Register
Email: Password:
Forum » More action! (FEATURES A NAUGHTY WORD!)
  • « previous
  • 1
  • 2
  • » next
    •

    More action! (FEATURES A NAUGHTY WORD!)

    Amarth 17 years ago
    Got your attention eh?


    Defend yourselves, creationists.
    #
    Cejer 17 years ago
    Hmm, maybe there is the fact that macroevolution by natural selection is an unobserved occurrence that has never been recorded. Do you think that might throw a damper on the whole evidence angle?

    Or wait, the fossil record is even more staggeringly incomplete than it was when Darwin first proposed the idea for consideration. Do you think that the theory's biggest weakness keeps getting bigger is a problem?

    At least the fossil record shows a sudden explosion of variation in life followed by a massive reduction in speciation. Wait, is that a problem for "evolution?" Sorry.

    Quite simply, when people talk about "evolution" there are two possible things they are talking about. Obviously the controversy exists about macroevolution by natural selection. An idea which has little to do with science, at the moment, because it has never been observed. As such, the idea that is macroevolution by natural selection falls under the range of philosophical quandaries. The debate of "evolution" vs. "creationism" has not been one of Science VS Religion for many years. It has been Atheism VS Conventional Religions.
    Many modern governments claim to be opposed to an integration of state and church. And yet, the original intent of such a stance was to prevent a state from enforcing a religion. With the current amount of evidence for "evolution, the widespread teaching of "evolution" is clearly an endorsement of atheism.


    If you just wanted comments on the comic by itself, heh. It is a reasonably funny comic.
    #
    Amarth 17 years ago
    "Cejer" said:
    Hmm, maybe there is the fact that macroevolution by natural selection is an unobserved occurrence that has never been recorded. Do you think that might throw a damper on the whole evidence angle?
    Hmm. First of all, no, that would not be a problem, given there is no counter-evidence. Second, I'm not sure what you mean with unobserved. From the Galapagos birds over structures found in *every* living being to DNA comparisons, it all looks like evidence to me.
    And, well, how would you observe macroevolution? Live for a few million years?
    Or wait, the fossil record is even more staggeringly incomplete than it was when Darwin first proposed the idea for consideration. Do you think that the theory's biggest weakness keeps getting bigger is a problem?
    I'm not sure I get this... Is this about 'missing links'? I'm not sure that's a very valid point, until someone can show me some calculations about what the expected chances of digging up those are.
    At least the fossil record shows a sudden explosion of variation in life followed by a massive reduction in speciation. Wait, is that a problem for "evolution?" Sorry.
    Hmm? Is it a problem? Also, links on this? I'd like to explore that a bit more.
    Quite simply, when people talk about "evolution" there are two possible things they are talking about. Obviously the controversy exists about macroevolution by natural selection. An idea which has little to do with science, at the moment, because it has never been observed.
    Mmm. Science doesn't require observation. I haven't observed many electrons either, nor have I ever seen a black hole. No one has. Science requires falsification.
    As such, the idea that is macroevolution by natural selection falls under the range of philosophical quandaries. The debate of "evolution" vs. "creationism" has not been one of Science VS Religion for many years. It has been Atheism VS Conventional Religions.
    Well. I agree with that. But both sides are hauling in scientific (or pseudoscientific) facts where none apply. Doesn't sound like a fairly good debate, then.
    Many modern governments claim to be opposed to an integration of state and church. And yet, the original intent of such a stance was to prevent a state from enforcing a religion. With the current amount of evidence for "evolution, the widespread teaching of "evolution" is clearly an endorsement of atheism.
    How again does the scientific theory of evolution link to the philosophical viewpoint of atheism, except in the minds of twisted and hateful beings like Dawkins?

    Science *starts* with agreeing that they'll not use God to explain anything. Trying to do science in which features a god in whatever form is wrong. As is trying to "disprove" God using science, which would be circular logic.
    If you just wanted comments on the comic by itself, heh. It is a reasonably funny comic.
    Of course, the cartoon isn't important. But it's always a good thing when people from both sides are able to put things into perspective and seeing some humor. Karma++.
    #
    MageKing17 17 years ago
    Remember, the banana is the atheist's nightmare!

