3,623 Forum Posts by "Ravariel"
I am not a classical pianist, but I am a classical musician (saxophone and composer) and listen quite extensively to classical music. Though I can't say I've heard that piece (or if I have I just dont remember)... I'm more into orchestral works than the solo stuff.
It would be cool to be able to play the piano better then I can now (chopstick master!), but piano has probably the steepest learning curve of any instrument. Look at it this way: on most instruments the most notes you'll ever play at any one time is one... maybe 2 or 3 with string instruments. With pano you're regularly playing 6-10 notes at a time.
But don't let that discourage you. Find someone to give you piano lessons and learn how to play. Even if you don't go professional, learning to play will greatly expand your horizons and introduce you to works even greater than Satie.
Saw the Thundercats Comic (first issue came out about a year-year and a half ago) and said out-loud, "Man, I used to love that show when I was a kid." Kid next to me said, "That was a TV show?" >_>
Heard what used to be a few of my favorite songs in middle and high-scool on classic rock stations. >_<
When songs you grew up with get covered by the current pop stars...
When you find grey hairs...
All of these have made me feel old.
My take on this is thus:
We've got 2 possibilities 1) She's serious and is trying to focus your attention on her by claimint to have these other boyfriends as a jealousy tactic. And 2) She's playing you, flirting because she believes you won't do anything back.
In high school 90% of the time flirts flirt to practice flirting, not because they are interested in any connection (be it physical or emotional). There's really only one way to deal with it, and either way you win: Lay the mack on... take her "seriously" and flirt back. Either she'll get scared off because she was only "practicing" with a safe target or you'll actually make a connection and get together. One way, you get to turn the tables on a playa, the other way you get a girlfriend.
Man if only I knew in HS what I know now XD... I woulda gotten SO much play. I look back now and say to myself: "Well, she was into me, and so was she... wtf was I thinking?"
At 4/26/05 09:44 AM, Revrent wrote: coneheads?
Saturday Night Live skit back when it was still funny. You can probably google for a few vids of it... funny stuff.
"We're from France!"
At 4/25/05 09:11 PM, goldenbednclock wrote: well the atheist seem to think that when the christians use science in arguments, they have no idea what they are talking about. same goes with christians amd philosophical
While it is certainly possible that some atheists are poor philosophical debaters, it has certainly been my experience that creationists are worse at scientific debates. Just look at my debate with VCV. While he had some valid scientific points and observations, much of his science was just plain wrong... and he probably put up the best argument all around that I've come across.
And just because we use a lot of science to back up our views doesn't mean that we're relegated only to the scientific arguments. I have many philosophical arguments as well. VCV and me were only discussing the Evolution/Creation debate and never even got into the actual god existing/not existing debate. Once you get into THAT debate you MUST go philosophical because science has no answers. Also, sometimes you have to take the fight to the other side's turf in order to have a successful debate.
At 4/25/05 02:47 PM, Stephen_is_I wrote:
The Big Bang theory is defenitely false.
The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of an unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop.
Quoted from How Did it All Begin? : By Harold Hill
Copyright 1976
Umm... Small possibility =/= no possibility. While I don't believe in the Big Bang theory any more than you do it's certainly not because it's chances of occurring how it did (was supposed to) are low. Google the Weak and Strong Anthropic Principles and then come back here and we'll talk about probability as evidence for anything.
Vision of Escaflowne... Paragon of Japanese television animation. If you haven't seen it for the love of god do.
Samurai X... The original Ruroni Kenshin, not that shounen comedy poo :P
Battle Angel Alita... 2 episode pilot, how it didn't get the go ahead to continue I'll never know.
Ninja Cadets... same as B.A.A.
Saber Marionette J
El Hazared both Magnificent and Alternative Worlds
South Park
Thundercats (ah, nostalgia)
At 4/24/05 10:58 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: Stuff.
Fair enough. Cheers!
Doh... had a funny story about Stephen Hawking and I never posted it... so here goes for some slightly off-topic stuff.
SH was in Italy at a conference giving a talk about some new theories and some new math to colleagues. He also got an invite to meet with the Pope (JP, naturally, not Benedict). The pope wished to discuss with him his Big Bang theory and how the church had decided that it was a theologically acceptable theory. They liked the idea that from nothing suddenly came everything in one swell foop. It was a very creationistic view of the beginning. And JP wanted to praise SH for thinking it up and bringing it to the consciousness of the people.
Ironically, the conference that SH was at was where he revealed the evidence and the math that proved the Big Bang theory to be false.
XD
GG. Next map.
