animals, domesticated dogs and cats were likely created ages ago by selectively breeding animals together with desired traits. Gregor Mendel helped to establish the rules of genetics through his work selectively breeding plants in the 1800's. Selective Breeding has worked well for engineering animals and plants, but it can take whole human lifetimes to bring about small changes in a species.
Through unnatural selection certain attributes and characteristics can be enhanced by selectively killing all organisms that do not have the desired traits. This has been suggested by some as a viable option for genetically engineering humans. Parents could produce a large number of fertilized eggs through in vitro fertilization. Each could be grown for a while in vitro and then be tested for desired traits. Only an egg with all the traits desired by the parents would then be implanted in the mother. There are obvious drawbacks, not the least of which is the large number of fertilized eggs that are not selected. This option is not a viable alternative for many couples for religious reasons.
Another drawback is that selecting for a very large number of traits is close to impossible. Each gene desired at least doubles the number of fertilized eggs required. Certain traits are the result of many genes acting in concert, which could inflate egg requirements very quickly. Last of all, fertilized eggs must have one copy of each gene from each parent. Even with an infinite number of eggs a bad gene cannot be totally eliminated if one parent has two copies of that gene.
To put it simply man has been practicing intelligent design on evolution for many years prior to Darwin coining the phrases about Natural Selection and Mutation of animals causing evolution.
You might want to try reading this particlur site - notice how the two scientists talk about the issue.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/spetner.html
And now to the gravity arguement - it has become obvious that you don't want to ackownledge one simple fact. The Intelligent Falling theory is what I have been talking about - not gravity and how it relates to the creator. For instance where have I stated that God did not create gravity. Again notice what is actually written verus what you percieve to be written. Here is what I initially stated.
So to make the point - the Intelligent Falling theory would immediately be reject by Christians for the simple issue of that the theory does not fall in line with the teachings and the meaning of the Parables in which it is based upon.
Which is the answer to your orginial question and assumption that there is no difference between the theory of Intelligent Design and Intelligent Falling. Something that you seem to refuse to ackownledge - and instead of addressing the answer - you chose to go on a tangent now saying this
I'm speaking of context and concept. You seem to be saying that because Gravity wasn't mentioned in the bible, then Gravity doesn't exist . What is the relationship between God and Gravity then?
Now this is nothing other then an attempt of redirection from your orginal arguement. Which is fine - however I have not answered that question for the simple fact - that you have not concided the initial point - you are attempting to avoid where it.
Oh I played around there alittle bit in the discussion around the gravity issue - purposely not answering the question because I was being applying sarcasm to your arguemetns. However its obvious that you did not catch the sarcasm on and sarcasm off notations.
However when you address the intial point of the difference between the two theories is that "Intelligent Design" is based upon the teachings, in both context and concept of The Old Testament - Genesis; While the "Intelligent Falling" theory is just satire based upon an out of context and out of concept teachings of two different verses, one verse out of the Old Testament and one out of the New Testament.
Then I will explain how God and Gravity are related - I will give you a hint it is also in Genesis of the Old Testament.
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
KafirChobee
08-20-2005, 18:32
Which part of my statement?
"Science is not just a collection of laws, it is a catalogue of unrelated facts. It is the creation of the human mind, with its freely invented ideas and concepts."
Albert Einstein
"Great is the power of misrepresentation; but the history of science shows that fortunately this power does not long endure."
Ken Smith, on Darwinism & the origin of species
Regardless of how one perceives the working of the brain, or the intent of an idea or concept; they all have a purpose. Whether the purpose is to debunk accepted theories or to provide further evidence to support them. Rellegating the brain to a flashpoint of chemical reactions, and man as being a respondant being trapped in his own environment of learning or teachings - is simplistic at best or foolish in its own selfindulgent view of what we are. (my own included, though I am willing to listen to honest arguements, versus contrived ones that support mythes over facts).
I add these as fun. The first has a number of mythical explanations on creation; the other is just so you can pick your own quiz. ~D
http://www.pbs.org/quiz/quiz10.html
http://www.pbs.org/quiz.html
KafirChobee
08-20-2005, 19:13
OOOOPS!
http://www.pbs.org/now/quiz/quiz10.html
http://www.pbs.org/now/quiz/index.html
Soulforged
08-20-2005, 21:52
What religous truths were taken from the bible. Where does it say the sun orbits the earth? Religous men explained these things not religion or the bible.
And that's exactly why i always stated "this men", religion is just an idea, without man's to support it and spread it, you have nothing, so all come from the interpreatation that some man's did from that and from other interpretation that comes directly from the bible, like the hate towards homosexuality.
Well Quietus it seems you just want to hate religion and are baised in your views toward it. The initial article was satire and a work of complete fiction. However you bought it hook, line, and sinker because it fits into your belief system about religion. This arguement has shown that.
Futhermore you have shown by your own words that you don't really understand how evolution works or the man's involvement in selective breeding of animals to create new types of dogs is indeed evolution also, which is a forced mutation of the animal. There's no "forced mutation" because mutation is inherently random, like sugar is inherently 'sweet' to your tongue/brain and planets are inherently 'round'. You're mixing up Natural selection and Mutation. These are two different processes, concept and phenomenon.
The same can be said for almost all domestic animals. Man has been forcing small mutations on animals for years. It would take many pages and a complete thesis to show you how incorrect you are, but even then you will try to counter it with some attempt that really only digs you deeper into the false premises you have about evolution, mutation and selection.
Okay I am done being polite and will point out very clearly how little you know of evolution. For examble mutation is not Mutation is still naturally, inherently, and independently random.Get your concepts straight first before you blow over.
You are mixing up Mutation and Natural Selection. Even if you breed dogs or flowers, the mutation inside that dog or flower is exclusive.
Mutation can be forced by man.Again, no. That's not mutation , but Natural selection.
It can be forced by nature based upon the change of environment. Yes, that is exactly the point! However I won't call that "forced", because that implies order.
Nature is random and chaotic. Light is scattered (and with different wavelengths, polarity etc.) not like Intelligently Designed light like LASER. Lightning hitting the same spot twice? Wind with same vector? Surf waves with same dimensions?
Likewise, the mutational changes in your body is as random because the forces and the mechanism involving mutation is not ordered. Mutation occurs randomly.
God isn't saying "Oh I hate Peter Jennings, I'll mutate his DNA here, here and here so that he gets cancer". Peter Jennings was a smoker and smoking increased his risk of getting cancer.
God isn't saying "These humans are using vaccines and drugs to eliminate malaria and the flu, well, I'll mutate my killer babies so that they resist the drugs. Ok, I'll make a new strain that is drug resistant". The virus or living pathogens will mutate randomly REGARDLESS whether you have a drug to kill it or you actually deliver that drug. The only difference is that the selection pressure won't be the drug.
God isn't saying "This big shrub is outcompeting and killing my favorite flowers, I'll mutate it so that it grows bigger than the shrub". God isn't mutating the flowers and creating conditions that will favor and naturally select any specie to be the fittest and survive. That flower will mutate regardless if there is a shrub or a tree beside it.
No. There's no Intelligent Design. There is no God that is picking which one will mutate, when will it mutate, how it will mutate and which ones will survive! There is no God-force that is causing lighting to hit at a particular place at a particular time at will either. See the analogy?
In every single terminal cell you have that still has DNA, the DNA is mutating randomly. This is the same for all organisms that have DNA. But god has no hand in it, hence, zero input, hence no Intelligent Design.
Some scientific studies on selective breeding and how it relates to evolution.
Here is the Wikipedia reference about artifical selection and how it relates to evolution - a term that was initially coined by Darwin himself. You might want to actually read some of what Darwin wrote - since he posulated exactly what I have been saying in regards to selective breeding by man of animals to force mutations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_selection Don't mix up Natural Selection and Mutation!
Virus randomly mutates to a drug-resistent strain by chance. The virus is not thinking that "oh no, here comes the drug, I'll mutate". The mutation happens exclusively and it so happened that the mutation inhibits the effect of the drug, hence drug-resistant.
Drugs made by humans naturally (or you can say artificially) selects the fittest survivor by killiing the non-resistent strain. But the virus wasn't thinking or god is not mutating that so that it can resist the effects or delivery of that drug. The mutation is random.
[sarcasm on] Oh wait just in case you refuse to acknowledge Wikipedia as a source of information - here is another [sarcasm off]
http://www.biofact.com/cloning/
To put it simply man has been practicing intelligent design on evolution for many years prior to Darwin coining the phrases about Natural Selection and Mutation of animals causing evolution.
You might want to try reading this particlur site - notice how the two scientists talk about the issue.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/spetner.html Understand the basic, rudimentary concepts first before you use it as an argument. See my above post. ~:)
And now to the gravity arguement - it has become obvious that you don't want to ackownledge one simple fact. The Intelligent Falling theory is what I have been talking about - not gravity and how it relates to the creator. For instance where have I stated that God did not create gravity. Again notice what is actually written verus what you percieve to be written. Here is what I initially stated.
So to make the point - the Intelligent Falling theory would immediately be reject by Christians for the simple issue of that the theory does not fall in line with the teachings and the meaning of the Parables in which it is based upon.
Which is the answer to your orginial question and assumption that there is no difference between the theory of Intelligent Design and Intelligent Falling. Something that you seem to refuse to ackownledge - and instead of addressing the answer - you chose to go on a tangent now saying this. 1+1=3 whether you pick up the "phrase" in a Joke, a Book, a scrap of paper, or a Gossip column is wrong. And you should be able to say it is wrong in that context. You can't say 1+1=3 is wrong, while 1+1=5 is brilliantly correct.
You can't say Intelligently Design as brilliantly correct while Intelligent Falling is wrong either.
Now this is nothing other then an attempt of redirection from your orginal arguement. Which is fine - however I have not answered that question for the simple fact - that you have not concided the initial point - you are attempting to avoid where it. I did say it was my question didn't I? You're afraid to answer this question:
"What is the relationship between God and Gravity?"
because it's not in the bible? That is weird.... ~:confused:
Oh I played around there alittle bit in the discussion around the gravity issue - purposely not answering the question because I was being applying sarcasm to your arguemetns. However its obvious that you did not catch the sarcasm on and sarcasm off notations. Ok. ~:cool:
However when you address the intial point of the difference between the two theories is that "Intelligent Design" is based upon the teachings, in both context and concept of The Old Testament - Genesis; While the "Intelligent Falling" theory is just satire based upon an out of context and out of concept teachings of two different verses, one verse out of the Old Testament and one out of the New Testament.
Then I will explain how God and Gravity are related - I will give you a hint it is also in Genesis of the Old Testament.
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. So, if the Old Testament mentioned God creating Gravity, you will believe in Intelligent Falling.
The only thing that is holding you back is that it isn't in the bible. Likewise, the only reason why you believe Intelligent Design is that is contained in the Bible.
All I'm saying is that line of thinking is biased and dogmatic.
ID = God drives Evolution.
IF = God drives Gravity.
I maintain that they are the same and both are false. You're saying they aren't the same concept and ID is correct only because it's in the bible and IF is incorrect because it's not in the bible.
There's no "forced mutation" because mutation is inherently random, like sugar is inherently 'sweet' to your tongue/brain and planets are inherently 'round'. You're mixing up Natural selection and Mutation. These are two different processes, concept and phenomenon.
Well it seems you might want to talk to some research sciencists and get them on the same sheet of music - since most research is based on forcing the mutation via natural selection - or as Darwain called it artificial selection because of man's involvement. By the way Planets are not inherently round - they are something else.
Or by the way a researchers words on forced mutation. Several of them in fact
Hoban, professor of food science and sociology at North Carolina State University, wrote in an editorial published November 26, 2000 by the Washington Post:
"Starlink, developed by the French-based drug company Aventis, is really no different from other corn, except for the addition off a gene that produces an insect-fighting protein. Corn had already been dramatically modified from the "natural" plant originally found in the wild. Those ancient ears of corn were the size of your little finger and looked more like grass than modern yellow corn. Over the ages, crossbreeding and, more recently, forced mutation, has produced the ear of corn we eat today. Starlink, with its one gene added to the approximately 60,000 in this modern ear, represents a very modest, precise change by comparison."
http://info.bio.cmu.edu/Courses/03441/TermPapers/99TermPapers/GenEvo/mutation.htm
Twelve populations of E.coli B from a common ancestor were serially propagated for 10,000 generations. Click here fore experimental overview. In other words, like the previous experiment, each of the 12 populations started out with the same genome, and was forced to modify its genome through mutation to fit into the new environment which is also identical among populations. Each generation, some cells are taken from the culture, and their genomic DNA was harvested by a standard method. Every clone was scored for the presence or absence of each fragment that hybridized with a particular IS probes. In addition, phylogenies were constructed with the the actual common ancestor at the root of the tree. This is to illustrate the divergence of the clones. (3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
Natural selection is distinguished from artificial selection, which is the alteration of domesticated species resulting from human intervention as opposed the "natural environment". [b]However, the mechanisms of natural and artificial selection are essentially identical, and in fact the observed effects of artificial selection were used by Darwin to illustrate how natural selection works.
So in short -
Get your concepts straight first before you blow over.
Yes indeed - someone needs to take their own advice. It seems that your own arguement on evolution is a contradiction of published research scientists to include Darwain. Again it seems your knowledge is lacking compared to published scienists and researchers.
Your accepting of the "Intelligent Falling" theory as something that Christian sciencists are advocating is another examble of this. You failed to get your concepts and context of the theory correct and/or straight before you chose to blow over and believe a satire article from The Onion. Yes indeed someone does need to follow their own advice
The rest of your post is the same - accusations and statements that run counter to establish research documents and statements, or is an attempt at misrepresenting the actual research done. Nor does the concept of Intelligent Design say any of the things that you stated. That is all hyperbole on your part.
I maintain that they are the same and both are false. You're saying they aren't the same concept and ID is correct only because it's in the bible and IF is incorrect because it's not in the bible.
And you would still be incorrect. Someone needs to heed once again thier own words Understand the basic, rudimentary concepts first before you use it as an argument. I said Intelligent Falling does not follow the concept nor the context of the verse used to support the theory. The actual wording is available multiple times in the posting - but since you seem not to understand or it might be that you refuse acknowledge your own inablity to understand here it is again.
