Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/2/07 07:27 PM, pixelz wrote:

The truth is everyone knows God exists, its just they choose not to "believe in him" after reading this, you too will acknowledge "God" thus proving his existence in all of our minds.

I read and I'm still not acknowledging. Don't be so assured your ideals are that perfect.

And whilst I mention God and evolution, may I pursue you towards anglican with this comment. Would you rather believe a monkey is your relative or believe that your created in the image of a God?

What people would rather have doesn't change anything. I'm going to believe in what I think is true, not what I want to be true.

At 3/3/07 12:28 AM, BlueEyesWhiteDevil wrote:

At 3/2/07 10:51 PM, Empanado wrote: And I think I'm going to hate the jews and the blacks from now on, too.

One must do so in order to believe in evolution.

According to Darwin, the white race is vastly superior to all the other races.

According to common sense, you have no idea what evolution is. And, even if Darwinism is racist, you yourself hates jews and blacks BlueEyesWhateverTheFuck, so I don't think calling Darwinism racist is a very good strategy from your side.

Wow. Worst. Argument. Ever.

Just because most people are aware of the concept of the Judeo-Christian god (I don't know what you mean by "anglican") doesn't mean that he exists. Many people are also aware of the concept of the Hindu god Shiva, but that doesn't mean that he exists, either. Same goes for Ronald McDonald.

And evolution isn't an attempt to disprove any deity. It is simply a logical, scientific means of explaining creation. The bonus? It has evidence supporting it. I trust that much more than "God did it."

Sounds to me like you're just pissed because your child is deviating from your lifestyle. What it all comes down to is this: regardless of whether or not it exists, if a person believes in a diety, he will find his way to him/her/it and, chances are, will stay with it. Accept that.

At 3/3/07 09:18 PM, Sigma-Lambda wrote:

you yourself hates jews and blacks BlueEyesWhateverTheFuck, so I don't think calling Darwinism racist is a very good strategy from your side.

Obviously you have never heard of sarcasm.

If God exists, and God is perfect, how can there be imperfections in the world he created?

At 3/4/07 10:21 AM, supercubedude wrote: If God exists, and God is perfect, how can there be imperfections in the world he created?

Define imperfections? Perhaps God, existing and being a sadistic being, just finds it hilarious to see us trying to cope with all these perceived 'imperfections'.

OK, so I've heard of this guy called Santa Claus, so this means he exists?

Yes, that's right. You are a fucking failure.

At 3/4/07 10:45 AM, Togukawa wrote:

At 3/4/07 10:21 AM, supercubedude wrote: If God exists, and God is perfect, how can there be imperfections in the world he created?

Define imperfections? Perhaps God, existing and being a sadistic being, just finds it hilarious to see us trying to cope with all these perceived 'imperfections'.

If we were created in God's image, and we perceive sadism as an imperfection, God would too, therefore, God can't be sadistic. Therefore God can't find pleasure in our shortcomings, which exist despite his perfection.

^ That's an awesome, convoluted sentence IMO.

At 3/4/07 11:55 AM, supercubedude wrote: If we were created in God's image, and we perceive sadism as an imperfection, God would too, therefore, God can't be sadistic. Therefore God can't find pleasure in our shortcomings, which exist despite his perfection.

^ That's an awesome, convoluted sentence IMO.

Har, yes it is. Anyway, we were supposedly created in his image, but there are several ways we differ from God. For instance, not being omnipotent ourselves.

Secondly, my reason statet wasn't meant seriously. My point is that the world might be imperfect in our eyes, but not in those of gods, since what we perceive as imperfections might actually have a purpose, that we are unable to comprehend, being human as opposed to divine.

In fact, that goes for most statements regarding God. It's very arrogant to think we would be able to understand God or attribute any characteristics to Him at all. The only way we have is through the revelations, and interpreting those has turned out just peachy...

This topic starter is a troll and a ignorent fool.

At 3/2/07 07:27 PM, pixelz wrote: Now I came up with this theory, I am a christian brought up kid who is becoming more and more athiest

And whilst I mention God and evolution, . Would you rather believe a monkey is your relative or believe that your created in the image of a God?

;
You've definately convinced me.
you are related to a monkey.
Supposedly the rest of us are from a branch of the Homo Sapiens family tree.
I don't care if I am in the image of God, what difference does that make.
Besides haven't you learned yet , god is all powerful & invisible (thats why no one can see him) so since none of us are invisible , I guess we can't possibly look like him ah ,her... I mean it.
Is that proof enough.

