First Human Cloned - What do you think?

Meson

Swabbie
Banned
Originally posted by t.c.cgi
And I suppose you were there for all of it? Fact is, the acid test comes down to seeing it with your own eyes. None of use have lived over 200 years (if anyone has, you should probably write a book or two), and certainly not 6000, or however many billions that evolution is going at now.

Evolution works as much on Faith as any religion. It's going strong now because you have peer pressure from most of the scientific community, and enough propaganda to make movies out of. This is no different from back in the Dark Ages when a Bishop was as powerful as a king, and if you didn't believe what the leadership believed, you were a fool, a heretik, or dead.

Evolution is no better than Catholocism of that time, supported by thugs who know nothing better to say than "You're a fool."
But evolution has hard evidinece to support it. WHat evidence does creationism have Other than the Bible (all the books of the Bible are groupped and considered a single source)_
 

Ghost

Emperor
The problem with some people is that they think that the Torah (the first 5 books of the old Testament) is an history book, the Torah isn´t an history book, it´s merely a compendium of laws, *What to do and What not*, and other teachings.
You can´t believe it (in some cases) word by word because it´s full of symbolisms.
The Torah was never menat to be an history book but a book of laws and teachings.
 

steampunk

Spaceman
Originally posted by t.c.cgi
And I suppose you were there for all of it? Fact is, the acid test comes down to seeing it with your own eyes. None of use have lived over 200 years (if anyone has, you should probably write a book or two), and certainly not 6000, or however many billions that evolution is going at now.

Evolution works as much on Faith as any religion. It's going strong now because you have peer pressure from most of the scientific community, and enough propaganda to make movies out of. This is no different from back in the Dark Ages when a Bishop was as powerful as a king, and if you didn't believe what the leadership believed, you were a fool, a heretik, or dead.

Evolution is no better than Catholocism of that time, supported by thugs who know nothing better to say than "You're a fool."
The fossil record shows different speices of animals and intermediary evolutionary forms that lead from one animal to the other.

Continental plate drift explains explains how groups of animals became isolated and evolved differently.

They are making some major steps forward in how a planet with very little organic chemicals can lead to organic life.

If you watch "Island of the Vampire Finches" you'll see natural selection being documented in front of your eyes. I dare you to watch it.

The last thing a Scientist expects is fr someone to believe him/her because s/he said so. But you're right, scientists have resorted to name calling at times. But that's not their fault. Creationist name call all the time and the scientist are just too quick to react. Human nature.

If seeing it with your own eyes=proof and not seeing it=may not have happened then the Eiffel tower might not exist, the people posting on this message board might be figments of my imagination and David Copperfield really can fly.
 

Ripper

Peace Through Superior Firepower
Originally posted by WildWeasel
You just bought yourself a ticket, smart guy.

A ticket? A Lottery ticket?:D An airline ticket?:) A speeding ticket?:( C'mon, what kind of ticket?


(Waiting with baited breath)
 

steampunk

Spaceman
Originally posted by Quarto
But steampunk, we are a figment of your imagination.
That explains everything.
*Trying to imagine scantly clad pretty girls with huge fans and those huge bowls of grapes* if this works as well as this crazy message board halucination ...
 

Preacher

Swabbie
Banned
Originally posted by Madman

...but seriously beliefs in the bible and in specific quotations do not a christian make, belief in the resurrection and ascension make a christian (and the messiah part is good too) just because u dont believe in a specific line doesnt mean you arent a christian, otherwise no christians would eat pork and we'd have all sorts of "wierd" laws to obey, in fact we'd be amish! with added christian laws.

the bible is open to interpretation, and the freedom to interpret it as you like is a right that every man should have.
-No, the Messiah part isn't just "good, too", it is foundational. What's the point of believing in the ascension/resurrection if you don't believe the ONE who underwent these things was the Messiah?.... Otherwise he was just some great teacher, but nothing more. Read C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity" and you'll understand what I mean.
-It's not about believing or not believing in specific lines/passages. It's about accepting by faith the truth of the whole (even the parts which don't seem to make sense and that you don't understand), and then doing some serious research over the long haul so you CAN understand those parts.
-For example, your line about pork & weird laws shows only a very superficial understanding of what you read. Had you read the whole work through, you'd understand the context of what you read, and you'd see how wrong you are in those allegations.
-To be specific, when the early Church was forming, the apostles and elders specifically were led to the point of rejecting the vast majority of all the old Jewish dietary and other such laws. The idea was that the the "New Covenant" supplanted and replaced the "Old Covenant" (See Acts 10:1 - 11:5, Acts 15:19-29, and 1st Timothy 4:1-5 for a sampling of these).
-Sure, anyone has the freedom to interpret it any old way they like. The only problem is when such people have the gall to call themselves "Christian" when they reject the key elements of the faith! If I was born into a Christian family, came to believe in the Koran in my adulthood, and rejected the Hebrew scriptures, I'd have no right to call myself a Jew, now, would I?...