At 4/24/05 03:08 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: Umm... in the future, could you respond to my entire post? I posted a lot of stuff I thought was important, but it got left out. So could you please try to reply to the whole thing?
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to leave anything out... but I only ended up with like 265 characters left in my last post. What, specifically were you interested in hearing my views on that I missed?
Then why on Earth is Evolution taught as FACT in public school?
It shouldn't be. It should be taught as what it is: a theory with evidence backing it up, and with some evidence missing.
(LoL) Like I said, according to the scientific method, Evolution is not even a theory; it's a hypothesis because it is inconsistent and constantly being revised.
Semantics and useless to the debate.
Umm... why have you decided the answer before you ask the question?
Eww... sorry, that was poorly worded. The point was that the exact environmental factors that led to the exctinction of the other Homo races isn't known yet. It could be environmentlal pressure, or it could be from competition with Homo Sapiens. i only meant those two to be examples of possibilities, not answers to be taken as rote. My bad.
Evolutionists should at least stick with one idea. It seems like everytime we blink, evolutionary scientists come up with something else to claim as "fact".
That they are confident of their theory does not make them claim it is fact. To do so would be silly. Evolutionary scientists believe that evolution is the reason for the current state of life on this planet, just as creationists are sure that a deity of whatever form is responsible for it. Both sides want to seem as right as possible and so claim their ideas to be as 'factual" as possible. That some scientists get overzealous and claim something unproven as fact is a failing of that scientist, not the science itself.
Oh look... MORE speculation. -_-
Speculation backed up by evidence... but that's what Hypotheses are, no?
evolutionists claim that they have the answer to how we got here, so the burden of proof lies entirely with them. Nature could have only been created by a Force that exists outside of the nature.
Umm, don't creationists claim the same thing? Thus burdens of proof lie on both sides. Only problem is that evolutionists have hard science, proveable facts (and before you jump on that, the data that supports the "hypotheses" IS, in fact, proveable), physical evidence. Creationists have a book written thousands of years ago.
Also, I really wish I could explain the current theory on the origin of the universe... it really would make my stance here a little stronger, but I'd rather not make the argument than make it poorly. Since "super"natural means separate from nature, then yes, technically something supernatural was responsible for the Universe. What that is, noone knows. You believe a deity, I am content to say "I don't know".
(LoL) I'll admit that the law of entropy (in theory) could allow for Evolution if you admit that the geologic column was developed using circular logic. =P Speaking of which, you haven't replied to those twelve quotes supporting the idea that the column is flawed.
Well, I have to admit that I'm becoming convinced of your argument here. The thought that, in any single place in the world, there is a continuous layering of all possible strata to be dated and used as comparison for other strata IS retarded. It doesn'e exist. You've been talking about the geologic column as something physical, I've been talking about it as a method of data collection. A geologic column, as a singular physical thing does not exist. However, the reasoning that the further down it is the older it is, and the use of radiometric dataing to determine the ages of those strata DOES.
So many years? I thought that evolutionists claimed that life originated 3.5 billion years ago. It's not like people are asking them to constuct a human being, just a simple organism.
The first "life" so to speak may, by curent models, have begun 3.5 million years ago, give or take a century or 3, but the time it took to get from the Amino Acid stage to DNA and replicable life is MANY millions of years. To continue the experiment from Amino Acid Stage onwards would be extremely cost-prohibitive. And nevermind the difficulty with being able to reproduce the results.
Nah, just impossible. ~_^
Nah, not impossible, just improbable. ~_^
Well consider both perspectives: one theory teaches that are closest ancestors are swinging from trees and eating crackers at the zoo... This theory suggests that our Creator had a plan for our lives and that we are set apart for a reason. I hope this answers your question, and I tried not to be too theological about it. ~_^
I've said before: The existance of an omniscience turns free will into an illusion. And that, above all other things, is abhorrent to me. To not actually have the freedom to choose my own path is what has turned me from most religions. That our evolutionary Fourth Cousins twenty million times removed happen to be what they are isn't the least bit upsetting to me.
Look, dude. It was never my intention to start a 'Creation vs. Evolution' debate. I've argued this subject many times before, and to tell you the truth, I'm getting sick of it (LoL). It's kinda odd discussing this with you because you hold different beliefs than most of the evolutionists I've encountered in this forum.
