DescentBB

BUBBALOU wrote: (btw why what's with the "Postcount Quote Fail" CUDA? That is a basic lack of individual thought... you are quality sheep stock)

WHY thank you. you dont like my resposne to your loaded and leading question too bad. I thought Dissent answered it quite nicely

EDIT: tongue has been bitten to avoid flames

my question is not loaded, I just want to see what the responses are

1 - When were you given the choice to pick your religion/cult.

2 - Where do you go to find your God?

3 - If God is the creator of Life then what does that make you


Everyday, twice on Saturdays

I look Inside myself

Alive

.

Bet51987 wrote:1. I wasn't given a choice.

2. I don't have a God.

3. Condemned.

Bee

Wow. Pretty depressing, Bee.

Of course, everyone has a choice on what they believe.

Spidey wrote:1 - When were you given the choice to pick your religion/cult.

While getting beat up in sunday school. (I was trying to choose no...)

Spidey wrote:2 - Where do you go to find your God?

Around crazy angry people who hate me.

Spidey wrote:3 - If God is the creator of Life then what does that make you

Too unimportant for him to notice what I'm doing.

S13driftAZ wrote:Untruth. The Bible does NOT refer to those as being LITERAL earth days. According to my beliefs, we are in the seventh day at present.

The Bible says that on the seventh day God rested from all his works. Jesus said that the Father (God) is working.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

S13driftAZ wrote:Untruth. The Bible does NOT refer to those as being LITERAL earth days. According to my beliefs, we are in the seventh day at present.

The Bible says that on the seventh day God rested from all his works. Jesus said that the Father (God) is working.

Are you disagreeing?

Yes. I'm pointing out that the idea that we are in the seventh day that is spoken of in Genesis is inconsistent with scripture.

BUBBALOU wrote:But seriously before you utter another comment about Creationism answer these 3 questions:
* without the use of a Bible or Scripture.....
** in 3 words or less

1 - When were you given the choice to pick your religion/cult.

2 - Where do you go to find your God?

3 - If God is the creator of Life then what does that make you

1. when i did
2. nowhere, somewhere & everywhere
3. foolish, learning& friendly

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Yes. I'm pointing out that the idea that we are in the seventh day that is spoken of in Genesis is inconsistent with scripture.

They base their argument on the fact that God rested, blessed and made sacred the seventh creative day, which they believe was a literal twenty-four-hour day. The scripture they lean heavily upon to support their contention is Genesis 2:3, which says: “God proceeded to bless the seventh day and make it sacred, because on it he has been resting from all his work that God has created for the purpose of making.

It is a mistake to assume that God blessed and made sacred a literal twenty-four-hour day at the time he rested. By speaking about entering into God’s rest thousands of years after it had begun, the apostle Paul indicated that God’s rest day was still continuing in his day and so is a great period of time. “For in one place he has said of the seventh day as follows: ‘And God rested on the seventh day from all his works,’ and again in this place: ‘They shall not enter into my rest.’ Let us therefore do our utmost to enter into that rest.”—Heb. 4:4, 5, 11.

aaaaand back to your regularly scheduled program: another religion thread.

ugh.

Oh, im sorry about that Ferno. I'll edit my last post so that this thread doesn't go completely off topic and you can resume your normal life.

...Anyway my point is in quoting that whole chunk is that, I do believe in dinosaurs and that another scripture shows that it IS consistent.

personally, I think that they were common enough that there was no real need to mention them.

There's also the flood solution.

Evolution is the best logical conclusion we can come to with the information at hand.

Out of all the posts here, the only argument (essentially) against evolution that I've seen is \"I don't believe it. It can't be.\"

My parents had completely opposite views (Religious and Athiest... + my mom was completey against 'Western thought' and my dad was a scientist) ...and I was into my religion yet I loved physics.

Religion has an insanely strong attatchment on people ; it makes you live a lifestyle that is based heavily on it and threatens you with eternal damnation if you dont follow it. You already have little incentive to leave because your life is based on it, your friends and family are part of it.

I chose to not believe.

I followed my intuition: many religious people I know say they are following their intuition and come to the conclusion that their religion is true - yet everyone doubts their religion somewhat frequently. That doubt right there, I realized, was my intuition screaming out \"Get out of this while you still can!\"
I realized that whenever my intuition made me doubt, I'd always talk to myself trying to convince myself \"God is true, I know it is\" ... repeating I know it is to myself over and over. It was practically self brain-washing.

The human mind is geared towards religion: religion is a very social thing, and humans are social creatures. Religion helps people group together socially.
It is natural to try to explain the unexplained, that is how religion came to be. Stories of gods creating the wind, making plants grow. A story with an added ingredient of time apparently makes the story real enough for a massive amount of people to believe it.

Greek and Roman gods were as real to them as the Christian god is to many people today. Noone really understood how plants grew: There was a god and a story for that. There was a god for the wind, a god for the sun, these gods were explanations that people believed.

We understand all that now for the most part, but now our main questions are \"What happens when we die?\" \"How did the universe begin\" \"How did life begin?\"
Guess what? Our religions today attempt to answer exactly that. Entirely new stories for new questions, built in with compatible new stories for old questions.

It is extremely difficult for many people to accept \"There is no answer we know of\" ... it is way more comforting to believe you know all there is to know. Life feels more complete that way for many...

Now evolution challenges these other stories people have come to accept, and there is a massive amount of resistance. \"There's no way my religion could be false, evolution must be false.\"

Evolution is based off of logic. With all the information we have it is the best conclusion we can currently come up with.

I've seen more than enough people here on this very forum simply mocking it. That alone shows you have not really thought about it. Perhaps you are too deeply entrenched in your religion to really think logically.

I know what religion really is now, yet contrary to popular belief abandoning it has actually made my life much more meaningful. I want to help expand our understanding of the world and universe around us... I stop and appreciate simple things very frequently and find myself thinking how beautiful chaos can be. When I look up at the stars I realize we are just a small part of something much more grand and have an overwhelming desire to learn more about our home among the stars.

Spaceboy... looks like you have chosen to view the world with your own eyes.

EyesWideOpen wrote:seriously before you utter another comment about Creationism answer these 3 questions:
* without the use of a Bible or Scripture.....
** in 3 words or less

1 - When were you given the choice to pick your religion/cult.

2 - Where do you go to find your God?

3 - If God is the creator of Life then what does that make you

My answers

1. Never (it's brainwashing)
2. In my Heart
3. Creator of Life


Religious type

1. Parents Chose
2. In Church
3. A Christian


Other

1. No One Does
2. Qur'an Teachings
3. Child of Islam

BUBBALOU wrote:Spaceboy... looks like you have chosen to view the world with your own eyes.

EyesWideOpen wrote:seriously before you utter another comment about Creationism answer these 3 questions:
* without the use of a Bible or Scripture.....
** in 3 words or less

1 - When were you given the choice to pick your religion/cult.

2 - Where do you go to find your God?

3 - If God is the creator of Life then what does that make you

My answers

1. Never (it's brainwashing)
2. In my Heart
3. Creator of Life


Religious type

1. Parents Chose
2. In Church
3. A Christian


Other

1. No One Does
2. Qur'an Teachings
3. Child of Islam

it seems you cant even answer your own questions correctly

1 - When were you given the choice to pick your religion/cult.

Never (it's brainwashing)

You WERE given a choice, you chose not to believe, YOUR CHOICE.
then you purposly threw in a dig at all those that do believe. not to mention your use of the word Cult was used with a derogitory intent. hence my comments earlier

you dont like my resposne to your loaded and leading question too bad

When you are a baby or a child... you seriously think you have a choice? When your sent to Sunday school, you have a choice? I Fail to see that

Maybe when you 18 years old and you choose to follow different religion/cult of your Choice or choose to follow your heart, then it actually is a choice.

BUBBALOU wrote:When you are a baby or a child... you seriously think you have a choice? When your sent to Sunday school, you have a choice? I Fail to see that

then your not seeing clearly, people walk away all the time, ask Bee she was raised in the church. THERE ARE ALWAYS CHOICES

EDITED

Duper wrote:personally, I think that they were common enough that there was no real need to mention them.

There's also the flood solution.

I guess poor Fred & Dino missed the boat.

Or Noah said…Tyrannosaurs Rex….Heeeell no!

BUBBALOU wrote:When you are a baby or a child... you seriously think you have a choice? When your sent to Sunday school, you have a choice? I Fail to see that

Maybe when you 18 years old and you choose to follow different religion/cult of your Choice or choose to follow your heart, then it actually is a choice.

When you are a baby is irrelevant. After that ask any parent or Sunday school teacher; you can take your kids there, but you can't force 'em to accept it.

The possibility of a choice happens well before age 18.

BUBBALOU wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Faith - Belief in something that has no logical proof or actual material evidence to prove it.

Intelligent Design has absolutely NO proof or evidence to even BECOME a THEORY, so it's based solely on faith.

That's is truly a vicious but factual circle you have there tunnlecat

you left out 2 points

ID is a forced belief

Evolution is a shared hypothesis

I wasn't trying to be circular in my logic, I was trying to describe the differences. People keep trying to call ID an 'alternative science view' in order to cram it into the public school curriculum. IT'S NOT SCIENCE! It should be kept in church because not everybody in this country believes in what religion is pushing.

ID requires 'faith' to believe in it since there is NO physical proof or evidence of a GOD in the real world at the present. Faith is based on pure emotional logic and trust in what you 'believe' exists, not actual facts. Any 'proof' in the Bible is just religious dogma based solely on the writings of superstitious fearful people to explain the world and events in the past.

I agree that ID is slowly being forced into the public schools, especially in certain areas of the U.S. So in that aspect, it is being 'forced' on some children as an alternative science postulate to evolution. ID is not an alternative theory, it's a BELIEF system that's is not scientifically provable! I'm agreeing with you BUBBALOU.

Evolution, however, does have substantial evidence to support it as a theory explaining the origins of life on earth. It's based on observable criteria and 'hypothesizes' what may have happened over time on this planet. It does have to assume some aspects in order for it to be a viable theory, since there's a lot of missing data and gaps in the information. That's why it's taught in science class as a THEORY. It's based on tangible, observable data that has been studied and gathered over a long period of time. Now, if we could go back in time and actually OBSERVE what happened in our creation, it could be either proved or disproved. That's what science is all about, testing and proving the theories humans come up with to explain the world.

I'm curious what would religious people do if intelligent beings showed up on earth from another planet. How would the world's religions react to the fact that we were suddenly not the center of the universe?

dissent, my parents shoved me into Sunday School when I was young (I had no choice and hated every minute of it AND every parent back in the 50's and 60's was under pressure to join SOME church or another and make their kids go too) and I certainly made my choice as soon as I could to NOT belong to any religion if I could avoid it.

Spaceboy wrote:I followed my intuition: many religious people I know say they are following their intuition and come to the conclusion that their religion is true - yet everyone doubts their religion somewhat frequently. That doubt right there, I realized, was my intuition screaming out "Get out of this while you still can!" I realized that whenever my intuition made me doubt, I'd always talk to myself trying to convince myself "God is true, I know it is" ... repeating I know it is to myself over and over. It was practically self brain-washing.

Are you sure the doubting intuition wasn't some one like SATAN leading down the wrong path?
That other voice could have been the Angel of the lord trying turn back on to the right path?

It's seems to be all about choice doesn't it, people choose to follow what they believe.

I just wonder how many people on here can admit that we all might be wrong about where we came from whether or not it is evolved, created or transplanted. Fact is we may never really know.

tunnelcat wrote:I'm curious what would religious people do if intelligent beings showed up on earth from another planet. How would the world's religions react to the fact that we were suddenly not the center of the universe?

IMPO I think its just our human arrogance to say that in the vastness of all creation that God created life ONLY on this planet. that being the case, he could have made life ONLY on Earth just to be unique. the Bible doesnt address the issue.

tunnelcat wrote:ID requires 'faith' to believe in it since there is NO physical proof or evidence of a GOD in the real world at the present. Faith is based on pure emotional logic and trust in what you 'believe' exists, not actual facts. Any 'proof' in the Bible is just religious dogma based solely on the writings of superstitious fearful people to explain the world and events in the past.

Don't you ever get tired of saying things you don't really know?

OK. Give me some 'proof' or 'observational facts' that shows GOD exists and that aren't just feelings or emotions to explain things that happen. And while you're at it, prove to me that the Bible is factual in it's description of natural phenomenon and especially the earth's age, not the writer's opinions or superstitions, especially since it's been rewritten and retranslated numerous times since it's known existance. Now I see that it is yet again being rewritten to conform to some people's idea of what it should mean. The King James Version and the New International Version aren't correct or good enough for some conversatives now. I especially love number 7's inclusion.

http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

For the record, I do believe that a GOD may exist. What I don't believe in is all the dogma, superstition and outright ignorance that comes from many of the world's religions.

For those of you talking about cults, even if religions are cults, notwithstanding the multiple definitions of both, atheism is a fool's game, regardless of whether or not the Creator is a deity.

For those of you talking about life on other planets, or \"aliens,\" keep in mind that you assume that the purpose of the universe is to be a habitat for living creatures.

For those of you trying to equate God with yourself, that stems from 'human arrogance.'

The mere fact that you exist, can speak, and think about the universe, should be proof enough that there is an intelligent designer without getting all \"scientific\" about it.

All this talk about \"proof\" and \"evidence\" would be fine, but modern, mainstream science these days exists to divert people from true knowledge as part of an agenda to dumb down and control the population. That's not science, that's just brainwashing.

Burlyman wrote:All this talk about "proof" and "evidence" would be fine, but modern, mainstream science these days exists to divert people from true knowledge as part of an agenda to dumb down and control the population. That's not science, that's just brainwashing.

I have to call BS on that one…

That's the job of politicians…not science.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:To spell it out, let me say that when you look at a 747 you see design. You see order. Upon close examination you see intricate order and design. It is obvious that there was an intelligence behind it. We take that for granted. Because of the way all of you were raised, when you see things in nature that are very intricate and ordered in such a way that they have a purpose and a place, you don't think design, you think evolution. But evolution is not apparent, even though design is, but design is rejected because of the way you were taught. The folks at the head of I.D. have seen this design at levels that most people do not, and they have come to the conclusion that all of this design had to have had a designer, and that nothing less was plausible.

If you're having difficulty with this problem, then consider how good science tends to be quantifiable. How could we quantify design? If you answer this, then you are on your way to having a scientific procedure that may or may not be good for detecting design.

There are a number of problems with your 747 thought experiment though.

The glaring fault is that everyone here has already seen a 747 and already knows that they were designed, so of course we would all see design in 747's. But ID is supposed to detect design in things even when we didn't know that they were designed.

The more subtle problem with your example though is in appealing to human design. In your defense, you don't have much else to pick from. But I agree with you that we could develop a science that detects *human* design. We know enough about humans, their tendencies, their needs, their desires, their psychology, their language, and so on that could easily make a multi-discipline scientific venture to try to detect human design.

We might even be able to develop a science for detecting design done by extraterrestrials, but already this is much more difficult venture than that of the human case, since we don't know their psychology, or even if they have one. But we still know that they live in the same universe that we do and have to deal with the same conditions, so that is one basis that we could use to help detect design.

The problem though is when you get even more generalized. What if we want to not just detect human and extraterrestrial design but the design of deities that live in bizarro universes about which we scientifically know nothing? It's not clear to me how to procede in this case.

As I see it, the fundamental problem with ID is in trying to balance design that we can actually find with design that we could even conceptually measure. On one hand, if we choose a less general conception of design like human design, we know how to measure this, but when we go to look for it in life, then we don't find any. On the other hand, if we choose a more general conception of design, such as design done by a deity in a bizarro universe, then this might actually exist, but it's not measurable insofar as it's not clear what to measure or how to scientifically test for it. (Design in this case is bound to be mangled by philosophical issues as well, but it would be up to the ID'ist to come up with a semantically meaningful conception.)

Unfortunately, I don't see ID'ists genuinely addressing things like this yet--I imagine because they can't yet, if they ever will be able to at all. This is why ID'ists tend to just use appeals to gut feelings and kicking sand at evolutionists as their primary "scientific" evidence for why ID is true.

S13driftAZ wrote:Evolution CANNOT be tested so it isn't a hypothesis.

I don't know why you would think this. For instance, evolution predicts a tree of life, which is verified with our continual study. On the other hand, evolution precludes chimeras, which we do not find.

ID, on the other hand, does not make a prediction about finding a tree of life. Nor does it preclude chimeras, and it's not clear to me what, if anything, would actually falsify ID.

Burlyman wrote:All this talk about "proof" and "evidence" would be fine, but modern, mainstream science these days exists to divert people from true knowledge as part of an agenda to dumb down and control the population. That's not science, that's just brainwashing.

Weak. You at least believe in the scientific method, don't you? Then my challenge to your friend Sergeant Thorne to present a scientific procedure for detecting design is just as addressable by you as by him.

Burlyman wrote:All this talk about "proof" and "evidence" would be fine, but modern, mainstream science these days exists to divert people from true knowledge as part of an agenda to dumb down and control the population. That's not science, that's just brainwashing.

I don't know, I have a hard time arguing with that. I think mainstream science is in a tremendous rut, and I don't believe its incidental. I'm certain that it does have something to do with our society's moral decline, but I see it as more of an effect. Science, as an idea, is wielded by people with wild philosophies, to their own ends, and it's obviously been wielded with some success by people in our government as well. I do think that, thanks to capitalism, science is still thriving in the business sector, where reality necessarily plays a larger role.

Jeff250 wrote:This is why ID'ists tend to just use appeals to gut feelings and kicking sand at evolutionists as their primary "scientific" evidence for why ID is true.

Have you ever listened to or watched an interview or lecture from a real I.D."ist"? Over and over I get the impression that you're addressing the dregs of creationist "science", in talking about I.D.

Simply put, in regard to your arguments about design... you're mad. I don't know that I can find another way to say it. You don't seem to have any mooring to reason, and you just pontificate wherever your logic and/or imagination take you. Aliens?! Certain kinds of design and ability to detect them? You have a really strange point of origin in mind for normality if human and natural design (and indeed a great deal of human design mimics natural design) are not the starting point. Just what is the universal default/norm, if you're so wise? I know it can be nothing that you have personally encountered. I'll say it again, and I'm not indulging in hyperbole. I think you're mad.

Jeff, Pandora…do you guys agree with this…

We can test to prove the theory’s \"validity\", but can’t test to prove the “theory”.

just quickly, Spidey, going to bed right now. I completely agree with the second part of your sentence: Theories can never be proven, just supported beyond reasonable doubt, or falsified. I am not sure I understand the first part of your sentence, though (before the comma). But I am very tired and can't think straight, so it will probably be clear to me tomorrow

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Have you ever listened to or watched an interview or lecture from a real I.D."ist"? Over and over I get the impression that you're addressing the dregs of creationist "science", in talking about I.D.

Are you a real ID'ist? I'm still listening for anything you have to say.

ST wrote:Aliens?! Certain kinds of design and ability to detect them? You have a really strange point of origin in mind for normality if human and natural design (and indeed a great deal of human design mimics natural design) are not the starting point.

I don't know what you mean by either "natural design" or "normality" since I didn't appeal to any of these things in my post. I don't know why you would find exploring whether ID should detect design of extraterrestrials more "mad" than exploring whether ID should detect the design of deities, when deities to me would seem to be the much more exotic beings compared to extraterrestrials.

ST wrote:Just what is the universal default/norm, if you're so wise? I know it can be nothing that you have personally encountered.

But that's the challenge of ID, trying to come up with a conception of design that can balance the following things:
1) Needs to be semantically meaningful, not an arbitrary definition of design
2) Needs to be specific enough that we can actually have scientific measurements of it
3) Needs to be general enough to actually detect design in stuff that something non-human might design, to detect any possible design in life
4) Others that I'm neglecting

ST wrote:I'll say it again, and I'm not indulging in hyperbole. I think you're mad.

You *are* indulging in hyperbole, and it *is* discrediting your position.

Spidey wrote:We can test to prove the theory’s "validity", but can’t test to prove the “theory”.

Spidey, I'm not sure if I understand what you are asking. I think that a theory is true in the scientific sense insofar as it fails to be falsified. In other words, a highly falsifiable theory that hasn't been falsified is a stronger scientific theory. With evolution, we can think of cases that could clearly falsify evolution, such as discovering a creature with a lion's head, a goat's body, and a serpent's tail. On the other hand, it's not clear to me how one can falsify ID.

edit: But as Pandora says, I agree with your 2nd part--you cannot prove a scientific theory.

the more i read this, the more it reminds me of the underpants gnomes.

Step 1: brainstorm idea.

step 2: ?

step 3: ID!

Thanks…those answers are good enuf to get something straight in my mind.

I think way too many people confuse “testing” a Hypothesis with proving it to be fact.

My question relates to this…

Hypothesis:

“A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.”

Jeff250 wrote:Are you a real ID'ist? I'm still listening for anything you have to say.

I wrote:I am not the champion of I.D., Jeff. ... I am what you would call a creationist. I started with the Biblical view-point.

That's not a cop-out. I respect what I've heard from some people in the I.D. movement, but I would be fooling myself and the rest of you if I claimed to be involved in it, no matter how much I agree. Anyone who claims to be in I.D. who isn't involved in scientific pursuits (study, not philosophy) just doesn't know what they're talking about.

You should watch Ben Stein's movie on the subject.

Jeff250 wrote:You *are* indulging in hyperbole ...

I just told you I wasn't. I may have been using the wrong word. The dictionary definition of "mad" doesn't quite seem to fit. What I'm saying is that you are disconnected from reality through your logic and reasoning.