    One wonders if the word "domestication" is even in his vocabulary.
    #
    Anarion 17 years ago
    "MageKing17" said:
    Remember, the banana is the atheist's nightmare!
    Say what? I'm not afraid of Bananas.
    #
    The Gemini 17 years ago
    Wait, Cejer, you do not believe evolution is a fact, or are you just trying to be sarchastic?
    #
    MageKing17 17 years ago
    "Anarion" said:
    "MageKing17" said:
    Remember, the banana is the atheist's nightmare!
    Say what? I'm not afraid of Bananas.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Comfort
    #
    The Gemini 17 years ago
    "MageKing17" said:
    "Anarion" said:
    "MageKing17" said:
    Remember, the banana is the atheist's nightmare!
    Say what? I'm not afraid of Bananas.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Comfort

    Oh my god, that's just ridicoulus... Comparing a banana to a cola can, and stating that it is a proof of ID? Then why haven't god provided us pigs with a butcher knife to help slaughtering it, or cows who crap milk cans?
    #
    Amarth 17 years ago
    Well, taking one non-random selected example from the pool of ID preachers isn't the best way of evaluating them, is it?
    #
    MageKing17 17 years ago
    "Amarth" said:
    Well, taking one non-random selected example from the pool of ID preachers isn't the best way of evaluating them, is it?
    Who said I was evaluating all ID supporters? I just find it hilarious.
    #
    Crazy 17 years ago
    I think Amarth said that to Gemini. But hell, i've been proven to be wrong before.
    #
    The Gemini 17 years ago
    I just think that the banana argument is not valid at all. But then again, all of the ID supporters' arguments lacks validity anyway.
    #
    Shingo 17 years ago
    "Amarth" said:
    "Cejer" said:
    Quite simply, when people talk about "evolution" there are two possible things they are talking about. Obviously the controversy exists about macroevolution by natural selection. An idea which has little to do with science, at the moment, because it has never been observed.
    Mmm. Science doesn't require observation. I haven't observed many electrons either, nor have I ever seen a black hole. No one has. Science requires falsification.
    I'm going to very much disagree with you here. All science requires empirical data. There is a reason that it is the "Theory" of evolution, you know. I'd much appreciate it if we realized what that word means, in a scientific context and stopped taking for granted that this theory is obviously correct. For it to be a law there would have to be rock solid answers to questions such as "Hey now, what about irreducible complexity issues in relation to the eye." There would have to be a definitive answer to this, and other quandaries, that provide a satisfactory answer that can silence the opposition, rather than "Oh, this might be able to explain the missing links." Otherwise it is nothing more, and nothing less, than a theory. The chances of me accepting a theory as fact are equal to the odds of say... me flying to the moon, spacing myself, and attempting to jog back to earth in my skivvies and making it alive.
    #
    Murska 17 years ago
    Accepting a theory as "Probably true, more so than the other ideas presented" on the other hand...
    #
    MageKing17 17 years ago
    In a scientific sense, the only difference between a theory and a law is that a law has been around longer and not yet proven false. If a theory doesn't have a solid evidential backing, it isn't a theory... it's a hypothesis. The "Big Bang Hypothesis" only got an upgrade to "Theory" status when they found the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, and realized what it was. Before that... just a hypothesis. So when they say "Theory of Evolution", they say it with solid evidence behind it. It isn't "taking for granted" that it is "obviously correct", it's simply noticing that it has evidence backing it up and it hasn't been proven false. And no, it hasn't been proven false.

    "Shingo" said:
    "Hey now, what about irreducible complexity issues in relation to the eye."
    What kind of idiot would design an eye with a great gaping blind spot smack dab in the middle of the retina?
    #
    Murska 17 years ago
    "MageKing17" said:

    "Shingo" said:
    "Hey now, what about irreducible complexity issues in relation to the eye."
    What kind of idiot would design an eye with a great gaping blind spot smack dab in the middle of the retina?

