Wild2000 - Your right. It would take quite a personal “miracle” to get me to aquire faith. I figure a long term “burning bush” conversation and a few tests from “God” and maybe, just maybe, I’d change my mind. I realize our endless debates seem to accomplish little. Quite on the contrary, all seem to be sharing information and thoughts we may not have access to otherwise. Friendly debates are healthy ones. We have achieved the “goal” of this forum. Our voices can be heard, freedom of speech…
@Field:
Wild2000 - Your right. It would take quite a personal “miracle” to get me to aquire faith. I figure a long term “burning bush” conversation and a few tests from “God” and maybe, just maybe, I’d change my mind. I realize our endless debates seem to accomplish little. Quite on the contrary, all seem to be sharing information and thoughts we may not have access to otherwise. Friendly debates are healthy ones. We have achieved the “goal” of this forum. Our voices can be heard, freedom of speech…
i agree.
and i find that i learn more about myself and my faith as i express myself. I feel more connected to God as i discuss faith issues. At the same time, i do learn here as well.
Fisternis, in what way does the belief in a God stem from arrogance?
My personal view is that we reject Him in our arrogance because we don’t want to be only second best.
@city:
Fisternis, in what way does the belief in a God stem from arrogance?
My personal view is that we reject Him in our arrogance because we don’t want to be only second best.
yeah - i was kind of going there earlier.
to have to submit and be humble in the face of something much greater than ourselves does not leave room for arrogance.
given the fact that i am an arrogant person (according to FinsterniS and my sisters) i might be a bit of an anomaly in this regard . . . .
@city:
Fisternis, in what way does the belief in a God stem from arrogance?
My personal view is that we reject Him in our arrogance because we don’t want to be only second best.
Ok, we will look at that;
I don’t believe in the concept of superiority, exept maybe that a “superior” species… Nothing Inferior, Nothing Superior. Even maybe some animals are superior because they are not as “deviant” in the ecosystem as we are. So in many way i think we are worse than “second best”.
A christians believe that after god, he is the best. Of all living being on earth he is the only one with a soul; in brief the only one with a purpose, the other were just created for him. Also, the living being that is the creator of the universe create him in his own image and even more; he is expressing the same kind of morality. In christianism the Human race is the center of the creation and of the universe; pure anthropocentrisme !
And you are saying that my position is arrogant ? Seriously ? The first thing you need to be an Atheist is to be humble, to understand you are not the center of the creation, you have no special place, no special purpose, you are nothing mode than a living being, equal to other living being you must respect; people do not want to accept it even if they have enough knowledge to explain the universe with only nature. Sure there is as much kind of Atheism as there is Atheist, it’s just my vision of Atheism…
Finsternis, I’m curious.
What is your view on Entropy VS. Evolution? I find that they quite contradict each other, while only entropy is actual scientific law…
@city:
Finsternis, I’m curious.
What is your view on Entropy VS. Evolution? I find that they quite contradict each other, while only entropy is actual scientific law…
I don’t how Evolution work exactely (no one does), but it does occur and you don’t need to be an expert to know that.
About Entropy “vs” Evolution I answer that TWICE and also F_alk in “Religion?” (page 6), if you have any counter-argument, show them, but don’t repeat the same argument over and over again ad nauseam…
This reasoning (thermodynamic is in conflict with evolutionism) is one the most convincing evidence that religion can be nefast to science. Theist are again using pseudo science to spread confusion and ignorance… quite sad…
I don’t how Evolution work exactely (no one does), but it does occur and you don’t need to be an expert to know that.
About Entropy “vs” Evolution I answer that TWICE and also F_alk in “Religion?” (page 6), if you have any counter-argument, show them, but don’t repeat the same argument over and over again ad nauseam…
This reasoning (thermodynamic is in conflict with evolutionism) is one the most convincing evidence that religion can be nefast to science. Theist are again using pseudo science to spread confusion and ignorance… quite sad…
oh oh . . . i have a question . . .
how do you spell “condescending”?
Finsternis, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is called a law for a reason… it has never in a lab been broken. Where does the “pseudo” come in?
@city:
Finsternis, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is called a law for a reason… it has never in a lab been broken. Where does the “pseudo” come in?
This is preudo science because it is deforming a law. Read carefully the second law, look how it work and then try to claim it is in conflict with Evolution ! Like i don’t remember who said that; Evolution is as much in contradiction with Thermodynamic as a bird is in contradiction with gravity. Please get information of the subject then make a counter argument but I and F_alk explain that it clearly, if you have an objection, just make it but read what we have already answered please.
Congratulation ! You are the first i know from america who spell Nietzsche the rigth way.quote]
AH HA!
FinsterniS IS INCORRECT.
I shall put it another way.
