Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

could you give me your definition of atheist?I know what it means but just tell me.

At 4/19/05 08:41 PM, smeagol1 wrote: could you give me your definition of atheist?I know what it means but just tell me.

like an nazi except they hate the christians, or at least thats the newgrounds punkass kid definiton
generaly, they just dont beleive in god

At 4/19/05 05:23 PM, Skizor wrote:

teh pwnage!

Commentary: Christians=0wned

At 4/19/05 08:52 PM, goldenbednclock wrote:

At 4/19/05 08:41 PM, smeagol1 wrote: could you give me your definition of atheist?I know what it means but just tell me.

like an nazi except they hate the christians, or at least thats the newgrounds punkass kid definiton
generaly, they just dont beleive in god

Wrong answer, silly. Some atheists would like to crucify all christlovers, behead all muslims,
stone all jewz, emolate all buddhists, etc.

I'd start with the christlovers. Rape the nuns and pillage the churches ... crucify the child-
molesting priests. That would be good.

Oh, and drag the pope out of his apartment and crucify him in St. Peter's Square! That would
be nice.... eheh...

Can somebody make a flash game like this?

To Skizor:

First of all, I don't want to turn this into a Natural Selection vs. Intelligent Design debate. -BAWLS- made a statement claiming that the Creation theories were "ridiculous", so I decided to point out that many acclaimed astronomers, physicists, and geneticists (people more apt to judge than he is) were and are Creationists. I mean, for Pete's sake Albert Einstein believed in Intelligent Design. Don't bring up the Roman Catholic Church because they certainly don't represent the entire Christian community. Catholicism is like a hybrid of biblical Christianity and ancient paganism, whereas [most] Protestants follow the Bible's teachings.

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. Judeo-Christians do not "ignore" evidence. We believe it's bad science to support this theory with results from a process designed with Evolution in mind. 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.

At 4/20/05 06:31 AM, NarcolepticAlarmClok wrote:

At 4/19/05 05:23 PM, Skizor wrote:

teh pwnage!

Commentary: Christians=0wned

Fool...

At 4/20/05 07:30 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote:

At 4/20/05 06:31 AM, NarcolepticAlarmClok wrote:

At 4/19/05 05:23 PM, Skizor wrote:

teh pwnage!

Commentary: Christians=0wned

Fool...

"Fool..." ...that's all you have to say? Also, albert Einstein was a mathematically, and infallible genius, but that doesn't vindicate the idea that his idears of creation are infallible as well... people use the geniuses=men of faith argument too much.

*Ahem*

From what I know is that even though some people are aetheists, they will raise their children in a religious environment because it builds a good mo ral background for them to fall back on. Which is kind of strange to me.

Please note however that I only said Some (my philosiphy teacher being an example).

However this is why religion is a good thing, if not for out sakes then for the sake of our children. Religion (if the religion is good of course and doesn't teach them the wrong things). Can be a good place for children to be with other people that share the same values, it gives a person a sense of security that they aren't the only one and that they're not just some goody tooshoes.

Frankly, I'm happy that I go to church. And I'd be more than happy to raise my children in a religious enrironment.

So even if it isn't true, The theme of moral values that religion teaches is a VERY good thing. And it's not something you can set aside easily. So why get rid of something good?

At 4/20/05 07:23 AM, mikeduron wrote:

At 4/19/05 08:52 PM, goldenbednclock wrote:

At 4/19/05 08:41 PM, smeagol1 wrote: could you give me your definition of atheist?I know what it means but just tell me.

like an nazi except they hate the christians, or at least thats the newgrounds punkass kid definiton
generaly, they just dont beleive in god

Wrong answer, silly. Some atheists would like to crucify all christlovers, behead all muslims,
stone all jewz, emolate all buddhists, etc.

I'd start with the christlovers. Rape the nuns and pillage the churches ... crucify the child-
molesting priests. That would be good.

Oh, and drag the pope out of his apartment and crucify him in St. Peter's Square! That would
be nice.... eheh...

Can somebody make a flash game like this?

And as for you...

You're far too extreme for your own good. No one needs to be crucified except for the child-molesting preists.

