Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

Blah, why are you doing this to me?! I need a freakin' break! -_-

At 4/24/05 03:35 AM, jmaster306 wrote:

At 4/24/05 03:08 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: Then why on Earth is Evolution taught as FACT in public school?

It is taught as "fact" because a) from a fully logical standpoint it is the best explination (since creationalism requires the christian diety)

It does not. Natural Selection = chance; Intelligent Design = plan. Who said anything about the Christian God? And the theory of Evolution is "illogical" to many.

and b) it is difficult to tell a child that something is "under speculation" so best to not confuse them conflicting ideas

"Aww... Let's not confuse the little darlings." Instead, you would rather keep them from learning ALL the possibilities. So if you can't communicate ideas such as "speculation", then you believe they should just be told it's factual (to spare them from confusion)? Please...

(LoL) Like I said, according to the scientific method, Evolution is not even a theory; it's a hypothesis because it is inconsistent and constantly being revised.

No a hypothesis would be a single statement, the theory is much more complex than that.

No, Evolution is a series of hyptheses. Technically, it would not be considered a "theory".

Oh look... MORE speculation. -_-

To my knowledge that is the original explination and not something "new"

It could be original or brand new. That doesn't change the fact that it's only speculation.

And Creationists believe that nature cannot be explained with more nature. Nature could have only been created by a Force that exists outside of the nature.

You mean like how you throw bible quotes at us when we say that the bible might not be completely accurate?

Hehe, I don't do that. Perhaps you're thinking of afliXion. =P

Also nature can be used to "prove" nature through experimentation.

This isn't your typical hypothesis. We're talking about the origin of the universe and how the natural laws came to be. How could the natural laws have come into existence via more natural laws? That's the thing: the supernatural can exist independently, but the natural depends upon the supernatural.

If through the scientific method you can find a trend and see that this trend seems to be a universal truth, then you can call it law.

Haha, Evolution has proven to be inconsistent.

Therefore, it is logical to conclude that only a supernatural Force could have created the natural world.

Created, maybe but controlled? That is a diffent being entierly.

Who said anything about control? I believe that each individual species was personally designed by God. There is so much that I believe chance (no matter how much time was given) could never have achieved. I mean, what about the relationships between the species? Forms of symbiosis, various camouflage techniques, etc.

So many years? I thought that evolutionists claimed that life originated 3.5 billion years ago. It's not like people are asking them to constuct a human being, just a simple organism.

Most experimentation has only lasted for a few years at tops. No where near the potentially hundreads needed to spark life by current theories. How about this for a brain teaser, we have found microbiobial life on mars. If god is the grand creator of life as well as it's master, why only microbes? Surely god could have made life adapt to the changing conditions and make something more advanced, more worthwile if you will. However, there the bacteria sits doing virtually nothing. I've always understood it to be that god supposedly does everything for a reason, so what is the reason for the bacteria on mars? Doesn't this support the notion of life springing up all by itself since it serves no known purpose?

I believe, and have pretty much always believed, that we (human beings) are sanctified by God. After all, it was through us, that He sent His Son. ^_^

Heh, so do I. But unfortunately, most evolutionists I see believe their lives are worthless.

1 life is meaningless in the evolutionary chain, but 1 life is still meaningful to the person living it. Big difference there VCV.

*Gasp* A contradiction? If they believed so strongly in the theory of Natural Selection, then they should have no reason to believe that their life amounts to more than a hill of beans. This is another flaw I find with Evolutionism. It has definite philosophical problems.

Tell me... which makes you feel "better" about yourself (LoL)? I hope this answers your question, and I tried not to be too theological about it. ~_^

Using that logic we should still consider the earth flat since it was "nicer" to think of the world as flat that as round.

There is proof that the world is a sphere; there's no proof that the universe came out of "nothing" or that we evolved from primordial sludge that dates back 3.5 billion years.

How good someone feels about an idea or theory serves no purpose in judging it's validity.

None. But I was arguing that Evolutionists "have a reason" to be depressed (LoL).