Originally posted by Napoleon

....but good god man, think for 2 seconds. The flood, is scientifically impossible, the earth is billions of years old, evolution happened, there was no adam, all things shown to be true by modern empirical science, how can you say that biblical stuff isnt shown wrong by modern science?
-There has been substantial evidence that a worldwide flood of great magnitude DID actually occur in the ancient past. The several feet thick layer of clay and sediment referred to in another post here has been found in several wide-ranging spots on the globe, not only in the Middle East. Combine that with the fact that many religions/cultures in these same parts of the globe have their own flood stories/legends, and your premise that such is scientifically "impossible" gets shot down right quick (FOX ONE!)
-Evolution, being at present just a theory (having not been proven, and having considerable holes in it), cannot conclusively be said to have "happened". (FOX TWO!)
-That same evolutionary theory allows for a type of "Adam", in that a "missing link" (from which apes and man's evolutionary paths diverged) is postulated. Just as Creationists can't prove that the "missing link" is a fallacy, neither can you & the Evolutionists prove to anyone that there wasn't an "Adam". (FOX THREE!)
-As I said before, science has disproven not one thing in the Bible, whereas recent scientific discoveries by archaeology have in fact proven science wrong on their previous stances about various biblical events/figures. (SPLASH ONE!!!)
Originally posted by Steampunk

Even if all the authors of the bible were completely honest and never exaggerated as Preacher implies (how is that even remotely possible?) there are still human failings like bad handwriting and evolution of languages (gay used to be happy but not anymore) that will corrupt the bible. It would be @#@$@ amazing if they actually pulled it of.

And just to get a better understanding of what some Christians are thinking:
What precisely do some Christians hope to achieve by believing the bible in its entirety?... And what is the point of trying to push the religion on to others? Does the bible not teach tolerance and acceptance anywhere?
They did pull it off. Read the post again. You don't have to believe the Bible, but if you read it through, you will nonetheless see how seamlessly it all fits together. A comprehensive, cohesive narrative, with not one genuine contradiction in the whole tome. But of course, ya can't appreciate that until/unless you READ it... (Simply reading other folks' opinions about it just ain't gonna cut it...)

-Believing it in its entirety allows a believer to most fully know the Author. CZ restricitons prohibit me to go into that fully here, but I'll gladly tell you by PM/Email if you like. And, the idea is not to "push" the belief onto others, but rather to share with them so they can know the truth (Our "mission" is summarized in Matthew 28:16-20). As one believer put it: "Hey, I'm just a poor beggar telling other beggars where to find bread". Admittedly, Christians being human, this has gotten out of hand from time to time - like the Spanish Inquisition, or the early American missionaries forcibly converting my ancestors (Indians) and stripping them of their language/culture, etc.
-The bible teaches tolerance and acceptance, yes, but it you must remember that "tolerance" does not mean the embracing of things that are anathema to one's beliefs. Sadly, though, that's what some take "tolerance" to mean, and they can be quite militant about it.
-As to other religions, I have no problem being friends/working/talking/hanging out with folks if they're Jewish/Muslim/Buddhist,whatever, and have done so quite a lot in my career. And I don't push my beliefs on them, but if the subject of religion comes up, of course I'm going to witness to them of what I have seen/know, being careful to always do so in a respectful way (see 1 Peter 3:15-18 for a better explanation of this). This is the way it's supposed to be, and I grieve the fact that anyone is NOT treated this way by one calling themselves a Christian.

==================
**Footnote/Disclaimer:
I freely admit that Creationists have not yet come up with a solid explanation for every scientific fact that has been established via the fossil record (at least, not in the reading I've done thus far), but this is no surprise to me. Bottom line is, NEITHER side of this argument has scientifically proven their case "beyond a reasonable doubt", and they may never be able to do so. Thus (at least for now), scientifically speaking, BOTH are only theories. Pick the one you want to believe, and move on.
 

Kalfor

Spaceman
ok....
first, related to something I saw and its almost funny...having to see to believe, form someone apparently supporting christinanity
mmm...wasnt there a story about a man who didnt believe jesus resurrected and jesus had to make him touch his wounds so the man believed him? funny, isnt it?

anyway, the bible (or ANY religious writing) are not taken as historical books by historicists. first, because it tends to, as people are known to say, be "written by the winners"
Even though that may not be true completelly, for those writting it was

and, Jesus was a jew. he NEVER proclaimed or created another religion. those after him did, using his name
something else? lets see....in the middle ages, they used to blame diseases on vampires and ghosts...oh, look at that! 2000 years ago, someone could simply had come and said "oh, he ressurected Lazarus" when what happended was that Jesus simply learned during his travels thru the East that there was a disease (known today) where a person looked like he was dead, but actually, his pulse was just faint. Jesus could have just said the man was still alive and to wait, and writers said he touched and said "Rise lazarus" and the man got up
same with the "borrowing" of legends, myths and (I dare say) facts, which were easily distorted, not only by the original writters, but by the subsequent translations

simply, if there was no Jesus, there would be someone else
that time was full of prophets and wise man. it was a matter of picking one

