Posts made by FinsterniS

Oh BTW, FinsterniS, I’d like you to name one for Israel becvause if wwe start listing how the Palestinians keep on complaining no matter what they are offered, we’d have a whole list…

It’s easy to say they are complaining, they did’nt get real chance for their indepence with the Ottam Empire, with the Brits nor with Israel, it’s their lands at least as much as the lands of the israeli. And don’t say the israeli did’nt complain in 47, or when they say palestinians are too disorganized, just after destroying their infrastucture.

Congradulation,

Like Emugod said, you deserve it.

5. They are mentally disturbed individuals.

Those who suffer from schizophrenia often speak with god, see god, and think that they are god’s special prophet. Then they take pills (lithium?). In fact in some culture they are highly considerated because of their ability of shaman, to speak with spirits and for their visions.

Regardless, the violence that Palestinians are using will not get them anywhere. They are still too primative and need to realize that the Israeli’s are not simply going to “leave.”

Well, i think it’s an evidence than Palestinians kamikaze are not helping the cause of their people. But saying they are primitive is very exagerated, there was less hate towards the jews in palestine than in europe some time ago, and israeli governement is’nt clean either. There is just not ONE people faulty in this conlict, sure you can think one is a little more guilty than the other, but they are still all guilty. There is no excuse for kamikaze nor for israeli attack.

No matter what you try and give them, they’ll keep coming up with an excuse as to why it is a bad deal for them.

Same thing for the Israeli.

Sadly, that will not happen

Not fair. This was a way to make things simple and relevant to the people of that day - people who did not see the earth as a near-sphere, but people who dealt with what they saw and understood. This was not meant to be a geographical standard that people need to adhere to. Once again, the bible is not a scientific document. Much of it is written in metaphors and simple, occassionally poetic language. Refering to the “4 corners of the earth” as being a foolhardy statement is like trashing a poet for coining “to the ends of the earth”, “from the bottom of my heart” “to the pit of my stomach” (it’s not a pit, but more of a greater curviture).

“Jesus” could have told them, some brilliant scientist like Thales prove the earth was not flat. I think it show us how “human” the bible is, if we look how much it look like a normal book of the time, not a book inspired by an higher being. It just seem like a book of stories, like those about how Zeus rape Hera or those about Belenos… I can understant that when you are christians it seem otherwise, but with a little objectivity, is the book so special ?

Again FinsterniS? I don’t get it. this is more of your “A Christian acted like a jerk therefore there is no God” argument. Need i remind you that we may apply this “christians and dogmatic persons slow down science” thing to “Germans killed innocent people by the millions”, or “Communists killed innocent people by the millions”? really. this was pointless

hmmm… As i matter of fact… as a… well i am out of words. No seriously, you are right, i have to admit i am not very proud, it was fallacious and unfair, i should’nt use that kind of arguments as a tool against religion; it does’nt prove anything. While i still think religion is not of good help for science, it was sometime a good motivation, and anyway i could’nt blame all christians just for some fanatic. I said i could give exemple of fanatism in religion, Ident ask why (it was legitimate), i give some exemples (anecdotal evidence, no real values), so i was wrong. I’m sorry.

here i agree with you. Christians do not need to “prove” that God created the world. We couldn’t, and using a flawed argument like “thermodynamically it’s not possible” does not help the creationist argument.

I always say that as long as christianism does’nt get involve in science there is no problem.

FinsterniS, it appears that your arguement against God is limited not to god himself, but to Christianity. If you successfully win the arguement against Christianity, and perhaps do a little research on some other religions, then you can attempt to argue agianst them. AS it stands, it appears you are attempting to paste Christian beliefs and ideals onto other religions.

I does’nt believe in any god that with intelligence of conscience*, in short in a god with some of our traits, it’s irrational. Because as i see it, religion is created by LOTS of factors, i don’t say it’s for power, nor because of fear or ignorance, it thinks it’s lots of factors. One of this factors is very clear, people want a stable explanation of the universe, and using anthropomorphic trait is making all much easier. Just see how eager people where to claim someone draw a human face in mars surface, we easily recognise what is human, using a being with human trait; intelligence, conscience, is easier than believing in an inhuman nature; it’s too far, too hard to understant. Just look how often people, in a formal debate about god, will use anthropomorphic argument, they say “a design need a designer”, they say we need a first cause, and it seem impossible to consider a first cause without intelligence of conscience. I just see no reason to believe something with intelligence or conscience design us, but i see reasons to believe otherwise, also i believe it’s VERY, VERY hard for someone committed to “god” to question his own believe rationally.

• I’m not sure it’s a human trait at all, looking how much futile violence and pollution we are creating :evil:

then please tell me who actually witnessed macro-evolution? has someone watched an ape turn into a human? or a fish turn into a frog? all your “facts” are based on geological evidence that can be interpreted either way.

