Nightsy
First Novelist
Back off - I know the mods.
Posts: 38
|
Post by Nightsy on Jul 25, 2009 10:28:55 GMT
1. By my definition, time is a thing. By yours, it is a sequence of events. No matter how I look at it, there couldn't have been an infinite amount of time before this point, nor an infinite line of sequences of events before this point. Either way, it's like trying to jump out of a bottomless pit. I'm not using the cosmological argument. Just get your mind out of doctrines and pre-stated arguments. I'm different, and therefore have a different way of explaining things. a. Time had to start because an infinite past (infinite regress?) is not logically possible. b. Whatever started time, did so with a single action: the big bang. c. In order to start time (keep in mind, there is no time yet), Who/Whateveritwas had to be outside of the time it was creating -- otherwise it couldn't have created it, logically. d. If, in fact, this being was not in the time it created, and we know it had to be, then this being is timeless. Being timeless, it is also limitless in both knowledge and power. How do we know this? Time's a jar on God's coffee table, and God did begin the creation of everything, which implies omnipotence. e. This being was sentient. How so? Intelligent Design, plus the fact that it seems to intervene every so often, fulfilling prophecies left by those who claim to write for this being. Christ fulfilled many, of these prophecies. The only prophecies to be fulfilled now are those of the End Times. That should prove it quite nicely. 2. ID. I have a link for that if you'd like to visit it. 3. Sounds to me like the virtual particles come from charged particles. In modern physics, there is no such thing as "nothing." Even in a perfect vacuum, pairs of virtual particles are constantly being created and destroyed. The existence of these particles is no mathematical fiction. Though they cannot be directly observed, the effects they create are quite real. The assumption that they exist leads to predictions that have been confirmed by experiment to a high degree of accuracy. Great. So they exist, but we just don't know why? They can't directly observed them. As a matter of fact, they've never seen them -- they only see their effects. Radiowaves (or something like that) can be carried through a vacuum too. But from what I read, they form out of energy. That's a cause. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding this, though. 4. I get the idea of cross breeding affecting Natural Selection, but honestly, I don't actually remember hearing of any mutation that adds to DNA. Just give me an example. And I saw "Expelled Exposed." Hated it. I don't like sites created for the purpose of slamming people. But none of this could change the fact that we've never seen real evolution occur. Oh, a few cells mutated? So? Now, if a cell turned into a fish, then a monkey, then a human? That would be impressive. But if humans evolved from monkeys and apes, then according to natural selection, monkeys and apes wouldn't exist. Two species cannot occupy the same niche. And I still don't see any proof of pre-human species. We find a tooth, and the evolutionists project this picture of a whole family of missing-links. I just don't buy into that junk. 1.) Well, time isn't a thing. Like I said, it's just the label we put on the motion of matter. Thus your definition is wrong. You are using the Cosmological argument. I'm not sticking to any doctrines, I'm saying that if you are using the CA premisis, the CA stages and the CA conclusion, you're using the flipping CA. a. Why? b. I can dig that. c. I guess so. d. No, photons are timeless and yet most definitely not limitless in knowledge and power. Being able to start the Big Bang as a particle does not requite omnipotence. e. If there's one thing I don't believe in at all, it's an interventionist God. Prophecies written in the Bible and fulfilled in the Bible, half of the time in the same book, do not count, I'm afraid. There are a million possibiities as to how these prophecies appear fulfilled. Don't be so naive as to think you can just 'prove' an Intelligent Designer like that, when it's been tried for thousands of years. 2.) I used the ID argument for years. I don't need any link. 3.) In science there is no 'why'. Science will tell us the Big Bang occurred, but it does not need to tell us why, all it needs is to tell us how, which in science, is practically the same as why. We cannot directly observe atoms. Are they there? Hell yes. Observing their effects is knowing they are there. Look at the article you used - we can use them to predict things with remarkable accuracy. We know they exist. Radiowaves (is the American educational system vastly different to the English? We did radiowaves in your 8th grade, yet you don't seem familiar with them) are part of the electromagnetic spectrum and can exist anywhere where there is space, even vacuums (sound waves can't travel through vacuums). I'm not entirely sure why we're talking about how radiowaves are 'made'? 4.) Gladly. Gene duplication. The mutation makes an exact copy of a gene, and then mutates the spare one to make a totally different characteristic. Slamming? Exposing. The show was a scam. It was dishonest - lying to get its participants. Not to mention almost everything Ben Stein and co. said was fundamentally wrong. If a show is like that, promoting ignorance and being dishonest, it deserves to be exposed (or slammed, as you like to put it). Stop using Expelled - PLEASE. We've never seen evolution occur? Well, you try watching millions of years of progress in a little lab throughout your lifetime. You ain't gonna see much. But ignoring this, you're just wrong. Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky much? You must have been referenced to this at some point, it's quite a famous one. *HEADDESK* ¬________________________________¬ Humans AND modern day gorillas and chimpanzees, etc, share a common ancestor that existed 5-8 million years ago. Then the species separated and formed two separate lineages, one being gorillas and chimpanzees, etc, one being eventually humans. What you just said is what stereotypical Bible bashers who live in Texas and scream about fossils being placemats for Satan use as 'evidence against evoluion'. You're not one of them. No evidence for pre-human species? At all? I mean, not even just intelligent species? You're actually saying we have no evidence for pre-human species? 'The skulls and bones of more than 5,000 archaic individuals have been found, some dating more than 5 million years' - Rick Potts, Human Origins Program, Smithsonian Instituion, Washington. 'Number of known or suspected ancestors has doubled since the 80s.' Discovery of 3 Ethiopian skulls from 160,000 years ago. Something like 17 pre-human species recorded (as of 2001, anyway). In fact, I don't know why I'm giving you information here. You're making the claim, you should be backing it up. I want some evidence that there are no pre-human species or ancestors that we know of or suspect. None. At all. Ta. Aaaaaaand @mj and Skipper: Stop trying to blame your debate going nowhere on each other. It's both of you. Neither of you is accepting when your argument is wrong and both of you (though I must say, this is mainly from Skipper's side) keep saying 'oh, I've refuted your argument - y'know, your argument that's stood for hundreds of years that nobody else can refute except I just have'. Just take some deep breaths and chillax =D
|
|
MJBlack
Experienced Novelist
Posts: 136
|
Post by MJBlack on Jul 25, 2009 14:13:03 GMT
Every time I open up this darn thread for the first time firefox proclaims an error has occured and it needs to close down. I mean honestly.
I do want to debate Skipper but I think it might become slightly easier and focused if we tackle one thing at a time. I'm going all over the place, I don't know about you. But I'm getting frustrated tackling about half a dozen points at one time and remembering what I've said.
Nightsy I said it was both of us =P. Maybe not clearly enough. I think we're very stubborn people.
____________________________________________________
Okay - Commandments and laws becoming guidelines
I'm not sure we're ever going to agree on this point since half of this point is opinion.
Of course I was using what others have said, I've read the bible twice, I'm not an expert. I try to chose passages that either I've researched or absolutely agree with. I'm not just taking anything I can find or they'd be pages of these damn quotes.
It is a command that you must love your God no matter what, to be Christian you don't have to love God. You must believe in him. To love God is not a purely Christian trait, it applies to all other religions.
I can see why you say everything is guideline, a guideline being "you might like to do this or this might happen, " "I wouldn't touch that or you'll get electrocuted." However that is like saying that the laws enforced by the police are guidelines too. "Well you mustn't kill otherwise you'll go to jail." Both things are things you shouldn't do, the only difference is if something is wrong, and somebody says you shouldn't do it with "Do not" "You shall not" etc then it becomes a command.
A guideline says you should consider not doing something, a law says you shouldn't do something period. _______________________________________________
More guidelines not commandments
The thing is the bible was written by people with opinions and points of view and perceptives. By humans who could make mistakes. However in my quotes the commandments were written by God, "with the finger of God" etc.
Now this might be a little odd, but if something in the bible is written by God then surely it's the most important bit of all. I think the old testimate makes it pretty clear that the commandments should be followed - and since they are by God surely they apply to everybody reguardless of whom it was specifically aimed at?
Now a guideline can't really be rebelled against. If you disobey them bad things will happen, if they are guidelines you need to change that to, "if you chose not to heed them" or "if you ignore them." ______________________________________________
Your beliefs
Okay, this seems like a good time to ask but what are your beliefs. Which faction of Christianity do you follow, and what do you view God as? _________________________________________________
Look at the Etymology
This would have sounded better if you put "[sic]" after it xD. ___________________________________________________
Would you accept then that there are different opinions about what the bible actually means? So many different interpretations and all of them claim that in actual fact their one is the real one, the right one. ____________________________________________________
Church
I said one group of Christians believe that you must go to Church, I never said that they were right. I can't find anything pointless or redundent unless I know what you believe specifically. I've learnt that if I make one point and it doesn't refer to that Christian then there was no point in making it.
But since there are a vast amount of people that believe you must go, then their version of Christianity is a religion, even if you can claim that yours still isn't. Sorry but with so many factions to your religion not all of them can be following facts - or not in the way they are meant to. __________________________________________________
Earth Flat
Look, people who wrote the bible believed that it was flat. At one point the church refused to admit that it was not, using reference to the bible. Certainly this means that parts of the bible can be interrpreted (you'd say wrongly but that isn't the point) to saying that the world is flat.