*I know you don't want to really debate this, but I couldn't help myself from responding*

*sigh* -_-

---

At 4/23/05 07:19 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: "If God doesn't have a brain, He can't know everything..." Are you THAT shallow?

Learn what knowledge means.
Though i don't know english very well, i see have some very bad cases.

For future reference: Humanity =/= Humanism.

Thanks, thought it was the same thing.

*attempts to decipher*

Oh yes; what i ment was that if i'd have said "I don't believe in something better" you might wanna think it means that humanism/ity is the best thing for me, like reading what you wan't to read. "I don't believe in better" means that i don't find the words good, bad, evil, nice and so on matching to existance.

What the heck are you trying to say, kid? And "multiverse" isn't a word.

Actually is, as much as every word in every post here.
Ok not multiverses, you're familliar more with the universe, but lets take the galaxy, because you believe there isn't more than one universe. How big is a galaxy? I suck at estimating, but lets say 100000000000000 lightyears? and a human is like 0.000...1 lightyears? What would you do now? Cry because you're worthless next to something that completely dosen't bother you and will never because of its randomness, or act to your being all (humans) how ever you want to?

Should I?

Couldn't quite catch that.
(you replied to: "you know 999..... and that shit)

Sure... whatever. I'm sorry, but i's rather difficult for me to communicate with with people devoid of intellect. Go here, and practice posting. Then when you think you're ready, come back and we'll discuss this.

Well, since i see you replying to me, it means that you wan't to talk to me. If you don't wan't to you won't do it. No one forces you to do something on the internet. My english problems are mine, not yours.

Dictionary.com is a Creationist site? I had no idea. -_-

Well, its not promoting it, but its creators or the ones that said what each word is has a bigger chance to be a creationist because probably 98% of the world believe in a god..
Im just saying that you can write whatever you wan't to believe a defination is.

---

At 4/24/05 06:31 AM, carmelhadinosaur wrote: illegible crap

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about, dude.

---

At 4/24/05 03:08 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: Umm... in the future, could you respond to my entire post? I posted a lot of stuff I thought was important, but it got left out. So could you please try to reply to the whole thing?

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to leave anything out... but I only ended up with like 265 characters left in my last post. What, specifically were you interested in hearing my views on that I missed?

Then why on Earth is Evolution taught as FACT in public school?

It shouldn't be. It should be taught as what it is: a theory with evidence backing it up, and with some evidence missing.

(LoL) Like I said, according to the scientific method, Evolution is not even a theory; it's a hypothesis because it is inconsistent and constantly being revised.

Semantics and useless to the debate.

Umm... why have you decided the answer before you ask the question?

Eww... sorry, that was poorly worded. The point was that the exact environmental factors that led to the exctinction of the other Homo races isn't known yet. It could be environmentlal pressure, or it could be from competition with Homo Sapiens. i only meant those two to be examples of possibilities, not answers to be taken as rote. My bad.

Evolutionists should at least stick with one idea. It seems like everytime we blink, evolutionary scientists come up with something else to claim as "fact".

That they are confident of their theory does not make them claim it is fact. To do so would be silly. Evolutionary scientists believe that evolution is the reason for the current state of life on this planet, just as creationists are sure that a deity of whatever form is responsible for it. Both sides want to seem as right as possible and so claim their ideas to be as 'factual" as possible. That some scientists get overzealous and claim something unproven as fact is a failing of that scientist, not the science itself.

Oh look... MORE speculation. -_-

Speculation backed up by evidence... but that's what Hypotheses are, no?

evolutionists claim that they have the answer to how we got here, so the burden of proof lies entirely with them. Nature could have only been created by a Force that exists outside of the nature.

Umm, don't creationists claim the same thing? Thus burdens of proof lie on both sides. Only problem is that evolutionists have hard science, proveable facts (and before you jump on that, the data that supports the "hypotheses" IS, in fact, proveable), physical evidence. Creationists have a book written thousands of years ago.