Well, I'm certainly glad that I've been able to throw you a few pitches you haven't seen before. And I'm really kind of upset that past evolutionists haven't been able to argue effectively, but oh well. I'm not exactly sure why you turned it into a creation vs evolution debate either. Because like I've said before, the two, in and of themselves are not mutually exclusive IMO. That the Intelligent Design set forth by God would be Evolution is perfectly reasonable to me if I believed in the prerequisites to Intelligent Design, i.e. a deity. I really don't understand your objection to one of gods mysterious ways being the use of evolution to bring about hi screations.
Take your time in responding. I have always enjoyed a good debate and you have been a worthy opponent. I do hope I've been able to elucidate some scientific points that you may not have known about.
Good grief, I don't need a ten-page essay (LoL). If you have a problem with some of the logic that site uses to explain the existence of God, then post it here, and I'll respond as best as I can. I just hate replying to mammoth posts. ~_^
It's not so that I can write it big, it's so that I can write it RIGHT. I'll need the time to study your sites, their sources and other sources of information.
I mean, the origin of mankind is more of a philosophical thing than a scientific thing.
Another point we'll have to agree to disagree on :/
And considering science is nothing more than observation, how on Earth have people integrated this one theory into just about everything? Science is now based on Evolution (when it should be the other way around). In my opinion, we should be using science to prove theories, not using theories to prove science.
We certianly should be... and again, any scientist who thinks the theory proves itself is using bad science. I have not seen any examples yet of Scientists saying the theory of evolution proves some other theory's hypotheses. Now, giving a commonly-accepted theory as EVIDENCE of another theory's correctness is fine. But every scientist knows that theories cannot be proven, they can only be disproven/
It's ironic that you should bring up the scientific method. First of all, it was developed by a Creation scientist.
Umm... good science knows no deity. Regardless of who thought it up, the scientific method works because it's good science.
Funny, I didn't know that. ^_^ Then how come so many Evolutionists still believe in it?
It's VERY new science. I couldn't even explain to you what exactly it is they believe happened now... i'm still trying to read up on it and grasp the concepts myself. My lack or math of a high enough level to understand the equations means I have to wait for it to be put into laymans terms in a book or magazine.
Umm... we are matter; we are energy. Why shouldn't the laws of entropy / thermodynamics apply to human beings?
I never said they didn't.
why isn't "Homo habilis" or Homo erectus" in existence today?
Homo Sapiens became the dominant species and either the other Homo Species died out due to environmental pressure, due to conflicts with the superior Homo Sapiens or what we don't know yet. If we had all the answers this debate wouldn't be debatable.
Evolutionists claim that humans evolved from apes, yet apes still exist today.
No, they don't. They claim that modern apes and monkeys and modern humans share a common ancestor that is neither a modern ape or a modern human. Apes exist today because they took another evolutionary path that kept them out of direct competition with Homo Sapiens.
Wait a minute. You believe that the 'law of entropy' is flawed, but the theory of evolution' is not? Well, I'mpretty sure that most scientists would disagree with you about entropy. The majority of evolutionists would try to find a way around it, not just ignore it altogether. But you seem to have different beliefs than most of the evolutionists I've spoken with.
You keep giving these Laws features that they don't have and then claiming that 'evolutionists" are twisting science to their own ends. Please, this only makes you an even bigger hypocrite than them. Here is the second law of thermodynamics:
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." This is also commonly referred to as entropy. A watchspring-driven watch will run until the potential energy in the spring is converted, and not again until energy is reapplied to the spring to rewind it. A car that has run out of gas will not run again until you walk 10 miles to a gas station and refuel the car. Once the potential energy locked in carbohydrates is converted into kinetic energy (energy in use or motion), the organism will get no more until energy is input again. In the process of energy transfer, some energy will dissipate as heat. Entropy is a measure of disorder: cells are NOT disordered and so have low entropy. The flow of energy maintains order and life. Entropy wins when organisms cease to take in energy and die.
Simplified: Matter and energy tend towars a chaotic state. Any temoporary increase in order must, by definition, add more entropy to the universal system than it takes away from being ordered. Nowhere does this state that order cannot increase, just that there must be a reactionary increase in overall DISorder... and that increase in disorder may not even be in the same sub-system as the increase in order. I.E. The Sun... it send to the earth energy from which life can continue to increase it's order and complexity, but it burns itself out doing so, thus increasing the overall entropy of the mega-system, the universe. Please, learn the actual features of a law before you go spouting off about it's contradiction to some other theory.
Yes, I know that. Scientists know exactly what all life consists of, but they could never reconstruct it in a lab.
Most research grants don't cover a 3.5 billion year experiment. That they couldn't get farther than the Amino Acid stage is not surprising. To get farther than that would take so many years the experiment's cost would be unfeasable.
