Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/27/05 08:12 AM, fenrus1989 wrote:

no offense man but i think any fetus would love to be abused and live at the poverty line then be killed off in its early stages. What you are asking for is the complete murder of a human life. I'll aggree with you that the child should be aborted to save the mother but that's about it. anyother way you have to live with the choice thay you made. abortion is pretty much legalized murder.

Do you believe that aborted fetuses have a soul?

Do you believe that they go to heaven when they die?

If you answered yes to either question, how can you think that a life of suffering and abuse would be in any way more appealing then heaven?

At 6/26/05 09:51 PM, g0t wrote: I don't think it's fair to kill a child just because a mother had 1 too many drinks last night. I think it's a horrible thing that Roe v Wade came into law. I think it's evern more disgusting that millions of fetuses are being killed every year. It pains me to think that one of those children could've been the next president, the next great doctor to cure aids, cancer, even to conquer death itself.

Murder is never an option. Ever.

Yeah, because it's only after a bender, that accidental pregnancies and abortions happen. Using your "logic" we would be better off to have thousands more suffering people just so we could have a few more who do not. Children of unwanted pregnancies are more often than not, abused, live at or below the poverty line, and have myriad other social and conomic problems. You're saying it is ABSOLUTELY right to subject possibly THOUSANDS of people to this sort of suffering, than to end a few unwanted pregnancies?

And again, I would point out my previous example of a child concieved during a rape. Would you really require a woman to bear the fruit of such a dispicable crime?

And how about the danger to the mothers heath scenario. When one or the other WILL die, which do you choose? Or can you not?

It's not Balck and White. Even VCV, whose about as fundamentalist as they come on NG, sees and accepts this.

At 6/26/05 04:59 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote:

Concerning in vitro fertilization...

Inside or outside the womb, it's living and human. I have no doubt in my mind.

So, In-vitro fertilization is, in your eyes, wrong, because it knowingly destroys many fertilized embryos in order to produce one life. So do you believe this should be outlawed just like abortion? WHat should be done about the couples who want to have a baby, but ae, for whatever reason, unable?

Concerning embryonic stem cell research...

I would be against it if babies were to be aborted for the purpose of scientific research. But if human fetus corpses could possibly be used to help someone (anyone), then it should be done. I am VERY pro-life, but if abortions cannot be prevented, my belief is that we might as well use those dead fetuses to help people. In my opinion, it's the lesser of two evils.

Well, I'll be damned. You surprise me again! Twice in one day!

That is a view I can respect and, for the most part, share.

This is why I enjoy sparring with you, VCV. Even though you're a fundamentalist, at least you (for the most part) actually learn the science behind this stuff. A fundamentalist who uses their head is a rare bird, indeed.

Concerning risk to the mother's life...

If there is no hope to save the baby, then I think it's alright to abort it to save the mother. But if the mother's life is at risk and the baby's is not, then I don't believe that abortion should be option. I value both the mother's AND the baby's life; but just as a mother should die to save her born child, I think she should make every effort to save her unborn child.

Again, that is a view I can respect and, similarly, almost share. The details are a bit different, because as I said before, I will always go with the current life, rather than the potential one.

And then there's the "quality of life" argument. While certainly not as strong as other arguments, it can be made. Is it right to condemn 2 or more lives to suffering in order to protect one life? Many abortions are done due to teenage mistakes or even rape. Should these people be condemned to live a life they cannot be ready for, in order to bring one of those lives into being?

Yes, I know adoption is a possibility (and always preferred over abortion), but sometimes just carrying the child is enough to scar a person for life. Are we right to allow this to happen, just so we can have another mouth to feed? Another welfare leech? Or another abused (foster)child?

Granted we cannot KNOW what will happen, but probability points us towards a low standard of life in these cases. Foster child abuse is well documented, as is the general standard of living for teenage (unwed, or wed) mothers. And lord only knows what it must be to carry a child born of rape.

Oh it can and does live, but it requires its oxygen and nourishment from its mother.

By that definition, organs are just as alive as people. Until a beling can actually sustain it's own life it should not be considered alive. After the third trimester, fetus's brainstems and organs are well enough developed to allow it to survive (even if it takes a lot of medical care) outside the womb. Before that, no amount of medical care could possibly allow it to live. That is my definition of life. Take it as you will.

At 6/26/05 04:25 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote:

At 6/26/05 04:21 AM, Ravariel wrote: came in late, and didn't read too far back...