Also, I really wish I could explain the current theory on the origin of the universe... it really would make my stance here a little stronger, but I'd rather not make the argument than make it poorly. Since "super"natural means separate from nature, then yes, technically something supernatural was responsible for the Universe. What that is, noone knows. You believe a deity, I am content to say "I don't know".

(LoL) I'll admit that the law of entropy (in theory) could allow for Evolution if you admit that the geologic column was developed using circular logic. =P Speaking of which, you haven't replied to those twelve quotes supporting the idea that the column is flawed.

Well, I have to admit that I'm becoming convinced of your argument here. The thought that, in any single place in the world, there is a continuous layering of all possible strata to be dated and used as comparison for other strata IS retarded. It doesn'e exist. You've been talking about the geologic column as something physical, I've been talking about it as a method of data collection. A geologic column, as a singular physical thing does not exist. However, the reasoning that the further down it is the older it is, and the use of radiometric dataing to determine the ages of those strata DOES.

So many years? I thought that evolutionists claimed that life originated 3.5 billion years ago. It's not like people are asking them to constuct a human being, just a simple organism.

The first "life" so to speak may, by curent models, have begun 3.5 million years ago, give or take a century or 3, but the time it took to get from the Amino Acid stage to DNA and replicable life is MANY millions of years. To continue the experiment from Amino Acid Stage onwards would be extremely cost-prohibitive. And nevermind the difficulty with being able to reproduce the results.

Nah, just impossible. ~_^

Nah, not impossible, just improbable. ~_^

Well consider both perspectives: one theory teaches that are closest ancestors are swinging from trees and eating crackers at the zoo... This theory suggests that our Creator had a plan for our lives and that we are set apart for a reason. I hope this answers your question, and I tried not to be too theological about it. ~_^

I've said before: The existance of an omniscience turns free will into an illusion. And that, above all other things, is abhorrent to me. To not actually have the freedom to choose my own path is what has turned me from most religions. That our evolutionary Fourth Cousins twenty million times removed happen to be what they are isn't the least bit upsetting to me.

Look, dude. It was never my intention to start a 'Creation vs. Evolution' debate. I've argued this subject many times before, and to tell you the truth, I'm getting sick of it (LoL). It's kinda odd discussing this with you because you hold different beliefs than most of the evolutionists I've encountered in this forum.

Well, I'm certainly glad that I've been able to throw you a few pitches you haven't seen before. And I'm really kind of upset that past evolutionists haven't been able to argue effectively, but oh well. I'm not exactly sure why you turned it into a creation vs evolution debate either. Because like I've said before, the two, in and of themselves are not mutually exclusive IMO. That the Intelligent Design set forth by God would be Evolution is perfectly reasonable to me if I believed in the prerequisites to Intelligent Design, i.e. a deity. I really don't understand your objection to one of gods mysterious ways being the use of evolution to bring about hi screations.

Take your time in responding. I have always enjoyed a good debate and you have been a worthy opponent. I do hope I've been able to elucidate some scientific points that you may not have known about.

---

At 4/24/05 09:29 AM, Ravariel wrote: Well, I'm certainly glad that I've been able to throw you a few pitches you haven't seen before. And I'm really kind of upset that past evolutionists haven't been able to argue effectively, but oh well.

Actually, you are probably the most intellectual person I believe I've ever debated with in this forum. You're able to decide things for yourself. Most of the other evolutionists I've dealt with were bitter atheists, so you were a breath of fresh air (LoL). And you have helped me better understand the theory of Evolution. I'm still a Creationist, but oh well, you tried. =P (LoL) Anyway, I appreciate you discussing this with me.

I'm not exactly sure why you turned it into a creation vs evolution debate either.

Well, actually it started when -BAWLS- called the Intelligent Design theory "ridiculous". I can respect people that believe in Evolution, but I still believe that Creation should never be ruled out. I mean, it is quite possible. So that's how it started (LoL).

Take your time in responding.

Nah, I guess I'll give you the last word. ~_^

I have always enjoyed a good debate and you have been a worthy opponent. I do hope I've been able to elucidate some scientific points that you may not have known about.