Jews and Bhuddists are peaceful relgiions (highly peaceful) with gospels that plainly teach it. Muslims are ones that do have some shady regions that could be questioned. (If you ever heard of the author of T is for Terroism you'd understand).

The same thing goes with Christains, and you're generalizing quite a bit. Nuns, celebate preists, and the Pope are all parts of the Catholic Religion. There are plenty of other Christan religions that are better off in some areas than the Catholic.

At 4/20/05 05:53 PM, NarcolepticAlarmClok wrote:

Also, albert Einstein was a mathematically, and infallible genius, but that...

Sorry bout that, mah bad. ***a mathematically infallible genius

Just about all of the atheist arguments I have heard have been either complaints about Catholicism or philosophical bs .

One thing that very phew atheists realize is the difference between Catholics and Protestants, the two factions of Christianity. I myself despise many of the Catholic traditions, beliefs, and history but I am still a Christian, I still believe in, love, and worship God, many feel this way. The Protestant faith was born in the 16th century in an event called the Protestant Reformation. The leader was a Catholic Monk, Martin Luther, who strongly disagreed with the practices of the Roman Catholic Church. Luther nailed a paper which he called the 95 thesis on the door of a church outlining 95 points on which he believed the Catholic Faith was incorrect. Soon after he was ex-communicated and started his own faith, Lutheranism, the first of the Protestant faiths. This was a historical land-mark because for the first time in history you could believe in God without being Catholic. I myself actually take it a step further and basically protest all organized religion. I am perfectly happy reading the Bible by myself without others telling me how to interpret every other word.

The philosophical bs, on the other hand, I find funny and ironic. Many Atheists base their beliefs, or lack thereof, upon baseless assumptions and theories of the world and afterlife, in other words philosophy. At the same time they accuse the Christian faith of being false on the grounds that it is all baseless assumption and foundationless theories of the world and afterlife. Am I the only one that finds this ironic?

If anyone who reads this wants to intelligently discuss this with me please e-mail me. I don't care who you are or what faith you are if any, I don't care if you want to argue or just talk, just don't be a dick. My address is geheeld@hotmail.com

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. >.>

Lol, way to 0wn, ravariel!

At 4/20/05 05:53 PM, NarcolepticAlarmClok wrote:

"Fool..." ...that's all you have to say? Also, albert Einstein was a mathematically, and infallible genius, but that doesn't vindicate the idea that his idears of creation are infallible as well... people use the geniuses=men of faith argument too much.

He was also n ot a christian :P

Depends on what you mean by bad. For holding society together, its very good. For justifying wars against the infidel, its very good.

Religion that believes in a creator god and believes it has a definitive answer is a self contradiction really. Since we cant know gods mysteries, how can we say that anyone knows god's will?

Religion is used to oppress peoples, and cause war on them, and exploit them.

Religion is used to hold the groups together, who then fight each other.

There is nothing worse for the world than a fundamentalist of any of the worlds major religions. All their existence does is promote pointless violence. Numberous examples

Christians, Jews and Muslims (i think maybe muslims) fighting over lands in israel and palestine, all fighting over holy buildings and structures. This was the crusades a few hundred years ago, and is still going today.

Christians vs muslims (west vs middle east) is now a battle, only the thing that they are fighting for is over moral beliefs. They both have good and bad points about their law.

Religion based on creator gods can lead to good moral values too, but these values can be used to exploit people. For example, to make the african slaves more accepting of their station in life, puritan values of no man being able to rise above his station were attempted to be ingrained into many of them. Thank fuck many saw it all as bullshit, and fought for freedom.

To sum up, religion based on a creator god is as good as any explanation for life, but it IS used to divide people and conquer them.

Also, God can be bad. Creationism being taught in american schools actually teaches unquestioning belief in authority, and makes people not even consider other possibilities. For example, why couldnt god create the earth, designed so that mankind evolves out of it?

Because it would broaden people's intelligence and make them question authority. Religion is used to divide people. Those that are likely to cause trouble are seen by the religious as being either the other religion, or the lazy good for nothing atheists.
Atheists blame the no good extremely ignorant and backwards god lovers, of any religious as causing the most trouble, and they have the most evidence supporting them.

Regarding the idea of omniescence and free will, just because you can manipulate your hamsters movements limb by limb by exerting force, would you? Isnt it more interesting to let the little bugger run round and look after itself? And admire its falsely independent spirit....

We cannot ever know by using any method the following things -
1. whether god exists
2. What Its motives are, so anyone that sees themselves as being right about the issue who believes in god is scientifically wrong. Anyone who doesnt cannot be proven right either.

Oh and as for religion came from, i reckon someone ate some psychedelics back in the day before people knew what drugs were, and told people of what they saw. Who's to say whether they're right or not? We can never know.....

I'm going to make this as short and simple as I can, but first of all... I am atheist and agree with Cahenn on many levels.

The fact of the matter is that religion -- for the most part -- makes little difference in the scheme of things. It provides some easy how and why answers, but this is about it. Good people will be good, with or without a god to reward them; the evil will be evil, with or without a god threatening them, and the lazy will be lazy, with or without a god yelling at them.

The acceptance of religion is not completely related to intelligence. There are many intelligent people that I know who are Christian (though most of them are atheist). I noticed that in all of the cases of intelligent Christians, it comes down to purpose. The only thing that seems to keep them from being atheist is the lack of purpose that it promises. Some may consider that having a weak will or having an inability to face the truth, but I can understand where they come from.

It is actually this lack of purpose that tends to empower me. I have no reason to live except that which I make myself. I am not bound by any laws or ethics other than my own, and I have come to realize that my own moral standards are nearly parallel to those of christianity and most major religions.

As for the feuds between religions... it's all stupidity. When you get down to it, all religions have the same intention, message, and morals. If they would just wake up and realize this, the world would be a much better place.

Well, I certainly failed to make this short but I think it was pretty simple, sorry! >.<

If somebody ever asks, "Then who created the universe?" Just reply with, "Then who created god?" If they say, "Nobody, he's always been around," then they have just proven that they suck at life. No matter what, the mystery will remain inconclusive. At least in this lifetime.

At 4/20/05 08:30 PM, Ravariel wrote: 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.

Which is the reason that people shouldn't rely so heavily upon science. Science can't explain everything; as a matter of fact, it can't explain much. There are two realms: the natural realm and the supernatural realm (the majority of people would agree). 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 illogical.

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...

Carbon dating is accurate up to 35,000 years but can be pushed to about 50,000 years:

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/carbon.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating
http://www.palaeos.com/Geochronology/radiometric_dating.htm

the geologic column certainly is not, nor is it a fabrication of scientists who wish to prove evolution.

Umm... The geologic column is a freakin' scam, dude. The World Book Encyclopedia (which can be found in just about every school and library) says this under the "Fossils" section [vol. 7, page 422 of the 1988 edition]: Scientists determine when fossils were formed by finding out the age of the rocks in which they lie. But if you turn to the "Paleontology" section [vol. 15, page 102 of the 1988 edition], you find this: Paleontology (the study of fossils) is important in the study of geology. The age of rocks may be determined by the fossils in them. 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!

http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-048.htm
http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/geologic.htm

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?

Oh shut up. It's just as PC as "Natural Selection". Is that meant to dupe people?

Intelligent Design = Creationism
Natural Selection = Evolutionism

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.

So if churches weren't around, schools would teach Creationism, as well? Yeah, right.

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?

Who's asking for biblical Creationism? All I said was that Intelligent Design (the theory that states the universe was designed) should be taught alongside the Godless theory of Natural Selection (which states that all existence happened by chance). Intelligent Design incorporates all Creation theories. I'm not asking for a "ban" on Evolution; I simply want students to decide for themselves and not be indoctrinated into secular science.

At 4/21/05 06:22 AM, Cahenn wrote: He was also n ot a christian :P

No, but he strongly believed in a Creator. =P

At 4/20/05 08:33 PM, NarcolepticAlarmClok wrote: Lol, way to 0wn, ravariel!

(LoL). You sit back and let other people argue for you because you have nothing intelligent to contribute to the discussion.

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?

At 4/22/05 05:02 AM, Ravariel wrote: 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?

Existence is illogical because in order for something to exist now, something must have existed before. And yes, self-awareness is illogical as well. 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? Why do we have a conscience? How could a universe created via chaos have so much amazing order? Only an intelligent Creator could have designed such an incredible world. I fail to see how ANYONE could believe that all in existence got here by chance. That goes against reason.

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.

Perhaps I need to learn you some English, as well.

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:

500,000 years? I'm so sorry, that's not far back enough. Evolutionists claim that they can accurately date a fossil hundreds of millions of years old. There are many dating methods in use (carbon-14 dating being the #1). I'm an Old-Earth Creationist, but some of these methods, such as zircon dating [I believe], would support the Young-Earth model of Creationism.

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.

Oh come on. They were ALL scientifically sound, so I would be delighted to see you attempt to discredit them. They give statements from various prestigious scientific journals, and I even gave you a couple of quotes from the World Book Encyclopedia; I listed which page of which volume of which edition for Pete's sake! The geologic column, on which just about all evolutionary dating is based, is flawed. Fossils are dated by the rocks from which they were pulled; rocks are dated by the fossils found inside them. Dude, this is circular freakin' logic. Are you blind?

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.

Using that method, all your results would be totally unreliable. But unfortunately, that's what evolutionary scientists do. They mix and match dating results until they find something they like, a date that fits into their evolutionary timeline. Still, the most common (and accurate) dating is the carbon-14 method. But nine half-lives is still stretchin' the limit... it becomes less precise after about six. Considering the geologic column and its circular logic play a major role in deciding the age of a fossil, I don't believe that those dating results are accurate or trustworthy.

Except that Natural Selection was the name given the theory by it's creator, Charles Darwin.

How is "Intelligent Design" politically correct? It means exactly what it says. It's not like Creationists are ashamed to be Creationists (LoL). We don't care about political correctness. We do believe that this universe was 'designed' by an 'intelligent' Creator.

Can I get a WHOOOOOOSH!

Umm... Sure, whatever.

'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?

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...).

Intelligent Creator and Meaningful Existence = GOD
Chance and Meaningless Existence = NO GOD

There's only one exception: Theistic Evolutionists.

Natural selection explains how life came to be. It says NOTHING of HOW it started.

What the heck? Came to be = Began.

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?

A perfect God would not create the universe via an imperfect method of creation. Design is perfect; chance is not. Natural Selection has many faults, my friend. Intelligent Design does not. Here are some of the many problems with the theory of Evolution:

1) The gap in the fossil record.
2) The circular reasoning of the geologic column.
3) The "Lucy" hoax.
4) The scientific LAWS of thermodynamics.

Name one of the problems with Creationism...

P.S. QUOTE NEXT TIME!!! ~_^

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.

Here's something pretty nice i came up with, about the same style as the box 'he' can't lift.

God knows everything right?
(Knowledge= what comes from one of the five senses to the memory cells)
So 'he' has brain, huh? :)

God created the world in the beginning- before there was something, as when 'he' was or wasn't (isn't releavent for this thingy), but he made it all in the beginning, right?
(anything new that is made has to be made thanks to knowledge/trits/previous and current thoughts/conditions.. Where were all of them in the beginning, before anything was?)

Thats for religiosy people, that believe in a bible, doesnt matter which. People can also believe that a god didn't create it in the beginning and so on..
The theists answer to the box lifting is that logic doesnt effect a god.
In other words : "you may have won this time, but will be back"

At 4/22/05 09:03 AM, Ravariel wrote: 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.

There was no "context". If there was, you wouldn't have said "came to be =/= began". I don't see what you're arguing about. Creationism and Evolutionism are the two major theories behind the ORIGIN of the universe. Origin = Beginning. There's really no need to get "technical" because it matters little.

Your knowledge of theoretical physics seems to be as limited as your knowledge of Natural Selection.

Oh please. I know what you people believe, and that's why I'm a Creationist (LoL). Both theories require "faith". I have faith in Intelligent Design.

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.

God exists outside of time and space, as God is a supernatural Being. He is not limited to the laws of nature. Does it really make sense to claim that the universe created itself? Oh, here is a website that gives compelling evidence for God: (check it out, dude)

http://www.everystudent.com/menus/existence.html

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.

If we all came from the pond scum, how could WE have a knowledge of right and wrong when the other animals (which supposedly evolved from the same grunge) do not? It's obvious that we are sanctified. We have a moral conscience.

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.

Then why are other [non-human] fossils (supposedly hundreds of millions of years old) dated using the carbon-14 method? Evolutionists push carbon dating past its limits.

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>

Oh, get over yourself. There's nothing wrong with radiometric dating, but it's often used alongside the geologic column (a clearly flawed device).

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.

1) Children from secular households wouldn't be able to decide for themselves.
2) They should be compared side by side. Don't you agree?

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.

So your father is an atheist, and your mother is a neopagan? Wow, that's a contrast.

I looked around, I studied up, I chose my belief system with as many facts as I could muster up.

So what do you personally believe?

Who are you to say his method was imperfect? It worked... perfectly. He's GOD... do you really think it was all "chance"?

Evolutionists today believe it was all chance. I'm not sure about Darwin's personal views on Creation, but Evolution is certainly NOT a perfect method. Most Evolutionists believe that we got here via a series of random, freak mutations. Creationists believe that we were designed by a master Architect. Which sounds more "perfect"?

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"?

Pre-coded mutations (LoL)? If you say so, dude...

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.

What the heck does that mean? 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?

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.

Bad wording? LOL. That's the logic on which the geologic column is based. The entire thing is based on circular reasoning. Do you have any evidence that this is NOT the case? And you're absolutely right... no real scientist should use such a method.

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.

Do you have evidence of this, or are you just spouting baseless Evolutionist propaganda? You cannot replace the scientific law of thermodynamics with the theory of Evolution. According to the law of entropy, all things (living and non-living) become less complex and more chaotic over time... Evolution claims the opposite.

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.

Quotes are there for a reason, and italics gets on people's nerves. ~_^

At 4/22/05 01:40 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: ... and your mother is a neopagan?

Eh, poor choice of words. Neopaganism is defined by the movement. It sounds more like New Age... but that's also defined by a movement. Blah, I guess the word would be pantheist.

At 4/22/05 11:30 AM, carmelhadinosaur wrote: Here's something pretty nice i came up with, about the same style as the box 'he' can't lift.

That's nothing but a play on words... certainly not a 'valid' argument.

God knows everything right?
(Knowledge= what comes from one of the five senses to the memory cells)
So 'he' has brain, huh? :)

Is this a joke? THAT is your "evidence" against God's existence? Good frickin' grief. God is spirit. He is not bound by the laws of nature because He created the laws of nature. Your "brain" argument is... umm, no. You're gonna have to do a little better than that, dude (LoL). Your pathetic attempts to disprove God just confirm what we believe. When atheists are getting so desperate that they use the argument, "How can God know anything if He doesn't have brain cells?" then we know we've won.

The theists answer to the box lifting is that logic doesnt effect a god.
In other words : "you may have won this time, but will be back"

*chuckles* Yeah, sure. God is a supernatural Being, why do you people assume that He is limited to natural logic? A man is a fool if he believes that nothing exists outside the realm of human understanding. There is much that cannot be scientifically explained, but everything MUST have an explanation. Using this simple logic, we may conclude that science is not the be-all and end-all. There is the natural and the supernatural, the physical and the metaphysical. Atheists accuse Christians of living in their little, 'religious' box. Well, atheists dwell inside their little, 'scientific' box. Both faith and science are necessary in order to get the full picture. God gave us this world to amaze and intrigue us, but without faith, science is worthless.

One big problem with both sides of the creation/evolution argument is that they both assume that the truth about the universe/our existance etc... is something that we are actually able to comprehend.

At 4/22/05 03:53 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: When atheists are getting so desperate that they use the argument, "How can God know anything if He doesn't have brain cells?" then we know we've won.

No, because i said what knowledge is.
Invent a new word for your god.

God is a supernatural Being

Nature is everything. What is unatural is nature and what is super nature is nature.

Say, you believe that time exists btw?
(lol ofcourse you do, but lets make it sure)