Ha-ha. -_-

Now that you're done being cute, how about some actual answers?

To quote myself:

Sperm = Potential life.
Egg = Potential life.
Zygote = Life, itself.

I point again to the In-vitro fertlization, stem cell, and risk to mother's life examples.

And anyway, isn't that just as arbitrary as my "Third trimester, when the baby is able to live outside the womb" marker? The way I see it, until a being can live, it is not alive.

At 6/25/05 08:49 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote:

At 6/25/05 08:28 PM, -BAWLS- wrote:

At 6/25/05 08:18 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: Get real, dude. You don't even KNOW my views on gay marriage.

You support gay marriage? Because I was always under the impression that you opposed it. If I'm wrong, I apologize.

Actually, I have mixed views on the subject. I realize that homosexuals have equal rights under the law, but I also strongly believe that human sexuality was designed for a man and a woman under the covenant of marriage. If homosexuals are allowed to marry, why shouldn't we recognize polygamous relationships? And if polygamy is legalized, why not incest? My belief is this: we should elevate civil unions to include all the federal benefits of marriage. Homosexual individuals and those who wish to separate themselves from the Church have their civil unions, and we have our marriages. Seems reasonable.

Holy shit. Never thought I'd hear that from YOUR lips (metaphorically speaking). Who'd'a thunk you were actually such a moderate, logical, intellectual? ;-P It seems I may have misunderestimated you!

Bravo!!

At 6/26/05 03:58 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote:

The line of reasoning that I have understood from your end is that the species "homo sapiens" is the equivalent of "human" at any stage of development. This such that the intentional death of any "homo sapiens" genetic material at any point is murder.

*ding, ding, ding*

Masturbate much? *sings the Monty Python song Every Sperm is Sacred* Ever heard of the Menstrual Cycle? Homo Sapien genetic material is "murdered" billions of times around the world every day. Hundreds of trillions of "possible" lives ended. Nevermind the ACTUAL FERTILIZED EGGS used in in-vitro insemination techniques that are destroyed once the mother has started to carrythe child. Nevermind the thousands of lines of stem cell fetal material due to be simply sestroyed under Bush's about-to-be-overturned law on the research. "Possible" humans are destroyed, nay, MURDERED, every day, on genocidal scales we can't even comprehend... and yet, for some reason, it seems only THIS method draws your ire.

Why is that?

Anyway, on topic:

My belief is that life begins when the organism is ABLE to survive outside of it's host. I.E. the American Definition of life, starting in the third Trimester, past which it has ALWAYS been illegal to abort a fetus except in cases where the mother's life was in danger. Before that, it's just a part of the mother. Removing it being no more murder than it would be to remove a kidney. And my vote always goes to the life that is, not the life that could be.

At 6/25/05 06:46 PM, Tal-con wrote:

At 6/25/05 09:22 AM, Ravariel wrote:

No, you can't do justice to atheism, there is no justice in calling God a liar, unless you repent, of course.

Congratulations, first cheap shot goes to you!

Sure, when you say "God doesn't exist" even though he does, you're pretty much telling a God: "Fuck you." And if I'm right, a deity wouldn't like to be caled that by a measly human.

I was talking about believing through evidence, you're talking about disbelief. Please try to stick to the subject at hand. Belief through evidence =/= disbelief. It. Is. Belief.

It's like you're saying that because you believe in something for which there is evidence also means that you don't believe in that thing. wtf?

No fucking duh we're not argueing the same point, that's why it's called a debate. But if you meant I was contradciting myself, you'd have to explain how, but you haven't.

Sigh. No a debate is arguing two sides of a coin. This is why this is true vs. this is why this is not true. You're arguing about dimes when Pox was talking about quarters. (hooray for metaphors taken too far)

Says who? I believe you can have logic and religion, if you look at some of The Bible's messages figuratively and metaphorically, while other literally.

I've made this argument before, but maybe you weren't in class that day. I'll lay the logic out for you.

An Omiscient God
An Atemporal God (eternal, outside of time, etc, etc)
Free Will of mankind

These three features are cornerstones of the christian belief system. They are also, together, impossible. Any two of the three alone are logically compatible... add the third and you have problems. Here's why.

If god is omnisceint and atemporal, that means that every decision made by man was predetermined at the time of the creation (time didn't exist before that), because god himself has seen exactly what we will do at every moment in time. God cannot be wrong (omniscience) so it is impossible for us to choose a path that was not originally intended and BUILT by god. If the chaices you make were never able to be changed via actual free will, then free will does not exist. If free will DOES exist, one of the two features of God must be false.