FinsterniS IS WRONG!I, an American, spelled Nietzsche on this website[two months ago] the way Nietzsche spelled Nietzsche during his whole Pre-Neitzschean, Neitzschean, and Post-Nietzschean life( :oops: Oops! Sorry, he couldn’t spell it Post-Nietzschean. He is dead during the Post-Nietzschean Era!).
I have a witness. I must ask the court to declare this a hostile witness.
My witness is FinsterniS! He complimented me upon noting my quoting Friendrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (1844-1900).
Therefore, cc, I regret to inform you that you are not the first. In addition, you will note that I do not claim to be the first either. I am not sure, numerically, where I fit in FinsterniS’s life on the “i know from america who spell Nietzsche the rigth way.” list. Nor would I presume to take any position of which I am undeserving. However, cc, I do know I rank ahead of you on this most honorable of occassions. So, :raspP
–------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NYAH! NYAH! NYAH! NYAH! BOO! BOO!,etc. - Xi
Hey,
Duds & Dudettes,
Isn’t this string like two rabbits, with blinders on, trying to discuss whether the hunter(s) about to shoot them is God(s). Get it? Limited communication skills, limited view, and limited intellect! :lol: :wink:
–------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I’ll close by saying ’ prove ” go — yourself! - Xi
Also i have a question; god “give us a purpose” in life, but what of the animals ?
Depending on the animal…
in various parts of the world…
it’s called a ride…
or dinner…
or both. However, please, keep in mind that if it must be both…
the ride is recommended first. It’s a little rough the other way around! :P
NYUK! NYUK! - Xi
Congratulation ! You are the first i know from america who spell Nietzsche the rigth way.
AH HA!
FinsterniS IS INCORRECT.
I shall put it another way.
FinsterniS IS WRONG!
Guilty ! :)
I was challenged by a guest to read carefully the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and then make a case that it is in conflict with evolution. Merry Christmas.
“In terms of entropy the second law states that the total entropy of a closed system cannot decrease.”
–xrefer.com “Thermodynamics”
Entropy as an adjective is most easily described as disorder. To say that disorderliness, apart from outside intervention, cannot decrease, is saying this: Unless YOU personally do something, your messy room won’t get any cleaner.
So let me ask you this, if we evolved from single-celled organisms, didn’t we need, according to this law, some OUTSIDE INTERVENTION in order to become more complex beings?
@city:
I was challenged by a guest to read carefully the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and then make a case that it is in conflict with evolution. Merry Christmas.
“In terms of entropy the second law states that the total entropy of a closed system cannot decrease.”
–xrefer.com “Thermodynamics”Entropy as an adjective is most easily described as disorder. To say that disorderliness, apart from outside intervention, cannot decrease, is saying this: Unless YOU personally do something, your messy room won’t get any cleaner.
So let me ask you this, if we evolved from single-celled organisms, didn’t we need, according to this law, some OUTSIDE INTERVENTION in order to become more complex beings?
in order to save us Christians some embarrassment COAH, i will suggest that one kind of outside intervention might be the sun. It, via various organic and biochemical reactions, pulls CO2 together to produce glucose. From glucose we get our energy.
I fully agree that “outside intervention” makes more sense (to me) than the blind watchmaker hypothesis subscribed to - including the “non-reducible complexities” found in animal physiology.
At the same time, before you go down these roads, you might check out some earlier posts such as the “Prime factor” one, and others involving the “God exists” vs the “God does not exist” people (although i admittedly enjoy the posts from the agonistics the most . . . ).
Entropy will TEND to increase in a CLOSED sytem, the earth is NOT A CLOSED system. We have plenty of energy from the sun. Also if you look at the mathematical law of thermodynamic you will find it is VERY clear; entropy will tend to increase, but will decrease sometime. The creationist are making a very big deformation that is only getting to more confusion; they certainly do bring entropy in science :)
Also this pseudo argument is very strange, because we can have tons of exemple where entropy decrease without looking at evolution. When you are growing, when a plant is growing, when a cloud is forming, when a thunder is forming, when a snowflake is forming; we have tons of exemple where entropy decrease (i am sure CC can give you lot of biological exemple). This is only the overall entropy of a system that will increase, not everything in it ! (another deformation).
City, ask a creationist why we grow and reproduce, thing their vision of entropy and thermodynamic would not allow; they will answer you (well most of them) that there is a special “energy conversion mechanism” that allow living system to counter the effect of thermodynamic … And that is just some part of their special law to explain why their own idea of entropy does not apply to X, and Y, and also Z…
in order to save us Christians some embarrassment
A very noble objective; the Thermodynamic argument, you will admit, is using deformation of science law. This does not prove god does’nt exist but this argument is a nonsence. With all these deformation, creationist are just giving scientist and atheist/humanist like me good reason to think they are dangerous. I really wish we could live in a world were religion could be personnal, with a clear separation between Religion / Science / Politic.
you know FinsterniS, i believe that the presence of creationists is actually quite useful in regards to the persuit of better science etc. Many of them ask excellent questions, some that can’t (yet) be answered by evolutionists. In fact, i wonder that if not for creationists continually asking questions etc. if the research on evolution might not have stalled and been considered an “unproven fact” long ago.