You have, and I hope that you learned something about the geologic column =P (LoL). But it's been cool debating with you. See ya around, dude... I guess I'll stick around to see if jmaster is going to respond (LoL).

---

At 4/24/05 07:40 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: I honestly have no idea what you're talking about, dude.

I'm a weirdo

---

At 4/24/05 10:58 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: Stuff.

Fair enough. Cheers!

Doh... had a funny story about Stephen Hawking and I never posted it... so here goes for some slightly off-topic stuff.

SH was in Italy at a conference giving a talk about some new theories and some new math to colleagues. He also got an invite to meet with the Pope (JP, naturally, not Benedict). The pope wished to discuss with him his Big Bang theory and how the church had decided that it was a theologically acceptable theory. They liked the idea that from nothing suddenly came everything in one swell foop. It was a very creationistic view of the beginning. And JP wanted to praise SH for thinking it up and bringing it to the consciousness of the people.

Ironically, the conference that SH was at was where he revealed the evidence and the math that proved the Big Bang theory to be false.

XD

GG. Next map.

---

First of all religon does not make life easier almost all the wars of this world where either caused or fueled by religon. Plus if god is so loving why does he not accept us for who we are? Why did his son never really write anything down? Where does god get the idea that he is a god? why is he so intent on ruling us humans? If he is truly as almighty as he is made out to be why dosent he destroy Hell it appears to be in his sphere of control. Why does he not send someone down better yet come down here himself and settle the argument about him? and what if there was a life before god? I personally am starting to believe that he only exists because we allow him to. Our belief might fuel him. Also if he's so great why does he not end all the pain and suffering? Another thing the way he is described is that he controls you entirely so why does he not smite those not of the religon he favor's?

---

meh, i wont waste space.

At (4/25/05) 02:07 AM cwilla321 made a logical statement that is hard to disprove.

I do not need to say anything because i would just be saying things other people are saying now, providing no new viewpoint to debate about (I think)

So, um... God does not exist. Get over it. If anything, he is our security blanket. How about instead of believing in God, lets try BELIVING IN OURSELVES!111one

(insert unneeded anti-religion rant here)

---

At 4/24/05 11:17 PM, Ravariel wrote:

At 4/24/05 10:58 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: Stuff.

SH was in Italy at a conference giving a talk about some new theories and some new math to colleagues. He also got an invite to meet with the Pope (JP, naturally, not Benedict). The pope wished to discuss with him his Big Bang theory and how the church had decided that it was a theologically acceptable theory. They liked the idea that from nothing suddenly came everything in one swell foop. It was a very creationistic view of the beginning. And JP wanted to praise SH for thinking it up and bringing it to the consciousness of the people.

Ironically, the conference that SH was at was where he revealed the evidence and the math that proved the Big Bang theory to be false.

.

The Big Bang theory is defenitely false.

The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of an unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop.

Quoted from How Did it All Begin? : By Harold Hill
Copyright 1976

---

At 4/17/05 05:42 AM, TwistedGremlin wrote: i agree with you religion makes earth a better place

I disagree. Every religion has this thought that it's THE ONE. Y'know, the truth. But it's all deception. Everywhere you look, people are shutting their minds into tiny little boxes (tiny little books?). They look to a GOD for answers that can be found in other people. I think that spirituality can easily be attained without a chuch, or holy book. I feel ashamed as a human, to see my brothers/sisters justifying death, destruction, war and famine because their holy texts tell them it's alright to hate, that it's alright (well justified, even) to enslave. It makes me sad. The religions of the Earth only bring together like-minded peoples in their crusades of intolerance. (Knights of Colombus, anyone?)

---

At 4/25/05 02:47 PM, Stephen_is_I wrote: The Big Bang theory is defenitely false.

The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of an unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop.

Quoted from How Did it All Begin? : By Harold Hill
Copyright 1976

I suggest you do some research before saying something like that.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBevidence

---

At 4/17/05 05:42 AM, TwistedGremlin wrote: i agree with you religion makes earth a better place

What do you mean by 'religion'? Are you talking about religion in a spiritual sense, or are you referring to 'organized' religion?