Naked Mole Rat

please tell me where it says this, and don’t take the reference out of context.

Rev 7.1; Reference to the “four corners of the earth”. I don’t know if creationist have sphere with corners (not that i would be surprised), but i don’t. If the context is changing the way to interpret please say me why…

Luke 4:5 - Jesus sees “all the kingdoms of the worlds”.

Even in a science as far as religion as math I can give you exemple were christians and dogmatic people like Pythagoras (he think he was the son of a god, sound familiar) slow down science.

please, do give an example.

Kronecker, he believe all irrational numbers were abobination, he believe “god” was in natural number. He make several move to stop Cantor from being admit to the university of berlin, cantor finish his live in a mental hospital, he was one of the best mathematican. Time prove Cantor was right.

Aristotle (most christians philosopher base their philosophy on his); he believe infinity and zero were abomination, even if his logic was flawed he simply could’nt accept it. The christian church condem the 0 and the concept of infinity, so we, occidental, suffured from a big slowdown, while the arab and the indian were advancing.

there is a difference. you could give some evidence for this instead of offering nothing but a dogmatic statement. you get into some doctrinal differences here, but i know you don’t want to talk about that.

Anyway, even if creationism was real (and there’s nothing exept the bible to caution it), the finnish mythology would explain it better. Mountain were formed by the blood of the troll, and species too (it could explain why our DNA is so close).

no. from the time a child is conceived he/she is growing older. his/her system is already developing flaws that will show up sooner or later.

it’s not about flaws, it’s about entropy. We have some cells in a warm liquid, then tada, 9 month year later, we got a beautiful baby, but it’s not a closed system ! Thermodynamic is’nt magic, it’s a differential equation. Anyway, we are not a closed system, like f_alk said.

Give me proof, and i will admit my fault.

proof for what? the existence of God? (which is a different thread, ya know) scientific proof requires observation. i have never physically observed God, as in touch, see, hear, etc. i’ve never claimed to, and i admit it willingly. so this proof you’re waiting for will come at an unpredictable time. you may not even be here. i will do my best to show you evidence, but that’s all i can show you.

You could have an indirect proof, we never saw the big bang.

CC want the job?

I wish he is for laic moderation :)

@cystic:

do they debate things in Europe? Do they consider all sides to an issue before going about with the latest “fad” in any respect? Is one study enough? Is some evidence law?
And this is not so much a deformation of thermodynamics rather than simply forgetting that we are not in a closed system. We do not try to “prove” creation by intentionally violating Newtonian laws, so much as test evolution by means and tools at our disposal. But i guess that since Europeans feel that there is no need to test and debate new theories once an arbitrarily determined amount of evidence has been revealled, then they are obviously more scientific than us, and obviously not as subjected to nearly as much “Christian propaganda”.
(naturally i feel the opposite - that we - at least in my circles - are extremely scientific in nearly all respects - particularly with regards to physics, chemistry and biological sciences, as well as their real-life applications, particularly in aerospace and medicine. Mind you, what do we know?)

do they debate things in Europe ?

Sure we have debates, but no, I’ve never heard debate Evolutionism vs Creationism, nor debates about geocentrism vs heliocentrism, maybe those debates exist but I’m just not in the “right” place. I’ve heard debate about blacks holes, about how evolution occur (movement in the theory of complexity), the number 0, well, about lots of things, but about the flood or creationism ? wow ! But maybe as the bible said the earth is flat we should question that too, we could invite the President of the Flat Earth Society to a conference, no ? You said YOURSELF the bible was not a science book, religion and science should never cooperate as long as religion cannot make a solid argument for the existance of god, and not a little anthropomorphic argument, a deep and logical argument. Otherwise we have no reason to listen to every religious people, and their story about a virgin having a child, a god raping another god, zombie walking in the street or shaman casting curse. Fanatics that believe the bible is true because it’s true will probably not help science a lots by making “omissions” and deformation. Even in a science as far as religion as math I can give you exemple were christians and dogmatic people like Pythagoras (he think he was the son of a god, sound familiar) slow down science.

You should read it F_alk, I think you might like it and the logical arguements would certainly be nice to read.

I don’t know if it’s the case with that book, but most argument by Theist are based on the same pattern; first cause, morale, need a designer or the good old “believe or burn”.

@F_alk:

@dIfrenT:

Microevolution does support my claim. Take the laws of thermodynamics. One of which says that everything is degenerating.

It does not say that.

How can millions of years of mutations not lead to complete degeneration, or close to it? How did the mutations keep forming better, more intelligent species?

Because the earth is not a closed system and the sun provides the energy that is needed for a non-closed system to decrease its entropy on cost of the sun.