Certainly many Christians are unscientific - as are many atheists. Big deal? If they were blowing up labs and archeological digs, that would be one thing, but the fact that some Christians want further proof before accepting something as fact which (to them) appears to conflict with the scriptures is something you may not need to knot your panties with.
Anybody here (seen my old friend, John?) read Forbidden Archeology regarding some of the gaps and flaws in the written records? It’s a very good indictment of the current belief system and supporting cast. No Christian viewpoint for some to find fault with the results.
How about Scientific Creationism ? It strats with 15 chapters of science conflicting with itself. then brings in Christianity in the last chapter as a simpler solution to the conflict(I’ll paraphrase here - e.g., 10,000 years ago, G_d made a star 10 billion light years from Earth. G_d put the light that shines from that star to the Earth in place. Big Bangers say “If God created the world 10.000 yrs. ago the light wouldn’t be there.” But that’s leaving G_d impotent, not omnipotent.) Read the book! It makes more sense than my paraphase.
Man evolved from gorilla(ape) ? Come on! Get it right! Man and Ape evolved from the same ancestors. :o :lol: Get educated, you Neanderthals! Read Forbidden Archeology and question your limited knowledge. - Xi
@cystic:
you know FinsterniS, i believe that the presence of creationists is actually quite useful in regards to the persuit of better science etc. Many of them ask excellent questions, some that can’t (yet) be answered by evolutionists. In fact, i wonder that if not for creationists continually asking questions etc. if the research on evolution might not have stalled and been considered an “unproven fact” long ago.
I disagree, the thermodynamic argument is not to convince scientific but the people, and in the end it only spread confusion ! As some other “logical” argument that make my stomach hurt. There is a lot of different kind of evolutionist, they are generating enough question to keep them busy and alert. Also just try to kind an evolutionist that will do research on how thermodynamic is in conflict with his science… They have more serious complication.
Certainly many Christians are unscientific - as are many atheists.
Try to find me 10 unscientific Atheist. By unscientific i mean they caution their belief with fallacious/unscientific argumentation.
Big deal? If they were blowing up labs and archeological digs, that would be one thing, but the fact that some Christians want further proof before accepting something as fact which (to them) appears to conflict with the scriptures is something you may not need to knot your panties with.
There is a serious problem when a “science” theory is base not on evidence but on 2 000 years old text. And when their only way to prove their theory is by pointing out evolutionist difficulty (evolution is a young science, give it time…)
@Xi:
Anybody here (seen my old friend, John?) read Forbidden Archeology regarding some of the gaps and flaws in the written records? It’s a very good indictment of the current belief system and supporting cast. No Christian viewpoint for some to find fault with the results.
I read it… but it’s not convincing.
How about Scientific Creationism ? It strats with 15 chapters of science conflicting with itself.
As a matter of fact most of the “conflict” are only result of deformation or ignorance, just give me one for fun… It’s always in the same form of the Thermodynamic vs Evolutionist one, they make a deformation, then they claim there is a problem. That’s why it is dangerous.
then brings in Christianity in the last chapter as a simpler solution to the conflict(I’ll paraphrase here - e.g., 10,000 years ago, G_d made a star 10 billion light years from Earth. G_d put the light that shines from that star to the Earth in place. Big Bangers say “If God created the world 10.000 yrs. ago the light wouldn’t be there.” But that’s leaving G_d impotent, not omnipotent.) Read the book! It makes more sense than my paraphase.
Evolutionism is very complex, but it explain very well the world around us. Christian are giving a simple, easy to swallow answer, that does not explain anything. I can give you a simple scenario about earth’s creation; the finnish one with the troll dying; it is not less or more valid than any theory with a mythological being; but it explain nothing. Also to first use god in an argumentation you must show that he does exist, it is not the case… Exept if you want to prove he exist BECAUSE he the existence of a creation; so you will need to prove creationism exist, but first god that need to be prove by creationism that need to be prove by god… well, circular logic.
Then evolutionists mess up their own stories. A couple of years ago astronomers discovered some stars Multiple times older than the cosmos has been calculated as being. :oops: ,silly scientists. My favorite part is that they use half-life theory to prove the age of an item. I’ll believe that when they show me a million years of Proof by the Scientific Method…NOT THEORY!
Science is advanding, unlike Creationism, so it is clear they discover new thing and change their mind; that is science. Also the system to prove the age of an item is very precise, the Half-life system of C14 is a good one and there is several exemple where other geological/historical evidence prove how precise the C14 dating is good.