There people refuse to look at the cold hard science because they are entrenched in their religion. ____________________________________________________
Different versions
When I said this I meant versions that don't support each other. ______________________________________________________
Different creation accounts
No, the accounts aren't in the same order, and neither makes it easier to understand than the next. I'm afraid they condradict each other on what order the Earth was created. ____________________________________________________
Refute it [the ark] again with me, I don't really view your refute as an valid argument. But if we do this can we do it when we've whittled ourselfs down to less debate points. Please. _______________________________________________________
The problem is the bible is full of facts.... but some of it isn't factual it's just a parable. The terrible point of this is that different bands of Christians argue that certain parts are when others argue that they aren't. So it's impossible to argue against it when you don't know what the Christian your debeting with is going to say.
Also retaining the issue about facts: you said yourself that the bible was written "Different authors = different points of view + different memories + possible paraphrasing." So how do you know which one of them was actually right? Or if their memories weren't wrong. You can't. ______________________________________________________
1st Plague theory
The fact it can happen is true, so the only issue is, did it?
The theory is supported by fact.
"The Plagues happened at the same time as a massive volcano eruption. The volcano Santorini sent ash in to the air effecting the surrounding area. The ash is found in Cairo and the Nile River, proven by testing the composition of the ash. This volcanic eruption happened between 1500-1650BC while the Plagues happened between 1400-1550BC."
There's your volcaneo. Now, the ash changed the ph of the river allowing the algee to bloom. Which turned the sea red like blood. It's a natural phenonmon. ______________________________________________________
In this day and age disabilitations don't die out because society can deal with them due to civilisation and technology. If somebody with the disorder doesn't die (as they would have done in the past) then they can pass on the genetic disorder. And they aren't going to die if people have the needs to keep that person from dying.
The only reason useless things died out in the past was because the people who could pass it on didn't live long enough to do so, since they couldn't survive in the current situation they were in.
|
|
Skipper
Beginner Novelist
Posts: 22
|
Post by Skipper on Jul 25, 2009 14:57:28 GMT
@ Nightsy.
1. So, it's a sequence of events? a. Because there's no point to start from, which means there's no way to reach any point at all, such as the present. One can only start at the starting point, and with an infinte past/regress, there is no starting point, which eliminates getting to the present, or anywhen, for that matter. d. Well I'm assuming the creator is sentient, and not a particle. Why not a particle? It had purpose. ID can be used, or perhaps just the Bible. Jesus' existence is a very reliable peice of evidence. And what are the chances this all being an accident? One in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion (this much of Expelled, we know is true.). But you don't seem to accept any of these, so I guess there's no point in trying to debate further on the matter. e. What? In the same book? Those aren't the ones I'm talking about. I'm talking about (1) the many prophecies fulfilled by Christ, and (2) those made by Christ. These include the end times, which, currently, the world is set up for almost perfectly (but I won't go too far into that if you don't dispute this point).
2. So everyone claims... Ah, well. In retrospect, it was more of a freedom-of-speech type of thing anyway.
3. That was ridiculously redundant.
I never said that you didn't know they existed.
Hmm... I can't quite remember where I was going with that radiowaves thing. Well, mayhap: How do they know that form in vacuums? They can't directly observe them + other things can move through vacuums. Don't take the above too seriously. I'm half-awake right now.
4. Yes. Slamming. It wasn't even based on evolution -- just stating that the scientific community doesn't accept anything they didn't think of themselves. In other words, ID is shot down as quickly as possible. Creationism is pretty much quarantined -- they treat it like a WMD.
Exactly!
So you say. So I disagree. But why did they separate? And why would one evolve into humans while the other did not? Evidently, evolution likes to pick favorites. I said nothing of the sort.
That's not proof, as much as you'd like it to be. Every time they show one on the news that's supposed to be "absolute proof of evolution," it's just a skull, or a few other bones. They don't know that they're part-human part-ape, though. How do I know this? A friend of one of my professors planted some pottery on some of his property. He waited fifteen years, then dug them up, and gave them to the same scientists who study these alleged pre-human fossils. They claimed that they were billions of years old. Or was it million? Whichever works. My point has been made, though. When they think they know something, they're just speculating. So these bones are similar to apes' and humans'? 1. How do we know they aren't deformed? You'll jump at that condescendingly, I know. And this. How do we know they aren't just saying that they're pre-humans? Far as I know, their methods of speculation are flawed. They actually fill in the missing parts of the skulls they find. So how is it that these skulls can be trusted as pre-human? One last question: Why don't we see any of them walking around today? No doubt, they'd "separate" from the others at some point like the monkeys did, or is that too unlikely?