Well some people do believe that god exists, well there others like me that don't think god exists at all.

All I believe in is what is right and what is wrong, I know for a fact that slavery is totally wrong. ;)

At 3/4/07 05:33 PM, Hexter66 wrote: Well some people do believe that god exists, well there others like me that don't think god exists at all.

All I believe in is what is right and what is wrong, I know for a fact that slavery is totally wrong. ;)

And how is it that you know this?

what a silly thing to argue about!

Believe what you want to believe in, stay out of other people's buisness. Treat people with other ideologies with the same respect you want from them.

Im not a religious freak. I study. I read. I believe in God when before i believed in nothing.

If you hjave read Revelations you should knoww that you are fulfilling philosophies right now.

The Christian God will be denied by humans near the end. When before we used our human mind to scientifically prove things.
Science is man made. We are inferior to God. Fo all we know, science as we see it is a bunch of human-found bullcrap. To deny things because of you wanting to follow your own rules instead of ones set by a God or other superior being is dumb.
And "God's image" could in fact be the image he had in mind. not necessarily what he looks like.
Man lies more than most. Man knows less than all. So why completely trust mankind?

Lots of religous forums on NG just end of with the bashing of beliefs. I myself have faith and still consider myself a good individual. There are atheist out there who would consider me foolish for saying that. I just don't see why athiests have to bash religion. You don't have to believe it but that doesnt give you the right to say we're idiots. If religion is so pointless then tell me who is better in this comparison of two people

A. The person who believes in god. This man is geunuinely nice and understanding and became this way through his devout faith.

B. An Atheist who is miserable and insults people for worshiping false idols.

At 3/5/07 01:38 AM, TheAutocrat wrote: Science is man made. We are inferior to God. Fo all we know, science as we see it is a bunch of human-found bullcrap.

Bullcrap? It's the human-found bullcrap that provided the computer you're writing on.

To deny things because of you wanting to follow your own rules instead of ones set by a God or other superior being is dumb.

Okay. I am your superior, don't wear clothes made out of different fibres. No? Okay then, God says wearing clothes made out of different fibres is a sin. Still won't accept this rule? I'll write it down in a book then. Or does it have to be written down by someone over 2000 years ago to become a valid rule?

Blindly following rules without any reasoning behind them is being dumb.

Man lies more than most. Man knows less than all. So why completely trust mankind?

So the Bible wasn't written by 'mankind'? Why completely trust a couple of people that wrote a book 2000 years ago, instead of trusting yourself, or contemporary people, whose credibility you can check?

And semaGdniM, complaining about atheists bashing religious people, and calling atheists miserable in the same post, kudos.

Tell me who is better in this comparison of two people:

A. The person who believes in God. This man is a rabid homicidal maniac that flays heretics alive and became this way through his devout faith. Also has a love for lighting his farts while dancing around.

B. An Atheist whose face got smashed in by a donkey at the age of 3. He is only capable of uttering the syllable "ni" and drools profusively.

In case you don't get it: Your comparison sucks. It's saying "compare a nice person with an asshole, and oh yeah, by the way, the asshole is atheist and the nice guy is religious"

At 3/2/07 07:27 PM, pixelz wrote:

Evolutionists spend their lives trying their hardest to prove he doesn't exist. Whoever says "God doesn't exist" thats hypocritical.

HELLO!?!?!

I am an evolutionist yet I believe in God!
You don't have to not believe in God to be an evolutionist!

P.S. : PLEASE DO NOT make a thread that deals with religion in the POLITICS SECTION! I am getting sick and tired of seeing this! If you want to discuss religion, put it in GENERAL, not POLITICS!

I don't think humans were created in the image of god.

What were kittens created in the image of?

At 3/5/07 10:09 PM, AdamRice wrote: I don't think humans were created in the image of god.

its interesting how most people see "image of" as "looks like"

At 3/5/07 12:20 PM, semaGdniM wrote: I just don't see why athiests have to bash religion. You don't have to believe it but that doesnt give you the right to say we're idiots. If religion is so pointless then tell me who is better in this comparison of two people

A. The person who believes in god. This man is geunuinely nice and understanding and became this way through his devout faith.

B. An Atheist who is miserable and insults people for worshiping false idols.

...it seems that there are religious people who bash atheists as well...

I think you're stereotyping both aitheists and christians, which is never good. There are good religious people and there are bad religious people. There are good aitheists and bad aitheists. I also think that a lot of aitheists agree with a lot of what the bible teaches, things like forgiveness and love and understanding and compassion. They just don't buy the bit about
the world being created in 7 days, the ocean parting, ect. . Yes the values taught by the 10 commandments/jesus/whatever else are important, but do you have to be religious to agree with them? no.

Whats funny is how religious people can believe and preach the myth of religion yet deny the fact
of EVOLUTION

*Yawn*.

At 3/6/07 12:56 AM, sirhumper wrote: Whats funny is how religious people can believe and preach the myth of religion yet deny the fact
of EVOLUTION

Then why is it still called a "theory"?

At 3/6/07 09:24 PM, BlueEyesWhiteDevil wrote:

At 3/6/07 12:56 AM, sirhumper wrote: Whats funny is how religious people can believe and preach the myth of religion yet deny the fact
of EVOLUTION

Then why is it still called a "theory"?

Is Evolution a Theory, a Fact, or a Law?

Or -- None of the Above?

By Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D.
Copyright (c) 1993 by the Missouri Association for Creation

I have heard many Christians say that evolution doesn't concern them because, after all, it's "only a theory." Presumably they think that the word "theory" means about the same thing as a "pipe dream." But the term theory, at least as it applies to experimental science, has a much nobler meaning than that. A scientific theory is a careful attempt to explain certain observable facts of nature by means of experiments. Since many Christians have concluded that evolution is incompatible with the Biblical account of creation, we would do well to investigate if evolution is a fact or a theory -- or perhaps neither.

There is a widespread misconception that good theories grow up to be facts and that the really good ones finally become laws. But these three categories of scientific description are neither directly related nor mutually exclusive. It often occurs that a single natural phenomenon can be described in terms of a theory, a fact, and a law -- all at the same time!

Consider the well-known phenomenon of gravity. First, there is a fact of gravity. While we cannot actually see gravitational force itself, we do observe the effects of this force every time we drop something. There is also a theory of gravity that addresses the question of how this force we call gravity really works. While we really don't know how gravity works, there are theories that attempt to explain it. Finally there is the well-known law of gravity. This law, first formulated by Isaac Newton, a Bible believing Christian and creationist, is a mathematical equation that shows a relationship between mass, distance and gravitational force. So in summary, a scientific fact is an observable natural occurrence; a scientific theory is an attempt to explain how this natural occurrence works; and, a scientific law is a mathematical description of this natural occurrence.

Science itself is the whole process of making careful observations of certain facts of nature and then constructing and testing theories that seek to explain those facts. We call these tests of a theory experiments. Experimental science, better known as empirical science, is the kind of science that is responsible for the marvelous technological achievements that make our life easier. One has only to consider what it would be like to endure surgery without anesthesia to appreciate the contributions of empirical science to our life.

The most important requirement of empirical science is that any object or phenomenon we wish to study must first be observable. While we may assume the existence of events not witnessed by human observers, such events are not suited to study by empirical science. Secondly, the object or phenomenon we wish to study must be repeatable. Unique and unrepeatable events, like say the Babylonian Empire, are the subject of history, not empirical science. Finally, any explanations we might propose for observable and repeatable phenomena must be testable. By this we mean that we must be able to conceive of an experiment that could refute our theory if it were wrong. If one were to propose an explanation for a phenomenon in such a way that no one could conceive of any way to test or refute it, it wouldn't be a theory at all, but rather a belief. Beliefs, of course, are not necessarily wrong or inappropriate, they just aren't well suited to study by empirical science.

What then shall we say of evolution? First, evolutionists tell us that major evolutionary changes happen far too slowly, or too rarely, to be observable in the lifetime of human observers. Most living organisms and their offspring are said to remain largely unchanged for tens of thousands, or even millions, of years. According to the evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky, even when evolutionary changes do occur, they are by nature "unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible." Dobzhansky tells us that the "applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted." The well-known evolutionist Paul Ehrlich says the theory of evolution "cannot be refuted by any possible observations" and thus is "outside of empirical science."

Still, the occurrence of evolution is widely believed to be a scientific "fact" and those who dare to doubt it are not endured gladly. The Encyclopedia Britannica confidently assures us that "we are not in the least doubt as to the fact of evolution." In his textbook _Evolution_, J. Savage says "we do not need a listing of the evidences to demonstrate the fact of evolution any more than we need to demonstrate the existence of mountain ranges." In another textbook titled _Outlines of General Zoology_, H. Newman arrogantly declared that evolution has no rival as an explanation for the origin of everything "except the outworn and completely refuted one of special creation, now retained only by the ignorant, the dogmatic, and the prejudicial."

What exactly is the "observable fact" of evolution? First you should be aware that evolutionists recognize two types of evolution -- micro evolution, which is observable, and macro evolution, which isn't. So called "micro evolution" is a process of limited variation among the individuals of a given species that produces the sort of variety we observe, for example, among dogs. Macro evolution, on the other hand, is a hypothetical process of unlimited variation that evolutionists believe transforms one kind of living organism into a fundamentally different kind such as the transformation of reptiles into birds or apes into people. Obviously, no one has ever observed anything remotely like this actually happen.

The very name "micro evolution" is intended to imply that it is this kind of variation that accumulates to produce macro evolution though a growing number of evolutionists admit there is no evidence for this. Thus an observable phenomenon is extrapolated into an unobservable phenomenon for which there is no evidence, and then the latter is declared to be a "fact" on the strength of the former. It is this kind of limitless extrapolation that comprises much of the argument for evolution.

In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory. Evolution must be accepted with faith by its believers, many of whom deny the existence, or at least the power, of the Creator. Similarly, the Biblical account of creation is not observable, repeatable or refutable by man. Special creation is accepted with faith by those who believe that the Bible is the revelation of an omnipotent and omniscient Creator whose Word is more reliable than the speculations of men. Both evolution and creation, however, can be compared for their compatibility with what we do observe of the facts of nature. In the months ahead, we will see that creation by intelligent design is a vastly more reasonable explanation for the origin of the complexity we see in living things than is evolution by mere chance and the intrinsic properties of nature.

Dr. Menton received his Ph.D. in Biology from Brown University. He has been involved in biomedical research and education for over 30 years.

*******************

Originally published in: St. Louis MetroVoice, October 1993, Vol. 3, No. 10

At 3/6/07 10:22 PM, BlueEyesWhiteDevil wrote:

By Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D.
Copyright (c) 1993 by the Missouri Association for Creation
Consider the well-known phenomenon of gravity. First, there is a fact of gravity. While we cannot actually see gravitational force itself, we do observe the effects of this force every time we drop something. There is also a theory of gravity that addresses the question of how this force we call gravity really works. While we really don't know how gravity works, there are theories that attempt to explain it. Finally there is the well-known law of gravity. This law, first formulated by Isaac Newton, a Bible believing Christian and creationist, is a mathematical equation that shows a relationship between mass, distance and gravitational force. So in summary, a scientific fact is an observable natural occurrence; a scientific theory is an attempt to explain how this natural occurrence works; and, a scientific law is a mathematical description of this natural occurrence.

The last conclusion, or rather statement is incorrect. A law is a theory, which has paned out time and time again in observation or is a very good general approximation for the way a given phenomenon works. All theories have equations related to them, if they don't then they are incomplete from a physical and therefor scientific standpoint.

The most important requirement of empirical science is that any object or phenomenon we wish to study must first be observable. While we may assume the existence of events not witnessed by human observers, such events are not suited to study by empirical science. Secondly, the object or phenomenon we wish to study must be repeatable. Unique and unrepeatable events, like say the Babylonian Empire, are the subject of history, not empirical science. Finally, any explanations we might propose for observable and repeatable phenomena must be testable. By this we mean that we must be able to conceive of an experiment that could refute our theory if it were wrong. If one were to propose an explanation for a phenomenon in such a way that no one could conceive of any way to test or refute it, it wouldn't be a theory at all, but rather a belief. Beliefs, of course, are not necessarily wrong or inappropriate, they just aren't well suited to study by empirical science.

The first statement is incorrect, provided there is evidence for the given interaction between the objects in question the data is perfectly empirical. To say otherwise means that all test are non empirical in nature as there is some time delay between the initiation of the event and the recording of it. The fact that something occurred in the past is irrelevant provide that the data is still intact. Repeatability is a shaky word, NO single experiment is perfectly repeatable. Be as simple as two different atoms of Cl in a tank somewhere turning into Ar by a passing neutrino or two bacterium affected by a mutagen.

What then shall we say of evolution? First, evolutionists tell us that major evolutionary changes happen far too slowly, or too rarely, to be observable in the lifetime of human observers. Most living organisms and their offspring are said to remain largely unchanged for tens of thousands, or even millions, of years. According to the evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky, even when evolutionary changes do occur, they are by nature "unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible." Dobzhansky tells us that the "applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted." The well-known evolutionist Paul Ehrlich says the theory of evolution "cannot be refuted by any possible observations" and thus is "outside of empirical science."

No they don't; There are many mutations that occur with in your own life time. See:
http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=14 3
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
Paul Ehrlich lived in the 19th and very early 20th century. His works have been surpassed by new bio-scientist, and Theodosius Dobzhansky, is being misquoted (most likely intentionally). He also wrote the following:
http://people.delphiforums.com/lordorman/ligh t.htm
This process of using outdated, and misquoted literature is quite common in the creationist circle and is why Dr. Menton, and fellow creationist are called academically dishonest, and also why none of there paper see peer review and publication in any reputable journals.

Still, the occurrence of evolution is widely believed to be a scientific "fact" and those who dare to doubt it are not endured gladly. The Encyclopedia Britannica confidently assures us that "we are not in the least doubt as to the fact of evolution." In his textbook _Evolution_, J. Savage says "we do not need a listing of the evidences to demonstrate the fact of evolution any more than we need to demonstrate the existence of mountain ranges." In another textbook titled _Outlines of General Zoology_, H. Newman arrogantly declared that evolution has no rival as an explanation for the origin of everything "except the outworn and completely refuted one of special creation, now retained only by the ignorant, the dogmatic, and the prejudicial."

See my above argument.

What exactly is the "observable fact" of evolution? First you should be aware that evolutionists recognize two types of evolution -- micro evolution, which is observable, and macro evolution, which isn't. So called "micro evolution" is a process of limited variation among the individuals of a given species that produces the sort of variety we observe, for example, among dogs. Macro evolution, on the other hand, is a hypothetical process of unlimited variation that evolutionists believe transforms one kind of living organism into a fundamentally different kind such as the transformation of reptiles into birds or apes into people. Obviously, no one has ever observed anything remotely like this actually happen.

Again, no they don't! No, I repeat NO biologist or biophysicist worth his salt would say anything of the sort. Micro and macro evolution are the same, there is no difference and no distinction in academic or professional fields. “Macro” evolution is not hypothetical, but theoretical see the above links I posted.

At 3/6/07 10:22 PM, BlueEyesWhiteDevil wrote:

<Continued>

The very name "micro evolution" is intended to imply that it is this kind of variation that accumulates to produce macro evolution though a growing number of evolutionists admit there is no evidence for this...

Incorrect, it was a creationist who came up with the term.

In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory. Evolution must be accepted with faith by its believers, many of whom deny the existence, or at least the power, of the Creator. Similarly, the Biblical account of creation is not observable, repeatable or refutable by man. Special creation is accepted with faith by those who believe that the Bible is the revelation of an omnipotent and omniscient Creator whose Word is more reliable than the speculations of men. Both evolution and creation, however, can be compared for their compatibility with what we do observe of the facts of nature. In the months ahead, we will see that creation by intelligent design is a vastly more reasonable explanation for the origin of the complexity we see in living things than is evolution by mere chance and the intrinsic properties of nature.

In conclusion his premises are false, and Dr. Menton is a laughing stock of the academic world for falsifying data, misquoting fellow scientist, and generally lieing to the scientific community.

I believe in God, but I also believe that we evolved from monkeys. I see god as just a force rather than a person. Have you ever tried to take "We have been made in God's image" literally... As in; "We have been made INSIDE God's image" which basically means that we are part of the manifestation of God. We are not created in THE one true God... But in an instance of the one true god... Or more simply put; a manifestation of him... or more appropriately put; a manifestation of it.

Just because all priests/pastors/reverends interpret it one way doesn't mean that they're right. After all, the Bible was translated from Hebrew which means that the translation would have been literal... So "in" would most likely mean "inside" than be put as an expression.

At 3/7/07 12:17 AM, EndGameOmega wrote: a whole lotta bullshit...

Nice alt.

Apes are the truth.