And btw, I was trying to not take names directly, but fuck it, cause it looks like some people like to respond and complain about one answer, and ignore others, where they dont know how to answer

so, lets play like that subject

the floods did exist, thats an historical fact, based on the culture of SEVERAL religions, each told in their own wait. that happended in the last Ice Age, as I said, which you would know if you didnt want so much to show you are so great by believingly shoting down someone else. that doesnt mean there was an adam, because, well, the ice age was 2 millions years BEFORE the supposed birth of Christ (that was the Plistocene Period, if you want specifics). That last glaciation ended around 20, 10 thousand years before Christ (FOX ONE!)

Evolution is a theory? mmm..nope
its a fact. the same way there is a pattern of the evolution of species, based on their ambient, needs and biology. the same reason why humans became what they are. why we have opposable fingers. read the proper books, and you will see a real study on the subject. (FOX TWO!)

If youre saying the theory of evolution doesnt exist, why are you basing your existence of Adam in it? well, anyway. the fact is, this Adam could be the first homo erectus, or a closer link, or before the afarensis, that doesnt matter, what the bible explains as been the first man, is still a symbolism, created based on the ideals and costumes of the time. The missing link would simply be an apeman from before the man from ethiopia (where supposedlyu is the cradle of humanity), so for starters, your adam would be a monkeyman. AND if you like so much to give half answers about the questions you select to answer (I wonder why), the theory of evolution doesnt say adam didnt exist. it for sure doesnt say there was a man made out of clay, and a woman who was made out of his rib. it talks about millions of years of modification and mutation, as we all know every well happen, and eventually a species fit to survive in its environment growning and prospering. You can call whoever you want adam, the same way the apewoman found in Kenya or Ethiopia (unfortunatly I dont have the sources in my hands right now), which was called Eve, and is not even the most recent discovery
(FOX THREE!)

and about science as you said not disproving the bible
well, the floods I already said. lets see? oh, yes the borrowing of other peoples` myths and legends (do I need to repeat myself?) what else...of course, the many things which 2000 years ago were miracle and today can be easily explained! how could I forget that! lets see what else? the fact that who wrote it did it int he way that it said what he wanted
AND even if he had the best of intentions, there is tons of symbolism or fable which are taken today by many as the truth

you want to say your religion is the right one (even against what someone else mentioned that supposedly your religion preaches acceptance and understanding), why does YOUR religion has to be the right one? sounds kind of egotistical, hum?
oh, of course...cause its YOUR religion! thats why
human nature, hum?

- K
 

TC

SubCrid
Everyone stop not understanding what the hell a theory is. I've already explained this.

Kalfor, Evolution is a theory.

Preacher, a theory is well backed with facts.

Also, Kalfor, it's stupid to expect someone to not believe their own religion is the correct one. If they didn't believe it, they wouldn't be a follower of that religion.
 

Kalfor

Spaceman
Believing is one thing
wanting to force it is another
if a religion says understand and tolerate, if youre not supposed to go door by door or get into people`s conversations trying to conving them to belived in what you do, which is what Preacher wants so much to do
all you need is to believe in it, if you think that will help you
so learn to live your own life and not try to force others to live it

and on the theory of evolution, yes I was excessive in saying it wasnt a theory. My meaning was to explain that it wasnt the extremist idea preached by some. creatures evolve, be it metally, biologically or whatever. in the way that creatures learn, so do their bodies, and they adapt. Preacher talks about needs for scietific proof (Once again i mention his own religion, where jesus made the unbeliever touch his wound to believe he was back), so go read the proper books. You want to read what you want, you read books by creationists. read actually scientific works. then come discuss it

And TC, extremist is to believe in what one religion says at the ultame truth, and that everyone must follow it. religion is something to give people hope and understanding. No, a person doesnt have to blindly follow it to have faith. all he/she needs is to believe in what conforts him

- K
 

steampunk

Spaceman
Originally posted by Preacher

-There has been substantial evidence that a worldwide flood of great magnitude DID actually occur in the ancient ........globe have their own flood stories/legends, and your premise that such is scientifically "impossible" gets shot down right quick (FOX ONE!)
But it did NOT occur the way the Bible says. The Bibles discription is wrong. It was not that huge, naoh did not build an ark large enough for 2 of every animal to get on board. Do you reallize how many speicies there are?


-Evolution, being at present just a theory (having not been proven, and having considerable holes in it), cannot conclusively be said to have "happened". (FOX TWO!)
And "god did it" obviously, becasue its so complete and well thought out and being untestable, can of course, be shown to have have happened.


-That same evolutionary theory allows for a type of "Adam", in that a "missing link" (from which apes and man's evolutionary paths diverged) is postulated. Just as Creationists can't prove that the "missing link" is a fallacy, neither can you & the Evolutionists prove to anyone that there wasn't an "Adam". (FOX THREE!)
Been there done that. There is a biological "eve" whom we all share micochondrial DNA with. However there is no such link to a common male relative.


-As I said before, science has disproven not one thing in the Bible, whereas recent scientific discoveries by archaeology have in fact proven science wrong on their previous stances about various biblical events/figures. (SPLASH ONE!!!)
Fossils date back longer than the age of the world as given by the bible. There they've disproved one thing.


They did pull it off. Read the post again. You don't have to believe the Bible, but if you read it through, you will nonetheless see how seamlessly it all .....
I have read some of it. Lord of the Rings fits seemlessly together. The seemlessness of the Bible only proves that the authors made sure they read each otehrs work before they published. George Lucas does that with SW.


I freely admit that Creationists have not yet come up with a solid explana.....
Ok right. Now my position is, the theory with the most evidence to back itself up is probably the more "correct" one. People can believe in which ever religion they want to but they should take events from religions texts with a grain of salt. They were written in a time when people believed in witches and dieseases were caused by demons. These books aren't going to be right. I don't want anybody to become atheists are anything, just to realize that religion and science aren't quite the same thing and that you should be careful of what you preach as being the true. I mean, some Christian sites say pokemon are unchristian. What?!

Shit, I've probably broken some CZ rulez, I'd better read them again ...

Kalfor, I think people are missing topics in their replies because the thread to too long to read and reply too :eek: perhaps we should all agree to disagree - man I hate that cliche.
 

TC

SubCrid
Originally posted by Kalfor
Believing is one thing
wanting to force it is another
if a religion says understand and tolerate, if youre not supposed to go door by door or get into people`s conversations trying to conving them to belived in what you do, which is what Preacher wants so much to do
all you need is to believe in it, if you think that will help you
so learn to live your own life and not try to force others to live it
I will , at this point, mention that, if Preacher is guilty of trying to force others to see things his way, you are just as guilty, as you're trying to convince him of the opposing view. You're basically saying that he's trying to persuade people that his views are right in a discussion... the horrors!

Tolerance isn't ignoring the beliefs of others. To have tolerance, one must respect and understand others' beliefs. One can do this, while still making their opinions and views clear and trying to convince others that their way is correct. I respect Preacher's beliefs, even though I don't share them and I'm more than happy to discuss them. This is tolerance. Also, I'm rather sure that if this type of discussion were clearly stated to be unwelcome, he would understand and not discuss it. It's not forcing if you stop when it's unwelcome... If tolerance required that one not discuss his opinions, the only way to remain tolerant would be to not talk.

in the way that creatures learn, so do their bodies, and they adapt.
This reminds me of something I thought I should mention, to make sure all parties have some basic understanding... Phrasing like this is what makes evolution a misunderstood theory. Many see this and think, "Ha! You expect me to believe that creatures just change to get better magically?". This phrasing, can be read to imply that it's a concious desicion. One could speak of a whole species adapting, if one takes a macroscopic view of the situation, as the makeup of the species is no longer what it was before and the reasons for this change are environmental pressures.

However, in an individual instance of a creature, the term adapt is misleading, as the individuals cannot change to fit an environment after they're born (at least, not in a genetic manner, which is generally all evolution is concerned with... there are some species that teach various skills, but that's not really the same issue and isn't applicable to this conversation). Instead, random mutations occur that, in some rare instances, cause a creature to be born with an advantage over others of the species. The creature with this mutation, since it's advantageous, will have a greater chance to reproduce, as will its offspring. Eventually, if this mutation is significantly advantageous, this genetic variation will out survive the other varieties of the creature.

A species 'adapts' to a change in its environment by having all those within it that are able to survive the environment better survive, while all the rest die off.

I just thought this deserved a quite run through just in case, as I've seen many a person, religious and not, who don't understand the role natural selection plays in evolution.

Preacher talks about needs for scietific proof (Once again i mention his own religion, where jesus made the unbeliever touch his wound to believe he was back),
I really don't see how touching a wound is proof of coming back to life... Nor do I see how touching it would be scientific proof of the same.

And TC, extremist is to believe in what one religion says at the ultame truth, and that everyone must follow it.
Oh No! You believe in what science proves and you obviously want Kalfor [edit: sorry, this should read "Preacher"] to as well! You're a scientific extremist! I don't see Preacher going about forcing people to join his religion, so he obviously doesn't believe that everyone must follow it. You're huring your argument by attacking the person rather than the arguments.

a person doesnt have to blindly follow it to have faith.
I found this statement somewhat amusing, as faith is the belief without necessarily having material proof... following without seeing, if you will.
 

Kalfor

Spaceman
I will , at this point, mention that, if Preacher is guilty of trying to force others to see things his way, you are just as guilty, as you're trying to convince him of the opposing view. You're basically saying that he's trying to persuade people that his views are right in a discussion... the horrors!
sorry, but he wasnt discussing, he was nearly ridicularizing others opinions with the "fox one!" and "splash one" notes I had to repeat just to see if he enjoyed. And, I didnt impose. as you can see in my first post, what I did was to reply with scientific notion and, when possible, fact (historical, mostly, since that is my field). youre really basing everything I said on my mistake (as I know how to say I did something wrong) of saying evolution was a fact. thought it would be the same way to say he cant show his point cause he cant prove miracles or events on the bible (or the existence of god...at least his god) is true

This reminds me of something I thought I should mention, to make sure all parties have some basic understanding... Phrasing like this is what makes evolution a misunderstood theory. Many see this and think, "Ha! You expect me to believe that creatures just change to get better magically?". This phrasing, can be read to imply that it's a concious desicion. One could speak of a whole species adapting, if one takes a macroscopic view of the situation, as the makeup of the species is no longer what it was before and the reasons for this change are environmental pressures.
the evolution bit and how I phrased it on my last post, again, go read my first post, where I actually discuss that point. this last time I was taking in acount that the person(s) in the discussion had read the previous post, which I already talked about the evolution happening in a period of several and several years. nothing magical about it. its called adaptation

I really don't see how touching a wound is proof of coming back to life... Nor do I see how touching it would be scientific proof of the same.
the bit about Jesus making a man touch his wound, its part of the Bible. how it makes a man see he is alive? well, duh. if youre standing there, with a blood oozing from the wound made by the nail, which the other person saw, how better to prove not only that you are there (touching you) but that is really you (the wounds you saw been inflicted). its unfortunate I cant remember what apostle was it, so I have to keep refering to him as "the man." anyone can help here on his name? the man asked for proof of the miracle, thats what Im talking about

Oh No! You believe in what science proves and you obviously want Kalfor to as well! You're a scientific extremist! I don't see Preacher going about forcing people to join his religion, so he obviously doesn't believe that everyone must follow it. You're huring your argument by attacking the person rather than the arguments
on the next point, I WAS discussing it, but been ignored. I simply replied to his other points, which in some cases even ignored mentions I made on my first post (if it was simply for not reading it, my bad. though, if you intend to keep a discussion about a subject, reading about it AND people`s opinions, its the least, most of all if you started it or was part of it). Scietific extremist? I would think that is extreme (no pun intended). I believe in what I know as fact (thanks to my work as historian) and I have learned to think thrice what was written by people from different ages, because their reality and their view of the world was different. still, most religions get stuck in that past truths

I found this statement somewhat amusing, as faith is the belief without necessarily having material proof... following without seeing, if you will.
and to your last comment, "Blindly following" doesnt mean you need visible or physical proof, but that you do it ignoring everything else around you. maybe you should stop to think before answering

- K
 

TC

SubCrid
Just a note, you may want to capitalize at the begining of sentances. It makes text much easier to read.

Originally posted by Kalfor
sorry, but he wasnt discussing, he was nearly ridicularizing others opinions with the "fox one!" and "splash one" notes I had to repeat just to see if he enjoyed. And, I didnt impose. as you can see in my first post, what I did was to reply with scientific notion and, when possible, fact (historical, mostly, since that is my field). youre really basing everything I said on my mistake (as I know how to say I did something wrong) of saying evolution was a fact. thought it would be the same way to say he cant show his point cause he cant prove miracles or events on the bible (or the existence of god...at least his god) is true
I'm unsure of how what I said was based on your use of the word theory... It's an entirely seperate point.

How is saying 'fox one' after presenting a point in any way ridiculing an opinion? It's not my preferred style of writing, but it was merely emphasizing that he'd made a point.

I'm not quite sure about how that makes anyone appear to be forcing their beliefs on you, which was what the section of text you quoted was about. You also appear to have misunderstood how I used the word 'if'. The intended implication would be that since you aren't forcing anything on him, he also isn't forcing anything on you. I wasn't saying that you were forcing anything on anyone. A conditional phrase is, in fact conditional. As I don't believe he was forcing anything on you, I obviously don't believe you were doing the same. If you'd like to present exactly how he's forcing his views on things any more than you are, I'd be happy to address that directly.