    God?
    #
    Shingo 17 years ago
    "Murska" said:
    "MageKing17" said:

    "Shingo" said:
    "Hey now, what about irreducible complexity issues in relation to the eye."
    What kind of idiot would design an eye with a great gaping blind spot smack dab in the middle of the retina?

    God?
    Realizing that I kind've deserved the answer I got, given the mannerism in my latest post... I'll say that I'm sorry about that, and ask that we don't start bashing things.

    Anywhoo.... What about irreducible complexity? Anyone got an answer for that hole in the theory of evolution? One example in particular that I'd like to cite is the silia used by early micro-organisms to move. Apparently they require a number of very specific pieces in order to function at all. That, along with the eye being a more-well known example, is what I'd like to ask about.
    #
    Amarth 17 years ago
    Irreducible complexity is very important. It is the part of evolution that makes it science. It's what gives it falsifiability. If it can be proven (well, generally accepted) that there exists indeed an irreducibly complex structure, one that could never have evolved, then evolution is proven false and a better [i]scientific[i] theory should be proposed. For now, I don't think we have a proven irreducibly complex structure nor an alternative theory.

    I'm also not sure how one should go and prove that a certain structure has irreducible complexity. There might be millions of ways to evolve a certain structure. Anyway, evolution of the eye and evolution of flagella.
    #
    Crazy 17 years ago
    Also, what i don't like is religious people saying "You're wrong, ergo we're right."

    No. It proves our theory wrong, but while ours are doubted on such small matters into which we're still researching, them religious peoples have some rather bigger problems. Isn't omnipotence a paradox unto itself? The very basis of the Christian creation story?

    There doesn't HAVE to be a right answer. Relativity is a mystery to us, hell, we don't even know what gravity is all about. This doesn't disprove the existence of such things. The disproof of Dalton's atomic pudding theory does not automatically prove that everything is made of water as some of the earliest philosophers thought.
    #
    Amarth 17 years ago
    "Crazy" said:
    Isn't omnipotence a paradox unto itself? The very basis of the Christian creation story?
    It's neither a problem nor the basis of the Christian creation story.

    It might be a problem if you apply scientific reasoning on it (the unmovable rock paradox) but that problem is inherent in language and other advanced structures. It's one you see everywhere, from jokes ("Caesar said that all Romans are liars") over logic paradoxes (Russell's paradox) to the very foundation of maths (Gödel's incompleteness theorem). But in religion, there's no need to question the omnipotence of God. No-one ever claimed that it's a scientific truth.

    And the basis of the Christian (I assume you mean Genesis, actually having Jewish roots) creation story is that God is close to his people, not that we are some sort of offspring from his omnipotent abilities. It's a tale that is far older than about any scientific result, passed on for generations by oral recounting. It is also, for a great part, a political story about the rejection of the Babylonian religion by the Hebrews. It is nonsense to look at it in our current context and interpret it literally. If you do that, you cut away the essence of the text: tradition.
    #
    The Gemini 17 years ago
    What I think is interesting is that many christians have accepted the evolution theory, and still they are christians. The basis of christianity, the genesis, is so important to why Jesus came to Earth, to remove the sin that had followed humanity since they first rejected God. The evolution theory however shows us that there were no Adam or Eve. With no Adam and Eve, there can't have been any Fall of Man, and thus it seems ilogical that God sent Jesus to Earth. By accepting evolution, christians and other religious people, becomes hypocrites.