---

At 4/25/05 02:47 PM, Stephen_is_I wrote:
The Big Bang theory is defenitely false.

The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of an unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop.

Quoted from How Did it All Begin? : By Harold Hill
Copyright 1976

Umm... Small possibility =/= no possibility. While I don't believe in the Big Bang theory any more than you do it's certainly not because it's chances of occurring how it did (was supposed to) are low. Google the Weak and Strong Anthropic Principles and then come back here and we'll talk about probability as evidence for anything.

---

At 4/25/05 02:47 PM, Stephen_is_I wrote: relavations of n00b

Stephen... I don't mean to flame here, but I really can't find any other way to put this... YOU=TARD!! In an earlier post, you said "how could the earth be created from nothing"... Isn't that the case in the whole "god created the universe" thingamabob? I mean, the diety must have existed all by his lonesome, considering that he is the creator of all... I'd like to know why you so prejudistically discredit perfectly sane scientific theory... Open your eyes. You might not be as right as you think you are. Just because you are surrounded by those who agree with you, and you have no other answer to life's big questions doesn't mean you're right. So, just STFU, and drink your joos, n00b.

---

if athiest stand by science, then why do they always resort to idiotic philisophical debates based on their own un-researched views on religon?
such as "if god exisist then why do bad things happen.

---

At 4/25/05 07:05 PM, goldenbednclock wrote: if athiest stand by science, then why do they always resort to idiotic philisophical debates based on their own un-researched views on religon?
such as "if god exisist then why do bad things happen.

Hmm... how can I respond to this. We, the atheistic idiots, respond in this manner due to the sheer bulk of religious idiots who pose these types of questions (reversely biased) as a twisted form of a vindictive rebuttal, such as "if god doesn't exist, how did all things come to be?"... Fight fire with fire, If your opponent chooses to resort to asininity, try to speak in their language. Well, at least that's what I do.

---

well the atheist seem to think that when the christians use science in arguments, they have no idea what they are talking about. same goes with christians amd philosophical

---

At 4/25/05 09:11 PM, goldenbednclock wrote: well the atheist seem to think that when the christians use science in arguments, they have no idea what they are talking about. same goes with christians amd philosophical

While it is certainly possible that some atheists are poor philosophical debaters, it has certainly been my experience that creationists are worse at scientific debates. Just look at my debate with VCV. While he had some valid scientific points and observations, much of his science was just plain wrong... and he probably put up the best argument all around that I've come across.

And just because we use a lot of science to back up our views doesn't mean that we're relegated only to the scientific arguments. I have many philosophical arguments as well. VCV and me were only discussing the Evolution/Creation debate and never even got into the actual god existing/not existing debate. Once you get into THAT debate you MUST go philosophical because science has no answers. Also, sometimes you have to take the fight to the other side's turf in order to have a successful debate.

---

I really hope there isnt a God. If he's been watching what human kind has been getting up to over the last century, we're all going to hell

---

I've said it before, as have others tho in different words, and i'll say it again.

Anyone who has a hardline view towards either science or religion being the only way is a bloody fool.

How so? Well if god created us, he also created the nature of scientists to be in us.

And also, both science and religion are foolish in believing that they will give us the answer. Science cant take us back to the start of time and those who are religious, even if they actually knew, i doubt they'd be able to tell us in a way we'd understand.. Not that i'm cynical about organised religion or anything. And those that would tell us are hardline fundamentalists, who no one but other hardline fundamentalists of the same religion like.

And those that arent of any religion who see a glimmer of the incomprehensible truth go mad looking for the rest of it.

Face it, you are not going to understand whilst you are alive why we are here, and if you ever do i can guarantee you wont be able to write the answer. The mysteries of the universe past are beyond human comprehension. We cannot even hold in our minds a million years, what hope of we understanding something that happened millions of millions of years ago, unless we get a time machine or god talks to us? But, if god talks to us, see previous point.