The logic is irrefutable. If God exists, then one of those three features of your belief system (or logic itself) MUST be false.

How is it illogical to believe in God? You haven't explained why, you just keep insisting that it's true.

See above

So that must mean he's agreeing with me, since my point is (or at least, one of them) is that just because you don't see something, or can yet prove it's existance, doesn't mean that it can't exist.

While absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, it is neither evidedence of presence. You seem to believe it is, which is what's really bugging pox and me. "Zomg, there's absolutely no evidence for this idea, IT MUST BE TRUE!!"

No, i guarentee you if I look in a dictionary it will not say under atheism: "The acceptance of all that is true". Once again, you haven't explained why religion is the antonym for logic, you just keep insisting it is.

I didn't say Atheism was "acceptance of all that is true". Please READ what I wrote, not what you want me to have said. I said, "Atheism is... the acceptance of logic as truth." By logic, the christian god must not exist (see above). Logic does not, however, dictate that NO god in any form can exist, merely that yours does not. Atheism, by the dictionary is belief in the nonexistance of a deity. So I guess you're right, maybe I should have changed that to "Agnosticism". My bad.

If I was a God, I would not take kindly to a measly human calling me a liar by not believing in me, in fact, I think it's common sense that any God would.

Again, you're attributing human thought processes and emotions to a DEITY. You have NO IDEA what god wants/feels/thinks. You are INCAPABLE of such knowledge. Personally, I don't think god, if he exists, cares much at all about what we believe in regards to him. Do we care if ants believe in us? But again, this is pointless. You cannot attribute human features to a deity.

No, pox said himself the chances are the same, (even though mine are better), why would you think i have the lesser chance? Are you gonna explain your position or not?

Well, I'M saying that our chances of getting the better result are astronomically higher. And they are. By logic, you have the slimmest of chances to be right that is possible. The only chance that you ARE right is if logic, itself, doesn't actually exist. That same percentage that you are right is the same percentage that I am WRONG. My chances of getting the better result are as much higher than yours as it is possible to be (because nothing is 100%).

You'll have to fogive me, pox, for responding in depth to a post meant for you, but I think I'll do you justice.

At 6/24/05 08:52 PM, Tal-con wrote:

At 6/24/05 08:16 AM, -poxpower- wrote:

No, I never said that, you're taking my words out of context, I'm saying if there is an ultimate paradise, then what did you do that's so deserving if your God proved his existance to you? When you don't believe in God, you're calling God a liar.

So if you DO believe in God, but do so because of actual evidence, are you also calling God a liar? You're not arguing the same point here. He argues that belief through evidence is more worthwhile than believe in absence of or contrary to evidence. You're arguing that going to heaven with knowledge that your beliefs are correct is somehow less fulfilling or less honorable.

See, that's why you're so ignorant, you think religion in the antonym of/ or just a worse version of logic, but that's horribly mistaken, since you can have both religion and logic.

Except you can't. Logically, your religion cannot be true. Any religion that has these three features is logically impossible: Omnicient God, Atemporal God, and Free will. If you believe in your religion you must abandon logic, and vice-versa. You can't have it both ways. Either logic works or it doesn't, you don't get a piecemeal version. If logic EVER doesn't work it immediately becomes illigitimate and moot on everything to which it is applied.

Doesn't matter who the God would be, it's just an example. So answer my question, if whichever God came down claimed to be the God over all the Earth, wouldn't you believe in him?

Honestly, probably not. Because again, for me to believe in him would require me throwing out logic or free will or both. And anyways, using Clarke's Law, any sufficiently advanced technology will be indistiguishable from Magic. If God did show his face, I would more easily think that it was some form of high technology used to create the image. Yes, that's farfetched, but then again, so is your example.

or, I could write a book about someone no one has ever seen and claim he really exists. HMMMM, makes you think doesn't it?

No, because there's no way to prove either way.

Umm... that was kinda the point... >_>

Saying "you can't prove I'm not right" doesn't make you right, as you seem to believe it does o.O

Because religion is based off faith, just like atheism is based off the faith that God doesn't exist, once again read my second response to this thread.