I'm not even sure what your last sentance is saying...


the evolution bit and how I phrased it on my last post, again, go read my first post, where I actually discuss that point. this last time I was taking in acount that the person(s) in the discussion had read the previous post, which I already talked about the evolution happening in a period of several and several years. nothing magical about it. its called adaptation
I don't believe you actually mentioned the concept of natural selection or how it impacts evolution. You, and others in this thread, have been using language that implies almost a concious intent to change to fit the surroundings. This slightly innaccurate terminoligy used in popular discussions of the subject are normal and understood by most, but can be misleading to some. I understand that many of the people in this discussion must understand the workings, but I felt it prudent to clarify just in case. This was in no way an attack on you, and it wasn't phrased as one. As a result, I'm unsure how to respond to you.

the bit about Jesus making a man touch his wound, its part of the Bible. how it makes a man see he is alive? well, duh. if youre standing there, with a blood oozing from the wound made by the nail, which the other person saw, how better to prove not only that you are there (touching you) but that is really you (the wounds you saw been inflicted). its unfortunate I cant remember what apostle was it, so I have to keep refering to him as "the man." anyone can help here on his name? the man asked for proof of the miracle, thats what Im talking about
That's not any more proof than just seeing him, though... I also fail to see what qualifies it as 'scientific proof'. One could prove that he's alive scientifically using these observations, but it's hardly a deduction that can be attributed to the wonders of science, even the worst methods of reasoning could come to the conclusion that Jesus is alive if he's solid and there talking to you.

on the next point, I WAS discussing it, but been ignored. I simply replied to his other points, which in some cases even ignored mentions I made on my first post (if it was simply for not reading it, my bad. though, if you intend to keep a discussion about a subject, reading about it AND people`s opinions, its the least, most of all if you started it or was part of it).
I don't actually see that at all... I've re-read your first post a couple of times now and I don't actually see any points you made that were applicable for him to address for the argument he's making. It's not really ignoring you, he just had no reason to respond....

You mentioned that there are other instances of the flood appearing in various accounts, but not how that affects his arguments. You discussed animal intellegence, which isn't Preacher's argument so there's no reason for him to address it. You discussed the raelians, which also isn't anything he'd be the one to respond to. You responded to a quote from cff, which is obviously his problem, not Preachers. You mentioned that being made in the image of God is laughable, but not why. You mentioned that there were similarities to other religions, but not how that's applicable to this discussion.

As nothing was applicable, I see no reason why Preacher would respond to your post.

Scietific extremist? I would think that is extreme (no pun intended). I believe in what I know as fact (thanks to my work as historian) and I have learned to think thrice what was written by people from different ages, because their reality and their view of the world was different. still, most religions get stuck in that past truths
You appear to have had difficulty understanding that I was mirroring your response to show the absurdity of it. One is not an extremist, in the popular usage of the term, for defending their beliefs. You know 'facts' from things written in books from the past... Preacher also knows 'facts' from things written in books from the past. While I may agree that his source may be somewhat biased, I also don't believe it qualifies him as an extremist to believe it. Calling him such when he's made an attempt to carry on a civilized discussion only makes you look foolish. Please don't use personal attacks on the Chat Zone.



and to your last comment, "Blindly following" doesnt mean you need visible or physical proof, but that you do it ignoring everything else around you. maybe you should stop to think before answering
It's a play on words. I enjoy them. I'm quite careful about what I respond to and how I word what I say. I felt it was an amusing choice of words, because of the differences between the intended meaning and the somewhat redundant and opposing interpretation that's possible. Maybe you should think a little more carefully before responding. :)
 

cff

Kilk'dymga'qith laq Ik'vikvi
Originally posted by Preacher

He revealed different aspects of his character to them, and thus had them call him by an increasing number of titles/names. To answer the last part of your quote, the name given was "Yahweh"; but awestruck Jews were so afraid to pronounce the name of this omnipotent, holy God that they substituted the derivative name "Jehovah" instead.
Actually IIRC hebraeish (that is surely spelled wrong, isn' it) doesn't know vowels (at least written ones). So both could be correct.


Originally posted by Preacher

Not necessarily; it depends on how certain I was about my decision in the first place, and/or how important it was. I might equally well have chosen white toilet paper over pink; the decision wasn't all that important.
But something made you pick the pink one. If we can reconstruct the events closely enough that something will be there as well and you're gointg to make the same decision.
You see I extend chaos theory. The smallest change might indeed make you choose white instead of pink. But then it isn't the same situation anymore. Heck if I want to go to extreme the same situation cannot happen again as the universe won't ever be the same again.

Originally posted by Preacher
Okay, one more time: That man CAN and DOES do ALL these things, and animals (even collectively) are incapable of doing but a FRACTION of them, is the crux of the matter.
Or we are to stupid to see. Or they just don't want to show us. Or...
Humanity certainly is the most evolved over all species. But not as far over the animals as many think IMHO.

Originally posted by Preacher

As for cats, they don't fall for the mirror, but then again, about the only things they DO go for is dinner, and big ol' balls of yarn.
LOL. Oh, they can be pretty clever if they want to.

Originally posted by Preacher

Not the stochastic; the order of magnitude. The point is, to have such order, spanning the gamut from huge celestial objects all the way on down to microscopic atoms & cells (and everything in between) speaks a weightier argument in favor of intelligent design than if this were not so.
That is what I challenge.
Imagine all planets on the universe 'tried' by pure chance to evolve something like a cell. Given the number an intelligent design can just happen by chance.
I refer you to modern science. As I said scientists use randomness to find solutions (Monte Carlo Methods, Genetic Algorithms,...)

Originally posted by Preacher

Never said it did. I was pointing out that redundancy in designed systems is not necessarily "waste", and can actually be (in that example) a lifesaving failsafe mechanism.
And I pointed out that we aren't talking about redundancy here.

Originally posted by Preacher

It's also 'entirely possible' that Bin Laden will have an attack of conscience and turn himself over to US troops today, but I think we all know how likely that is.
Sure. But some ancient Israelish guy overglorifying himself is surely a lot more likely then Bin Laden comming to his execution willingly...

Originally posted by Lynx
The flood is proven, yet it was not like monumental as described in the bible.
Actually as far as I recall the bible it isn't that monumental there as well. Sure up front they say that all will be killed. But after the flood at least some human outside of the Ark seem to have survived as well, don't they. Or am I misremembering?

Originally posted by Napoleon
there is NOTHING simple about an octopuses eye, it is just as complex as ours, and it is more efficient and a better design.
I didn't say it was simple. But it is simpler by a good deal then the human eye. As for more efficient where you get that? Everything I know about eyes says otherwise and the human eye is kinda a pet project of mine.
Simpler? Yes. Very efficient? Yes. Better? No.

Originally posted by Kalfor

"if 2 lesbians want to have a baby, go to a sperm bank" is both incensitive and, forgive me, stupid. You say that cause youre not involved. if 2 women or 2 men want to have a baby of their own, they want it to be part of them.
And I didn't deny them the right to be part of their baby. But get one donor half and one half from yourself and do it in vitro. There isn't a real advantage to clone yourself completely, but many risks.
Also as long as we cannot get 2 eggs or 2 sperm cell to unite we cannot give them a real child of both even with cloning. (besides that it woudn't be cloning then).

Originally posted by steampunk
Does the bible not teach tolerance and acceptance anywhere?
The bible teaches too many contradicting things. Similar it is said that non believers should be tortured to death before the eyes of their children and such nicities...

Originally posted by Ghost

You can´t believe it (in some cases) word by word because it´s full of symbolisms.
Also don't forget that stuff like "pars pro toto" exists at least in Latin (I don't know the other biblical languages). So if Cicero (IIRC) writes that "the roofs had been red" he actually ment "the city is burning".

Originally posted by Preacher

-Evolution, being at present just a theory (having not been proven, and having considerable holes in it), cannot conclusively be said to have "happened". (FOX TWO!)
What holes?

Originally posted by Preacher

-That same evolutionary theory allows for a type of "Adam", in that a "missing link" (from which apes and man's evolutionary paths diverged) is postulated. Just as Creationists can't prove that the "missing link" is a fallacy, neither can you & the Evolutionists prove to anyone that there wasn't an "Adam". (FOX THREE!)
Actually IIRC at least some scientists claim that we all orginied from a very very small number of women. Some number below 15. Don't know the exact one anymore. 'Proven' via the Mytrochondrial DNA that I am citing again and again.
There are some flaws in that theory however.

Originally posted by Preacher

-As to other religions, I have no problem being friends/working/talking/hanging out with folks if they're Jewish/Muslim/Buddhist,whatever, and have done so quite a lot in my career.
I already got a problem with that naming. As I am a non believer in names and organisations for me there are only to big religions to start with. The one that has one god (Jewish/Muslim/Christian) and the other that has severals (Buddhist/Hinduist).
Both groups share so many text it is rediculous to fight each other IMHO. Just because of the naming/organisations this happens.

Originally posted by Kalfor

they used to blame diseases on vampires and ghosts
Sidenote... Recent studies indicate that the vampire mythos might indeed have scientific roots. There are people (in German they are called Mondscheinkinder) that cannot endure UV light (scientifically called Xeroderma Pigmentosum IIRC).
This explains the burning in the sun mythos. Also the illness seems to get better when drinking blood (not necessarily human one). It is also a genetic desease explaining that it got "centers of it happening" leading to the mis-assumption that it was an illnes that was transferable via virii or something else. IIRC also the flesh around the teeth is retracted for these people making the teeth look longer...
 

t.c.cgi

Vice Admiral
Originally posted by steampunk
The fossil record shows different speices of animals and intermediary evolutionary forms that lead from one animal to the other.

Continental plate drift explains explains how groups of animals became isolated and evolved differently.

They are making some major steps forward in how a planet with very little organic chemicals can lead to organic life.

If you watch "Island of the Vampire Finches" you'll see natural selection being documented in front of your eyes. I dare you to watch it.

The last thing a Scientist expects is fr someone to believe him/her because s/he said so. But you're right, scientists have resorted to name calling at times. But that's not their fault. Creationist name call all the time and the scientist are just too quick to react. Human nature.

If seeing it with your own eyes=proof and not seeing it=may not have happened then the Eiffel tower might not exist, the people posting on this message board might be figments of my imagination and David Copperfield really can fly.
1. Quite a few of the supposed steps in evolution that scientists have "uncovered" aren't even real. Hell one is entirely synthetic except for one part, which is actualy a filed down hog's tooth (this is no shit).

2. Did you know there actualy is no evidence of continental plate drift? All those numbers were made by mathematicians, not scientific process.

3. I'm sure they are. It's very easy to skip parts of the scientific process.

4. Thanks, I might go and rent it. It could make for a good laugh.

5. You'll note I was the first to say that. Fact is both sides can get pretty skewed, and have quite a few "fact makers" to help propagate their ideas to those who can't see through it.

6. What I meant was not so much that *I* have seen it, but that someone has seen it and recorded/documented it thus making it irrefutable fact. Again, neither side has this. Science can show all these facts (which, again I point out a lot are outright made up) as it's "recorded/documented." Creationism has God, who "says so", even though he didn't directly write the Bible, and the guy who wrote Genesis wasn't even there.

Don't get me wrong, I may beleive creationism, but I don't act like it's fact. And neither is Evolution, or any other believe on how life came to exist. They are ALL personal beliefs. And frankly I must say the the average Evolutionist has way more faith than the average Christian/Creationist concerning their beliefs and convictions. Than again, Evolution lets you deny the existance of God, while Creationism does just the opposite.

I tell you, if I had different beliefs, I sure wouldn't want to find out there's a God, and that I have to do what he says. Surely not 20 years ago, and definitly not now that there is all this new self empowerment, "YOU are God!" trife.

P.S. If you realy think a mass community is incable of lying on such a scale, look at modern day Germany.
 

Ghost

Emperor
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Preacher

He revealed different aspects of his character to them, and thus had them call him by an increasing number of titles/names. To answer the last part of your quote, the name given was "Yahweh"; but awestruck Jews were so afraid to pronounce the name of this omnipotent, holy God that they substituted the derivative name "Jehovah" instead.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Originally posted by cff
Actually IIRC hebraeish (that is surely spelled wrong, isn' it) doesn't know vowels (at least written ones). So both could be correct.


Actually both of you are wrong :)
The hebrew writing has written vowels, the A is a line under a letter (like a line below the aleph), the E is like .. or one dot below the other 2 ,the I is like a tiny i or a dot under a letter, the O is a dot above-left the Vav (the vav looks like a I) or a dot above left a letter, the U a dot in the middle left of the Vav or 3 dots in diagonal below the letter.
To make it quickly the majority of the vowels are dots below or above thee letters ;)

Now to the God´s name.
First you must understand that the Torah was written in Old Hebrew, the letters are the same that the common hebrew but are draw different.
Second, you must known that in the old Torah (and even the ones that the writers write today for the sinagogues) there are written only letters not dots, much like any Israeli newspaper or books (even more acording the tradition the one that wrote Moses didn´t have spaces between the words)
So how the words sounds and the names come from the tradition or the use, but you know when you see a word without the written vowels how it sounds.
The word God written in the Torah is IHV(or W)H as i said before there are no dots. so the truly pronunciation of His name is lost so saying that is Jehova, Yahwe or whatever is inexact, because at this point no one knows (well maybe 2 or 3 mad Kabalists know ;) )
 

Kalfor

Spaceman
CFF::

though that wouldnt be cloning in itself, it would use the benefits of that technology
And on the vampire thing, those diseases that may have relation with part of those myths of vampire have been known for quite a while. both photophobia and the need to consume blood. BUT not only are those limited to a small group of the vampire myth (believe me, there are dozens of different myths, even in europe). that, though, has nothing to do with the fact that society believed evil spirits caused sickness


And TC, what I base is on studies. not books from the past. as I already explained, historians study the past based on not only documents (be those books, scrolls, tablets, statues, ruins, etc), and its taken in consideration that people in the past had different reasoning

Now, I see at once again, you but into a discussion not only claiming to hold the truth ("I explained what theory is! You are all wrong!"), but also including grammah and writing form into your posts as if they were more important than the contents of the post itself. This tends to be the reasoning of those who dont know a clear point to bring up in a proper discussion
and since it looks like you are not capable of an adult discussion without bringing up points like this, I wont bother anymore

So, go ahead, hold your own personal truth, but please try to grow up a bit. It may help on your future relations with the outside world

- K
 
Top