    Science and religion as it is today is not compatible at all, and the ID supporters know this. So, they come up with Intelligent Design in an attempt to be recognized in the scientifical community, or at least by the community as a whole. They know religion is unable to win a debate against science, since religion is in reality only based on assumptions while science is based on assumptions and observations. So, what do they do? They create some pseudo-science theory to get on equal footing. It's an awfull and sickening tactic, but the worst thing is that it actually works several places in the USA!
    #
    Shingo 17 years ago
    "Amarth" said:
    Irreducible complexity is very important. It is the part of evolution that makes it science. It's what gives it falsifiability. If it can be proven (well, generally accepted) that there exists indeed an irreducibly complex structure, one that could never have evolved, then evolution is proven false and a better [i]scientific[i] theory should be proposed. For now, I don't think we have a proven irreducibly complex structure nor an alternative theory.

    I'm also not sure how one should go and prove that a certain structure has or does not have irreducible complexity. There might be millions of ways to evolve a certain structure. Anyway, evolution of the eye and evolution of flagella.
    I'm quite happy to agree with a lot of what Amarth says here. I guess my only reservations are likewise, whether or not it's been proven that certain things portray ID. I'm glad to see us talk this over reasonably, and come to an agreement of sorts.



    "Amarth" said:
    "Crazy" said:
    Isn't omnipotence a paradox unto itself? The very basis of the Christian creation story?
    It's neither a problem nor the basis of the Christian creation story.

    It might be a problem if you apply scientific reasoning on it (the unmovable rock paradox) but that problem is inherent in language and other advanced structures. It's one you see everywhere, from jokes ("Caesar said that all Romans are liars") over logic paradoxes (Russell's paradox) to the very foundation of maths (Gödel's incompleteness theorem). But in religion, there's no need to question the omnipotence of God. No-one ever claimed that it's a scientific truth.

    And the basis of the Christian (I assume you mean Genesis, actually having Jewish roots) creation story is that God is close to his people, not that we are some sort of offspring from his omnipotent abilities. It's a tale that is far older than about any scientific result, passed on for generations by oral recounting. It is also, for a great part, a political story about the rejection of the Babylonian religion by the Hebrews. It is nonsense to look at it in our current context and interpret it literally. If you do that, you cut away the essence of the text: tradition.
    Since when are you an expert on the matter, and where is your source of knowledge that lets you make that kind of statement? I'm very firmly of the opinion that it is not a fallacy to take part(s) of the bible and interpret them literally. From over 10 years of Religious Education and Teen Talk (in which a group of local teens from varying religious standpoints, and even athiests) congregate to discuss issues that range from religion, to politics, to the environment.

    Obviously some parts of the bible are metaphors, and others are not. Which are and which are not is really not all that important. The vast majority if biblicial material is metaphorical, and that has a very important purpose those metaphors are meant to give lessons, teach, and so forth. Whether or not one should take a given passage literally isn't all that important, in most instances. Does it really matter if Adam and Eve were real people? In Hebrew, the name Adam (or rather it's hebrew equivalent) roughly means "Man." Given that, it's entirely possible that Genesis is not meant to be taken literally. However there's also the possibility that it is. The question I'd have to pose is, "Does it matter?"



    "The Gemini" said:
    What I think is interesting is that many christians have accepted the evolution theory, and still they are christians. The basis of christianity, the genesis, is so important to why Jesus came to Earth, to remove the sin that had followed humanity since they first rejected God. The evolution theory however shows us that there were no Adam or Eve. With no Adam and Eve, there can't have been any Fall of Man, and thus it seems ilogical that God sent Jesus to Earth. By accepting evolution, christians and other religious people, becomes hypocrites.

    Science and religion as it is today is not compatible at all, and the ID supporters know this. So, they come up with Intelligent Design in an attempt to be recognized in the scientifical community, or at least by the community as a whole. They know religion is unable to win a debate against science, since religion is in reality only based on assumptions while science is based on assumptions and observations. So, what do they do? They create some pseudo-science theory to get on equal footing. It's an awfull and sickening tactic, but the worst thing is that it actually works several places in the USA!
    You are using an awful and sickening tactic yourself. That's the tactic of lumping religion into one gigantic group. Another, is that science and religion are compltely incompatible. This isn't the thread, and I'm not very eager to launch into a debate on that entire subject, by I myself as a "religious" person, just might be in a better position to evaluate (at least my own religion's) view on that matter, ne? I never said that evolution has never happened. I guess the statement that I'm trying to make is that I'm quite convinced that evolution has occurred, to a degree. The point of contention is, is that I do not find it feasible that evolution has occurred 100% naturally. I'm rather convinced that "something" (I believe this something to be God.) has lent a helping hand.