Wow ! We got this deformation very often, i wonder… is the Evolutions vs Creations debate still going on in north america ? I don’t know about f_alk but i never heard about that here, the debate is finish. And if i consider how often we heard about deformation of thermodynamic here, i can only wonder how much money christians are putting into propaganda. Anyway, when i child is growing, he is’nt violating the law of thermodynamic ? (By Creanist standards)

Is their a scientist promoting this… thing ? I would gladly take a look to his mathematical proof (i doupt he have one).

Italy seems not to be one of the most stable and most democratic democracies.

Saying Italy is’nt on of the most stable country is an euphemism. When someone get shot in italy they have the choice, it could be a communist, an anarchist, a right-wing extremist, mafia…

Still a very beautiful country, they just lack a little unity

well, all “Christians” believe in the trinity . . . that’s not a polytheism so much (i actually believe that it is possible that various "pantheons of gods exists, but i also believe that there is one true "G"od). It’s more like the three faces of God. For example, one day i hope to be a father, a husband, a doctor, a friend, a scientist etc. All different aspects of myself combined into one being. Now the scientist side of me and the doctor side of me might have a different outlook, particularly with regard to the husband side of me. That’s fine - that doesn’t mean that i’m perpetually living in some kind of bizaare fugue state, but rather that i am blessed with different ways of relating to the world all wrapped in one person. Forgive the clumsy simile - its not intended to be a parable so much as to convey the simple side to my understanding of things.
Also i certainly do not speak for all Christians. I’m quite certain that dIfrenT (or however you do your capitalizations) would vehemently argue with me on certain points, as would other Christians. That’s fine. In the end it won’t matter.

hmmm… are you sure you are’nt Hindu :) ? You sound more like henotheistic than monotheist. BTW this is’nt an insult, i think Hinduism is the least illogical religion (or maybe buddhism).

you can’t trade the UK! They saved Europe’s ass in World War 1 and in World War 2. Give the Brits a break.

hey wow, i like the UK, but we never know if they want or not to be european.

AFAIR it is still in their laws, they just don’t execute it anymore…
but i could be wrong here-

Les autorités turques ont aboli la peine de mort, levé l’interdiction qui frappait les langues non turques, et permis, dans une certaine mesure, l’enseignement du kurde. Elles ont supprimé l’état d’urgence dans certaines provinces. Aujourd’hui, les Quinze insistent sur l’élimination totale de la torture, sur la libération de tous les prisonniers pour délit d’opinion, enfin sur une stricte séparation entre le pouvoir civil et l’armée.

• LE MONDE, 08.11.02

… and it’s a good thing. Now it’s the US turn to abolish capital punishment (and i don’t think it’s for tomorrow) :)

The UK should really rethink wether they want to stay in the EU…

Right ! They don’t seem to be very interested in EU’s institution. Of the 4 titans of the EU, only France and Germany get really involve, UK lack interest and Italy lack unity.

We should try to trade the Uk for Norway :)

Well, the UK doesn’t have to adopt the Euro, does it? The pound is a very strong currency.

No they did’nt, like Denmark and Sweden… and the pound is’nt so strong. Don’t forget that even if the value of ONE POUND is high, this does’nt mean it’s strong, it depend on how much pound there is in the economy. 1 jordanian dinar is worth more than 1 american dollar, but the dinar is not a very strong device…

Several dogmas slowed down science.

so did several scientists!!

Scientific are not immune to dogmas.

amazingly, i’m not embarrassed about it. we do the best we can with what we have. in science this happens all of the time. we are constantly earning nobel prizes for disproving previous nobel prize laureates.

Agree, but there’s a difference between promoting science by refuting an old discoverie, and promoting religion by using deformation of science. Like the argument about Light and Thermodynamic, there is nothing consistant in these pseudo-theory; it’s just make-up to caution the bible. I don’t say “all religious people” are against science, but some are making very strange dogmas that goes against science and logic.

As mentioned, i’m not a young earth creationist, but there are many plausable theories that support it.

Like what ?

it is enough to make us consider that there is too much mystery shrouding evolution to make us consider it to be an absolute.

It’s not about evolution, it’s about geology. Anyway i never said our conception of evolution was perfect, i think we should work to perfect it, as always religion will only slow us down.

3 - this is evidence of evolution, not proof against creation. both may support this. why? because it was a rational way to create things in God’s mind?

It’s a proof (at least a strong argument) against young earth creationist, not old earth creationist i admit, but anyway old earth creationist are just religious evolutionist. They are not blinded by faith, maybe they’ll even point out interesting problems from our conception of evolution (not that i think god is the answer…).

6 - scientists do not know this yet. surgeons contend that the removal of these is a very useful process in the purchases of nicer houses etc. the appendix does secrete material - enzymes, etc. and may be useful for some absorption

hmmmm… our appendice is’nt the vestige of the caecum ?