No, I'm afraid you're wrong. Atheism, at least in it's true form (i.e. not the "well if god exists then why do puppies die" kind of atheism), is the acceptance of logic as truth. Logic dictates that your religion cannot be true. That is not an exaggeration, that is the cold, hard truth. If you believe, you must disregard logic, because obviously you don't believe in it.

In science, you don't state anything is true until its proven at 99.9999%. THAT'S the sound way. You don't just gamble with everything like an idiot. Non-engagement is the wisest way.

Right, but in science, if there's no way to prove either way, then you just assume what's most logical, even though the evidence to prove that theory wrong has not yet been discovered.

Again to the Logic... see previous responses.

Ok, how about this.
What if the real god sends all christians to hell, hence you go to hell for your beliefs, and I don't.
WOOPS looks like you have no more chances then me after all.

But you don't believe in that God, so he'd send you to Hell too. When you don't believe in God you're calling him a liar, we'd both be calling this new God a liar in your hypothetical situation, so we'd both go to Hell.

You're attributing your christian god-image to a different god. Let me try to clarify. Imagine a deity DOES exist that is not Christian (or any current religion), but that still has versions of heaven and hell to which s/he sends people upon their death. Yet, the requirements for said trip to heaven are those which he (and possibly I) fulfiull, but not you. Belief in this god would not be necessary, and, in fact, would probably condemn us.

actualy, you don't even know that. If there is a heaven and an hell, then you have EVERYTHING to lose and EVERYTHING to gain. There are too many possible scenarios for you to make such a claim.

Yeah, and in your scenario, you have EVERYTHING to lose and NOTHING to gain.

But our chances of getting the better result are astronomically higher. There's a reason gamblers go broke. The long odds of Roulette are tempting, because of the big payoff, but I'll take a garaunteed double-up scheme at blackjack anyday (which is why most casinos will kick me out after an hour XD).

I red your link, rev. It was an... interesting... read. And wholly moot.

I'll point out a couple of... points where this interview-turned-sermon went wrong.

The reason men rape is because of Original Sin. This very easily explains rape. But because you're an unbeliever, you have no real answer as to why rape is wrong.

You don't like my human suffering answer?

Completely ignored the answer of the interviewee. He gave his answer, and it was a good one, but the interviewer simply glossed it over as unimportant.

But you say individuals decide about rape being right or wrong according to their free will.

Not at all. This doesn't, necessarily, bind individuals.

Again, completely ignored the answer. At this point I'd have to say that both the Interviewer and the interviewee are rather... slow. It seems that the interviewee got sandbagged by this interviewer, and was unprepared for the questions asked. This is not good interview material. Nor is the interviewer speaking more than the person he's interviewing. This is what happens when you get a call to do an interview about the book you just wrote and get sandbagged by some religious nut trying to prove an absolute-morality point.

I especially like how the interviewer dismisses the "religion" thing and makes him say "Christianity" all the time... as though it's not a religion. The separate font sizes are a nice touch too... very subtle.

Wow... this has been around for 3 whole hours? Usually the mods are all over these new Bush topics like cheap on polyester. I think they may be slipping a bit :P

One of the lovely little catch-22's of the whole eminent domain thing IS the compensation. The government is required to pay you the assessed value of your property (ya know, that thing that decides how much you pay in taxes?) in order to take it over for public or private development. The thing is, most areas know well beforehand that they're going to be targeted for such an action. As a result, property values PLUMMET (because noones going to buy land that's just going to be converted into a freeway or parking lot)... and you get left with broke dick for your property, and no choice but to move. Wonderful little fuckeroo there.

gah... I'mma retard... Finished the first page and posted my message without readin the other two... so yeah, my post is COMPLETELY out of context now, and amazingly late... Don't mind me... nothing to see here... move along now.

>_>;;

Tool was good before they became APC... now they suck (which is too bad)... but rumor has it a new Tool album is in the works. Here's hoping it isn't just rumor.

And anyways, most of MM's anti-religious messages are anti-religious-institution messages... whcih isn't exactly the same thing.

And yes, I do believe it's all just an act used to sell albums.

There's no "getting out of it"... All of "it" was already on Tal-con. He claims something exists... others don't believe... it is up to him to prove it. This is especially the case since you cannot prove a negative.

At 6/21/05 05:02 PM, Maus wrote:

At 6/21/05 05:00 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: And yes, calling him a bad Christian was over the line. But yes, I was pissed. And I still would like to make note I DIDNT attack him first like you claimed.

Your VERY FIRST POST in this thread WAS ABUSIVE.