I tend to say that when no one disputes my argument except by stating that it's wrong. I explained the whole Ark thing, but MJ never said anything about it afterward.
Honestly, though, here's my opinion: I don't think you're right, because your arguments aren't convincing. You don't think I'm right, because my arguments aren't convincing. To be quite honest, no one seems to want to accept the opposite side's argument. We're just getting frustrated with each other. I think we've all made our points, but I don't think the opposite side is relenting. So, I'd like to end it here before it comes to flaming.
The best knowledge comes through time and experience, assuming one keeps an open mind, of course. I'm not sure either of you will keep such a mindset, though, as both of you thinks that you know everything there is to know about one point or the other. No offense to any of you, but it's mainly high-school and college students who turn to atheism. This site is a prime example. In my opinion, kids follow atheism because it makes them feel smart. But again, no offense, I'm just saying that you might change your minds once you realize that you don't know everything there is to know. I still haven't seen all the arguments or explanations there are to see -- why should you have? But, of course, I'm not without fault.
|
|
Nightsy
First Novelist
Back off - I know the mods.
Posts: 38
|
Post by Nightsy on Jul 25, 2009 19:25:18 GMT
OK, Skipper, I think we're done here. I have zero interest in debating with anyone who A. has the little scientific knowledge that you do, B. accuses me of being a know-it-all because I do have some scientific knowledge, and C. makes blanket statements about myself and other teenagers like that. Try talking to teenage atheists and asking them why they think the way they do, instead of making such a ridiculous statement and then lessening the intensity of the accusation by putting 'I think' in front of it.
I've grown up in a deeply religious household due to my mother. I've argued for ID and creationism for years. I changed because I decided one day to evaluate the arguments fairly. I did my research, I talked to people, blah blah. It took months, even a year or so, before I could even begin to change my mind, but I did. So before you go around yelling 'oh, I think teens just choose atheism because they - and YOU - reckon it makes them look smart' just stop yourself, and do some research, and bother to ask me, and I'll tell you how much I want there to be a God out there and how I wish I was still theistic.
I have no idea what you're talking about with 'getting frustrated at each other'. I've not been frustrated with you once. Before now. Also, I've never thought I've known everything there is to know about a subject.
I was going to end this anyway, because I simply don't have the time to debate in the summer holidays when I have a social life. I was preparing to tell you ever so politely why I had to let one forum and a debate go, but I shan't bother.
You claim to have come here with the intention of 'helping us see the danger we're in' and 'doing the Lord's work' but all you've done is offend and annoy. So, 'no offence', but I think you're really bad at carrying out Jesus' word. And, with all due respect, goodbye.
|
|
MJBlack
Experienced Novelist
Posts: 136
|
Post by MJBlack on Jul 25, 2009 23:03:13 GMT
Like you've said, and like I warned you, presuming is really dangerous Skipper. You asked Nightsy not to presume yet you've done the same about myself and her.
That's all I'm going to say on the matter since I'm not eager to start a flaming war, or be perceived as attempting to rile you up. However, I do hope however that you realise how similar you and I (not Nightsy, she was quite willing to concede certain points) came across (in attitude).
And that took a lot for me to say because I'd like to think I'm nothing like how I perceived you. But I know that I do have those traits, because in some form or other people do.
If anybody does wish to debate the existance of God but wishes to argue that he /doesn't/ exist then I am more than willing to argue that he does. However I warn you I have some odd views on this since I'm not religious, and my views are a mix of science and the supernatural.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Inclination on Aug 9, 2009 0:38:30 GMT
Noes! This debate is dying. Shame, it was quite entertaining.
|
|
|
Post by mossypne on Aug 12, 2009 14:00:24 GMT
I dont belive in god. But i have nothing against people who believe in him.
I dont want to seem rude or anything Evil but have you had circumsicion(If thats how you spell it) Done
|
|
MJBlack
Experienced Novelist
Posts: 136
|
Post by MJBlack on Aug 12, 2009 21:27:54 GMT
Entertaining in a "soon somebody will die" way? Or a less sadistic way? =P
|
|
|
Post by Mikeeee on Aug 30, 2009 17:44:42 GMT
As long as you have no memory of it happening it's fine. *Thinks of Year One with Jack Black and that random kid who was there.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Inclination on Sept 18, 2009 13:51:56 GMT
I dont belive in god. But i have nothing against people who believe in him. I dont want to seem rude or anything Evil but have you had circumsicion(If thats how you spell it) Done Yes, alot of health benefits from it, really.
|
|