    Lastly, addressing the issue of you labeling Christians as hypocrites. I'm hesitant to even go there.

    Speaking frankly: You are a jerk.

    You don't see me going out and labeling "all athiests" as "Horribly sinful blasphemers of the All Mighty and those who surely shall find an eternity of torment," do you? No, because it's damn well offensive and a hindrance to decency and any chance of getting something out of this. I'll thank you to leave shit like that on the roadside, when you're heading over to serious discussions.
    #
    Amarth 17 years ago
    "The Gemini" said:
    With no Adam and Eve, there can't have been any Fall of Man
    Mistake is there. Review theory.

    [edit]:
    Science and religion as it is today is not compatible at all, and the ID supporters know this.
    There's another mistake, of course. But well.
    #
    The Gemini 17 years ago
    "Shingo" said:
    "The Gemini" said:
    What I think is interesting is that many christians have accepted the evolution theory, and still they are christians. The basis of christianity, the genesis, is so important to why Jesus came to Earth, to remove the sin that had followed humanity since they first rejected God. The evolution theory however shows us that there were no Adam or Eve. With no Adam and Eve, there can't have been any Fall of Man, and thus it seems ilogical that God sent Jesus to Earth. By accepting evolution, christians and other religious people, becomes hypocrites.

    Science and religion as it is today is not compatible at all, and the ID supporters know this. So, they come up with Intelligent Design in an attempt to be recognized in the scientifical community, or at least by the community as a whole. They know religion is unable to win a debate against science, since religion is in reality only based on assumptions while science is based on assumptions and observations. So, what do they do? They create some pseudo-science theory to get on equal footing. It's an awfull and sickening tactic, but the worst thing is that it actually works several places in the USA!
    You are using an awful and sickening tactic yourself. That's the tactic of lumping religion into one gigantic group. Another, is that science and religion are compltely incompatible. This isn't the thread, and I'm not very eager to launch into a debate on that entire subject, by I myself as a "religious" person, just might be in a better position to evaluate (at least my own religion's) view on that matter, ne? I never said that evolution has never happened. I guess the statement that I'm trying to make is that I'm quite convinced that evolution has occurred, to a degree. The point of contention is, is that I do not find it feasible that evolution has occurred 100% naturally. I'm rather convinced that "something" (I believe this something to be God.) has lent a helping hand.

    Lastly, addressing the issue of you labeling Christians as hypocrites. I'm hesitant to even go there.

    First of all I did not try to offend anyone with my previous post. And I was not lumping religion into one giant group. I was merely speaking directly from my heart. I think that if you accept evolution, you have to go all the way. On the other hand, I tolerate and accept christians who DO think evolution is reality. I still think they're hypocrites. And I think most people would think the same way if they saw that evolution is infact incompatible with christianity. Oh yea, by the way, I am not an atheist. I am an agnostic, and do actually think that the possibility for a god is there.





    "Shingo" said:

    I'll thank you to leave [censored] like that on the roadside, when you're heading over to serious discussions.
    This is not shit, this is a legitimate claim to create the exact discussion we are having now. It seems like the themes I have posted are almost forbidden to speak freely about, something I wan't to change. The truth is, this isn't something I have come up with. Actually, many of my christian friends agree with me that evolution and christianity cannot be merged.

    "Amarth" said:
    "The Gemini" said:
    With no Adam and Eve, there can't have been any Fall of Man
    Mistake is there. Review theory.

    [edit]:
    Science and religion as it is today is not compatible at all, and the ID supporters know this.
    There's another mistake, of course. But well.


