Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/31/09 04:21 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote:

How...the fuck....would you know? What is positive energy created negative energy or vice versa, you can't be sure about a damn thing.

Because everything works in opposites? Day/night, winter/summer, I guess a more accurate word would be cycle, rather than opposite. For you to have a cycle you need opposing forces to create the motions/particle activity.

OMG Please explain that, I fucking dare you, explain what you mean by that.

But before you do, read this.

Lets say there are good people and bad people, both are either pure good or pure evil, you still have good n bad just within two seperate beings, human on the other hand have both good n bad in them, that means there should be a pure form of both, and if you even believe in good n evil them you really have to admit that there is a creator to this whole cycle er battle, maybe the cause of evil was free will n thats why we humans have both good n evil in us cuz we have choose to do good or bad huh?
So maybe when we die we'll either become pure good or pure evil, you can't say that can't happen because you simply don't know n you'll only know when its your turn.

Evil and good are human concepts shagg. I'm talking about pure energy, indeed, pure energy would be both "good" and "evil." Because an omnipotent being is everywhere, indeed, they are everything. Just like if you said every song is part of the same tune/music, or if every bird is really just part of the species that are birds, they are one organism made of multiple parts.

At 3/31/09 11:30 AM, morefngdbs wrote:
But respecting or disrespecting religion has nothing to do with Science, God or anything else.

I'm sorry but respect is a logical way of getting along with your fellow man. Both science and god beget, logically, that this is something a person should do.

They are completely related.

Religion was founded on just beliefs. It's not really what you believe, it's what you do with it. If you use something like religion for good, then it should be respected. If you use it for something bad, then I guess it shouldn't be respected. It's hard to make a general consensus on everyone and how they interpret religion, but I believe that the biggest focus of religion is to find meaning in your life. That is a wonderful thing, and I think it should be respected. Just to demonstrate my tolerance, if you (as a secuarlist) don't respect my religion, I'll respect your views as a secularist at least.

Peace.

At 3/31/09 06:18 PM, Ericho wrote: Religion was founded on just beliefs. It's not really what you believe, it's what you do with it.....

Claiming what religion was made and is supposed to be used for is idiotic.
A million different religions believing in a million different gods and dogmas were founded by a million different cultures through a combination of a need for power, a need to explain the universe, and shrooms.
You cannot talk about religion as an single enity for a single purpose.

At 3/31/09 08:32 AM, Brick-top wrote: Should I bother replying to shaggy? Apart from the fact he wont read it and still be making the same arguments (as usual) it would be far too easy to refute every single thing he said but largely time consuming.

Should I? Shouldn't I?

Considering I think he thinks that science is a pigment of his imagination, I wouldn't dignify it with a response.

And don't you go claiming it was a typo. Those keys are nowher near each other.

At 3/31/09 09:58 AM, Brick-top wrote: the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."

Please do not take the man you are arguing with now as the true opinions of Christians. I maybe a man of God but I am also a man of science. It has taught us so much and helped us advanced and in terms of my beliefs "We were given a thinking and critical mind, and to use it is a complement onto the Lord and not a sin" Perhaps questioning him maybe a sin but isn't that just temptation to question anything before us?

I am a strong believer in Evolution, especially from years of study. The Bible never denied it, in fact it even said it was true. "Let the land bring forth every living creature" God said this when creating the Earth, therefore he didn't design each creature. He let them evolve. And remember the Earth was made in seven ages not days, it's a bad translation from the Hebrew Bible.

At 3/31/09 04:09 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 3/31/09 11:30 AM, morefngdbs wrote:
But respecting or disrespecting religion has nothing to do with Science, God or anything else.

I'm sorry but respect is a logical way of getting along with your fellow man. Both science and god beget, logically, that this is something a person should do.

They are completely related.

;;;;
I disagree.
I am completely capable of getting along with someone I know is a raging idiot, I do it at work all the time. I don't respect them or their opinion nor do I trust them in any capacity at all when it comes to rigging. But they are capable of doing their job as a loader & that's what counts.
Look at Louie Pasteur & his 'insane idea' that some type of small creatures can get into an animals body & cause disease...he was laughed at ridiculed & then he proved that with a primitive vaccine he could prevent anthrax.
So no matter what those in the scientific community thought of him (& I don't think respect was anywhere in there) they certainly sat up & took notice when he proved them all wrong !

God doesn't give a shit one way or the other.
The way I see it if he actually cared, there would be no debate & no different religious practices...god would have settled that long ago.

At 3/31/09 07:45 PM, Pugberto wrote:
Please do not take the man you are arguing with now as the true opinions of Christians. I maybe a man of God but I am also a man of science. It has taught us so much and helped us advanced and in terms of my beliefs "We were given a thinking and critical mind, and to use it is a complement onto the Lord and not a sin" Perhaps questioning him maybe a sin but isn't that just temptation to question anything before us?

I am a strong believer in Evolution, especially from years of study. The Bible never denied it, in fact it even said it was true. "Let the land bring forth every living creature" God said this when creating the Earth, therefore he didn't design each creature. He let them evolve. And remember the Earth was made in seven ages not days, it's a bad translation from the Hebrew Bible.

I think everyone here, except shaggy, realizes that the sciences are not only valid but necesary. As well as seeing that most religious persons aren't idiotic. As far as shaggy can see, be probably thinks God created the computer he uses.

At 3/31/09 06:24 PM, aninjaman wrote:

At 3/31/09 06:18 PM, Ericho wrote: Religion was founded on just beliefs. It's not really what you believe, it's what you do with it.....

Claiming what religion was made and is supposed to be used for is idiotic.
A million different religions believing in a million different gods and dogmas were founded by a million different cultures through a combination of a need for power, a need to explain the universe, and shrooms.
You cannot talk about religion as an single enity for a single purpose.

Why can't I refer to it as a single entity? Many religions are similar and their message is close to the same: use the power of an unseeable force to find out the meaning in life. I can't speak for a lot of religions I guess, but I don't know many that were founded on power. Christianity sure as heck wasn't at least, although I can't speak for many other religions.

I'm trying to be humble and saying that this is just my personal religion and am trying to include all beliefs when instead of a single religious doctrine, but with a common doctrine.

At 4/2/09 01:30 PM, morefngdbs wrote:
God doesn't give a shit one way or the other.
The way I see it if he actually cared, there would be no debate & no different religious practices...god would have settled that long ago.

I guess we have different definitions of respect.

At 3/31/09 07:45 PM, Pugberto wrote: Please do not take the man you are arguing with now as the true opinions of Christians.

It's the opinion of some Christians, but not all.

Shaggy is what is called a Creationist, unfortunately many others believe have the same theology.

While solid majorities believe that evolution should be taught in science classes, roughly two-thirds of Americans favor adding creationism to the school curriculum.

At 4/2/09 04:03 PM, Ericho wrote: Why can't I refer to it as a single entity?

You can. You just can't say all religion is about one thing and created for a single purpose.

Many religions are similar and their messages close to the same: use the power of an unseeable force to find out the meaning in life.

Sure, but not all were founded to create peace, brotherhood, etc.

I can't speak for a lot of religions I guess, but I don't know many that were founded on power. Christianity sure as heck wasn't at least, although I can't speak for many other religions.

Who are you to claim what Christianity was founded on?

I'm trying to be humble and saying that this is just my personal religion and am trying to include all beliefs when instead of a single religious doctrine, but with a common doctrine.

And I'm saying that's nice. Just impossible.

At 4/2/09 04:39 PM, Brick-top wrote: It's the opinion of some Christians, but not all.

Shaggy is what is called a Creationist, unfortunately many others believe have the same theology.

While solid majorities believe that evolution should be taught in science classes, roughly two-thirds of Americans favor adding creationism to the school curriculum.

They should teach both alternatives, like Science and Philosophy/Religious Education. This way it is up to the child themselves to decide, it is their right. Neither party should have complete control, it should be shared.

At 4/2/09 06:30 PM, Pugberto wrote:
They should teach both alternatives, like Science and Philosophy/Religious Education. This way it is up to the child themselves to decide, it is their right. Neither party should have complete control, it should be shared.

they have a class where the myths of creationism is taught its called english class.

but to teach creationism in a science classroom is retarded, science is based on testable repeatable results and evidence ,creationism is based on anceint arcahic texts which I have no problem with being told about if its in a english classroom .

At 4/2/09 06:57 PM, thedo12 wrote: but to teach creationism in a science classroom is retarded, science is based on testable repeatable results and evidence ,creationism is based on anceint arcahic texts which I have no problem with being told about if its in a english classroom .

Exactly. If you're going to teach unfounded theories next to scientific evidence and let the children decide then why not teach about the flat earth also?
Or the heliocentric universe?

At 4/2/09 06:57 PM, thedo12 wrote:

they have a class where the myths of creationism is taught its called english class.

Myth? Now we know where the bullshit is coming from, you have a preconcieved conclusion and you wont have it any other way just as you see me to have, your side has just as much bias n prefabricated bullshit as you assenyingly claim opposing sides to have.
How about getting rid of this opposition entirely? Take evolution and everything related out of the school seeing as it causes all this bullshit n actually teach Science instead of bringing up some dead guy's imaginated idea that was fabricated into a coolaid drinking cult by people who would rather die than believe in anything else, like scientology.

but to teach creationism in a science classroom is retarded, science is based on testable repeatable results and evidence ,creationism is based on anceint arcahic texts which I have no problem with being told about if its in a english classroom .

Creation was taught in schools before a bunch of bitchy people pushed outdated "evolutionist" bullshit in, I bet your ass you wont find any current things in a science book, fuck no you wouldn't since shit laod of it goes against the coolaid drinking spaghetti-monster fearing big bang ejaculated bitches....

I could spend hours n hours breaking you people apart but I have a pretty busy life n I honestly don't care if you believe anything I tell you about yet you people obviously care what I do...funny....
So sorry, no conversion today, maybe when you people break down crying and realize the chunk of your life that was wasted in spewing out fabricated bullcrap, maybe I'll take you seriously.

Anyway with that said I'll go with the nice warm n fuzzy feeling, secure in the fact that this...sataniclike grp of people's ideas will be nothing more than a fly on the window of society, peace.

At 4/2/09 07:22 PM, aninjaman wrote: Exactly. If you're going to teach unfounded theories next to scientific evidence and let the children decide then why not teach about the flat earth also?
Or the heliocentric universe?

You both don't understand it. I am saying that they should be seperate subjects, one teaching religous beliefs and one teaching science, not in the same classroom.

Creationism is a religious theory, so I don't think public schools can legally teach it. However, I don't see any reason courses on religion can't be offered as electives, and it could probably be taught in there.

At 4/3/09 11:47 AM, Pugberto wrote:

At 4/2/09 07:22 PM, aninjaman wrote: Exactly. If you're going to teach unfounded theories next to scientific evidence and let the children decide then why not teach about the flat earth also?
Or the heliocentric universe?

You both don't understand it. I am saying that they should be seperate subjects, one teaching religous beliefs and one teaching science, not in the same classroom.

Obviously this modified form of "science" has been in schools for so long that people actually believe it, religion n spirituality should indeed to put back into school seeing as theyre pretty much the founders of how we live today ns hould be given the highest priority for kids to learn.
And Science isn't seperate from religion, atheists claim atheism to be science yet I've caught alot of them admitting otherwise so that shit isn't gonna slip anymore.
What I say is get rid of the evolution theory untill they get it right n probably rename it, then maybe it could be brought back.

I want to take this time to ask the evolutionists here a very very important question...something I don't understand about their religion.

They say everything came from single celled organisms..... Has there ever been an example (other than reproduction) of a single cell growing into many cells on it's own?
Probably not since a cell only does what it's been programed to do....er it does what the information in it tells it to do n obviously there musn't have been little or any information in any sort of cell made by chance seeing as theres no evidence of it...
I've heard a bit about a mutation of information in DNA, that may be true in full grown animals n that their DNA changes depending on their environment, but that only disproves evolution entirely seeing as adaptation isn't random n it has a purpose....

The reason why reproduction isn't an example is because the DNA of animals n humans, they have all the information already in them, which didn't happen all of a sudden, even evolutionist's admit yet say it somehow appeared there for no reason.....
I hope you people can understand my skeptisism on this topic as well as related ones, everything coming from nothing,life coming from rocks, cats turning into dogs, n magical appearing n disappearing evidence, that just doesn't cut it for me.

At 4/3/09 12:05 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: atheists claim atheism to be science

show me one post from this whole forum where an atheist claims that atheism is science , go ahead I seriously want to see this.

At 4/3/09 12:05 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote:

At 4/3/09 11:47 AM, Pugberto wrote:

At 4/2/09 07:22 PM, aninjaman wrote:

Obviously this modified form of "science" has been in schools for so long that people actually believe it, religion n spirituality should indeed to put back into school seeing as theyre pretty much the founders of how we live today ns hould be given the highest priority for kids to learn.

I agree so far as to say religion should be offered as, say, an ellective, but not required, and not at the expense of teaching other theories.

And Science isn't seperate from religion, atheists claim atheism to be science yet I've caught alot of them admitting otherwise so that shit isn't gonna slip anymore.

Science and religion are the same in that they are ways of explaining how the Universe came to be, how life came to be, and so many other things. Where they differ is that science requires evidence, and changes or replaces old theories when confronted with strong, scientifically proven evidence.

I've never heard people say that atheism is a science. It's merely a term for people who do not have a religion. Rather thay accept scientific theories.

What I say is get rid of the evolution theory untill they get it right n probably rename it, then maybe it could be brought back.

So, just get rid of something because a bunch of religious people think it's wrong? Evolution has far to much evidence and support from the scientific community to just be dismissed as false by someone who apparently doesn't have much knowledge in the subject.

I want to take this time to ask the evolutionists here a very very important question...something I don't understand about their religion.

It isn't a religion, it's a scientific theory. Then again, look who I'm talking to? Shoot.

They say everything came from single celled organisms..... Has there ever been an example (other than reproduction) of a single cell growing into many cells on it's own?

How the fuck else does a cell grow into more cells without reproducing? Christ, pull your head out of your ass.

Probably not since a cell only does what it's been programed to do....er it does what the information in it tells it to do n obviously there musn't have been little or any information in any sort of cell made by chance seeing as theres no evidence of it...
I've heard a bit about a mutation of information in DNA, that may be true in full grown animals n that their DNA changes depending on their environment, but that only disproves evolution entirely seeing as adaptation isn't random n it has a purpose....

What you're talking about is variation, variation being mutations in DNA, resulting in an ever so slightly different animal. If the new trait is a good adaptation, meaning the animal can better survive and pass that trait down, there's where you start getting evolution.

The reason why reproduction isn't an example is because the DNA of animals n humans, they have all the information already in them, which didn't happen all of a sudden, even evolutionist's admit yet say it somehow appeared there for no reason.....
I hope you people can understand my skeptisism on this topic as well as related ones, everything coming from nothing,life coming from rocks, cats turning into dogs, n magical appearing n disappearing evidence, that just doesn't cut it for me.

Ok, I see the skepticism of "time zero", but cats don't turn into dogs. Organisms just change over time, by process of natural selection, enabled by variation, and there comes a point where they are completely different from the parent species when they can be counted as a seperate species, instead of simply a variety.
Life didn't come from rocks, the elements of which life is based on, Nitrogen, Carbon, Oxygen, and Hydrogen, along with a few trace elements, do not form rocks.
What do you mean by appearing and disapearing evidence?

At 4/2/09 06:30 PM, Pugberto wrote: They should teach both alternatives, like Science and Philosophy/Religious Education. This way it is up to the child themselves to decide, it is their right. Neither party should have complete control, it should be shared.

Yes, Religious Education (or RE) should probably be taught in schools. But not as an alternative to established facts.

At 4/2/09 05:15 PM, aninjaman wrote:

At 4/2/09 04:03 PM, Ericho wrote: I can't speak for a lot of religions I guess, but I don't know many that were founded on power. Christianity sure as heck wasn't at least, although I can't speak for many other religions.

Who are you to claim what Christianity was founded on?

It was founded by Jesus and I've studied my scripture and feel he was a very moral person at least.

At 4/3/09 01:30 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 4/2/09 06:30 PM, Pugberto wrote: They should teach both alternatives, like Science and Philosophy/Religious Education. This way it is up to the child themselves to decide, it is their right. Neither party should have complete control, it should be shared.

Yes, Religious Education (or RE) should probably be taught in schools. But not as an alternative to established facts.

Or even as a fact. Maybe in a philosophy class. But until I see evidence for creationism then keep it away from our schools as scientific fact.

At 4/3/09 03:09 PM, Ericho wrote: It was founded by Jesus and I've studied my scripture and feel he was a very moral person at least.

Did you know him personally or did you read an over glorified description of him written after his death and changed many many times since then?

At 4/3/09 08:46 PM, aninjaman wrote:

At 4/3/09 03:09 PM, Ericho wrote: It was founded by Jesus and I've studied my scripture and feel he was a very moral person at least.

Did you know him personally or did you read an over glorified description of him written after his death and changed many many times since then?

;;;
Thanks Aninjaman ... I wanted to say something very similar, but I didn't want Enricho or anyone else to think i was picking on him. So many people forget (because the church does what it can to keep the facts subdued)
Jesus was a JEW. He was Jewish & practiced the Jewish faith.
But that doesn't fit in with the later vision of the Cristian Church. ;)

At 4/3/09 08:46 PM, aninjaman wrote:

At 4/3/09 01:30 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 4/2/09 06:30 PM, Pugberto wrote: They should teach both alternatives, like Science and Philosophy/Religious Education. This way it is up to the child themselves to decide, it is their right. Neither party should have complete control, it should be shared.

Yes, Religious Education (or RE) should probably be taught in schools. But not as an alternative to established facts.

Or even as a fact. Maybe in a philosophy class. But until I see evidence for creationism then keep it away from our schools as scientific fact.

Teach it from an objective standpoint with no bias. However people interpret their Religion differently so what kids would be taught wouldn't be consistent with every person of that particular belief.

Or just keep all Religious teachings out of school and allow the student to learn independently.

At 4/3/09 08:46 PM, aninjaman wrote

Did you know him personally or did you read an over glorified description of him written after his death and changed many many times since then?

You could say that absolutely every person who lived in those times or before. They didn't have recording devices back then.

creationism

Why does creationism have to defy science? It doesn't

In the Qur'an it is not specifically written how the Earth or the Universe was created, nor does it say how long it took (yes it is written six days, but "days" here means periods. As in later verses it said that a day to God is a thousand of yours, and a day to God is fifty thousand of yours)

The Big Bang theory doesn't go against religion, for all I know, it's true.

At 4/4/09 04:10 PM, 4urentertainment wrote:

creationism

Why does creationism have to defy science? It doesn't

Do you have any scientific proof for creationism? Believing in something when there is no scientific proof is defying science.

At 4/4/09 04:10 PM, 4urentertainment wrote:

In the Qur'an it is not specifically written how the Earth or the Universe was created, nor does it say how long it took (yes it is written six days, but "days" here means periods. As in later verses it said that a day to God is a thousand of yours, and a day to God is fifty thousand of yours)

So which is it you tard? 1000 or 50 000? IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT.
And guess what? The universe is not 6000 days old or 300 000 days old.

By now, it's about 5 329 000 000 000 days old. PLUS ONE MINUTE.