7 - much of this is micro-evolution, verifiable in a lab. Does not go against creation at all.

When you take fossils, the tree of animals, dna and micro-evolution; you get a pretty solid argument for evolution, and against young earth creationist (again, not against old earth creationist, you can only refute their claim by refuting god). Also when you take radioactive, carbone 14 and light dating, you get another good argument against young earth creationist.

since this is actually a debate about the existence of God, you just acknowledged Him. if not, you should find a better way to express yourself without contradicting yourself.

? I never acknowledged him, but i think “god” (the conception of god) is’nt a good exemple, like i think Zeus is’nt a good exemple, but i don’t believe in zeus.

and God is a good example, but people make Him a scapegoat. He never has, or will ever make a mistake.

I don’t make him a scapegoat, i don’t believe he exist, i don’t say “hey, there’s suffering it’s god’s fault”, but the way the bible speak of him; he is far from being all-loving. Like when “he” kill the Madianites.

@yourbuttocks:

Fisternis/Falk/Yanny?GeZe, why does evolution contradict creationism?

It contradict only young earth creationism.

you program, wich languge?

hmmmmm… i make ONE program, and if it’s working and fast it’s because i have good friends. At least 90% of the code is not from me, i just made the math (it’s to find prime number, now that my friends touch it it’s quite fast, far more than i expected).

Language; i know nothing at c++ or java, so i use the simplest (that i know); VB.

PBEM Axis and Allies partners (allies) and foes alike must conceed that i have at least minimal strategic acumen. This is of absolutely no account in Risk.

There is a little strategy in risk, but it’s mostly luck.

I hate risk too. :)

there’s not really any overwhelming evidence. most dates are found by carbon dating, which is nothing short of unreliable.

Only deeply religious people don’t believe in evolution, you are making abstraction of so much facts;

• 1; there is not only carbon 14 dating, there’s light dating. Sure some creationist claim that the “Speed Of Light is Decreasing” (but now since 1960), but there is NOT A SINGLE EVIDENCE outside the bible. Supernova 1987A prove us the speed of the light was constant for “at least” 170,000 years.

• 2; Carbon 14 is maybe not perfect, it’s still not THAT bad.

• 3; Why can we make coherent chains of ancestor (like with us or the horse) ?

• 4; What about dinosaurs ?

• 5; Why does Basilosaurus and Dorudon have these little ridiculous legs ? God was drunk ?

• 6; Why does we have useless organ, like our appendice.

• 7; How can you explain we found a species, oooops it dissapear then an other one, with very lille difference, suddently appear ? It’s a miracle ?

… and so on. Also another problem is that the tool of “evolution” is working very well, we can explain lots of things with the concept of evolution, creationists can only say it’s “god will”.

creationism can be applied to crime as well. Creationism involves God. The first two humans (Adam and Eve) did not obey His only restriction, and that is why they were cast out of the Garden of Eden. after that first act of disobedience people did wrong. (of course if you don’t believe in absolute truth there is no wrong).

“God” is not a good exemple himself anyway…

what can i say? i don’t think that i alone will be able to convince you to change your mind, but these online debates sharpen my mind.

If you have logical evidence you can, but you’re not starting well with your creationist belief.

they also found younger species below “older” species, but they prefer not to publicize that, right?

It does’nt explain why they have legs ! About finding younger species below; i don’t know why, but this does’nt constitute an argument good enough to refute the fact that there were whales with legs.

Have you reference for your claim ?

and evolution can be refuted, and 6000 year old earth supported.

Probably as much as a flat earth. I am sure young earth creationist would be very ambarrasing for the christians in 2 or 3 centurie, just like geocentrism is ambarassing for christians now.

if the earth/universe was millions of years old, the moon would be miles of dust deep. the volcanic deposits would be greater on the earth as well.

Based on what ?

but a young earth is better supported.

Better supported by faith.

there’s no proof for evolution, simply supporting evidence.

If you don’t call that a proof, at least admit there is tons of evidence. When evolutionist predict they would found a whale with legs, they did found it ! And that is not just an anecdotal evidence !

@EmuGod:

Well, if I recall correctly, the part where the king argues with the Jews is the longest part of the book. He manages to beat the atheist in his arguement with him.

I think it’s very hard to beat an atheist in a formal debate (…but not the kind of atheist that worship his own ego, or atheist like Sartre, that belief god does not exist because if he did humans would not have absolute freedom).

However, there is not one thing that cancels out evolution with any proof besides ancient myth

Right, but evolution is complex, most people don’t like that aspect of science.

Denying evolution just puts our understanding of history and science back a few hundred years.

Several dogmas slowed down science.