    Have you read the bible at all? Sin came into this world when Adam and Eve rejected the commandment of God and ate from the forbidden tree. Jesus came about 3000 years later take this sin from humanity. Hereditary sin is perhaps the most important part of the bible and the basis of christianity. Evolution however disproves hereditary sin, and thus christianity as a whole. Of course you can interpret the bible as much as you like, but you can never get away from the consept of hereditary sin, for without that, anything that happens in the bible, God's Plan, would have no purpose.
    #
    Amarth 17 years ago
    "The Gemini" said:
    Have you read the bible at all? Sin came into this world when Adam and Eve rejected the commandment of God and ate from the forbidden tree. Jesus came about 3000 years later take this sin from humanity. Hereditary sin is perhaps the most important part of the bible and the basis of christianity. Evolution however disproves hereditary sin, and thus christianity as a whole. Of course you can interpret the bible as much as you like, but you can never get away from the consept of hereditary sin, for without that, anything that happens in the bible, God's Plan, would have no purpose.
    Have you read my post at all? The Bible is not to be taken literally. And I am not denying original sin. It is there. It is the hubris of mankind, trying to reach godhood. That is what is wrong, that is original sin. Not some chick eating an apple or whatever you want to see literally in it. Metaphors, my dear, metaphors.

    (Yes, I KNOW it wasn't an apple)
    #
    The Gemini 17 years ago
    Perhaps metaphors works in the modern society, but did the ones who wrote the bible under 2 millenia ago think the same way we did? No, I think not.
    #
    Amarth 17 years ago
    "The Gemini" said:
    Perhaps metaphors works in the modern society, but did the ones who wrote the bible under 2 millenia ago think the same way we did? No, I think not.
    Erm. Metaphors are as old as mankind. Did those 'writers' think the same way we do? Definitely not, since these days, everyone seems to want to take the Bible literally. Most Bible knowledge has come only through advanced study of the culture each part of the Bible was written in. Bible study requires extensive cultural and linguistic knowledge - I don't have too much of either so I only know this second hand, but my parents have both done religion studies and believe me, we talk about this a lot.

    The fact that you are under the impression that the Bible was written under two millennia ago shows your lack of knowledge about the topic. So please, don't push this much farther.
    #
    The Gemini 17 years ago
    I agree that we should not push this any longer. We shouldn't casue much more serious off-topicness than we allready have.

    One thing, you are actually focusing on the worng things in my previous post. I do actually have extentive knowledge of the bible.(I am attenting to a christian school you know). I don't care when the bible was written, what matters is that the society then was completely different.
    #
    MageKing17 17 years ago
    "The Gemini" said:
    First of all I did not try to offend anyone with my previous post.
    *Blink blink* Oh wow.

    For someone trying not to offend anyone, you sure tried awfully hard to offend someone.
    #
    Idiota 17 years ago
    "The Gemini" said:
    I agree that we should not push this any longer. We shouldn't casue much more serious off-topicness than we allready have.

    Actually, this is one of the more interesting discussions I have come across lately, and I think not all is said yet.

    When you are merging the bible and the evolution theory, I'm afraid I'll have to agree with Gemini that it would be nearly impossible. Even if you do come up with a somewhat approvable theory, how wil you ever hope to have it dethrone both the bible and the evolution theory? Nice paradox as it would make, you can't achieve that. Now if you were to write a /new/ holy book, however (note, I am not actually thinking anyone can just write a holy book), hat incorporates these new ideas, then I'd say it would be worth a look. I'm no atheist, and I think I do believe in God in my own way, I just do not want to be a part of all the religious nonsense that's been going on the past millenium.