Pardon me, but just about every other Evolutionist I've spoken with in the NG political forum has argued that our lives are meaningless.
If they believe life is meaningless, I feel sorry for them. But then again, the requirement for some creator to give life meaning to other people saddens me just as much. That people somehow don't believe that they give their own life meaning is something Ive never understood. I don't see how coming from a possibly random series of events, starting out as basic amino acids, and slowly coming together into DNA and replicable life is somehoe degrading. It is to me, the most wondrous thing ever. Look at what we have become! Look at how far we have risen from simple strands of proteins. How is that somehow embarassing? It's like being embarrased about marrying up in stature because you weren't born there yourself. i just don't get it.
well... some quotes... not sure what I did to @#$% up half of them that didn't @#$% up the other half... oh well >.>
:You still haven't discredited the notion that the geologic column (which doesn't exist anywhere in the world) uses circular logic
Your premise was that somewhere in the world is an uninterrupted column of datable material from which all other dates are associated. This is NOT the case. ALL the geologic column states is that the further down it is the older it is. That is all. Any place that says there's a uniform measuring stick that can be used anywhere is completely wrong.
Listen: Rocks are dated by their fossils if those fossils are datable by normal (i.e. corbon-14) methods. This is because the rock-dating methods are generally LESS accurate to a certain degree. Carbon-14 can date within months... Uranium dating's margin of error is several years. When you get past the reach of carbon-14, you date the fossils by dating the rock in which they lie. I'm really quite amazed that this wasn't already apparent. It is NOT, as you state, circular logic.
If you could write a Masters thesis on what is flawed in there, then I'm sure you wouldn't mind posting a few of its mistakes right here...
Give me a week and I will.
Unfortunately, not every child does receive the same opportunity.
I'm sorry, as unfortunate as that is, that's not my problem, nor is it the problem of the schools. The lack of parenting skills in this country is a WHOLE other bag of flames to be opened and doesn't belong on this thread... mebbe we can start another one.
Well, it certainly would be better if the two could be compared. It isn't right that a child is taught Evolution as FACT. When discussing human origins, the word theory never even gets brought up.
Well, that's a fault of the schools and the teachers, not of the theory itself. For a parallel argument, is Intelligent Design not taught as fact in churches? Is it called a theory there?
The evolutionists are adjusting their theory, again? It seems like every time new evidence is found that supports the idea of Creation, evolutionists manipulate their own theory so they can fit in.
Again, your bias and lack of understanding of the scientific method shows through. ALL THEORIES CHANGE WITH NEW EVIDENCE. When evidence comes around that proves a theory to be wrong, a new one is brought up. The Big Bang theory? Disproved by the very man who thought it up, Stephen Hawking. Got a funny story about that... mebbe I'll share if I have the characters left.... but I digress. We don't shape the evidence into new ways to discredit theism in some way... the new evidence shapes the theory. This happens in every branch of science, not just those that deal with evolution.
::The Theory of Evolution claims that, as time passes, matter and energy becomes more complex.
No, no it doesn't. Natural Selection only says that when a change occurrs in a species, it will only survive if said change makes it more viable than it's predecessor. And that these changes are what brought about the different Kingdoms, Phyla, Classes, Orders, Families, Genuses (Genus'? Geni?) and Species of the world. Homo Habilis and Homo Erectus evolved into Homo Sapiens, Homo Sapiens evolved further into the subspecies Homo Sapien Sapien (modern humans) because each change that came around made the species more viable. Again, the theory of evolution is ONLY APPLIED to life, as it is defined, on planet earth.
:We cannot replace a series of scientific LAWS with one THEORY. That would be bad science. And I don't really understand your "patch" idea: These physics work over here, but not over there."
Of course you can overturn what are thought to be laws with thoeries, if the evidence that brought about those theories proves those laws to be inaccurate. The "Law" of entropy is not so specific and strict a law as you seem to believe. The "Law" of conservation of matter and energy is not a law... it is broken on a galactic scale throughout the universe. That breaking of the "law" is what physicists currenly believe to be responsible for Dark Matter and Dark Energy. But that's a discussion for another time and another thread. The "Law" of entropy is as flawed as those laws. It is nowhere near as specific and prevalent as you would have us believe.
I'll add to the equation (the basics, here): life cannot come from lifelessness. Well, evolutionists claim that we originated from inanimate matter. But how is this possible? I mean, how does "Natural Selection" explain the miracle of DNA?
Natural selection, no not specifically. Unfortunately, we have to base our theories on observation of things that happened millions of years ago and the evidence we find isn't, unfortunately, chiseled into a tablet for easy reading. Current (well, it happened in the 80's but that's current enough for now) experimentation has been able to replicate the conditions of early earth and has been able to form, through those conditions, complex strands of Amino Acids, the very building blocks of DNA. One could extrapolate that if they could continue the experiment indefinitely on a global scale, keeping the model of early earth perfect, they could create life... from lifelessness.
:Oh well, if people want to believe that their existence is meaningless, then they can be my guests.
What on earth makes you think I believe my existance meaningless? I have free will, I can give my life whatever meanin I choose. And that is the greatest meaning any life could have, if you ask me. My view on it is that an omniscience removes all meaning from my life, and instead I become but a robot who does what he is pre-programmed to do.
P.S. Quotes... just for you... don't say I never did nuthin' for ya.
That would imply that we were not in the image of God at first.
How does that follow? To think that an omnipotent/omniscient being has a discreet physical form is kind of laughable. Especially since our physical forms are decided by the laws of the universe in which we reside. To attribute such similar characteristics to relams outside the influence of universal physics is silly.
Or in a less science-related way: The meaning of "in his image" is, I believe, a metaphor, or means something other than in a physical way, but rather in a spiritual way.
And who is to say that our evolution, our physical and spiritual growth is not what he had in mind in the first place: to start very far from his image and grow towards it?
Creationism and Evolutionism are the two major theories behind the ORIGIN of the universe.
No. They're not. Natural selection has nothing to do with anything that came before the primeval sludge of earth. Creationism does go back to the beginning of the universe, yes, Natural selection only tells us howlife today evolved from life yesterday. How the egg from which the chicken was born was not layed bya chicken, but a chicken-like creature.
Oh please. I know what you people believe
Obviously not if you use bad reasoning and flawed science as your methods for "discrediting" other points of view.
Oh, here is a website that gives compelling evidence for God:
Read through the site... I'll admit not the entire thing, but quite a bit of it. It's all crap. I could write a Masters thesis on what is flawed logically in there. Suffice it to say I am not impressed.
It's obvious that we are sanctified. We have a moral conscience.
I still don't get the reasoning, but then again, I don't see being "sanctified" or somehow holy as the prerequisite for having a moral compass... so I guess this is just one point where we'll have to agree to disagree.
Then why are other [non-human] fossils (supposedly hundreds of millions of years old) dated using the carbon-14 method?
If they are, it's bad science pure and simple. Bad science is bad science no matter who does it or what they believe.
1) Children from secular households wouldn't be able to decide for themselves.
I am from a secular household. I got the opportunity to go to church and sunday school and decide for myself. Every child should have the same opportunity. I would draw a parallel to the devoutly religious household whose child is denied the opportunity to really study the reasoning and science behind natural selection and the Physics of the beginnings of the universe. And argument agains one side can be as easily placed against the other, thus there is a stalemate and the discussion must ogo elsewhere.
2) They should be compared side by side. Don't you agree?
Meh... if they're taught well, it shouldn't matter. Placing them as they are now, in separate realms of a persons life is fine. If someone isn't smart enough or determined to learn enough to look at them side by side himself, then I'm sorry, that's not my problem.
If Evolutionists are correct, then there should be hundreds of millions of fossils of living things in intermediate stages of evolution. There should be tons of freaky fossils of animals changing from invertebrates to vertebrates. Why haven't these fossils turned up?
Actually the gradual-change version of evolution is slowly slipping out of favor in the scientific circles for this very reason. There is a new theory that evolution doesn't happen in a gradual way, but in sudden, discreet leaps of evolutionary advancement. However, again these are both just theories and the fact that fosils are VERY rare, especially really old ones that could answer your questions... I am really not surprised at all that there are gaps, even large ones, even many large ones, in the record.
According to the law of entropy, all things (living and non-living) become less complex and more chaotic over time... Evolution claims the opposite.
Oh, THAT'S what you were talking about... I thought you were talking about the law of the conservation of matter and energy... my bad. Umm... I hate to burst your bubble again, but the law of entropy still exists and still works. A patch of increasing order does not an entire universe of entropy undo. Entropy is measured based on entire systems, even with the increase in order that the Earth has seen in the last few million years, Entropy still exists in the diffusion of energy, the breaking down of materials, etc, etc. And anyway, is your beef with the law of entropy here or the theory of evolution? Because Entropy is reversed all the time on the stellar and galactic scale. Clouds of very chaotic dust are collapsed into ordered stars and solar systems and galaxies... does this negate Entropy? No, it does not.
So what do you personally believe?
Hell that question right there could take up several posts, but I'll try to condense it.
I'll be straightforward and say I really have no idea if a god exists or if s/he/it created the universe. No god currently explained by religion satisfys my logical requirements, however. As I said before I believe in free will. All of the current models of god have him being omniscient. And Omnisciense precludes free will. Basically if any being knows, or has set my "choices" those choices are only illusory and I have no real purpose in my life. Like a Hot-Wheels car running around it's track, I have no actual say in my path.
Logical Extension of this thought: If free will really doesn't exist and a god does, who has built the universe, from beginning to end and has set the choices and paths of everything living and non, then who or what is responsible for sin/evil? Can anything actually BE evil or sinful if it was designed, put in place, and chosen by said creator?
However, if a god DOES exist, regardless of if it is omniscient or not, regardless if I have the free will I have faith that I do, then I would believe that he set the universe up to make us through its natural forces... through evolution. If he is as powerful as you believe he is, then I believe that all of this "chance" you think we had to have to reach this state really isn't chance and was designed to happen as it did. I see a god as the clockmaker model. He built the universe with its physical laws and everything as it was going to be, then let it run and create through the turning of the cogs, what it would. Like I said, I see no conflict between divine creation and evolution.
I'll give a bump cuz Im friggin stumped... never had to deal much with probablilities so I'm gonna leave it for the math majors >.<
Perhaps I need to learn you some English, as well.
Geez... sue me for trying to be self-depricating.
What the heck? Came to be = Began.
Hows about quoting the entire sentance and not chosing parts out of context? Came to be =/= began. Especially when evolution says that things "came to be" through the process of gradual (or sudden, depending on the theory) change.
Existence is illogical because in order for something to exist now, something must have existed before.
Your knowledge of theoretical physics seems to be as limited as your knowledge of Natural Selection. Time, the prerequisite for before and after, is a feature of the universe. There was no "before" the universe... time didn't exist. It's like asking "well what made god, what came before god?" The question is meaningless because time applies as little to god as it does to anything "before" or after the universe... as well as "outside" it.
If we all got here by a series of random (lucky) accidents, then how could we be endowed with a sense of right and wrong?
What? What the hell do those two features of the world have to do with each other at all? I am genuinely confused as to what you think the "randomness" of evolution has to do with morality.
There are many dating methods in use (carbon-14 dating being the #1).
Carbon 14 dating is only used to 50,000 years... obviously it's the most used because it has the most use when trying to date Human remains. Anything past then MUST be dated by another method.
but some of these methods, such as zircon dating [I believe], would support the Young-Earth model of Creationism.
Umm... you don't get to pick and choose which dating method to use to support how old you think the earth is. <sarcasm>Hay guys, Carbon-14 dating only goes 50,000 years back, so the earth must only be 50,000 years old!</sarcasm> Using one dating method doesn't mean you can't use another or even several different ones to get consistant and accurate results.
How is "Intelligent Design" politically correct?
Because it's a complexified word/phrase to describe something already in the general lexicon to avoid the stigma attatched to the previous word/phrase. Natural Selection has always been Natural Selection... only more recently has the "Evolution" buzzword become coommonplace.
: 'S not the point. The point is that Creationism (Intelligent design, whatever) is ALREADY TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS. The school is just called somehing different... it happens to have the word "Sunday" in front of it.
Do you mind explaining yourself?
I wasn't sure I could get clearer but ok. Children learn from 3 main sources: Parents, Society, Schools. I place Churches in the same realm as schools because it is an outside source of information and is generally taught in a similar manner. Sunday School teaches Intelligent Design. School teaches Natural Selection. Now if the child's parents don't go to Church, then that's another matter... but any child who goes to both school and church WILL have both views to consider. And any GOOD parent will allow his or her child to see and study both views and make up their own minds as mine did for me. My father is, as far as I can tell... A-religious. Whatever part of the brain it is that controls our religious beliefs... he doesn't have it. My mother, however, is much more spiritual... and while she doesn't believe in a singular diety, she has a much more hindu way of looking at things, where she believes that the universe itself is god and we are all part of it and decide, by our own actions, a small part of god's path. I looked around, I studied up, I chose my belief system with as many facts as I could muster up. Every child should have the same chance.
A perfect God would not create the universe via an imperfect method of creation. Design is perfect; chance is not.
Who are you to say his method was imperfect? It worked... perfectly. He's GOD... do you really think it was all "chance"? Anyway, deeper studies into genetics have revealed that many evolutionary jumps may, in fact, have been PRE-CODED into our genes. How's that for "chance"?
1) The gap in the fossil record.
Lot of ground to dig up out there. Try this... one day drop a handful of small change (nickles and pennies... wouldn't wanna hurt your finances,a feter all... but you can drop really anythign you want) on the sidewalk... record how much it was. Now come back a week later and find all the change you can... then talk to me about gaps in the fossil record.
2) The circular reasoning of the geologic column.
One bad wording in an encyclopedia does not an entire scientific realm debunk. Sorry, all of this circular reasoning stuff seems to stem from a mistake. No real scientist would use such a method and ever be taken seriously.
3) The "Lucy" hoax.
They muffed the punt and got called on it... big deal. Guess what... Arcaeopterix is a hoax, too.
4) The scientific LAWS of thermodynamics.
Poor wording, and when they made the laws they didn't have the tecnology to see that they could be broken. Just because in Extreme vacuum some of the laws fall apart, does not make them any less useful in the everyday world.
Name one of the problems with Creationism...
The requirement for there to be an omnipotent, omniscient being in control of it. I believe in free will. Omniscience precludes free will.
That is my only logical problem with it. My personal-in-no-way-guided-by-logic problem with it is that the preachers (if you'll forgive the term) of it seem to think that it and evoltion are mutually exclusive whereas I see no such conflict.
: P.S. QUOTE NEXT TIME!!! ~_^
I find the light grey on dark grey text to be a pain in the ass to read, so I quote in italics... sue me.
Science is nothing more than the observation of our natural world. But just because we can't "see" something, that doesn't mean it's nonexistent. You can speculate all you want, but science never can and never will give us the secret to life, as existence itself is illogica
Umm... yeah, obviously. I said to begin with that science can neither prove nor disprove anything regarding a deity. And also it is obvious that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But what exactly is this "secret" to life of which you speak? That it exists? You think existance is illogical? How, pray tell does it go against logic that the universe, planets and living beings exist? Or is it self-awareness, intelligence or some "soul" that you think is illogical?
After reading up on radioacarbon dating I must thank you... not only did you learn me something you gave me more ammo of my own. On the very sites you linked to, they all listed forms of dating other than radiocarbon that are currently in use. Namely Uranium-Thorioum dating which has a backwards limit of about 500,000 years, and Potassium-Argon dating which seems to have no backwards limit that I could find on your sites. This follows yummily into my next point:
Notice the circular reasoning? Going by this method, you can date anything any age you want. And strangly enough, the geologic column cannot be found anywhere in the world!
Well, all of the sites you linked to about the geologic column were on faith-based sites, so their lack of information and understanding make them suspect at best. If you're going to make scientific claims, please do make them on the basis of actual scientific papers, not on philosophical ramblings of people with a personal faith stake in debunking the theory.
Geologic column is basically this, boiled down: The farther down it is, the older it is. This is not ALWAYS the case, but it IS the majority of the time. Radiocarbon dating can date past living remains to within a few months of their demise it is so accurate... however, like you said it has a backwards limit of 50,000 years. However, by melding the multiple dating methods, a simulated column can be made at any site. i.e. by dating the living remains at the same time as the rocks around them, you can get an idea of how accurate your rock-dating methods are (i.e. Uranium and Potassium methods), and can then date the rocks later than 50,000 years and extrapolate to the fossil's age within those strata. This allows for the dating of formerly-living matter beyond 50,000 years... and while there is certainly a larger margin of error to be found in this method, it certainly doesn't invalidate the results.
Oh shut up. It's just as PC as "Natural Selection". Is that meant to dupe people?
Except that Natural Selection was the name given the theory by it's creator, Charles Darwin.
So if churches weren't around, schools would teach Creationism, as well? Yeah, right
Can I get a WHOOOOOOSH!
'S not the point. The point is that Creationism (Intelligent design, whatever) is ALREADY TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS. The school is just called somehing different... it happens to have the word "Sunday" in front of it.
Godless theory of Natural Selection (which states that all existence happened by chance)
Ok, now you've really shown that your ignorance of the topic of natural selection removes you from the ability to actually debate this at all. Natural Selection HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GOD. It is neither godless nor is it god-full (trademarked! ... ahem...). Natural selection says nothing about chance it says nothing about all existance, it merely explains how life came to be as it is from where it started. It says NOTHING of HOW it started. If god works in such mysterious ways, or if there is such design going on... WHO ARE YOU TO SAY THAT IT WASN'T THROUGH EVOLUTION AND NATURAL SELECTION THAT HIS DESIGN WAS WROUGHT?!
My issues with God have nothing to do with how life came to be. The idea of natural selection and "Intelligent Design" mesh perfectly if you ask me. What more wonderous way to create a being than through the gradual change from one species to another through natural forces?
Oh, son of McCrap...
I know what it is... but Im going ot need to find my calculator methinks...
Hate figuring out factorials in fractions...
19
With 2 people posting, they have a 2/365 chance of having the same b-day. Every person thereafter adds to the Numerator a number equal to the number of other people already posted, because he or she has a 1/365 chance of sharing a b-day with any other person. Once you get to the 19th person you have reached a possibility of 191/365 which is greater than 50% (182.5 is exactly 50%).
Edited for clarity... stoopid lack of an edit button >.<
19
With 2 people posting, they have a 2/365 chance of having the same b-day. Every person thereafter adds to the Numerator a number equal to the number of other people already posted, because he or she has a 1/365 chance of having the same b-day as any other person. Once you get to the 19th person you have reached a possibility of 191/365 which is greater than 50% (182.5 is exactly 50%).
you talk to me like you ahve experience in this matter yet you only have posted 37 times.
Yeah... cuz we all know that post count is directly proportional to intelligence...
<_<
m'god... the irony....
IT BURNS! IT BUUURNS!!!
XD
It's sickening that the theory of Intelligent Design is forbidden in our schools. I guess Evolutionists are afraid that if children had a "choice", they might side with Creationism.
Umm... you do realize that Evolution and Creationism are not mutually exclusive, right? In fact most of science has almost nothing to do with the divine one way or another. Science cannot prove or disprove the existance of anything that is outside the realm of the universe, as any god must be.
You are ignorant of the fact that many scientific processes (mostly dating methods) are based on Natural Selection. They use circular logic... i.e. the geologic column. Much so-called "evidence" in favor of Evolution is fabricated, as well: Evolutionists claim that carbon-14 dating results have shown that we have fossils of bizarre animals that date back millions of years... ironic considering carbon-14 dating is only accurate up to 35 thousand years.
I'd like to see where you got this information... preferrably a site or source (i.e. not intarweb) not affiliated with any religious organization. But anyway, even assuming that carbon dating IS only accurate to 35k years, the geologic column certainly is not, nor is it a fabrication of scientists who wish to prove evolution. Even if the carbon dating method is limited, why couldn't there be other various methods of extrapolation that scientists could do to date to a reasonable certainty other things that they found?
Also... "theory of Intelligent Design"? Lmao... so is that the new PC term for Creationism that is being used to dupe people nowadays? Like Post-traumatic-stress-disorder... so much simpler and effective and descriptive when people just called it Shellshock. Anyway, the reason Creationism isn't taught in schools is because it is already tought in churches which could be thought of as spiritual schools. And to have it taught in schools would mean that we'd have to pick WHICH creationism to teach. So do we teach it the Protestant way, the Catholic way, the Muslim way, the Buddhist way, the Scientology way, the Branch Davidian way... or should it just be YOUR way?
If you were walking through the desert and you suddenly came upon a beautifully-architected temple in the middle of nowhere, would you really think it was made by accident, as if the sand just happened to blow the right way at the right time to create it...or would you immediately know that something with great intelligence must have been responsible for such a structure?
Current science and the anthropic principles give us the answer to this. Most current scientific theories that deal with universal creation now realize that there should be multiple universes, most likely an infinite number of them. Once you have an infinite number of universes, the probability of having one that can support human life instantly reaches 1. I'd give you the math, but not only am I not high up enough in the Mathematical food chain to do so without error, I'm 99.9% sure that noone here would understand it. It's like the old saying, take a million monkeys at a million typewriters and eventually one will type out Hamlet by mere chance.
God and religion are there for 2 reasons:
1) To explain the unexplainable. i.e. an ordered universe that is complex enough to evolve self-aware intelligent beings such as humans.
2) To provide a moral compass for the people.
Now I'll be honest, I have no idea if god, in whatever religious form, exists. I have no way of knowing, nor does anyone else. You can believe in one direction or another, btu you can never know. I believe there is no god, or certainly not one that is currently described by any religion that I know of, and the reason is Free Will. Free will and an omniscient god are mutually exclusive.
To the topic creator: Never have I seen a post with such flawed logic and bad arguments that I ever agreed with. Had I not understood where you were going with your points, I wouldn't have known what the hell it was you were talking about.
I kinda wish I hadn't just created this account so I could have gotten in on this discussion earlier, but Skizor has really said it all... and probably more eloquently than I could.... and that's saying something. >.>