Here is his ever-so-abusive first post, Maus:

OMG the bible is crap.

YEAH! Two. THE DEVIL!!! ARGGHHH!!!

I guess our ideas of abuse are different, all I see is some sarcasm. I gotta side with Fab on this one. Turn it down yourself.

At 6/20/05 09:10 PM, TimeFrame wrote:

At 6/20/05 05:13 AM, FAB0L0US wrote:

And if Genesis is so literal, why is there evidence of the Earth being billions of years old?

The earth's estimated age has been goin down quick for the past few years. At first (from what i remember) it was around 8 billion, then 6.7 billion, then 6.4 billion, then 5.3 billion, and now it's 4.3 billion.

You have a source for those numbers or are you just pulling them out of your ass?

All we've found of evolution is that if it's true then these animals basically change like pokemon. That, and there are things like the neanderthal and nebraska man who considered absolute proof of evolution, which later turned out to be completely false.

Considering we use pigs to grow grafting skin, and transplantable organs, the fact that a tooth was misinterpreted doesn't really surprise me. Have there been false leads? Sure. Does that mean that everything in that field is false? No. There is no "absolute proof" of any theory. Theories cannot be proven, they can only be disproven. However, every bit of evidence you find that agrees with your theory certainly helps to increase you confidence in it. A few instances of bad science should not be the basis of the vilification of an entire field. I don't believe all pastors are pedophiles, even though many have been proven to be, why should you believe that all evolutionary evidence is false when only a few instances have turned out to be?

Well, if you're able to live for 500-800 years, then you most certainly can populate the earth.

And can also, apparently, get around that whole inbreeding thing. >_>

I guess genetics didn't come into play until later.

At 6/20/05 11:21 AM, revexe wrote:

I wouldnt take that literally

To me, that screams symbolically.
I mean, it says "do this in rememberance of me, not "do this because my acual blood makes you pure" (or something to that affect).

Did you not read his second post?

I told you guys... and you didn't listen. Aflix is impervious to reasoning not his own. God himself could go to his house and say, "Look, sonny, you're wrong. Shut the sam hell up, n00b!" and he wouldn't blink or change his ways. You've all given him scriptural evidence of your sides and he brushes them off as metaphorical. You've proven him wrong many times over, and still he spouts. You can't argue with someone who won't be argued with, you can only leave in knowledge that your adversary is a fool. However much you may wish to illustrate his foolishness to him, his obliviousness to that idiocy is an even sweeter victory.

Arguing with Alfixxion is pointless. He is completely impervious to reason. Trying to show him the light will only frustrate you in the end, because he will never admit to being wrong, or even to saying something wrong. He'll just try to slither his way out of the contradiction with pointless semantics or simply ignore it altogether. You've all seen his ignorance and idiocy... let it lay at that. Let him think he's won the argument, for that is the greatest victory we can have.

Four pages of arguing an ignorant joke topic? Jeez people, please don't feed the trolls.

Sorry... only saw Jim's ownage... didn't mean to miss anyone :P

So, TimeFrame... how exactly DO you get out of paying taxes? School funding taken from Properety Taxes in Ariz, and you live on a reservation? Lucky you... free ride to the same schooling the rest of us have to pay for.

Look, we can't teach religion in schools (or at least not have federally-funded classes about them) because there are way too many to cover. If there was a religions class that we funded, but didn't include Christianity, how do you think people would react? Now there might not be such an uproar if Hinuism or Ba'hai, or Scientology, or Duidism, or Wicca, or Voodoo, or Santaria, or however many thousands of other religions are out there, but it doesn't make it any less fair to those religions, or their practitioners.

Also, there's a slight difference between biased information (i.e. spin) and WRONG information. I took a college-level world religions class a few years ago... taught by a protestant Minister (-.-). Whenever he talked about events in Christian mythology, he would say: It happened. Whenever he would talk about other religions, he would say: They believe it happened. That's bias. If I had taken a biology class that used falsified drawing of foetal development... that's just plain wrong. And if your biology book uses drawings and not actual photographs... then it's kinda shady to begin with.

True bias in science is bias for the truth. Any good scientist is more concerned with learning the truth than being right... that's the whole point of science. Have there been bad apples who promoted their conclusions for the wrong reasons? Yeah... but dare I point out the wrong perpetrated by various churches around the world? We all have our bad apples, and dismissing an entire culture or way of thought because a few have been unscrupulous is silly. For every cold fusion experiment gone "right", there's real science being done by people looking more for knowledge than for fame.