    Gemini, even when 'speaking from your heart', you have to realize that your opinion might harm others. Most certainly in a society where people are offended by letting a fart go that smells worse than others it is not smart to just go ahead and say what you want. I am not referring to the forums here, just a general note. I can go to a public school in Amsterdam and then proceed to say that I think all immigrants are pickpockets and thugs, but it would not be very smart.
    #
    Shingo 17 years ago
    From the many discussions I've had upon this subject, most especially noting those discussions with a certain Fr. Jeremy Kukucha - during Teentalk last year, the conclusion that I have reached is basically: the bible proposes that god created the world in seven days. What is Day meant to mean in this context? The current definition of "day" is varied. It can scientifically refer to the amount of time taken for the earth to revolve once upon it's axis. It can mean the period of "daylight" which varies considerably from winter as compared to summer, most especially noticeable upon the winter and midsummer solstices... (anyone know a better plural term for them there things? =/ ) Therefore at such an early stage, if one supposes that the work which the bible makes reference to was indeed began at such an early stage, that the 'day' as we know it was non-existant. Therefore the first important point that I make is that it is not necessarily meant to refer to 7 earth days as we know them. Secondly, we are given the suggestion that God is directly responsible for creating life, with emphasis placed upon human beings. Nowheres. Ever. Does the bible say that God did not use Evolution and/or a process similar to it as his tool to create said beings.

    Delving further into the "fall of man" I would tend to agree with Amarth. It was not the "eating of an apple" (Coincidentally, it is generally believed that the fruit in question was rather similar to a pomegranate than an actual apple.) that was of vital import. Instead it is as Amarth suggested, the direct violation of a command. In two words, by our very existence as sentient being we are possessed of free will. Biological instincts certainly have an effect upon us, but we have that cherished gift - that is, we can aspire to be better than we are and to rise above our baser selves. Equally so, we can forego such noble aspirations and descend into primeval urges alone. The metaphor that strikes me as most relevant is that of a parent and his children. Our parents are sad to see us grow up. They are afraid for our loss of innocence. That we will soon lose the childlike belief that all the world is fun and games, and no bad men will prevail lest daddy should soon be there to put a stop to his work. Certainly we as parents wish to save our children from harm, and so forth. How much more understandable then, is the story of Eden when taken in this context? Much more, I would have to say. One can argue whether it was ultimately for evil or for good. In example - Without objective evil there can be no subjective good. Likewise, without suffering there can be no joy. I then conclude that 'original sin' is at once both a vile and wondrous thing.

    Apropros, I submit again my opinion that it is not hypocrisy for me, as a Christian, to be opined that certain parts of evolution are not contradictory in terms with my beliefs and/or the bible.

    Fin.
    #
    Idiota 17 years ago
    Most convincing, who put you to all of this thinking, Shingo? If you used only your ratio to come up with this, then I apoligise for any possible insult I may have made.
    #
    Shingo 17 years ago
    No apology is needed. I'd actually like to apologize to Gemini: I shouldn't have said that you were an idiot.

    I try to avoid posting in anger and such but sometimes I fail to succeed. No one exactly "put me to this way of thinking." I simply find that it seems both logical and right to me, and that would be why I feel the way I do about it.
    #
    Idiota 17 years ago
    It's an intersting way of thinking, that's for sure. And I can see that you understand that, like all theories, this one is not perfect either. Just because someone has a nice moment of thinking doesn't make things just add up all of the sudden, history teaches us, so I guess it's fair that people are so opinionated over the subject. The theory of evolution has never seemed plausible to me. The beginning that is, and I do thing something must have sparked it. Was it God? Perhaps, I don't mind living with the idea that God does exist. It wouldn't change my way of living: I know that I don't do evil, because it's my nature not to. Yeah, a white lie occasionally. But I don't do it to cause grief, I do it to prevent it.

    In the end we're still left in the dark until something happens to changes all of it, which I don't see happening. Perhaps the theory will never be proven. Perhaps it will. Not up to me to call people idiots and hypocrits over it.
    #
    The Gemini 17 years ago
    I know what you mean, Shingo, it is like that to all of us. We believe in what we think is correct, it's all relative, and this is something we all must respect.

    I know my post was provocative, and I apoligize for that.
    #
    Forum » More action! (FEATURES A NAUGHTY WORD!)
  • « previous
  • 1
  • 2
  • » next
    •

    Post Reply
    Your email:
    Your name: