-
Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
-
Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter sweatshopchamp
- Start date
Luke9583 said:Nietzsche wrote lots of great stuff on women in 'human all to human'
maniclion said:
OceanDude said:
Uhm OD, god is an abstract concept. Sort of like aliens. You may not believe in it, but you recognize the idea. i.e., "I blame god for making old people clog the road in front of churches on sunday."
OceanDude said:
Well, to begin with, im not singling out christianity here - im talking about all forms of organized religion. Secondly, nowhere am i saying religion alone is the cause of war - only that it's a major cause of otherwise needless war.
i.e. - The crusades, the arabian empire expanding as far as spain, the inquisition, the french "wars of religion," the thirty years war (which was particularly bloody), etc.
OceanDude said:Also what you attribute to Science is nothing of the sort. Although I concede Science has produced many discoveries (e.g. we had roofs over our heads in the first caves, we have had wild corn and agriculture long before it was cultivated [and were tossed out of the original Garden of Eden], among the first domesticated animals we had unkosher pigs [but we may have evolved from them?], steam has been blowing around in nature's hot springs and vents for a long time). For the most part all science has been able to do is emulate and approximate what it observes in Nature (although we do now have more abstract predictive mechanisms). In a manner of speaking, a religious person can argue that Science can be viewed as the study of Gods works in Nature and the application of those principals to man's own vision (which has also been a large cause for unintended consequences and misery). Ponder that we have Science to thank for the Holy Atomic Bomb.
Uhh... no. I'm really hoping this is a joke on your part... or maybe some sort of parody of some previous comments. Because if it isnt, youre insane. Trying to call a hot spring the same as a computer is beyond exaggeration, its borderline retardation. The bible doesnt tell humanity how to improve itself, it says inane and bizarre shit like: "if your brother dies, go bang his wife and have a kid - if you dont, she'll take you in front of the town elders and beat you with your own shoe, then spit on you." (Deuteronomy 25)
When Copernicus was exploring the heavens, he had to wait untill he was on his deathbed to publish his work, because if he had published it sooner, he would have been executed by the inquisition. Galileo was sentenced to life in prison for suggesting the earth revolved around the sun. Darwin "approximated what he learned in nature" and was reviled by christianity.
Regardless, your entire premise is typical: "science is the study of gods work." Well shit, by your definition, there isnt anything thats not a result of god, right? So we're sort of back to point number one, where i say "evolution exists because of a, b, and c" and you say "no it doesnt god created everything, that too."
OceanDude said:
God damn, and here i was thinking you were just another WWJD guy. It's now clear that you are indeed insane. Isn't there a street corner somewhere in downtown manhattan youre supposed to be preaching from?
Noooooooooooo!
Monolith said:Uhm OD, god is an abstract concept. Sort of like aliens. You may not believe in it, but you recognize the idea. i.e., "I blame god for making old people clog the road in front of churches on sunday."
Then you must blame yourself for having to live in this hell?
Well, to begin with, im not singling out christianity here - im talking about all forms of organized religion. Secondly, nowhere am i saying religion alone is the cause of war - only that it's a major cause of otherwise needless war.
i.e. - The crusades, the arabian empire expanding as far as spain, the inquisition, the french "wars of religion," the thirty years war (which was particularly bloody), etc.
OK. So in your book all religions are evil and you are good?
Uhh... no. I'm really hoping this is a joke on your part... or maybe some sort of parody of some previous comments. Because if it isnt, youre insane. Trying to call a hot spring the same as a computer is beyond exaggeration, its borderline retardation. The bible doesnt tell humanity how to improve itself, it says inane and bizarre shit like: "if your brother dies, go bang his wife and have a kid - if you dont, she'll take you in front of the town elders and beat you with your own shoe, then spit on you." (Deuteronomy 25)
A computer is an approximation of a computing device. Although I know of no discrete boolean computing devices in nature I can quite imagine that many true social retards use their very powerful neural computing system (e.g. their brain) to work on trivial boolean expression centered on answering yes and no questions over and over again such as: <does it feel good> AND <can I boost my ego>. The insanity of course is in expecting different outcomes each time you run that rudimentary behavior. I have worked with computers all my life and they have made me a lot of money. But they are really nothing to marvel at and quite simple when compared to the average human mind. As for the vulgar reference to Deuteronomy I'd recommend that you get some insight into what you are whining about since you need to understand that the system of law and religion of the Jewish people you reference existed at a point in human history when life was a daily struggle for survival and not a current teaching.
When Copernicus was exploring the heavens, he had to wait untill he was on his deathbed to publish his work, because if he had published it sooner, he would have been executed by the inquisition. Galileo was sentenced to life in prison for suggesting the earth revolved around the sun. Darwin "approximated what he learned in nature" and was reviled by christianity.
The Church will be the first to admit that mistakes were made in the past and in reality the social systems that existed in that day were never part of the Christian vision. Basically you had power hungry humans use religious teachings to hijack the people and build power bases. This is more a measure of human gullibility and human corruption than it is an invalidation of religious concepts. Of course, don't think that just because you do not have a religious society anymore that the same harshness no longer exists. Many intelligent scientists have been relegated to obscurity simply for political expediency or becuase they represented a competing idea to an establish system that had economic clout to silence then. Religions no longer have this kind of opressive power since they are now separated in this country (although the Muslims still do in the middle east).
Regardless, your entire premise is typical: "science is the study of gods work." Well shit, by your definition, there isnt anything thats not a result of god, right? So we're sort of back to point number one, where i say "evolution exists because of a, b, and c" and you say "no it doesnt god created everything, that too."
That's not exactly how I said it. Say it like it is: science is the study of what is - none of what is in nature was man made. I have already gone on record as stating that i see no inconsistency between evolution and the accounts of Creation.
I don't think I am crazy but it sure seems crazy for you to argue with me if you think this since it's bound to drive you even more crazy in the end.
comments embedded.
OD
Monolith said:
For a guy who thinks of god as an abstract concept you seem to like to capitalize his name in respect at the same time you call down curses from above in his name. You need to be consistent in your views on this or start praying for God to make you sane so you can get back to being normal and calling him a concept again.
OD
No, I was forced by protocol to use his lower case convention since we had no basis for agreement on the other. It was proper in this case.busyLivin said:speaking of which, you missed one!
OD
milliman said:
You seem to be stuck on the idea that "man" was some preplanned idea that could never have come about by fate. Yet im saying that it was fate which resulted in man. Humanity appears to be this perfect culmination of intelligent design, yet it appears that way only because you are what you are. If humanity evolved with 3 heads per person, you would think that that was the perfect result of intelligent design. That random amalgamation of aminos and polypeptides resulted in you.
As for the whole definition of evolution thing... here you go (right out of the american heritage dictionary, not made up to fit my ideals):
# A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
#
1. The process of developing.
2. Gradual development.
# Biology.
1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
2. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
-----
By definition, evolution includes what you just described.
To take the idea further, do you consider a zebra to be "just another horse"?
milliman said:
w t f
This "genetic blueprint" is only important because it led to the creation of "us." If this blueprint gave us 3 heads, half an arm, and a couple tails, you'd still be calling it a work of genius "too perfect to be random." Why? Because you wouldnt know any better. As it stands, you dont know if there was an accident half way down the genetic blueprint somewhere that gave all of us half the intelligence we could have had. To us, the blueprint is perfect, because we are as we have always been and as we have always known ourselves to be.
This concept really isn't so terribly abstract. Just think about it. Harder.
milliman said:
Err, no. When talking chemistry, the second law of thermodynamics involves atoms and molecules. Do you know whats spreading all that smoke across the room? The speed at which all those molecules are smashing into each other and forcing themselves away from each other.
Building blocks do not spontaneously arrange themselves into a castle. But building blocks also do not speed around the work site at thousands of miles an hour, smashing together and releasing massive amounts of energy.
Think of it this way: There are millions of compounds that contain less inherent energy than the elements from which they were formed. In other words, the second law predicts the construction of molecules. The second law doesnt say there must be a decrease in order, only that energy must "spread out."
Anyway, while i feel the following will be wasted on you, since you failed to grasp earlier concepts, ill give it a shot:
What humanity defines as "life" is based on what we are and what we percieve as such. It is a human definition for human perception. Our definition of life - even our consideration of ourselves as life - could be no more than simple chemistry to some third party observer. We have built up a reality for ourselves that we are some magnificent invention, yet we have no grounds to base that assertion on beyond our own world. Beyond our own meager understanding of our environment. From a purely biological aspect, we are chemistry in action. Everything from our kidneys to our brain can be discussed using terms like "action potential" and "ion gradient." This "jump" from nucleic acid to life may not be as pronounced as we make it out to be - we are simply a much larger amalgamation of proteins and aminos than we were a few billion years ago.
OceanDude said:
Nice of you to ignore the line of thought, there, and just throw out your own extreme assertions to try and save face.
No, i never said i'm good and no, i never said all religions are evil. I made an observation, and im waiting for you to refute it, not just dance around it.
OceanDude said:
I see... so if the human mind is such a fantastic gift from god, then why cant it do everything a computer can? It seems as though we used our scientific insight to make up for our own weaknesses. In other words, making up for where god screwed up, no?
As for deuteronomy... uhm... ok. So at what point did that law become irrelevant? Who decided it was stupid and past its time? What about the endless number of other laws written in the bible that "educated" people no longer heed? You know, the people who no longer struggle daily for survival because of the industrial revolution, the tractor, and advanced irrigation?
OceanDude said:
Why are you so sure that the modern day interpretation of christianity is correct, and it was the church of the rennaisance that was hijacked? Couldnt it gbe the other way around?
I just can´t understand how someone could look to the complexity of life and say that a God is the answer. It is just not logic.
perfectbody
Banned Member
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2004
- Messages
- 294
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
belief in God is like giving up to find out yourself. Nevermind it has been just a couple of thousands since religions were introduced to control people. There will be changes in future. Glad I am a devout Atheist.Vieope said:
Monolith said:Nice of you to ignore the line of thought, there, and just throw out your own extreme assertions to try and save face.
I guess I didn't see a line of thought. I'll go back and re-look
No, i never said i'm good and no, i never said all religions are evil. I made an observation, and im waiting for you to refute it, not just dance around it.
It just seemed as though you were trying to present yourself as more enlightened than all the religions and I wanted to know how you yourself thought about that assertion so I could get a feel for if you thought you were infallible or not. I think we just established that fact that you believe in good and evil and that you are not good.
I see... so if the human mind is such a fantastic gift from god, then why cant it do everything a computer can? It seems as though we used our scientific insight to make up for our own weaknesses. In other words, making up for where god screwed up, no?
You are conveniently "dancing around" the concept that I alluded to. Namely, what man has thus far managed to construct are specialized tools and approximate models. In most every case the tools are based on concepts and principals that he has imperfectly observed in nature. Man has never been able to create new life from "nothingness" only mutate or approximate that which already is in existence or construct a thing like a Frankenstein from bits and pieces of conceptual observations. Man has never been able to demonstrate a holistic comprehension of anything and seems to be fairly limited with respect to setting in motion new laws and principals that govern how nature operates. This I believe is a valid statement that can stand on its own irrespective on whether or not a god (God) had anything to do with the Nature of things.
As for deuteronomy... uhm... ok. So at what point did that law become irrelevant? Who decided it was stupid and past its time? What about the endless number of other laws written in the bible that "educated" people no longer heed? You know, the people who no longer struggle daily for survival because of the industrial revolution, the tractor, and advanced irrigation?