Another problem in teaching Intelligent design in schools is this: The class would consist of a single day, and the lesson would go like this:

Teacher: Class today we're going to talk about another view of how the universe and life came to be, that of Intelligent Design. This theory is one held by many people, mostly religious, and it holds that the universe and everything in it, including humans and all other life on Earth were created, willfully, by an Omnipotent being. Any questions?

Class: How did he do it?

Teacher: He's all powerful.

Class: How did...?

Teacher: Because he can, because he's all-powerful.

Class: Ok.

Teacher: Now, on to the paleolithic era...

There's nothing to teach about intelligent design... there's no science behind it, it's a belief about what happened before there was anything. Science doesn't venture "before" the big bang" It can't. Once the teacher would say, "Some people believe the universe was designed by an intelligent being, most likely a god," the discussion is over... there are no other salient points. To go deeper into it would require choosing one version of intelligent design, and we cannot do that.

Anyway, you can all leave now... because Jimsween won the thread many posts ago.

At 6/12/05 11:59 AM, SpiffyMcPerson wrote: pwnage.

Now I normally don't post just to say crap like this, but...

PWN'D!

By the way... excellent sources... I'll keep them in mind for future use. ^_^

At 6/12/05 02:09 PM, PhysicsMafia wrote: but how do we know these theories arnt wrong if they are not challenged and questioned, most of them i agree cant be proved either way and will remain theories untill we have some massive advances if research technology

Except that they ARE challenged and questioned all the time. Observational science runs neck-and-neck with theoretical... and even sometimes outpaces it. Hawking himself had to modify his Big Bang theory when certain properties were shown to be false. He also lost a bet with another physicist about the imperviousness of a Black Hole's event horizon (it appears that information CAN escape and that blakc holes "evaporate" over time).

Noone is saying that Hawking is infallible. Hell, he's usually the first one to admit it when he's wrong. maybe that's why there's not much news when one of his theories conflicts with observational science... because he's more interested in learning than being right.

At 6/12/05 02:12 PM, _Nevyn_ wrote:

sorry for bad english

well, heres what i heard: if a star is 'born" then it has some kind of a plane around it. this plane contains the recesses of the mass of the stars. it turns around the sun equador. over millions of years, it cools down. it is still fluid then, and it turns into a ball shape. (all things try to form a ball. i forgot why.) and after another million years, it cools down, and it becomes a planet as we know it. and yes, i know my english sucks, and i couldnt explain half of what i was trying to say. i r teh sorries.

Exactly my point. I was trying to explain that to Dino, with my questions to make him think, and possibly realize the answer himself. And your English is fine :)

At 6/12/05 02:24 PM, PhysicsMafia wrote: this is all basically correct, the solar system did all for at the same time, but the solar system did not form at the same time as the universe did.

Exactly.

the planets all have similar planes as they are the accumulation of loss debris that was not pulled into the sun but collided and combined to form satilites of it.they all hav the same plane due to the suns rotation, this is evident on even larger scales when you look at pictures of whole galaxies as many of them have a spiral shape suggesting that it rotates around one single point.

Again, exactly my point.

about what ravariel said about all the other solar systems being the same, this is just speculation as very few other planets have been found as it is almost impossible to detect them with todays methods as they give of no light of their own

Actually it is, and has been done for several systems near us. A shading technique is used whereby the star of a system thought to have planets (normally calculated by minute variations in it's position cause by the gravity of said planets) i s blocked wnd then planets can be observed by the reflected light (same way we can see the moon).

Now I admit, this technique is limited in it's radius of influence. We don't have telescopes powerful enough to be able to do this for solar systems very far away. However, the ones we have observed have fit the mold for system formation that our own does. Now this is not to say that this is the only way it can happen. However, considering that Galaxies (which are MUCH easier to see) have been seen to have the same propertiesof formation, extraploating to solar systems (with observational evidence) is only logical. Nebular Galaxies and other rather odd formations DO occur, but the Spiral galaxy seems to be the most common.

Then again, it was just an example to stave off Dino, and show him that his knowledge really is limited. It's great that he takes an interest in this stuff, but his... obtuseness... with regards to new information, kinda peeved me.

At 6/11/05 12:34 AM, afliXion wrote:

At 6/10/05 11:25 PM, marchingtyrants wrote: this is insulting the other people who have religion.

I'd say that guy embarrased even other atheists.

You wouldn't be wrong.

Eh, fair enough.

Have fun! :)

Well, how many people on this board do you think even know what a differential equation is? Or Matrices? Or what exactly it is that they explain?

Considering most of the people on this board are under the age of 20, it doesn't surprise me that many find the math to be a bit daunting. Hell, even I, who does know calc, and used to be able to do differential equations (it's been 5-6 years since my last math class >.<), finds some of it a bit daunting.

Sure, you can take 3 years of college math and follow the equations, but like you said, understanding the model it explains is something completely different... and being able to use the math like a language to talk about concepts takes YEARS of practice and absolute fluency with it past the level actually needed to explain the physics.

At 6/10/05 06:37 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote:
What you don't realize is that we had a HUGE discussion on this a while ago. The elaborate theories of macroevolution are quite interesting, but like I said, they cannot be fully substantiated. There are a few scientific findings that could be used to support it, but it's not like those findings prove creationism to be false. There are also so-called "scientific discoveries" that supposedly support evolution, but are inherently flawed --co-existing alongside evolution, only possible if evolution is factual. No matter how much you dislike it, the theory of Evolution is speculative. Ugh, I'm not getting into this again. >_<

What I don't get is why you think this IS a Creation vs. Evolution thing. YOU brought up the second law as evidence against evolution, not me. My entire interest in ALL of these discussions of ours is the science. I am immensely interested in the workings of the universe. Everything about it from string theory, to biochem, to evolutionary science, to geology, to quantum mechanics. It all fascinates me. When someone comes around and uses that which I know much about, a subject about which I care so much... and uses it WRONG, then I get a little miffed. Don't you get a little peeved when someone uses a bible verse to prove something and uses it not only out of context, but completely wrong, or even misquotes it?

I have never argued a scientific reason against god or creation. I have argued logic, yes, but never science. Because I know that science is merely a tool to understand the universe itself, and any creator MUST be outside its influence and observation. Science cannot prove, nor can it disprove, nor can it give any evidence either way, anything about god. I know that evolution is a theory, I've never said otherwise. It can never be proven without time travel. However, evidence for it certainly increases ones confidence in the theory.

Einstein said it best, "No amount of experimentation can prove me right, but a single observation can prove me wrong." Such is the way of ALL theoretical science, be it evolutionary, or cosmological, or subatomic.

Lets come to an agreement shall we. You don't misuse science to make your point and I won't misuse the bible to make mine. Deal?

And pox, while I appreciate the thought, me and VCV have been over this before. So if it appears that we're a little frustrated with eachother... well, that's because we are, and have been for weeks. :P

TOND = TONS

haaate typos..... -.-

At 6/10/05 05:30 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: How did I know you would pop up when I mentioned that? ~_^

One might think you did it just to see me again. :P

I just find it odd that evolutionists claim that that Macroevolution is an "exception" to the established rule. And I know darn well what it means, Ravariel:

The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity. Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society.

Keywords: ALL matter. I'm not making things up, and considering I'm not a biochemist, I'm fairly well acquainted with some scientific anomalies proposed by the theory of Evolution.

You still fail to understand this. There is no contradiction here. Entropy exists, universe-wide, inexorably. Patches of increased order do not an entire system of entropy undo. For every apparent increase in order, there is TOND of entropy, evolution towards inert uniformity, going on in the background.

To put it another way, in order for there to be an increase in order, you must introduce energy into the system. In order for people to not die, we need to introduce energy, in the form of calories, food, and water, into the system, to continue the order that keeps us alive. Unfortunately, our bodies produce waste, do not utilize that caloric energy at 100% efficiency, and via the very act of introducing into our microsystem (body) the energy necessary to upkeep our order, INCREASE the disorder of the macrosystem, that of the earth.

And for the Earth to continue to sustain life, despite the tendancy of everything to die, an IMMENSE amount of energy must be introduced to the system. This is done via our sun. But only a microscopic percentage of the sun's energy actually gets utilized for the increase in the micorsystem's (earth), and by losing 99+% of that energy to the cold dark of space, where it adds to the general disorder of the macrosystem (universe).

Every act of increased order on a micro scale, INCREASES the disorder of the macrosystem.

It seems to me your beef is with the second law, not with evolution. Once you fully understand that increased localized order actually decreases the overall order, then this apparent conflict will be easily resolved.