So to make the point - the Intelligent Falling theory would immediately be reject by Christians for the simple issue of that the theory does not fall in line with the teachings and the meaning of the Parables in which it is based upon.
However it seems that you only want to believe what you wish to ackownledge about evolution, natural selection, mutation, and the works of the many research sciencists who have spent there lives on the theory of evolution.
Just like you chose to believe the satire as being correct because of your baised views about Religion and your failure to understand the text of the Bible.
So, if the Old Testament mentioned God creating Gravity, you will believe in Intelligent Falling.
Someone needs to understand what is stated - not what they wish to believe was stated. Genesis 1:1 says God Created heaven and earth - so therefor he also created gravity at the same time. And no I would not believe in Intelligent Falling for the simple reason as already stated multiple times. The Intelligent Falling Theory is satire based out of context and out of concept of the referenced Biblical passages. Therefor it can only be a false teaching.
KafirChobee
08-21-2005, 09:36
OOOOPS!
http://www.pbs.org/now/quiz/quiz10.html
http://www.pbs.org/now/quiz/index.html
Again, get real. THINK! Accept Jesus as a savior to mankind - those that accept his word (as in, love thy enemy), or deny his word ("love thy enemy") and determine what is to be believed versus what a church wants us to believe. Church, and the word of God or Jesus are not synonimous - they need not be the same. Human perception, or the incursion of a person's intent to twist the word of God in their favor or to their philosophy is not the same as the original intent. We tend to over amplify, modify, and take phrases out of context to justify our purpose - well, some do. It is how we as humans try to justify our belief in a GOD. It is how some twist the poetry to justify their own ideas - their political purpose. Hiding behind the cross od Jesus is time honored ideal of scoundrels. IMO.
~D
Well it seems you might want to talk to some research sciencists and get them on the same sheet of music - since most research is based on forcing the mutation via natural selection Forcing Mutation via Natural Selection? ~:confused: Mutation is not a function of Natural Selection.
Manipulation of the DNA inside the laboratory is not the random Mutation process that drove Evolution for billions of years.
- or as Darwain called it artificial selection because of man's involvement. By the way Planets are not inherently round - they are something else. So you are saying Humans are behind evolution after all? ~:confused:
The point here is Random Mutation in additionton to Natural Selection DROVE evolution for Billions of years! Not man, not god.
Or by the way a researchers words on forced mutation. Several of them in factHumans aren't behind Evolution Not God either.
Describe in detail how "forced Mutation", as broad as a 'term' and 'technique' as it gets, factor in billions years of Evolution.
Mimicking natural forces in the laboratory environment doesn't mean Humans are driving evolution.
http://info.bio.cmu.edu/Courses/03441/TermPapers/99TermPapers/GenEvo/mutation.htm
You are fishing. Did you even read this?
Read the first sentence of this paper you Googled: "Mutations are naturally occurring events in any genome".
What does that mean to you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
So in short -
Yes indeed - someone needs to take their own advice. It seems that your own arguement on evolution is a contradiction of published research scientists to include Darwain. Again it seems your knowledge is lacking compared to published scienists and researchers.
Your accepting of the "Intelligent Falling" theory as something that Christian sciencists are advocating is another examble of this. You failed to get your concepts and context of the theory correct and/or straight before you chose to blow over and believe a satire article from The Onion. Yes indeed someone does need to follow their own advice
The rest of your post is the same - accusations and statements that run counter to establish research documents and statements, or is an attempt at misrepresenting the actual research done. Nor does the concept of Intelligent Design say any of the things that you stated. That is all hyperbole on your part. So Humans created Evolution, that's what you are saying?
Humans inducing mutation is no longer mutation but Gene Manipulation and Gene Therapy etc. You're just pulling words on Google.
And you would still be incorrect. Someone needs to heed once again thier own words Understand the basic, rudimentary concepts first before you use it as an argument. I said Intelligent Falling does not follow the concept nor the context of the verse used to support the theory. The actual wording is available multiple times in the posting - but since you seem not to understand or it might be that you refuse acknowledge your own inablity to understand here it is again.
[b]So to make the point - the Intelligent Falling theory would immediately be reject by Christians for the simple issue of that the theory does not fall in line with the teachings and the meaning of the Parables in which it is based upon.
If you say 1+1=3 is correct regardless of the math because of book x and say 1+1=5 is incorrect because it is not in book x is bias.
However it seems that you only want to believe what you wish to ackownledge about evolution, natural selection, mutation, and the works of the many research sciencists who have spent there lives on the theory of evolution.
Just like you chose to believe the satire as being correct because of your baised views about Religion and your failure to understand the text of the Bible.
Someone needs to understand what is stated - not what they wish to believe was stated. Genesis 1:1 says God Created heaven and earth - so therefor he also created gravity at the same time. And no I would not believe in Intelligent Falling for the simple reason as already stated multiple times. The Intelligent Falling Theory is satire based out of context and out of concept of the referenced Biblical passages. Therefor it can only be a false teaching.Speak for yourself. LOL. You have not the slightest idea what Evolution, Natural Selection and Mutation is. Know the rudiments first, I'd say.
Gawain of Orkeny
08-21-2005, 15:39
The point here is Random Mutation in additionton to Natural Selection DROVE evolution for Billions of years! Not man, not god.
How do you know? This has to be one of the most inane threads Ive ever seen. The point here is that many claim that god is behind all this. You can post until you die and you cannot prove ot disprove the existance of God. Is it so hard for you to comprehend that he may be behind all of this? Man created different breeds of dogs and cats through inatural selection. "Races" of men occured almost the same way through forced selection in that they interbred with those around them. They didnt tend to travel very far back then. This doesnt mean that the system was not designed by God.
Forcing Mutation via Natural Selection? ~:confused: Mutation is not a function of Natural Selection.
That is not what the researchers state.
Manipulation of the DNA inside the laboratory is not the random Mutation process that drove Evolution for billions of years.
Yes I know that - however when I brought up selective breeding which has been done for 1000s of years to modify and change domestic animals you tried to claim that that was not evolution. Again the selective breeding programs on animals is artificial selection which is part of Darwains Theory which he used to prove Natural Selection.
So you are saying Humans are behind evolution after all? ~:confused:
No I am saying humans are behind the evolution of certain domestic animals to change them to our benefit. And that this process was used by Darwin to prove Natural Selection - which seems to be your base for the Evolution Arguement.
The point here is Random Mutation in additionton to Natural Selection DROVE evolution for Billions of years! Not man, not god.
LOL - are you getting a little frustrated - again the scientists used artificial slection to prove Natural Selection. The scientists use forced mutation to prove the effects of mutation on natural selection. However when you presented your initial arguement - you tried to dismiss this.
Humans aren't behind Evolution Not God either.
Again your running counter to how Darwian proved Natural Selection and how man proves evolution. Scientists again use artificial selection to verify natural selection. Man is wholely involved with artifical selection - which makes man play a part in the evolution of some species. Many of our current food crops are part of this process, dogs, cattle, sheep and several other types of animals are all exambles of man's involvement in evolution.
Describe in detail how "forced Mutation", as broad as a 'term' and 'technique' as it gets, factor in billions years of Evolution.
ITs really easy to figure out - forced mutation is used to prove how mutation effects natural selection.
Mimicking natural forces in the laboratory environment doesn't mean Humans are driving evolution.
Try explaining what has been done with several plant species, and several animal species. Man has driven evolution on certain species.
You are fishing. Did you even read this?
Oh I read it - and used the part that supports the part about forced mutation being used to prove the science theory. A subtle point I know - but it requires one to think beyond their own baised view.
Read the first sentence of this paper you Googled: "Mutations are naturally occurring events in any genome".
What does that mean to you?
Explained above
So Humans created Evolution, that's what you are saying?
Nope - I am saying man has played a part in forcing certain species to evolve.
Humans inducing mutation is no longer mutation but Gene Manipulation and Gene Therapy etc. You're just pulling words on Google.
LOL - what do you think Gene Manipulation is? It is causing a mutation for a spefic reason. And yes I use google searches to find the articles and updates from informatin I was taught 20 years ago in biology, zoology, physics and chemistry
If you say 1+1=3 is correct regardless of the math because of book x and say 1+1=5 is incorrect because it is not in book x is bias.
doubtful I would ever say something like that - unless I was trying to prove a higher math theory.
Speak for yourself. LOL. You have not the slightest idea what Evolution, Natural Selection and Mutation is. Know the rudiments first, I'd say.
Well speak for yourself - I understand much more then the rudiments. I know what artificial selection is and how it was used to prove Natural Selection. That this same artificial selection was the base for how the effects of mutation was on natural selection. However it seems someone else does not.
That is not what the researchers state.
Yes I know that - however when I brought up selective breeding which has been done for 1000s of years to modify and change domestic animals you tried to claim that that was not evolution. Again the selective breeding programs on animals is artificial selection which is part of Darwains Theory which he used to prove Natural Selection.
No I am saying humans are behind the evolution of certain domestic animals to change them to our benefit. And that this process was used by Darwin to prove Natural Selection - which seems to be your base for the Evolution Arguement.
LOL - are you getting a little frustrated - again the scientists used artificial slection to prove Natural Selection. The scientists use forced mutation to prove the effects of mutation on natural selection. However when you presented your initial arguement - you tried to dismiss this.
Again your running counter to how Darwian proved Natural Selection and how man proves evolution. Scientists again use artificial selection to verify natural selection. Man is wholely involved with artifical selection - which makes man play a part in the evolution of some species. Many of our current food crops are part of this process, dogs, cattle, sheep and several other types of animals are all exambles of man's involvement in evolution.
ITs really easy to figure out - forced mutation is used to prove how mutation effects natural selection.
Try explaining what has been done with several plant species, and several animal species. Man has driven evolution on certain species.
Oh I read it - and used the part that supports the part about forced mutation being used to prove the science theory. A subtle point I know - but it requires one to think beyond their own baised view.
Explained above
Nope - I am saying man has played a part in forcing certain species to evolve.
LOL - what do you think Gene Manipulation is? It is causing a mutation for a spefic reason. And yes I use google searches to find the articles and updates from informatin I was taught 20 years ago in biology, zoology, physics and chemistry
doubtful I would ever say something like that - unless I was trying to prove a higher math theory.
Well speak for yourself - I understand much more then the rudiments. I know what artificial selection is and how it was used to prove Natural Selection. That this same artificial selection was the base for how the effects of mutation was on natural selection. However it seems someone else does not.
Redleg,
Your google Links + Your "input" = Never ending stream of Non Sequitur.
Learn the basics first before moving forward.
Mutation
Natural Selection
Evolution
Are the key term you need to understand firsts.
How do you know? This has to be one of the most inane threads Ive ever seen. The point here is that many claim that god is behind all this. You can post until you die and you cannot prove ot disprove the existance of God. Is it so hard for you to comprehend that he may be behind all of this? Man created different breeds of dogs and cats through inatural selection. "Races" of men occured almost the same way through forced selection in that they interbred with those around them. They didnt tend to travel very far back then. This doesnt mean that the system was not designed by God.
Because of all the mechanisms of Evolution are random. There's no God input. Just plain nature.
No, no. Breeding doesn't equal Mutation. When you breed that is an artificial way of Natural Selection
Mutation is a chemical process in your DNA. The DNA code is the source of the Proteins. Those proteins then are used by your body. When the DNA changes, that Protein changes as well right?
DNA Mutation ---> (RNA Transcript change) ----> Protein Changes.
Take two plants for example:
Plant 1 mutated and as a result, Growth hormone production are always "on", that means that plant will be huge.
Plant 2 mutated and as a result, Growth hormone production is always "off", that plant will be tiny.
That is Mutation. It is a separate, independent process, that is random.
Now, if that two plants were living side by side, the Giant plant will outcompete the other Dwarf plain in resources such as water, sunlight, etc.
That little dwarf plant will die and as a result, the Giant plant was Naturally Selected.
God did not cause that Giant plant to produce more hormone, no. The Mutation was random and it chemical by nature. God didn't pick that Giant plant either. There's no God in the process.
It is Evolution.
Papewaio
08-22-2005, 00:16
Mutation is random. But the rate of change can be changed according to the environment. It would be interesting to see if any organisms purposely change habitats to increase or decrease the rate of change.
Because of all the mechanisms of Evolution are random.
Strictly speaking that is not true when you add in sex. Choosing a mate is a strategic decision not a random one... well with the exception of large quantities of alchohol fueled orgies ~:cheers: .
Gawain of Orkeny
08-22-2005, 00:18
Because of all the mechanisms of Evolution are random. There's no God input. Just plain nature.
How do you know this? I consider god to have caused nature to be as it is including evolution. Again you dont know anything of what lies outside our universe or if there a millions of such universes. Science is just mans attempt to uncover the workings of god or nature or whatever you choose to call it. Because we discover how it works has no bearing on whether god created it or not. We do know that man didnt cause all this to happen and thats about all we know.
Redleg,
Your google Links + Your "input" = Never ending stream of Non Sequitur.
Learn the basics first before moving forward.
Mutation
Natural Selection
Evolution
Are the key term you need to understand firsts.
Just so we understand what the term non sequitur means
Non sequitur is Latin for "it does not follow." In formal logic, an argument is a non sequitur if the conclusion does not follow from the premise. It should be stressed that in a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is a fallacy because the conclusion does not follow from the premise. All logical fallacies are actually just specific types of non sequiturs. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition.
Well since you began the non sequitur with your attack on christianity by assuming that some christians were expousing some theory called "Intelligent Falling."
Face it Quietus you believed the satire because it fits within your views of religion. A major Non Sequitur on your part.
But the whole discussion has been very amusing to me because it has shown how ideological baised your views are - you are evening discounting know research and published papers of scientists who have studied evolution by discounting artifical selection - which by the way is the basis of proof for all of Darwains theories and most if not all of all the other theories around evolution.
Yes indeed don't accuse me of non sequitur when you have been doing it the whole time yourself. LOL - so much fun today, sometimes it just amazing how baised we all are.
How do you know this? I consider god to have caused nature to be as it is including evolution. Again you dont know anything of what lies outside our universe or if there a millions of such universes. Science is just mans attempt to uncover the workings of god or nature or whatever you choose to call it. Because we discover how it works has no bearing on whether god created it or not. We do know that man didnt cause all this to happen and thats about all we know.
Do Lightning hit the same ground over and over and over? The changes in your DNA is as random.
Mutation is random. But the rate of change can be changed according to the environment. It would be interesting to see if any organisms purposely change habitats to increase or decrease the rate of change.
There is one organism that does this all the time. That organism changes its environment to meet its needs, it changes its eating methods and habits to meet its needs, it uses other resources to change itself to meet its needs.
Can you guess which organism does this?
Gawain of Orkeny
08-22-2005, 00:34
Do Lightning hit the same ground over and over and over? The changes in your DNA is as random
And your point?
Just so we understand what the term non sequitur means
I cant believe you just said that as I just used the same word in another thread ~D
Mutation is random. But the rate of change can be changed according to the environment. It would be interesting to see if any organisms purposely change habitats to increase or decrease the rate of change. But the process is still natural, that's the point.
Strictly speaking that is not true when you add in sex. Choosing a mate is a strategic decision not a random one... well with the exception of large quantities of alchohol fueled orgies ~:cheers: . Picking a mate is Natural Selection. You don't choose a Donkey or an Elephant as a mate right?
Papewaio
08-22-2005, 00:39
But the process is still natural, that's the point.
Picking a mate is Natural Selection. You don't choose a Donkey or an Elephant as a mate right?
Certainly because it ain't random... it may be natural... but not all of Evolution is random, DNA mutation is random, mate selection is not.
And your point? How can you add/link God's intention there if the process is random....?
Random intention is oxymoronic. Random Intelligent Design is oxymoronic.
I cant believe you just said that as I just used the same word in another thread ~D It does make sense though. ~:)
But the process is still natural, that's the point.
And it is also done artificially by man by selective breeding on different animal and plant species. Or would you just like to disregard certain new types of plants that have been developed by man. Or will you continue to deny that man has interfered by design in how dogs, cattle, cats, and several other domestic animals have been significantly altered over the years.
Picking a mate is Natural Selection. You don't choose a Donkey or an Elephant as a mate right?
Some people have been know to attempt to mate with other species. You know the sheep jokes. LOL
Papewaio
08-22-2005, 00:43
There is one organism that does this all the time. That organism changes its environment to meet its needs, it changes its eating methods and habits to meet its needs, it uses other resources to change itself to meet its needs.
Can you guess which organism does this?
I'm not talking about eating and other life things that humans and other self propelled nomadic species use.
I'm thinking of an organism purposely choosing environments based on radiation levels and chemical levels that will effect its DNA rate of mutation. I'm wondering if there are organisms that actively choose an environment to change the rate of mutation.
I'm not talking about eating and other life things that humans and other self propelled nomadic species use.
I'm thinking of an organism purposely choosing environments based on radiation levels and chemical levels that will effect its DNA rate of mutation. I'm wondering if there are organisms that actively choose an environment to change the rate of mutation.
Well man did put himself in space where radiation levels are different.
Gawain of Orkeny
08-22-2005, 00:52
How can you add/link God's intention there if the process is random....?
Why cant god add randomness to his creation? In fact its built in. Heck even we can make things that are random. Like random number generators. How does the fact that some things happen randomly prove that god had nothing to do with it? Also it may seem random to us but in fact not be random.
Papewaio
08-22-2005, 00:53
Well man did put himself in space where radiation levels are different.
True.
I was just pondering if there is any micro-organisms that actively change environments to mutate...
True.
I was just pondering if there is any micro-organisms that actively change environments to mutate...
You are correct - but then I am only using non sequitur arguements right now like someone accused me of earlier - hopefully he will see the difference in the arguement styles.
~D
Gawain of Orkeny
08-22-2005, 00:59
I was just pondering if there is any micro-organisms that actively change environments to mutate...
Tadpoles ~;)
Certainly because it ain't random... it may be natural... but not all of Evolution is random, DNA mutation is random, mate selection is not.Pape,
This is a socially complex gray area. Can we agree, just for argument's sake that it is socially 50/50 but genetically, the mechanistic change is random?
Probability of you meeting your wife the first time.
Probability of you meeting your wife the second time etc.
Probability of your wife attracted to you
Probability of you attracted to your wife
Probabliity of you being a Gigolo
Probability of you being a Rapist
Probability of you using a Sperm bank
Probability of you being in a country at War
Probability of you being Gay
Probability of you being Jail
Probability of you being Sterile
Probability of you being Disabled
etc.
(I hope you didn't mind me using you as an example ~:) )
Pape + Wasabi (random & nonrandom) = Equal Segregation + Independent Assortment + Recombination etc. (random) = Genetic change = Anakin.
Why cant god add randomness to his creation? In fact its built in. What do you mean creation? Create what part?
Heck even we can make things that are random. Like random number generators. How does the fact that some things happen randomly prove that god had nothing to do with it?
God made man in his likeness randomly?
God gave man "free will" randomly?
God picked Earth randomly?
God picked the physical composition of earth randomly?
How about the other planets, how about the moon?
Other Galaxies? Black Holes?
Billions of years of Evolution.
If you want to write a novel, you don't throw in a random letter generator.
If you want to create a computer game, you don't just randomly generate code.
An omnipotent god you are implying would Create life instantenously, perfectly and prevalently.
But no, random Evolution for billions years, organisms are far from perfect and we are alone in our solar system just because the physical conditions on earth is unique. "Life" on earth happened by chance.
Also it may seem random to us but in fact not be random.
So you are saying God is really controlling all the thunder, ocean waves, earthquake, sunlight and even Gravity (can you say Intelligent Falling? ~;) )
Papewaio
08-22-2005, 03:27
Pape + Wasabi (random & nonrandom) = Equal Segregation + Independent Assortment + Recombination etc. (random) = Genetic change = Anakin.
Disagree... neither of us rolled a d20 for the marriage vows... the act of choice makes that part non random. Hence your statement that everything is random is not strictly correct.
Disagree... neither of us rolled a d20 for the marriage vows... the act of choice makes that part non random. Hence your statement that everything is random is not strictly correct.I've overused the word random in the original premise you called out. I should have said natural. The mechanism for evolution is natural, and random for the very most part.
So again I ask socially 50/50 (random & nonrandom), just for argument's sake, would you agree?
If you didn't meet your wife for example, would you still have Anakin? Meeting your wife is a random probability. As well as the other scenarios I've place. It's a socially complex gray area, as I've said.
If you still disagree, then we agree to disagree then. ~:)
Papewaio
08-22-2005, 03:55
I agree that it is natural and random for the most part.
However the man (or really woman) selection process does have some interesting implications.
The menu to select from may be random, but the choice is much less so...
The ability to choose enhances evolution, it doesn't detract from it.
I agree that it is natural and random for the most part.
However the man (or really woman) selection process does have some interesting implications.
The menu to select from may be random, but the choice is much less so...
The ability to choose enhances evolution, it doesn't detract from it.
If you ask me Choice is an even grayer area that's why I use the better word nonrandom.
If you create a machine based on chemicals then would that machine be bound by the chemical rules?
The word "beautiful" has a chemical reaction equivalent, but nobody knows what it is exactly. A painting is "beautiful" only because you have eyes.
That's why I call 'free will' an illusion, because its rules are based on the physical and chemical nature of the body.
That's why I call 'free will' an illusion, because its rules are based on the physical and chemical nature of the body.
Do you think? Do you reason before reaching a conclusion on something? When making a decision - to you take ownership of that decision?
Or do you just react to the environmental stimulus?
Papewaio
08-22-2005, 05:00
If you ask me Choice is an even grayer area that's why I use the better word nonrandom.
If you create a machine based on chemicals then would that machine be bound by the chemical rules?
The word "beautiful" has a chemical reaction equivalent, but nobody knows what it is exactly. A painting is "beautiful" only because you have eyes.
That's why I call 'free will' an illusion, because its rules are based on the physical and chemical nature of the body.
If the randomness of something was dependent on the randomness of the parts then you would see the following:
The random vibrations of molecules (heat) would make all mechanical mechanisms act randomly. As an analog watch can tell time that is not the case.
The random nature of quantum mechanics should then have an effect on higher order items. As a quartz digital watch does not tell time randomly, it to proves that is not the case.
The reverse is true as well, a perfect die rolls are not dependent on its temperature...well unless it has melted.
Quite often within the hierachy of things something lower down is far more random then then thing it creates. Randomness is not a parent-child relationship, there is no 1:1 correspondence between the randomness of a whole item and the randomness of its components.
Gawain of Orkeny
08-22-2005, 05:39
What in hell does randomness in mutation have to do with whether god created evolution? Again in a slot machine theres a random number generator. Now because this is there does that prove a man didnt invent it? How about cards? Plenty of randomness there yet we invented them and all the games that go with them. Did it ever occur to you that thats how God may have designed it? Or maybe evolution is god still messing around ~D
Papewaio
08-22-2005, 05:46
Well if there is a God we would rate pretty much as a screen saver on the scale of things... maybe a fun demo game... I don't think on the Universe scale of a Game of God we rate as much as even :cry: the TW AI...
KafirChobee
08-22-2005, 18:11
Titled : "Scientific Evidence for Creation", [or justifying weak ideas or how to ignore facts and twist evidence to meet the criteria of creationism]
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/bible-creation.htm
This is a real place, go to the home page and browse about - worth a giggle or two. j/k
http://www.bible.ca
Goofball
08-22-2005, 18:27
From the above site:
The Religion of Evolution:
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/i-magic-wand.gifHumanism: The Atheist's Religion!!! (http://www.bible.ca/tracks/b-humanism-is-religion.htm)
Official name of the Evolutionist's Religion...
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/moving-checkmark.gifHumanism
The Evolutionist's Prophet...
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/moving-checkmark.gifDarwin
The Evolutionist's Infallible Book (Bible)...
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/moving-checkmark.gif"Origin of the Species"
The Evolutionist's Statement of faith....
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/moving-checkmark.gifTheory of Evolution
The Evolutionist's Church, Temple...
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/moving-checkmark.gifPublic Schools
The Evolutionist's Priests...
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/moving-checkmark.gifHigh School Biology teachers (university professors are arch-bishops)
The Evolutionist's Evangelistic Medium...
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/moving-checkmark.gifHigh school textbooks, TV, Radio
The Evolutionist's "Church Treasury"...
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/moving-checkmark.gifYour public Tax Dollars
The Evolutionist's Divine being...
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/moving-checkmark.gifHimself
The Evolutionist's view of where we came from:
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/moving-checkmark.gifRandom chance processes
The Evolutionist's purpose of life and where we are going
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/moving-checkmark.gifNone, nowhere
Wow.
I like how they try to define the adherance to evolution theory as a religion. Seems like just an attempt to put the "competition" in the same silly category of beliefs as Christianity.
Gawain of Orkeny
08-22-2005, 18:29
I like how they try to define the adherance to evolution theory as a religion.
Havent I been saying science is a religion unto itself all along?
Papewaio
08-22-2005, 23:51
Science is no more a religion then a ruler, pad of paper and a pen are.
Soulforged
08-23-2005, 00:17
Havent I been saying science is a religion unto itself all along?
Wow...And how is that? ~:confused:
AntiochusIII
08-23-2005, 00:18
Havent I been saying science is a religion unto itself all along?How could it be so? Anyone who believes in science as a religion of facts is misguided. Science does not possess many aspects that needs to create a religion. It doesn't have divinity; it doesn't have creation myth, only theories that can always be negated by a better theory; it doesn't need organizations (like organized religion) to "be." Religions fade without worshippers. Science is a collection of facts, theories, datas, etc that, without those who maintain the knowledge, won't die off. Speaking from an entirely pragmatic point of view: we didn't invent science, but we invent religion.
Soulforged
08-23-2005, 00:20
Titled : "Scientific Evidence for Creation", [or justifying weak ideas or how to ignore facts and twist evidence to meet the criteria of creationism]
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/bible-creation.htm
This is a real place, go to the home page and browse about - worth a giggle or two. j/k
http://www.bible.ca
I really don't know why one who presumes of faith needs evidence. Science requires evidence, religion not. I'm totally with Redleg, tough he believes, and i'll not question him, but the point is that believe for the sake of believing, nothing more.
I really don't know why one who presumes of faith needs evidence. Science requires evidence, religion not. I'm totally with Redleg, tough he believes, and i'll not question him, but the point is that believe for the sake of believing, nothing more.
You are very close to how I view Religion. It seems that some can not function within two philisophies. The Spirtual and the Physical. Religion is in the spirtual relm of believe - I for instance dont believe that God is pushing me down because some satire states it so.
Nor do I buy into the arguement that Religion is bad because it clouds your ability to rationalize thought in the Physical World.
For instance the discussion with Quietus he is continually trying to link both theories as being based upon the same thing, By linking them to Religion and God. He claims that if one believes in the Genesis Chapter of the Bible - ie Creation - then one by default must believe in the "Intelligence Falling" Satire. He completely misses the reasoning behind why as a Christian I can determine that the Intelligent Falling Theory is a false teaching - because he is determine to believe that since one believes in one theory based upon religion one must believe all theories based upon religion. That is a fallacy - a non sequitur one at that. Using the defination of
Non sequitur is Latin for "it does not follow." In formal logic, an argument is a non sequitur if the conclusion does not follow from the premise. It should be stressed that in a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is a fallacy because the conclusion does not follow from the premise. All logical fallacies are actually just specific types of non sequiturs. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition.
He attempts to recongize it in my arguement about evolution and creation - which does indeed have some non sequitur arguements - but he refuses to see it in his arguement about linking those who believe in the Intelligent Design Theory must also believe in the Intelligent Falling Theory. His conclusion does not follow the premise, he is basing the conclusion solely on the point that if one believes this way then he must also believe this way. That is always a fallacy.
Look at the discussion around evolution - one can play with the words used. Natural Selection, Mutation, Evolution, Artifical Selection, and Selective Breeding. All are mentioned in Darwains theory in one way or another. Two of the terms are what are the basis for Darwain proving his theory of Natural Selection. Go figure. However by dismissing the terms - which is what Quietus has done - well it shows the non sequitur of his evolution arguement since he is dismissing the links established by Darwain and other evolution researchers
One can link Selective Breeding - artifical selection - mutation - natural selection - evolution.
However one can not link Intelligent Design - Genesis to Intelligent Falling - Job and Mark. When Job discusses Human failings and sin, and Mark 15 teaches the errors of false teachings. The two are not linked - any attempts to linking them through religious teachings is a fallacy.
Papewaio
08-23-2005, 00:59
Howabout linking Mark 15 < - > Teaching Intelligent Design in Science. ~:cheers:
Gawain of Orkeny
08-23-2005, 01:15
How could it be so? Anyone who believes in science as a religion of facts is misguided.
By that I mean it has m,any similarities. The big difference between the two as Redleg pomitrd out is that religion tries to explain the spiritual world where as science tries to explain the physical world. Science is based on the idea that we know certain facts. Anything beyond that is a leap of faith in mans ability. As someone pointed out we could be no more than some really advanced version of Sim City for all we know. I have faith in both god and science. Again the two are not mutually exclusive. Jesus even points it out when he says give unto Caesar that which is Caesars and unto god that which is gods. I take that as pointing out that there are two worlds and two masters we all serve. How many of you deny there is a spirituality to man?
Papewaio
08-23-2005, 01:17
Science and religion are not diametric opposites... they are more like separate axis... they cross only at the point of the human mind.
Howabout linking Mark 15 < - > Teaching Intelligent Design in Science. ~:cheers:
Mark does not link to Intelligent Design - the only Chapter that links to Intelligent Design is Genesis in my opinion.
Papewaio
08-23-2005, 01:43
Putting Intelligent Design forward as a science would be a false teaching IMDHO.
Gawain of Orkeny
08-23-2005, 01:46
Putting Intelligent Design forward as a science would be a false teaching IMDHO.
Its a religous science ~D
Again the two should be kept seperate but they should both be respected.
Putting Intelligent Design forward as a science would be a false teaching IMDHO.
Only if its done in the public school systems. I would support those who oppose teaching religious based theories or instruction in a public school system. If I want my child taught religous teaching I will send him to a private school or teach him it myself. Don't confuse my views on religion with being for organized churches - I find most churches have lost the meaning of what the Bible says for their own purpose. You ought to hear what I got to say about the Bapist Church, the Catholic Church, and several other big churches - they have lost the way.
However in a religous context - as a religous teaching Intelligent Design is in line with what Genesis says - ie God created the Heaven and Earth and the creatures upon it.
Papewaio
08-23-2005, 02:23
Teaching Intelligent Design as a religious principle is fine and good.
Teaching Intelligent Design as a validated sciencitific concept is dishonest and contemptable.
Nor is Intelligent Design in line with Genesis. Genesis states that God created nature (hence worshipping nature is not correct, you should worship the Creator of it like one enjoys a painting but admires the painter). Genesis does not say that His design methodology was shake 'n' bake (evolution) or paint by numbers (intelligent design).
Science on the other hand shows that paint by numbers was not required. And that evolution can account for all the forms of life on earth. What evolution does not explain (nor has it have any theoritical bearing on) is the Big Bang. The Big Bang may explain the earliest formation of the Universe.
But the why of The Big Bang? Well that is as accurately explained with religion as science.
Teaching Intelligent Design as a religious principle is fine and good.
yes indeed what I have been saying all along
Teaching Intelligent Design as a validated sciencitific concept is dishonest and contemptable.
Notice why I said its a religous based theory best left to being taught by religous people in a religious setting - not in public schools.
Nor is Intelligent Design in line with Genesis. Genesis states that God created nature (hence worshipping nature is not correct, you should worship the Creator of it like one enjoys a painting but admires the painter).
Yes it does it say that - it also says something else.
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
Genesis does not say that His design methodology was shake 'n' bake (evolution) or paint by numbers (intelligent design).
Your committing a fallacy here - A does not necessary lead to B. Intelligent Design is not worshipping nature as you allude to above. Nor does it lead to the conclusion your stating here.
Science on the other hand shows that paint by numbers was not required. And that evolution can account for all the forms of life on earth.
I had to break this sentence off from your other two. Genesis also accounts for all forms of life on earth. Science shows that life on earth has changed certain species, and that life might have evolved from some primivel (SP) spource and that man himself has also changed certain species. Intelligent Design does not discount science it only discounts the how life evolved from premivel sorce by saying that God created life. It adds science to Genesis to help explain why creatures has evolved in a religious context. And again this is why is should not be taugh in a public school to children or people who do not want to believe the teaching.
What evolution does not explain (nor has it have any theoritical bearing on) is the Big Bang. The Big Bang may explain the earliest formation of the Universe.
But the why of The Big Bang? Well that is as accurately explained with religion as science.
Yes indeed - Religion explains it very well. All one has to do is read Genesis 1:1.
Papewaio
08-23-2005, 02:59
Your committing a fallacy here - A does not necessary lead to B. Intelligent Design is not worshipping nature as you allude to above. Nor does it lead to the conclusion your stating here.
I think you are accidentally misreading what I said. Genesis talks about the order of things created. It does not give specifics on how they are created. Did God just stir and bake like a cake. OR did God make the cake by sticking all the atoms together one at a time?
I had to break this sentence off from your other two. Genesis also accounts for all forms of life on earth. Science shows that life on earth has changed certain species, and that life might have evolved from some primivel (SP) spource and that man himself has also changed certain species. Intelligent Design does not discount science it only discounts the how life evolved from premivel sorce by saying that God created life. It adds science to Genesis to help explain why creatures has evolved in a religious context. And again this is why is should not be taugh in a public school to children or people who do not want to believe the teaching.
Intelligent Design cannot add science to anything as it is not science in itself.
I don't have a problem with Intelligent Design being a religious theory about Genesis. I still think evolution is a better fit. I don't have an issue with religious classes at public schools. I do have a problem with misnaming something a science when it is not.
I see Intelligent Design as the scientific equivalence of Lola, she walks like a woman but talks like a man. It looks like a science but it ain't if it is examined closely enough.
Yes indeed - Religion explains it very well. All one has to do is read Genesis 1:1.
And the order of appearance of creatures is in line with evolution too... man is created last.
Plants then water creatures then land creatures then humans.
I think you are accidentally misreading what I said. Genesis talks about the order of things created. It does not give specifics on how they are created. Did God just stir and bake like a cake. OR did God make the cake by sticking all the atoms together one at a time?
That is possible - the misreading of what you said. However lets try this way of explanation instead of direct challenge method. Genesis does indeed only spefically state the order of things - if one takes a literal (SP) interpation of Genesis - one must accept that the earth is only around 7,000 years old. Well in my mind - that just is not acceptable. So the creation of the earth was not 6 human days as man understand time - but 6 Days of how God views time. Since Genesis is written as it relates to God creating the earth - the logic in a regilious sense follows - or at least in my opinion.
So to answer the question posed by you - I would say God created life by assembling life as he saw fit. Then allowed it to grow and develop.
Intelligent Design cannot add science to anything as it is not science in itself.
I don't have a problem with Intelligent Design being a religious theory about Genesis. I still think evolution is a better fit. I don't have an issue with religious classes at public schools. I do have a problem with misnaming something a science when it is not.
Well in that we differ slightly - calling it science might be a stretch - but the orginial author of the theory based a lot of his theory on the science methods that makes evolution a science. Should it be taught in the classroom as science though - I would have to agree with you - it does not meet the defination of science because it intermixes religion and science - and that by itself disqualfies it in my opinion as a hard science.
Just off what Quietus wrote I would have to say that science is not doing an adequate job of explaining evolution either. (That is most likely to harsh of a statement - but discounting selective breeding and artifical selection as evolution has a tendency to bring out the worse in me. Darwain used both concepts in his validation and proof of natural selection and mutation.) Evolution is a tricky subject for most - since it goes into not only the development of the species - but it brings into question the validity of Religion.
I see Intelligent Design as the scientific equivalence of Lola, she walks like a woman but talks like a man. It looks like a science but it ain't if it is examined closely enough.
Agreed its a religous theory and should be taught as such.
And the order of appearance of creatures is in line with evolution too... man is created last.
Plants then water creatures then land creatures then humans.
Isn't just amazing how that worked out in an ancient text.
If the randomness of something was dependent on the randomness of the parts then you would see the following:
The random vibrations of molecules (heat) would make all mechanical mechanisms act randomly. As an analog watch can tell time that is not the case.
The random nature of quantum mechanics should then have an effect on higher order items. As a quartz digital watch does not tell time randomly, it to proves that is not the case.
The reverse is true as well, a perfect die rolls are not dependent on its temperature...well unless it has melted.
Quite often within the hierachy of things something lower down is far more random then then thing it creates. Randomness is not a parent-child relationship, there is no 1:1 correspondence between the randomness of a whole item and the randomness of its components. Pape,
The human body isn't like a watch where every parts are connected to each other and accounted for. It's more like cross between a watch and a pinball machine, it isn't perfect, hence it is ordered and disordered.
Papewaio
08-23-2005, 04:34
I responded to this comment which is incorrect:
If you create a machine based on chemicals then would that machine be bound by the chemical rules?
A machine based on chemicals (a virus) is not bound by the randomness of its components.
I was pointing out that the randomness in a part does not make the whole random.
Hence human choice is not neccesarily a random chemical selection. It maybe random as that is the best strategy, it is not random because we have parts that move in Brownian motion.
Soulforged
08-23-2005, 04:41
You are very close to how I view Religion. It seems that some can not function within two philisophies. The Spirtual and the Physical. Religion is in the spirtual relm of believe - I for instance dont believe that God is pushing me down because some satire states it so.
Nor do I buy into the arguement that Religion is bad because it clouds your ability to rationalize thought in the Physical World.
For instance the discussion with Quietus he is continually trying to link both theories as being based upon the same thing, By linking them to Religion and God. He claims that if one believes in the Genesis Chapter of the Bible - ie Creation - then one by default must believe in the "Intelligence Falling" Satire. He completely misses the reasoning behind why as a Christian I can determine that the Intelligent Falling Theory is a false teaching - because he is determine to believe that since one believes in one theory based upon religion one must believe all theories based upon religion. That is a fallacy - a non sequitur one at that. Using the defination of
Then ~:cheers: for you. What i'm saying is why the religious try to look for the evidence of the "existence" of God, when it's all a question of faith. Jesus resurrected that sunday, i asure you not, but it's faith. Like you said you believe it or you don't. But if you claim that you need some science like teology :dizzy2: , and i'm totally against this one, then you're trying to turn blind beliefs into true knowledge, the first belongs to irrationality and for instance religion (this doesn't mean that religion clouds your understandment, this sentance will be a non sequitor), the second belongs to rational tought, logic, science, the one that derives from observation, analisys and scientific method.
If you wanna believe then do it, but don't ask for evidence, it's absurd.
Soulforged
08-23-2005, 04:55
By that I mean it has m,any similarities. The big difference between the two as Redleg pomitrd out is that religion tries to explain the spiritual world where as science tries to explain the physical world. Science is based on the idea that we know certain facts. Anything beyond that is a leap of faith in mans ability. As someone pointed out we could be no more than some really advanced version of Sim City for all we know. I have faith in both god and science. Again the two are not mutually exclusive. Jesus even points it out when he says give unto Caesar that which is Caesars and unto god that which is gods. I take that as pointing out that there are two worlds and two masters we all serve. How many of you deny there is a spirituality to man?
I assure you Orkeny that they're muttally exclusive. Where science puts its foot religion fights to stay, but it cannot support it's arguments so it fades away. Again the explanation term as you used it above, is a very technical one. Explanation derives from certain knowledge (at least as certain as our senses can say and our reason analize, because i'm not disposed to live in a world that reaches the kind of absurd where we cannot believe our senses), it has an explanandum and an explanans. The explanans gives a premise "the metal expands", the explanandum gives conditions (high temperature), others deductions and premises that derive from observation. So the explanation tries to give a "why" to some comprobable fenomenum.
And to make my point clear i will make you the same question i asked to Redleg but with other degree of difficulty. Let's suppose that science in some point in time gives you the answer to everything, and helps you to avoid death and all the fears that you may've. Would you still believe in God? Or suddenly, because God has no more porpose it will fade away like he never "existed"?
Again all of you begin for the "fact" that ideas "exist". But that's another discussion, i think that what i give you is enough.
Gawain of Orkeny
08-23-2005, 05:06
Let's suppose that science in some point in time gives you the answer to everything, and helps you to avoid death and all the fears that you may've. Would you still believe in God? Or suddenly, because God has no more porpose it will fade away like he never "existed"?
If science gave me all the answers I would know everything and that includes whether or not there is a god so your question is meaningless.
If you wanna believe then do it, but don't ask for evidence, it's absurd.
Imagine if scientists had that attitude. If you dont believe dont ask for evidence either.
My someones english is suddenly improving.
Soulforged
08-23-2005, 05:49
If science gave me all the answers I would know everything and that includes whether or not there is a god so your question is meaningless.
Imagine if scientists had that attitude. If you dont believe dont ask for evidence either.
My someones english is suddenly improving.
No it's not meaningless. You don't comprehend my question. You now believe that God exists, blindly, you put it behind natural fenomenums and behind evolution. But let's suppose that science gives you all the answers, then where is your God? One that is onmiscient, all powerfull and is on everything, suddenly it's...nothing. My point is demonstrate that you use the idea of God in an utilitarist way, while you have questions and have fears God "exists" but when you don't need it anymore it just banishes. Do you understand my question?
What attitude are you talking about? Don't manipulate my worlds, i'm talking of that that you call "kingdom of heaven", "spiritual world", i'm not talking about real life. In real life you can do both with out problems, believe and know, in spiritual life you only need belief, because if you want more than that, i'm sorry to dissapoint you, but evidence in religion. :dizzy2:
Yes my english is improving a little after all this post. I wish that you talk to me in my language.
Gawain of Orkeny
08-23-2005, 05:52
But let's suppose that science gives you all the answers, then where is your God? One that is onmiscient, all powerfull and is on everything, suddenly it's...nothing.
Again if science could prove to me god didnt exist I could not believe in god. I dont choose to believe or not believe in something .
Also thats a mighty big supposition. Suppose god came down and performed a few miracles for you and told you science was a bunch of crap. Would you still back science?
Soulforged
08-23-2005, 06:16
Again if science could prove to me god didnt exist I could not believe in god. I dont choose to believe or not believe in something .
Also thats a mighty big supposition. Suppose god came down and performed a few miracles for you and told you science was a bunch of crap. Would you still back science?
I'll make my question more direct then: Do you use God to give you some porpose or is God that gives you the porpose?
That will never happen. An idea cannot take form by simple transmition of toughts. So as God doesn't have any fisical form i doubt that he comes down and talks to me. Please, don't tell that you believe, after all science and man has done, and after what your senses can perceive that God has an physical body.
That's all the point, setting a point that is possible. But against you may think, the science cannot prove the existence of God, because God is not real, it's ideal, it's like trying to prove the existence of the number 1 (wich happens to have an utalitarist and practical function), there's no point in trying to look for the existence of 1, you won't find a big one hidden somewhere that sais "i'm the number one, and when you humans invented me, you were really basing it on facts". The creation of the number 1for it's practical proposes was created based on observation as any idea on matematics, so you can do calculations in abstract. The idea of God was created exactly the same way, but the difference with the number 1, is that all those facts observated had another practical and true explanation that actually gives results in reallity. So not science will never say "hey look Gawain, here i've the proof that God doesn't exist".
Papewaio
08-23-2005, 06:18
Porpose is a close cousin to dolphin.
Purpose is why we do something.
I responded to this comment which is incorrect:
A machine based on chemicals (a virus) is not bound by the randomness of its components.
I was pointing out that the randomness in a part does not make the whole random.
Hence human choice is not neccesarily a random chemical selection. It maybe random as that is the best strategy, it is not random because we have parts that move in Brownian motion.Pape,
Organic chemistry has specific rules, especially inside the human body (or a virus) that is a machine and complement of closed and open systems.
We're not talking about a stable piece of inorganic molecule here such as a watch.
And I didn't say "randomness", I said "Choice". A better word for choice is "nonrandom" due to the chemical rules. If you call it a "choice" you're neglecting chemical rules! ~:)
If you ask me Choice is an even grayer area that's why I use the better word nonrandom.
If you create a machine based on chemicals then would that machine be bound by the chemical rules?
The word "beautiful" has a chemical reaction equivalent, but nobody knows what it is exactly. A painting is "beautiful" only because you have eyes.
That's why I call 'free will' an illusion, because its rules are based on the physical and chemical nature of the body.
Gawain of Orkeny
08-23-2005, 16:17
I'll make my question more direct then: Do you use God to give you some porpose or is God that gives you the porpose?
That will never happen. An idea cannot take form by simple transmition of toughts. So as God doesn't have any fisical form i doubt that he comes down and talks to me. Please, don't tell that you believe, after all science and man has done, and after what your senses can perceive that God has an physical body.
I have no idea of what god looks like or is and neither do you or anybody else on these boards. Is his form really that important?
So not science will never say "hey look Gawain, here i've the proof that God doesn't exist".
So then your question cannot ever possibly be asked as science will never no everything.
KafirChobee
08-23-2005, 17:38
Titled : "Scientific Evidence for Creation", [or justifying weak ideas or how to ignore facts and twist evidence to meet the criteria of creationism]
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/bible-creation.htm
This is a real place, go to the home page and browse about. [last comment edited as unneccessary]
http://www.bible.ca
What is brought up in the discussion, yet ignored - is the philosophical question, "Did God create man, or did man create God?"
A comprehensive study of the mythologies of man demonstrates that ancient man needed a means to define his role in his universe and to explain the many things of nature that he did not understand. Along came theorists that through their observation proclaimed; "the world is round, not flat", "the earth revolves around the sun, and is not the center of the universe", "the earth is billions of years old", "man evolved from apes (and is still evolving)", etc. The church found all of these items to be blasphemous, and prosecuted or denied the namesayers as being heretics (and ignorant, and godless, and controlled by satan's minions).
For some churches, if one doesnot take the bible literally they are ignorant and doomed to hell. For others, the bible is the guide line for teaching morality and human values, and was a poetic means to explain creation to the ancients (that is Hebrews).
So, which came first? The chicken or the egg?
What is correct Science, or Religious pragmatism (dogma)?
For me, they can live side by side. If one can accept that one is based on physical observation and scientific method; the other faith. Faith that a supremebeing is wise enough to stir the pot and allow it to brew on its own - without its interference. Or, we simply accept that we were made from mud (as in 50+ religions and myths) and were not an awe inspiring method of evolvement.
:balloon2:
http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/dna_history.html
Type in the search, creationism, or intelligent design - you'll get what you want, regardless of your attitude.
http://www.creationministries.org/faq.asp
http://www.proofofcreationism.com/book_overview.php
:book: THINK! It only hurts a little ... honest.
Gawain of Orkeny
08-23-2005, 18:44
For me, they can live side by side. If one can accept that one is based on physical observation and scientific method; the other faith. Faith that a supremebeing is wise enough to stir the pot and allow it to brew on its own - without its interference. Or, we simply accept that we were made from mud (as in 50+ religions and myths) and were not an awe inspiring method of evolvement.
For once I agree with Kafir.
What is brought up in the discussion, yet ignored - is the philosophical question, "Did God create man, or did man create God?"
Thats the question that man has asked from the beggining of time and shall be asked until the end of time. Again no one here knows the answer.
.
What is brought up in the discussion, yet ignored - is the philosophical question, "Did God create man, or did man create God?"
That is correct - but the individual who started the thread was out to prove by arguement that God does not exist - not who created whom.
A comprehensive study of the mythologies of man demonstrates that ancient man needed a means to define his role in his universe and to explain the many things of nature that he did not understand. Along came theorists that through their observation proclaimed; "the world is round, not flat", "the earth revolves around the sun, and is not the center of the universe", "the earth is billions of years old", "man evolved from apes (and is still evolving)", etc. The church found all of these items to be blasphemous, and prosecuted or denied the namesayers as being heretics (and ignorant, and godless, and controlled by satan's minions).
For some churches, if one doesnot take the bible literally they are ignorant and doomed to hell. For others, the bible is the guide line for teaching morality and human values, and was a poetic means to explain creation to the ancients (that is Hebrews).
Your getting very close to how I precieve the bible and religion.
So, which came first? The chicken or the egg?
How I hate chickens - but my belief system points to the chicken came first.
What is correct Science, or Religious pragmatism (dogma)?
And why can they not have equal value to an individual? (This is not address to Kafir - because he states his opinion later on in this post.) That is Science and Religion. I don't believe in dogma from any church.
Now I think some who only believe strict church dogma - I am not sure how you wanted to use the word - but dogma relies on a church proclaimation - which sets the followers of that church to false teaching because they allow on the church to tell them what the bible means. Man is fallible, dogma coming from a church authority will always have problems.
For me, they can live side by side. If one can accept that one is based on physical observation and scientific method; the other faith. Faith that a supremebeing is wise enough to stir the pot and allow it to brew on its own - without its interference. Or, we simply accept that we were made from mud (as in 50+ religions and myths) and were not an awe inspiring method of evolvement.
Yes indeed the two philisophies can indeed fit and live side by side.
Al Khalifah
08-23-2005, 21:19
How I hate chickens - but my belief system points to the chicken came first.
This one depends on your belief system:
Evolutionist: the egg must have come first. Chickens evolved from other birds in the same way that modern man evolved from apes. There must therefore have been a 'first chicken' which provides the missing link between the 'primate' of a chicken and what would be a acceptance of a modern chicken. This chicken will have hatched from an egg, however the bird that layed the egg will not have been a chicken, but rather an 'ape-chicken' if you will.
Creationist: the chicken came first. God created the first chickens. These chickens reproduced creating an egg or two.
I thank you :bow:
Papewaio
08-24-2005, 00:04
So, which came first? The chicken or the egg?
:book: THINK! It only hurts a little ... honest.
The proto-chicken layed the first chicken egg.
Papewaio
08-24-2005, 00:23
Pape,
Organic chemistry has specific rules, especially inside the human body (or a virus) that is a machine and complement of closed and open systems.
We're not talking about a stable piece of inorganic molecule here such as a watch.
And I didn't say "randomness", I said "Choice". A better word for choice is "nonrandom" due to the chemical rules. If you call it a "choice" you're neglecting chemical rules! ~:)
Organic chemistry does have specific rules and the formation of molecule bonds is dependent on quantum physics.
However the physical properties of chemicals are emergent. For instance although all chemicals obey quantum physics their melting points and boiling points are dependent on the particular way the molecules bind. This is an order dependent property.
That's why I call 'free will' an illusion, because its rules are based on the physical and chemical nature of the body.
Free will may then be another emergent property. It is not ,as demonstrated, determined by the rules of something lower in the order. It may be influenced, but it does not mean it is controlled purely by the lower orders properties.
Just like a program is made of binary commands, it does not mean we are limited to binary decisions.
Soulforged
08-24-2005, 00:58
[QUOTE=KafirChobee]What is brought up in the discussion, yet ignored - is the philosophical question, "Did God create man, or did man create God?"
You're mistaken that's what i tried to begin from the start. I say God's an idea, an then someone comes and tells ideas exist, but he's mistaken, then if God's an idea, and ideas are the "product" of work on human mind, and matter came before the idea, then man created God, simple. Now as i already said i don't like religion but i respect it as many other ideas, i only don't want religion messing with the social matters, it's an individual matter if ones believes or not, period.
Orkeny: God does not "look" he doen't exist, and "idea" different from "real".
Al Khalifah: Nothing depends on your belief system in the real world. Again ideas doesn't shape the world. So the chicken first or not, it's only one truth not two truths depending on your point of view.
Organic chemistry does have specific rules and the formation of molecule bonds is dependent on quantum physics.
However the physical properties of chemicals are emergent. For instance although all chemicals obey quantum physics their melting points and boiling points are dependent on the particular way the molecules bind. This is an order dependent property. There are lots of types of organic molecules and they all have different properties and rules governing them. Combine this with the evolved design of, say, a human body, with open and closed systems, you get more rules.
Bonds aren't really that important really, per se. You normally won't eat stuff you can't digest or are instantly toxic, for example. (Chair, keyboard, clorox bleach etc). And your body will break down or kill toxins and pathogens in your body as efficiently as it is able and of course waste is excreted as well (urine, feces, etc. ).
The body already evolved specific rules, mechanisms, and chemical pathways (the bonds are already factored in, and there specific rules in place), that's exactly the point I'm making.
Free will may then be another emergent property. It is not ,as demonstrated, determined by the rules of something lower in the order. It may be influenced, but it does not mean it is controlled purely by the lower orders properties.
Just like a program is made of binary commands, it does not mean we are limited to binary decisions. That's why it is an illusion. Pain and Pleasure isn't free will. Breathing and Eating ain't free will.
Papewaio
08-24-2005, 01:44
That's why it is an illusion. Pain and Pleasure isn't free will. Breathing and Eating ain't free will.
Can you prove that freewill is not an emergent property?
That despite feeling hungry you can choose to not eat? Or despite being full you continue to gorge?
Can you prove that freewill is not an emergent property?
That despite feeling hungry you can choose to not eat? Or despite being full you continue to gorge? Honestly, I have no idea what emergent is, so I googled it and from the Wikipedia:
Emergence is the process of complex pattern formation from simpler rules. This can be a dynamic process (occurring over time), such as the evolution of the human brain over thousands of successive generations; or emergence can happen over disparate size scales, such as the interactions between a macroscopic number of neurons producing a human brain capable of thought (even though the constituent neurons are not themselves conscious, nor the thoughts always that good).
My answer to this is Evolution. Mutation and Natural Selection. Survival of the fittest. If a person chooses not to eat, then that person is a defective machine. We are machines but we are not perfect. Emergence connote perfection (it seems). We are not a perfect machine, hence there's no connection. Our body is imperfect and is subject to entropy.
Energywise, whatever you expend needed to be replenished with food. Your function is Evolutionary system is to survive and reproduce. Whatever you do in between , call it a "choice", or "free will" is an illusion.
Gawain of Orkeny
08-24-2005, 02:45
Orkeny: God does not "look" he doen't exist, and "idea" different from "real"..
First off dont call me Orkeny. Its like calling King Richard England. ~;)
Again you dont know that god dosent exist and neither does anyone else. How many times do I have to point this out. You say god was an idea of manwheres as creationists say man was an idea of god. Theres nothing to prove your opinion is superior.
Soulforged
08-24-2005, 05:55
First off dont call me Orkeny. Its like calling King Richard England. ~;)
Well high king of the yanks Gawain of Orkeny the "Headstrong"~;) . Now you'll have to direct to me as "Raistlin the Soulforged". ~;)
Again you dont know that god dosent exist and neither does anyone else. How many times do I have to point this out. You say god was an idea of manwheres as creationists say man was an idea of god. Theres nothing to prove your opinion is superior.
Yes there's. What is the only "thing" that can be everywhere, in everything, at the same time? What is the only "thing" that has surged in almost every place? Why is God appearing in so many "forms" at so many places? Why others call the God to be the same and others do fundamentalism? Why the problems of the world are not solved? Why is that i can't see God? Why is God so adaptable? Why so many people declare to have seen God or some "emisary"? Why so many religions have a different idea (paradox) of God and why do will always hear something like "misteries of faith" or "God works in mistirious ways"? If you find an acceptable answer to that question then it will be nice for start to warm up. But meanwhile all this aims to one thing an "idea".
RedLeg appears to have understood with less difficulty that God's an idea. Anyway i'll wait for your answer.
Gawain of Orkeny
08-24-2005, 06:00
RedLeg appears to have understood with less difficulty that God's an idea.
If your trying to say that god isnt tangible thats a no brainer.
Papewaio
08-24-2005, 06:20
Emergence connote perfection (it seems). We are not a perfect machine, hence there's no connection. Our body is imperfect and is subject to entropy.
Emergence is not perfection. It is having different properties as the scale changes.
So while a single cell is not capable of thought, a multicelluar organism can.
Thinking is an emergent property. Something that emerges due to the increase in complexity of the system.
It is much like coding in binary to end up with a 6 million colour palette. Although you are coding in 1's and 0's the overall complexity of the system allows new properties.
The properties of life is coded by four molecules that when paired in their correct pairings form a single identical molecule. GATC in DNA. Life is an emergent property of forming complex enough DNA sequences.
My signature alludes to emergence.
Papewaio
08-24-2005, 06:29
My answer to this is Evolution. Mutation and Natural Selection. Survival of the fittest. If a person chooses not to eat, then that person is a defective machine. We are machines but we are not perfect. Emergence connote perfection (it seems). We are not a perfect machine, hence there's no connection. Our body is imperfect and is subject to entropy.
Energywise, whatever you expend needed to be replenished with food. Your function is Evolutionary system is to survive and reproduce. Whatever you do in between , call it a "choice", or "free will" is an illusion.
Entropy may actually be a boon when it comes to Evolution. Entropy (loss of information) may actually be a mechansim of mutation.
Evolution is not about you, it is about your genes, you can still choose to die. If your choices result in you not reproducing then your personal set of genes will not be directly present in the next generation. This may have a negative effect on the total number of your genes in the pool, unless your lack of reproduction helps more of your genes then what you could directly reproduce.
It would be an irony to state that lack of reproduction is the only indicator of free will... that would put worker ants at the point of optimum choice.
Emergence is not perfection. It is having different properties as the scale changes.
So while a single cell is not capable of thought, a multicelluar organism can.
Thinking is an emergent property. Something that emerges due to the increase in complexity of the system.
It is much like coding in binary to end up with a 6 million colour palette. Although you are coding in 1's and 0's the overall complexity of the system allows new properties.
The properties of life is coded by four molecules that when paired in their correct pairings form a single identical molecule. GATC in DNA. Life is an emergent property of forming complex enough DNA sequences.
My signature alludes to emergence. If emergence isn't perfect, then natural selection favors it nonetheless.
Cells needed energy to function and "live". Over the course of evolution that "hunger" for energy naturally selects animals that are "hungry" for "food". Food is the source of energy. Hence, if you poll every .ORG member: Have you eaten in the last 10 days?
You'll get 100% yes 0% no. Unless there's a member which has an eating disorder or a Ghandi-wannabe or or David Blaine-insane. ~:)
Soulforged
08-24-2005, 06:58
If your trying to say that god isnt tangible thats a no brainer.
See what is the meaning of real, and of exist. Then talk to me again.
Entropy may actually be a boon when it comes to Evolution. Entropy (loss of information) may actually be a mechansim of mutation. Entropy contributes to the mutation but the mutation and information itself is molecular (base-pairs)
Evolution is not about you, it is about your genes, you can still choose to die. If your choices result in you not reproducing then your personal set of genes will not be directly present in the next generation. This may have a negative effect on the total number of your genes in the pool, unless your lack of reproduction helps more of your genes then what you could directly reproduce.
It would be an irony to state that lack of reproduction is the only indicator of free will... that would put worker ants at the point of optimum choice. If you or anyone chose not to reproduce, that's Natural Selection! (Whether anyone calls it "choice", "free will" or "selfish" or whatever).
That's the point, the system is inescapable because everyone's part of Evolution.
Papewaio
08-24-2005, 07:15
If emergence isn't perfect, then natural selection favors it nonetheless.
Emergence is not just a biological property. Essentially a brick is an object, a house emerges out of assembling multiple bricks.
A grain of sand vs a beach.
A ray of light vs a sunset.
Emergence is a new property to do with adding things together.
Kanamori
08-24-2005, 07:21
Madison, Wisconsin FtW!!!11111111111one111
The Onion rules hardcore; we are the home of liberal satire. ~:cool:
I don't know if I can get away with what's behind this link...but be warned :book:
http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133 the same issue if I am not mistaken.
~sorry for the interruption, just back from vacation~
:bow:
Papewaio
08-24-2005, 07:24
If you or anyone chose not to reproduce, that's Natural Selection! (Whether anyone calls it "choice", "free will" or "selfish" or whatever).
That's the point, the system is inescapable because everyone's part of Evolution.
Evolution does not stop freewill, in fact it might encourage the creation of freewill as the side effect of a more complex self aware creature.
Also if freewill is an evolutionary advantage it is a trait that will lead to more offspring.
Gawain of Orkeny
08-24-2005, 18:01
See what is the meaning of real, and of exist. Then talk to me again.
Im a bit tired of your condecending attitutde. Your not my teacher or parent so dont go giving me assignments. I fully understand the meaning of real and exist already. Get to your point.
Im a bit tired of your condecending attitutde. Your not my teacher or parent so dont go giving me assignments. I fully understand the meaning of real and exist already. Get to your point.
His point is easily seen - He is trying to point out that God does not exist because he believes that its only an Idea and that there is no physical proof of God in his opinion.
He won't be convinced of the error of his thinking (toward by belief and perspective) - nor will he convince me of the error of my thinking (toward his belief and perspective).
Understanding what he is saying is different from agreeing with what he is stating. I understand his arguement well - its one that many atheists use when discussing religion - some more politely then others.
Gawain of Orkeny
08-24-2005, 18:24
His point is easily seen - He is trying to point out that God does not exist because he believes that its only an Idea and that there is no physical proof of God in his opinion.
Exactly my thoughts. This is like I said a no brainer.
Understanding what he is saying is different from agreeing with what he is stating.
Yup thats what I mean by his condecending attitude. I fully understand what hes saying I just dissagree with it. Its not like hes come up with some revelation.
Evolution does not stop freewill, in fact it might encourage the creation of freewill as the side effect of a more complex self aware creature.
Also if freewill is an evolutionary advantage it is a trait that will lead to more offspring. "Free will" is more of a product of society. Which is like the fourth layer/order of organization. Physics->Chemistry->Biology->Society.
If you are stranded in an island (alone), you're back to the biological basics: Survival and Reproduction(that's all you really are).
Gathering food ain't easy without the social layer. You can't reproduce alone (as a Human) but you'll just basically be on Survival mode. The "free will" dissolves along with the social layer. Where's the Computer, TV, Car, Playstation/X-Box, Cell Phones, Bicycles, Skateboard, Surfboards, Restaurants, Clubs/Disco etc.?
Gawain,
Here's the Leprechaun test: Do you believe in Leprechauns? Why or why not?
Gawain of Orkeny
08-25-2005, 04:02
Here's the Leprechaun test: Do you believe in Leprechauns? Why or why not?
Is that supposed to be clever? I find it easier to believe that someone or something made all this ,than all of this came from nothing. Again science also takes a giant leap in faith as most of it you cant prove.
Is that supposed to be clever? I find it easier to believe that someone or something made all this ,than all of this came from nothing. Again science also takes a giant leap in faith as most of it you cant prove. Gawain,
Just answer the questions, please. Do you believe in Leprechauns? Why or Why not?
Papewaio
08-25-2005, 04:39
"Free will" is more of a product of society. Which is like the fourth layer/order of organization. Physics->Chemistry->Biology->Society.
If you are stranded in an island (alone), you're back to the biological basics: Survival and Reproduction(that's all you really are).
Gathering food ain't easy without the social layer. You can't reproduce alone (as a Human) but you'll just basically be on Survival mode. The "free will" dissolves along with the social layer. Where's the Computer, TV, Car, Playstation/X-Box, Cell Phones, Bicycles, Skateboard, Surfboards, Restaurants, Clubs/Disco etc.?
Funny I have always seen free will to be independent of society.
It is your choice as an individual not those of society.
Stuck alone on a desert island... it is my choice when to go to sleep, what to hunt and gather, where to go and what to do. I am free of social constraints and the clock. I am the clock and I am the society... even if it requires a bit more talking to myself outloud.
Soulforged
08-25-2005, 06:43
Exactly my thoughts. This is like I said a no brainer.
Yup thats what I mean by his condecending attitude. I fully understand what hes saying I just dissagree with it. Its not like hes come up with some revelation.
I didn't came up with a revelation, you came up with a question: Can you prove that God is an idea? Well i answered to that, you still didn't answered to me and are just making insults like "no brainer". If it's a "no brainer" then figure the answer for yourself to my questions and give an answer already. You seem to answer always with "no brainer" or i prefer that or that, than with a real answer, not another question an answer.
PS: I don't really see why you people discuse free will as a certain thing when even the highest minds on social science don't agree about the existence of such a thing.
PS: I don't really see why you people discuse free will as a certain thing when even the highest minds on social science don't agree about the existence of such a thing.
Its because free will is not a science its a philisophy. Man's ability to think beyond the immediate survival situations is what constitutes Free Will.
Gawain of Orkeny
08-25-2005, 15:57
I didn't came up with a revelation, you came up with a question: Can you prove that God is an idea?
Nice twist. I never asked that you said that god was an idea not me.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-25-2005, 16:17
I don't know for certain that my girlfriend is cheating on me right now. She might be sleeping with other men/women. I could follow her round all the time and keep her under constant surveillance, but I prefer to rely on a little something called faith.
Well now, I suppose that myself and the rest of my rugby team oughta come clean here.....
~;)
Seamus
Al Khalifah
08-25-2005, 16:51
Wow, you that dug deep into this thread to quote my post and bring us that absolute 'gem' of a 'joke'.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-25-2005, 16:54
Wow, you that dug deep into this thread to quote my post and bring us that absolute 'gem' of a 'joke'.
Alright, I'll admit that Seinfeld isn't feeling threatened by my comic talents. ~:)
As to depth, I actually read this thread for the first time today. Some of the longer ones I steer clear of til I have time.
Seamus
Papewaio
08-26-2005, 01:12
PS: I don't really see why you people discuse free will as a certain thing when even the highest minds on social science don't agree about the existence of such a thing.
What an arrogant statement, only the elite in social science who can't even agree can decide. You really love your social elites now... :dizzy2:
It is not limited to social science, it actually goes into hard core science, when examning neural networks in computer science and physics (ie mapping out what consitutes AI).
Funny I have always seen free will to be independent of society.
It is your choice as an individual not those of society.
Stuck alone on a desert island... it is my choice when to go to sleep, what to hunt and gather, where to go and what to do. I am free of social constraints and the clock. I am the clock and I am the society... even if it requires a bit more talking to myself outloud.Pape,
You can't take the machine out of man, because man is a machine.
This machine obeys chemical rules. Those chemical rules state:
1) Survive and Reproduce.
"Free will" is secondary and survival mechanisms always override it. Unless of course when you try to sleep, and there's a Wild Cat (Lion) beside you. You will either fight or run away from that threat. You will not say "goodnight big kitty" and count sheep. If you see a Wild Cat outside your window, you won't run away or fight it since it's not an immediate threat, instead you will call the police to get rid of the threat.
"Free will" is a function of society because without Society, you'll always be on Survival mode. You will worry about predators night and day and where you get your food all the time.
Inside of Society, survival is relatively easy. Combine that with the many "choices" Society offers and you get the illusion of "free will".
Papewaio
08-26-2005, 03:35
Pape,
You can't take the machine out of man, because man is a machine.
This machine obeys chemical rules. Those chemical rules state:
1) I think you need to read up about emergence.
2) The actions of survival of the fittest is not a chemical rule set. It is a gene rule set, more akin to computer rules then chemistry rules. The imperfect replicator does not have to be based on chemistry.
1) I think you need to read up about emergence.
2) The actions of survival of the fittest is not a chemical rule set. It is a gene rule set, more akin to computer rules then chemistry rules. The imperfect replicator does not have to be based on chemistry.
1) Emergence is "philosophy". You need to elaborate on how emergence factors into all this first.
2) Chemical pathways are encoded in the DNA. Your whole (initial) body structure is encoded in the DNA. What are you talking about?
Papewaio
08-26-2005, 05:11
1) Emergence is "philosophy". You need to elaborate on how emergence factors into all this first.
Actually emergence is more then just philosophy.
It is why we don't all just study physics and use fundamental physics to explain the world around us.
Soulforged
08-26-2005, 05:34
Its because free will is not a science its a philisophy. Man's ability to think beyond the immediate survival situations is what constitutes Free Will.
Yes i know that, but they're making assunptions over the principle of the existence of such a thing. It has a wide aplication on science.
Soulforged
08-26-2005, 05:42
First off dont call me Orkeny. Its like calling King Richard England. ~;)
Again you dont know that god dosent exist and neither does anyone else. How many times do I have to point this out. You say god was an idea of manwheres as creationists say man was an idea of god. Theres nothing to prove your opinion is superior.
I'm not being condecendent just for the placer of being one, but you really didn't give me any direct answer. I assume that here you're asking me to prove you that God's an idea. Or on the other hand you're saying that there's no point on the disscusion because neither of the points are superior, and there will never be a way to prove the superiority. Either way i would ask you to answer my questions again, if you don't want to do it, then simply say so, if you want to do it then do it. Anyway i didn't mean to be condecending, i forget some times that this kind of discussion is not at all trandescendent. From my side is all cool ~:cheers: .
Actually emergence is more then just philosophy.
It is why we don't all just study physics and use fundamental physics to explain the world around us. Ok, where's the connection between emergence and whatever is your argument is?
My point is:
All the chemical pathways are encoded your DNA, as well as the structure of your body and everything else including immune system, learning etc. The mechanisms are already there.
All you really do is Survive (breathe, eat, sleep, drink, sleep, poop, avoid predators etc.) so the mechanisms inside your body will continue:
Then you Reproduce, so all the chemical mechanisms that was naturally selected will continue in your offspring.
Everything else is an ILLUSION! Call it "free will" call it spinning-your-head-on-the-table-while-balancing plates. It's all an illusion!
Papewaio
08-26-2005, 05:59
Ok, where's the connection between emergence and whatever is your argument is?
My point is:
All the chemical pathways are encoded your DNA, as well as the structure of your body and everything else including immune system, learning etc. The mechanisms are already there.
All you really do is Survive (breathe, eat, sleep, drink, sleep, poop, avoid predators etc.) so the mechanisms inside your body will continue:
Then you Reproduce, so all the chemical mechanisms that was naturally selected will continue in your offspring.
Everything else is an ILLUSION! Call it "free will" call it spinning-your-head-on-the-table-while-balancing plates. It's all an illusion!
Can you describe all chemical properties purely using fundamental physics particles?
Can you describe cells purely using fundamental physics particles?
Can you describe multicelluar creatures purely using fundamental physics particles?
Can you describe interactions between multicelluar creatures purely using fundamental physics particles?
Why or why not would you do it purely using fundamental physics particles?
Can you describe all chemical properties purely using fundamental physics particles?
Can you describe cells purely using fundamental physics particles?
Can you describe multicelluar creatures purely using fundamental physics particles?
Can you describe interactions between multicelluar creatures purely using fundamental physics particles?
Why or why not would you do it purely using fundamental physics particles? What does it have anything to do with specific chemical pathways in your body that evolved inside your body? It's Organic chemistry.
Ok, where's the connection between emergence and whatever is your argument is?
My point is:
All the chemical pathways are encoded your DNA, as well as the structure of your body and everything else including immune system, learning etc. The mechanisms are already there.
All you really do is Survive (breathe, eat, sleep, drink, sleep, poop, avoid predators etc.) so the mechanisms inside your body will continue:
Then you Reproduce, so all the chemical mechanisms that was naturally selected will continue in your offspring.
Everything else is an ILLUSION! Call it "free will" call it spinning-your-head-on-the-table-while-balancing plates. It's all an illusion!
So when you get hit by a car and your arm is broken - its all an illusion.
Now that is just to damn funny. Your getting out of science into philisophy.
So when you get hit by a car and your arm is broken - its all an illusion.
Now that is just to damn funny. Your getting out of science into philisophy. You seemed to have missed the word in bold: Survive. ~:)
You seemed to have missed the word in bold: Survive. ~:)
Not at all - I am addressing the use of the word illusion. Man functions in an environment that is far from being an illusion. To attempt to break it down to chemical reactions and then claim everything else is only illusion discounts how the environment and human beings interact.
You have talked yourself into a circle - if everything out side of survive and reproduce is illusion - then your no longer talking about science - your discussing philisophy.
Again - if you are hit by a car and your arm is broke is it an illusion? or is it reality?
If you are looking at a car and you notice that the tire is flat - is it an illusion or is it reality?
Simple questions - simple answer.
Now the hard one.
If a tree falls in the woods and no-one is there does it make a sound?
Mongoose
08-26-2005, 06:39
If there is no such thing as free will, then why are we posting here?
Shouldn't we all be clubbing an animal or something?
Papewaio
08-26-2005, 06:43
What does it have anything to do with specific chemical pathways in your body that evolved inside your body? It's Organic chemistry.
Precisely my point. Organic Chemistry has a different set of properties that have emerged from using multiple fundamental particles.
Cells then have emergent properties that are different to those of chemistry.
Multicellular have emergent properties.
A multicellular neuron structure can do things that a single neuron cannot... thinking is an emergent ability.
Soulforged
08-26-2005, 06:52
If there is no such thing as free will, then why are we posting here?
Shouldn't we all be clubbing an animal or something?
Well this is large enough to another thread. But not make assumptions to fast, the most eminents minds on Earth try to reamain agnostic to this matter and simply ignore it because of the many problems on aplication that denying it totally or accepting it totally will provoque.
The main question is: How do you know that you are not determined from the beggining of time and space to do what you do? And also the acceptance will also imply many other things that cannot be discussed here in extent, but one of them is: That you're omniscient in some way and you know exactly how many options do you have to fulfill your "free will", threfore it implies a perfect knowledge of the universe that surrounds you. Those are just two matters that surround the question.
Soulforged
08-26-2005, 06:54
If a tree falls in the woods and no-one is there does it make a sound?
I used exactly the same frase (though wrong written- as always :embarassed: ) to state the same point.
I used exactly the same frase (though wrong written- as always :embarassed: ) to state the same point.
I missed it when you wrote it - its a good philisophical question though is it not?
Soulforged
08-26-2005, 07:10
I missed it when you wrote it - its a good philisophical question though is it not?
Yes ~:cheers: . But the idea it proposes it's already accepted as scientific truth in sociology and as simply true in philosophy.
Papewaio
08-26-2005, 07:22
If it is an airless wood then no sound ~:cool:
Soulforged
08-26-2005, 08:14
If it is an airless wood then no sound ~:cool:
Hey i only believed that gringo jokes (can i call Americans gringos, because i really don't like that denomination) were bad. But it seems that bad jokes are after all the most powerful force of all, and that ideas can cross Oceans. ~;)
Precisely my point. Organic Chemistry has a different set of properties that have emerged from using multiple fundamental particles.
Cells then have emergent properties that are different to those of chemistry.
Multicellular have emergent properties.
A multicellular neuron structure can do things that a single neuron cannot... thinking is an emergent ability. What does mutation and natural selection mean to you?
The chemical pathways was caused by natural mutation and natural selection, that's it. Whether you call it emergent doesn't matter, because your body follows the chemical pathways. If they don't follow, then they are simply naturally selected out.
All that thinking is just an illusion, you're not going to drive when you are blind or use a headphone if you have no hearing.
Not at all - I am addressing the use of the word illusion. Man functions in an environment that is far from being an illusion. To attempt to break it down to chemical reactions and then claim everything else is only illusion discounts how the environment and human beings interact
You have talked yourself into a circle - if everything out side of survive and reproduce is illusion - then your no longer talking about science - your discussing philisophy.You missed the whole point. "Free will" is an illusion because it ain't your primary function, hence betraying the very meaning of "free will".
Again - if you are hit by a car and your arm is broke is it an illusion? or is it reality? It's real alright, but where's your "free will" to use your broken/injured arm? Or does it hurt? ~;)
If you are looking at a car and you notice that the tire is flat - is it an illusion or is it reality? What does a flat tire have to do with your 'free will"
Simple questions - simple answer.
Now the hard one.
If a tree falls in the woods and no-one is there does it make a sound?Easy as heck. Yes. Sound is just a difference in air-pressure. When a tree falls, it creates a difference in air-pressure, hence propagating soundwaves. Whether that soundwave hits your ear is another story.
Zalmoxis
08-26-2005, 09:32
I can see the next theory.. in a dream. I see the Intelligent Rain Theory, stating that since God is pushing things down to Earth, there must be an infinite amount of water in the sky.
You missed the whole point. "Free will" is an illusion because it ain't your primary function, hence betraying the very meaning of "free will".
Not missing your point at all - your discussing a philisophy not science. So the brain does not have a function beyond controlling your bodily functions - now that is funny.
It's real alright, but where's your "free will" to use your broken/injured arm? Or does it hurt? ~;)
You claimed everything outside of survive is an illusion - well breaking your arm is a reality - the reason it was broke was outside of the human need to survive. The choice to get it fixed is only in the human condition - animals have no choice to have it repaired unless a human is involved.
What does a flat tire have to do with your 'free will"
Because if the tire is flat you now have a choice to change it or not change it - the essence of free will. Choice.
Easy as heck. Yes. Sound is just a difference in air-pressure. When a tree falls, it creates a difference in air-pressure, hence propagating soundwaves. Whether that soundwave hits your ear is another story.
That is the science answer - now try the philisophy one.
A.Saturnus
08-26-2005, 20:42
That is the science answer - now try the philisophy one.
Philosophy shouldn´t try to give different answers on the same questions as science. Science always wins.
Philosophy shouldn´t try to give different answers on the same questions as science. Science always wins.
Ah then you don't understand the nature of the question. Nor the reason behind why it is a philisophy question not a science one. Or is it that you do not care to understand the difference?
Science explains a lot - but philisophy is what makes us man - if it wasn't for the ability to think and philisophize (SP) then we are nothing.
http://www.spectacle.org/396/scifi/tree.html
How can we deal with ethical situations if we can't even define our terms?
One of the great dumb philosphy questions is, "If a tree falls in a forest and there's no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?" The obvious answer is: "Of course there is. What a stupid question. Next you're going to ask about that clapping thing." But philosophy isn't about the obvious; philosophy is about the devious. The answer, arrived after much debate (and much drinking) seems to be "no": Sound is only sound if a person hears it, claim the tipsy pundits.
An interesting essay on the subject.
Not missing your point at all - your discussing a philisophy not science. So the brain does not have a function beyond controlling your bodily functions - now that is funny. "Free Will" is an illusion because what really matters to your body is to Survive and Reproduce, hereby improving the preserving and improving the mechanism and structure of your offspring in the next generation. That's what you are, that's Evolution.
You claimed everything outside of survive is an illusion - well breaking your arm is a reality - the reason it was broke was outside of the human need to survive. The choice to get it fixed is only in the human condition - animals have no choice to have it repaired unless a human is involved. The "choice" to fix it was a Survival function, not "free will".
Because if the tire is flat you now have a choice to change it or not change it - the essence of free will. Choice. You fix the tire so you can go SAFE to your home. Survival function, not "free will"
That is the science answer - nowa try the philisophy one. There's no Philosophy answer.
It depends on how you define your terms in the question. If you define "Sound" as an electrochemical interpretation in your brain, then NO, because the soundwave - which is the physical phenomenon - did not reach your ears.
If you define "Sound" as soundwaves, then YES, because a soundwave is a soundwave whether you hear and interpret it or not.
"Free Will" is an illusion because what really matters to your body is to Survive and Reproduce, hereby improving the preserving and improving the mechanism and structure of your offspring in the next generation. That's what you are, that's Evolution.
Free will is what allows you to type on your computer and philsophize your view of evolution and human development. If man's existance was only about survive and reproduce we would not have this type of discussion - because we would be busy finding food and looking for women in cycle to breed with. Concepts of love and life long mates would not be around. Some of the greatest inventions of man would not be around - we would once again only focusing on survivial.
Again you have gone away from science and into philisophy. Its to bad that you can not recongize it.
The "choice" to fix it was a Survival function, not "free will".
You would be incorrect - if a wolf breaks its leg - it can not get it fixed. Man is the only being that can fix our broken parts - fixing parts is something beyond the survival insticts of animals.
You fix the tire so you can go SAFE to your home. Survival function, not "free will"
Again you would be incorrect - you don't need your car to survive - you only need your feet - survival means a specific thing.
Survive - 1 : to remain alive or in existence : live on
2 : to continue to function or prosper
Survival - a : a living or continuing longer than another person or thing b : the continuation of life or existence
Now explain to me in sciencific terms how fixing a flat tire - equates to a survival function - using the correct defination of survival.
There's no Philosophy answer.
You would be incorrect - its an question that is asked all the time in philosophy - or at least in the 1983-1987 time frame - in several philosophy classes I was in.
It depends on how you define your terms in the question. If you define "Sound" as an electrochemical interpretation in your brain, then NO, because the soundwave - which is the physical phenomenon - did not reach your ears.
If you define "Sound" as soundwaves, then YES, because a soundwave is a soundwave whether you hear and interpret it or not.
Oh I am more then aware of how sound functions - did a couple of soundwave studies about how Artillery Rounds were effecting the civilians around Fort Lewis. Sound can do some very interesting things.
However once again - if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there - does it make a sound?
Soulforged
08-27-2005, 06:03
Quietus- The answer is no. If there's nobody to hear, it doesn't make sound. Understandable i think. We could go on this discussion for weeks, but you'll loose always, this idea is accepted by phylosophy and applied in science,it has much aplication in social science. The things that exists are those things that one can percive, so the sound don't exists if nobody hears it. Simple.
Free will is what allows you to type on your computer and philsophize your view of evolution and human development. If man's existance was only about survive and reproduce we would not have this type of discussion - because we would be busy finding food and looking for women in cycle to breed with. Concepts of love and life long mates would not be around. Some of the greatest inventions of man would not be around - we would once again only focusing on survivial.
Again you have gone away from science and into philisophy. Its to bad that you can not recongize it. That's why it's an illusion, because your true function is hidden from you.
You would be incorrect - if a wolf breaks its leg - it can not get it fixed. Man is the only being that can fix our broken parts - fixing parts is something beyond the survival insticts of animals. If a wolf breaks its legs, the wolf won't move or use that leg because it 'hurts'. The bone will self repair if it is in place.
Again you would be incorrect - you don't need your car to survive - you only need your feet - survival means a specific thing.
Survive - 1 : to remain alive or in existence : live on
2 : to continue to function or prosper
Survival - a : a living or continuing longer than another person or thing b : the continuation of life or existence You continue to function as the machine you are.
Now explain to me in sciencific terms how fixing a flat tire - equates to a survival function - using the correct defination of survival. Why are you fixing the flat tire? If you don't fix the flat tire you'll be scared won't make it home safely.
You would be incorrect - its an question that is asked all the time in philosophy - or at least in the 1983-1987 time frame - in several philosophy classes I was in. ~:confused: See below....
Oh I am more then aware of how sound functions - did a couple of soundwave studies about how Artillery Rounds were effecting the civilians around Fort Lewis. Sound can do some very interesting things.
However once again - if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there - does it make a sound? Equivocation is a logical fallacy. Sound and Soundwaves are two different things.
1) Sound is the conversion and electrochemical interpretation of Soundwaves in your ear and to your brain.
2) Soundwave is a differential in air-pressure.
So, define what is "Sound" first in your question, 1 or 2?
If you answer 1, then NO.
If you answer 2, then YES.
Quietus- The answer is no. If there's nobody to hear, it doesn't make sound. Understandable i think. We could go on this discussion for weeks, but you'll loose always, this idea is accepted by phylosophy and applied in science,it has much aplication in social science. The things that exists are those things that one can percive, so the sound don't exists if nobody hears it. Simple.
Sound and Soundwaves are two different things. See my above post.
Soulforged
08-27-2005, 06:23
Sound and Soundwaves are two different things. See my above post.
That's incorrect both things are the same phenomenum, one is the significate granted to the material one happening on the real world and the other is the perception of it in the ears and it's interpretation by the brain (with this all you're contradicting the very significance of the frase), but that doesn't say anything. The thing is like this: the humans create the reality by perception, and real is what exists. So what exists is what you perceive. If you can't perceive (sense) the things by any means then they aren't there. Anyway you're going far beyond what the refran states (stick to the words). Sound is only sound if you hear it. As a human is a human only if he has other things to perceive and difference himself, and if he has an human to reflect and identify himself. As God is only God is we believe in it (but here i'll be attacked again).
The basic premise is: the man creates reality by perception, there's no reality without perception.
Del Arroyo
08-27-2005, 07:32
It doesn't matter who wins the "free will" debate. We are what we are and that is the fact of things. We do what we do and that is the fact of things. Whether or not we do it "freely" is beyond the scope of our existence.
As the song says-- "Yo soy como soy y nada mas, yo vivo mi vida pa' gozar."
DA
edit-- dumb typo
Soulforged
08-27-2005, 07:40
It doesn't matter who wins the "free will" debate. We are what we are and that is the fact of things. We do what we do and that is the fact of things. Whether or not we do it "freely" is beyond the scope of our existence.
As the song says-- "Yo soy como soy y nada mas, yo vivo mi vida pa' gozar."
DA
edit-- dumb typo
Bueno aunque no estabamos discutiendo la existencia del libre albedrio...sorry. Though we were not discussing the existence of the free will (because everybody seems to take that for certain thing) i've to say that that song sucks. ~D
That's why it's an illusion, because your true function is hidden from you.
Again that is philosophy not science -
the true function is not hidden; unless of course you believe in a supreme being - which from your attack on religion in your very post post - the assumption is that you are not religious. So regarding a sciencific explanation - your true function is not hidden. By calling it an illusion - you have entered into the area of philosophy no matter how much you attempt to deny it - that is exactly what it is. Does man think - is our ability to have abstract thought an illusion? Or is it what makes us unique of all other life on this planet.
If a wolf breaks its legs, the wolf won't move or use that leg because it 'hurts'. The bone will self repair if it is in place.
LOL - my guess is that you have no idea what a wild animal will do. But I do have a little experience in trapping and tracking wild animals - they move with broken bones. So will a dog. Wild animals will ignore the pain if its a matter of survival - or they will be killed or die depending on the situation.
You continue to function as the machine you are.
Again you would be incorrect - man is not a machine - we are much more then that.
Why are you fixing the flat tire? If you don't fix the flat tire you'll be scared won't make it home safely.
Again that constutes more then survivial - notice the enteing of fear into your equation of illusion and survivial. Seems that there are some problems defending your psuedo science here of stating man has survive, reproduction, and illusion as our only functions. It seems not only do you wish to disregard the sciencific methods used to postulate evolution as a viable theory - remember the discussion on Artificial selection and selective breeding, but now we are mixing philosophy and science to support a theory of evolution.
~:confused: See below....
Not surprised at all that you are confused - you are mixing science and philosophy together. And you attacked religion for doing the same thing. This has really been enjoyable for me.
Equivocation is a logical fallacy. Sound and Soundwaves are two different things.
1) Sound is the conversion and electrochemical interpretation of Soundwaves in your ear and to your brain.
2) Soundwave is a differential in air-pressure.
So, define what is "Sound" first in your question, 1 or 2?
If you answer 1, then NO.
If you answer 2, then YES.
Yes indeed equivocation is a logical fallacy - however you still have not answered the philosophical question of
if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there - does it make a sound?
Here I will give you a clue from the type of question you asked many posts ago.
What is the relationship between God and Gravity then?
However since you brought up logical fallacies again - I wonder if you can state how many logical fallacies you have committed in this arguement. Hell I will let you off the hook real easy - just admit that the Onion Article fooled you because of your own baised views against the Christian Faith. And I will ignore your logical fallacies on evolution where you disregrad Darwain's sciencific method of proving natural selection and mutation.
That's incorrect both things are the same phenomenum, one is the significate granted to the material one happening on the real world and the other is the perception of it in the ears and it's interpretation by the brain (with this all you're contradicting the very significance of the frase), but that doesn't say anything. The thing is like this: the humans create the reality by perception, and real is what exists. So what exists is what you perceive. If you can't perceive (sense) the things by any means then they aren't there. Anyway you're going far beyond what the refran states (stick to the words). Sound is only sound if you hear it. As a human is a human only if he has other things to perceive and difference himself, and if he has an human to reflect and identify himself. As God is only God is we believe in it (but here i'll be attacked again).
The basic premise is: the man creates reality by perception, there's no reality without perception.
Again that is philosophy not science -
the true function is not hidden; unless of course you believe in a supreme being - which from your attack on religion in your very post post - the assumption is that you are not religious. So regarding a sciencific explanation - your true function is not hidden. By calling it an illusion - you have entered into the area of philosophy no matter how much you attempt to deny it - that is exactly what it is. Does man think - is our ability to have abstract thought an illusion? Or is it what makes us unique of all other life on this planet.
LOL - my guess is that you have no idea what a wild animal will do. But I do have a little experience in trapping and tracking wild animals - they move with broken bones. So will a dog. Wild animals will ignore the pain if its a matter of survival - or they will be killed or die depending on the situation.
Again you would be incorrect - man is not a machine - we are much more then that.
Again that constutes more then survivial - notice the enteing of fear into your equation of illusion and survivial. Seems that there are some problems defending your psuedo science here of stating man has survive, reproduction, and illusion as our only functions. It seems not only do you wish to disregard the sciencific methods used to postulate evolution as a viable theory - remember the discussion on Artificial selection and selective breeding, but now we are mixing philosophy and science to support a theory of evolution.
Not surprised at all that you are confused - you are mixing science and philosophy together. And you attacked religion for doing the same thing. This has really been enjoyable for me.
Yes indeed equivocation is a logical fallacy - however you still have not answered the philosophical question of
if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there - does it make a sound?
Here I will give you a clue from the type of question you asked many posts ago.
However since you brought up logical fallacies again - I wonder if you can state how many logical fallacies you have committed in this arguement. Hell I will let you off the hook real easy - just admit that the Onion Article fooled you because of your own baised views against the Christian Faith. And I will ignore your logical fallacies on evolution where you disregrad Darwain's sciencific method of proving natural selection and mutation.
:no:
Sound = Electrochemical Conversion + Interpretion of Soundwaves inside your ear and to your brain.
Soundwaves = Differential in air-pressure.
If there is no conversion and interpretation, then there is NO sound, but Soundwaves still exist. It simply means the soundwaves aren't hitting your healthy ears and being converted to signals.
If you are completely deaf, then there will be NO sound in your head, but it doesn't mean the stereo isn't playing. The soundwaves are still there. Two different things.
Soulforged
08-27-2005, 21:38
:no:
Sound = Electrochemical Conversion + Interpretion of Soundwaves inside your ear and to your brain.
Soundwaves = Differential in air-pressure.
If there is no conversion and interpretation, then there is NO sound, but Soundwaves still exist. It simply means the soundwaves aren't hitting your healthy ears and being converted to signals.
If you are completely deaf, then there will be NO sound in your head, but it doesn't mean the stereo isn't playing. The soundwaves are still there. Two different things.
I already know the definition, and i understand you man ~:cheers: . But you didn't understand me. Stick to the frase, and remember this is phylosophy.
Other thing if you know so well the definition then don't go around asking for the exact meaning of sound in the frase. That's nonsense. Sound is sound nothing more, you seem to know this pretty well, then why do you ask for the exact meaning in the frase if there's only one. ~:confused:
I already know the definition, and i understand you man ~:cheers: . But you didn't understand me. Stick to the frase, and remember this is phylosophy.
Other thing if you know so well the definition then don't go around asking for the exact meaning of sound in the frase. That's nonsense. Sound is sound nothing more, you seem to know this pretty well, then why do you ask for the exact meaning in the frase if there's only one. ~:confused: ~:eek: How many times do I have to repeat this.... Sound and Soundwaves are DIFFERENT.
Soundwaves are converted inside your ear into electrochemical signals to your brain and that interpretation of that electrochemical signal is called a sound.
Hence, you must define what you mean by "sound". "Sound is" NOT "a sound nothing more", that's the point.
When you say: the speed of sound, that's the speed of Soundwaves.
When you say: the sound of music, that's the conversion and interpretation of Soundwaves, from your ear to the brain.
Two different things. You can't equivocate. Thus, you must define what you mean by "sound" in the question, because the answer depends on it.
Soulforged
08-27-2005, 23:38
~:eek: How many times do I have to repeat this.... Sound and Soundwaves are DIFFERENT.
Soundwaves are converted inside your ear into electrochemical signals to your brain and that interpretation of that electrochemical signal is called a sound.
Hence, you must define what you mean by "sound". "Sound is" NOT "a sound nothing more", that's the point.
When you say: the speed of sound, that's the speed of Soundwaves.
When you say: the sound of music, that's the conversion and interpretation of Soundwaves, from your ear to the brain.
Two different things. You can't equivocate. Thus, you must define what you mean by "sound" in the question, because the answer depends on it.
Is not my question is the question of Confucious. Like i said i already know the specifical difference, but they're both the same phenomenum, one causes the other, so took together they represent the same phenomenum at the point of sound. But again if they've two different definitions then why ask for an exact definition when you're giving it yourself. Anyway it's sound ok, just sound.
Let me tell you a similar frase so you can understand the point of this (either you want it to be soundwaves or just sound): "Eyes that not see, heart that not feel" (sorry for the translation, but i think you understand that). So again (without entering the complex system of the brain, wich didn't existed in times of Confucious) if there's nobody (no nothing, but nobody) to hear does anything makes sound?
Is not my question is the question of Confucious. Like i said i already know the specifical difference, but they're both the same phenomenum, one causes the other, so took together they represent the same phenomenum at the point of sound. But again if they've two different definitions then why ask for an exact definition when you're giving it yourself. Anyway it's sound ok, just sound.
Let me tell you a similar frase so you can understand the point of this (either you want it to be soundwaves or just sound): "Eyes that not see, heart that not feel" (sorry for the translation, but i think you understand that). So again (without entering the complex system of the brain, wich didn't existed in times of Confucious) if there's nobody (no nothing, but nobody) to hear does anything makes sound?
Analogously:
Question: If you sail over the horizon, would you fall off the edge?
Answer: NO. The Earth is "round". Period.
There's no philosophical answer.
You can't say: "Well, two thousand years ago, Philosopher X didn't know the earth is round, so what's your philosophical answer to this?" :dizzy2:
~:cool:
Soulforged
08-28-2005, 01:15
Analogously:
Question: If you sail over the horizon, would you fall off the edge?
Answer: NO. The Earth is "round". Period.
There's no philosophical answer.
You can't say: "Well, two thousand years ago, Philosopher X didn't know the earth is round, so what's your philosophical answer to this?" :dizzy2:
~:cool:
Well you didn't answer my question. That excuse of the author was given only because i was looking from your point of view. You can suppose what you want. But you seem to let the value of science overrule your rationality. Do you've in mind what the phylosophy does? As the text quoted by Redleg said, "it's about the devious not the obvious". You simply can't let your belief in the certainty of the scientific knowledge blind your other senses and your perception and capacity of reflexión. In this example you're confusing everything: is not the same to ask about the things that your senses can easly percieve, that talk about what needs reflexión. In any case, many a social scientist, talks about the significance of this sentence, and i already gave some examples.
Well you didn't answer my question. That excuse of the author was given only because i was looking from your point of view. You can suppose what you want. But you seem to let the value of science overrule your rationality. Do you've in mind what the phylosophy does? As the text quoted by Redleg said, "it's about the devious not the obvious". You simply can't let your belief in the certainty of the scientific knowledge blind your other senses and your perception and capacity of reflexión. In this example you're confusing everything: is not the same to ask about the things that your senses can easly percieve, that talk about what needs reflexión. In any case, many a social scientist, talks about the significance of this sentence, and i already gave some examples.
I've already addressed and answered the question many times.
Deaf Person + Soundwaves = No electrochemical conversion of soundwaves = No Sound
Water + Soundwaves = No electrochemical conversion of soundwaves = No Sound
Trees + Soundwaves = No electrochemical conversion of soundwaves = No Sound
Rock + Soundwaves = No electrochemical conversion of soundwaves = No Sound
Shoes + Soundwaves = No electrochemical conversion of soundwaves = No Sound
Human + Soundwaves = Electrochemical conversion of soundwaves = Sound.
If the tree falls in the forest, soundwaves will be propagated. The soundwaves will not hit your ear, hence there will be no sound, but it doesn't mean the falling tree doesn't create soundwaves. Sound and Soundwaves are different.
1) Tree falling = Soundwaves.
2) Sound = Human (ear & brain) + Soundwaves.
3) Sound = Human (ear & brain) + Tree Falling.
If you remove the Human (ear & brain) from the third equation, it is no longer Sound. But it doesn't mean there are no Soundwaves. A falling tree doesn't create Sound, it only creates Soundwaves.
4) Sound - Human = Human - Human + Tree Falling.
5) Sound - (Sound - Soundwaves)* = Tree Falling
6) Sound - Sound + Soundwaves = Tree Falling
7) Soundwaves = Tree Falling
8) Tree Falling = Soundwaves.
* = Rearrange equation 2.
Soulforged
08-28-2005, 08:02
Well ok i'm a little tired of this discussion. If you like it that way... ~:cheers:
Deaf Person + Soundwaves = No electrochemical conversion of soundwaves = No Sound
Water + Soundwaves = No electrochemical conversion of soundwaves = No Sound
Trees + Soundwaves = No electrochemical conversion of soundwaves = No Sound
Rock + Soundwaves = No electrochemical conversion of soundwaves = No Sound
Shoes + Soundwaves = No electrochemical conversion of soundwaves = No Sound
Human + Soundwaves = Electrochemical conversion of soundwaves = Sound.
Now don't take this the wrong way; it's not intended as an insult. I just found the above list rather interesting. If you look at the list as a whole, it would appear that deaf people aren't human. I know that you didn't intend this; but sometimes the unintentional speaks volumes. You might want to revise your list. ~D
Now don't take this the wrong way; it's not intended as an insult. I just found the above list rather interesting. If you look at the list as a whole, it would appear that deaf people aren't human. I know that you didn't intend this; but sometimes the unintentional speaks volumes. You might want to revise your list. ~D A deaf person is human but with nonfunctional ears. When I said human, it is given that the ears are functional.
A deaf person is in a forest. A tree falls and make soundwaves. The deaf person's ear can't conver the soundwaves hence there's no sound. ~:)
Well ok i'm a little tired of this discussion. If you like it that way... Is the world "round" because you liked it? ~;) Do you have a stomach because you liked it? Which came first, 'hunger' or the stomach? Do you have lungs because you liked 'breathing'? It has nothing to do with liking it.
Del Arroyo
08-28-2005, 23:18
gah! Sound! Gah! Gah!
Del Arroyo
08-28-2005, 23:35
i've to say that that song sucks. ~D
Hm, I guess it gets alot more radio play where you live. I've only heard it off my CD. I actually like it alot ~:)
DA
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.