Ask the Jews about this one. I never subscribed to that rule since it predated my existence by well over 2000 years. My point really is that you can not go randomly jumping around in the Bible and looking at writings in a context free manner and expect to get any kind of insight into what is being communicated. It is relevant to know that Deuteronomy, is part of the Pentateuch and the author(s) intent is among other things convey a history of who the earliest Jews were as a people as well as a lesson on the blessing and punishments to be expected for being faithful to or failing God's laws. The Pentateuch is from a literary analysis perspective quite complex and beyond 90% of most religious people's grasp. This is where most people can get by on faith and focus on the New Testament (where Christianity is centered). For the studious or for those that want to debate you must go much deeper. It is in fact a Diatessaron work (a composition of 4 sources of accounts). It is composed in theory according to 4 major traditions of authorship: Priestly Tradition ("P"), the Elohist Tradition ("E"), The Yahwist Tradition ("J" - Jahweh) and The Deuteronomic Tradition ("D"). Some documents are influenced by others and we have various combinations of authorships (e.g. JE, JEP, JEDP, etc.). To comprehend and benefit from even a portion of this book you must take a perspective of eternity (as if you yourself were as immortal and as timeless as God) and see it in the greater context - looking backward in time and looking forward to what is amazingly consistent in the New Testament thousands of years later and penned by men who were not exactly advocating the Jewish position on things. Essentially Religion evolved (like a growing tree) and some got left behind for refusing to see that that it was all consistent with what was foretold. It takes a bit of study and is not something that you can just go look at as you did. Certainly not in a spirit of contempt and say "see it makes not sense to me". This has always been man's weakness since being mortal and impatient he sees Creation in the context of his own limited lifespan and does not take the time to learn greater things that are just waiting in time as if fruit to be picked from a tree from a seeded concept. This is why most men will never be able to conceive of inventions and concepts that are universal in nature and exceed the limits of time and his own mortality.
But why invent or emulate a thing in Nature anyway if you can just have it directly from Nature by simply knowing how to ask for it?
OD
Fair question - how do we know? The answer of course is it is not correct because we have so many offshoots of beliefs and people calling themselves Christians doing things that are inconsistent with teachings. We see this phenomenon with a lot of Politicians who call themselves whatever they want simply to get t a vote then operate against those ideals when elected.Monolith said:
In reality Jesus was adverse to creating a new religion but knew that those who followed him would insist on institutionalizing it. When he spoke to Peter "upon this rock I build my church" he also implied that man was imperfect and would need such stability (and stubbornness?) to hold the teachings all together cohesively. He later spoke of the Paraclete or the Spirit being sent out to his people to guide them (since he knew there would be those that wandered from the flock or would get lost or get confused). There are also the accounts that God would write his laws onto the hearts of men (the conscience tempered with the compassion of the heart) to know what was right and wrong. Jesus had a lot of problems with many of the church leaders of his time and wanted people to have a simple set of rules based on only 2 concepts: 1) Love of God and 2) Love of fellow man. He stated that every other law or doctrine came from that.
I myself find a desire for a return to the purity, the commitment and the serenity of the earlier church expressed in the great musical compositions, the writings, the philosophical works, and the arts of the early Renaissance Church. But in addition to a lot of good in daily life we also had terrible abuses of power in those times at the civic level by men who abused their positions of trust and power. But perhaps the most devout of all where the earlier persecuted church where Christians met in small bands of families and friends in secret caves and homes to escape the persecution of the Romans and others. This was a very simple form of existence and I think this latter case is more what Jesus had in mind when he spoke of "where two or more are gathered in my name I am with you" as a pure form of discipleship. Of course there are deeper theological and spiritual fruits, blessings and teachings to be had through his ordained priests (those true priests that did not betray he teachings or cave into their own vices).
I have thus far been able to differentiate through "feeling" a good priest from a bad priest or a good Christian from a bad Christian. Of course there are a whole range of people in between who are just "humans" and have some lapses in judgment or temporary failures that do not make them bad. The standards are high and we all are human. That's exactly why we have the need to mature the church and learn from our mistakes and reject the bad when we are able to finally recognize it and grow from it. Think of it as a tree growing in a harsh climate. The growth rings are bold and strong in the good years and weak and thin in the bad years. The concept is growth and reaching higher toward the heavens as we mature and trusting that nature serves a purpose that is more inclined to test us and mature us more so than it is to let us perish for no reason.
OD
it's usually the people that can't figure out how to work the quote buttonsVieope said:
This is an interesting opinion. I like the way you put it.perfectbody said:
Well it was pretty funny to catch you cursing...Monolith said:
OD
I guess it is because of the behavior and thoughts that were formed at young age. We all know how hard it is to break those values. Doesn´t matter how smart or knowledgeable someone could get as adult, they rarely change.Luke9583 said:it's usually the people that can't figure out how to work the quote buttons
Humans suck.
It is not a problem, everybody can think whatever they want. I just don´t like what sometimes comes from it, wars and so on. I know, less than 1% of religious people are radicals.
What happened for you to start believing it? Can you share the story?
What happened for you to start believing it? Can you share the story?
hmm, well two weeks away from graduating college, I buy an engagement ring for my girlfriend who i had been dating for 4 1/2 years. i'm all excited, planning the best way i could pop the question. I go back to the campus that night & am walking to her apartment to hang out & see her walking arm-in-arm with a freshman. (that's a confidence booseter, eh?) 
three weeks later, a high school friend dies & for the first time, i was in a depression. I never had it before, and I can't even begin to tell you how terrible i felt.
anyway, make a long story short, I searched for an answer & that was it. I quit smoking, drinking, lost 30lbs, work out now, & have a good job...
and i must say, I'm looking forward to seeing the bitch now (you have to rub this kind of thing in her face 
)
That's what I'm getting at. If I'm wrong, there is no God, & we just cease to exist.. what is the worst that happened? I found the comfort I was looking for & it has made me a much better person. I also have no fear of death, which I formerly did.
(of course, I think God is much more than an idea..I'm just saying that because having faith is not such a terrible thing, even if we're wrong)
I definitely believe He got me out of it.
how dramatic, huh?
three weeks later, a high school friend dies & for the first time, i was in a depression. I never had it before, and I can't even begin to tell you how terrible i felt.
anyway, make a long story short, I searched for an answer & that was it. I quit smoking, drinking, lost 30lbs, work out now, & have a good job...
and i must say, I'm looking forward to seeing the bitch now
(you have to rub this kind of thing in her face ) That's what I'm getting at. If I'm wrong, there is no God, & we just cease to exist.. what is the worst that happened? I found the comfort I was looking for & it has made me a much better person. I also have no fear of death, which I formerly did.
(of course, I think God is much more than an idea..I'm just saying that because having faith is not such a terrible thing, even if we're wrong)
I definitely believe He got me out of it.
how dramatic, huh?
OceanDude said:
You make some very interesting observations - ones i wouldnt normally expect from a theist (especially you, considering some of your past comments). I especially like this: "This has always been man's weakness since being mortal and impatient he sees Creation in the context of his own limited lifespan and does not take the time to learn greater things that are just waiting in time as if fruit to be picked from a tree from a seeded concept. This is why most men will never be able to conceive of inventions and concepts that are universal in nature and exceed the limits of time and his own mortality." Replace 'Creation' with 'creation' and we're on exactly the same page.
Yet i find it strange that you can believe in such an abstract concept, and at the same time so staunchy support such concretes as "god" and whatever relatively recent prophecies have foretold. I mean, with statements like this: "Man has more power available to him than he can currently comprehend he just has not yet learned how to crawl beyond the nursery room," how can you honestly believe in god or organized religion in general? Isn't this organized worship the very "nursery room" youre speaking of? It's what appeals to nearly all of humanity, as is illustrated by the proliferation of religion. Wouldnt an example of man using that hidden power of understanding and comprehension require moving beyond 10,000 years of generic religious belief?
