The World of Layonara
The Layonara Community => Just for Fun => Topic started by: Niles09 on November 15, 2005, 11:57:00 AM
-
This is mathematic proof that completly proofs the cruelty of women!
Women require time and money
Women = time x money
Now everyone knows that time IS money
Women = money x money => women = money2
Everyone knows as well that money is the root of all evil
women = the root of (money2) => women = evil!
Hah! There it is - bulletproof!
-
*grins* I used to write that little 'proof' all over the the chalkboards in the math department at Texas Tech.
That, and, "Die, Nerd Boy!" ;)
-
That's crazy but true! :)
-
I did that proof out in my math class.... some thought it was funny, but since the majority of the class were woman, it didn't go so well.... *shrugs* Oh well. Can't argue with the facts.
-
oh thats the point of it all! Dont show them the proof, they are evil so they've go crazy;)
-
hmmm... i see one major flaw in this evidence, it is correct that women take time and money no argumen there, but that is not the same as women being equal to time x money.
Perhaps it would be more appropriate to see women as a function of time and money.
Women(time,money)
which will lead to the conclusion that women are a function of evil
women(evil)
yet i am unsure on how to enterprete this result...
-
ahh simple
f(x) = x
f(time x money) = time x money
or even better:
f = women:
fwomen(time x money) = time x money!
then a must be women so if there is 10 women it would be
fwomen(time x money) = 10 x time x money!
wich is logical, becuase the more they are, the more evil!
-
I think we should also take into consideration that women take time and money, the important word here being and. this gives: women = time + money. As time = money we get that women = 2money and not money^2. if we want our previous statement (time and money = money^2) to be true we have to define that "and" multiplies and not adds, which I see as a problem.
-
Niles09 - 11/24/2005 2:26 PM
ahh simple
f(x) = x
f(time x money) = time x money
but there is no evidence that the functionality of f(x) is x, it could be minus x as well. furthermore, woman are a function of time and monay but there is no evidence that the dependency is
women=time x money
it could just as well be
women=time + money
or
women=exp(time + money)
-
I will agree with you Harloff there is indeed a possibility that we have an exponential function here. But to determine this relationship we would need to create an empirical model of the women, money, time, evil. I suggest the following tests be carried out with the variables being time and money, and evil as the dependent variable. time, money little, little little, medium little, lots medium, little medium, medium medium, lots lots, little lots, medium lots, lots after each experiment the amount of evil is evaluated on an evil-scale that is yet to be determined. but I would suggest a scale from 1 to 10 to have a good resolution in the results. I would also recommend at least 3 experiments at each combination to determine the variance in the results. also the experiments should be carried out in a randomized order to exclude any effects of order. from these tests we should be able to get a better understanding of the women, money, time, evil relationship.
-
That's some quantum stuff guys, you should give classes or something :)
Seriously, the truth is out there and I believe I've seen this kind of theory been presented already.
-
*scratches head*
Okay, I was pretty sure was just a joke. Not sure if I'm missing something, but the idea wasn't to ACTUALLY be correct, just funny. Anyway, with that said... it is interesting to see some of the things you guys come up with.
-
now a small addendum to this
First of all Harloff will be posting the values needed for testing shortly and then we need volounteers to perform the experiments.
the scale used for the evil-evaluation should be as follows
10: divorce!
5: no change
1: positive response to "gimme some sugar baby" and general lack of evil
EDIT: THIS SCALE IS OBSOLETE
The results of this will be treated in a proper scientific manner to create a model for the relationship we are examining. If we get a satisfactory high R^2 value we can hopefully do our conclusions otherwise we need to include more factors in the experiments. These factors are: surprise dinner/present/flowers/etc., time of month and distance to relatives to name some.
Furthermore a thought that has occurred to me is that perhaps women are better described as a type of PID controller for the output of evil. But to determine if this is true we need to determine optimal PID values for women. The problem is that to get the right values we need to have the system ossilating, which indeed can be very dangerous due to evil output.
-
*nods* I see your points Meizter but before we can start testing we really need to define evil. And in order to do the experiments I think the simplest would be to measure it on an mood scale going from (-10)-10 having 0 as "neither angry nor happy" mood, -10 as the "I want a divorce" mood and 10 as "you are my hero (and then she tears of her cloth)" mood. That way we could get a veery good resolution of the results without making assumptions on women being evil in general. If we end up with a model predicting general positive values we will then have proven that women are indeed not evil. This will of course have to be subject to general 95 % confidence intervals.
With respect to test subjects of all cultures entering this test I suggest we use standard time and money scales: time is measured in hours, and money is measured as a share of monthly salery after taxes. That way we should be able to compare people from different contries, having different tax systems and all.
-
Yes indeed Harloff that scale is better so the new scale for evil evaluation is:
10 "you are my hero (and then she tears of her cloth)" mood
0 "neither angry nor happy" mood
-10 "I want a divorce" mood
-
Meizter - 11/24/2005 2:52 PM time, money little, little little, medium little, lots medium, little medium, medium medium, lots lots, little lots, medium lots, lots
I see no reason why we shouldn't add none and all to this experiment giving us a new experimental set. time, money none, none none, litlle none, medium none, lots none, all little, none little, little little, medium little, lots little, all medium, none medium, little medium, medium medium, lots medium, all lots, none lots, little lots, medium lots, lots lots, all all, none all, little all, medium all, lots all, all Where the time table is given relative to spare time, and money is given relative to your monthly income after taxes, bills and so on. all= 100% lots= 75% medium=50% little=25 % none=0 % WARNING! We are not taking any responsebilety if people try the "none,none" option and end with "I want a divorce". All test subjects entering this test must give a written statement that will not sue us in any case before entering the test. Furthermore, this is science and sacrifices can be necessary.
-
yes of course the none and all options are a good addition to the experimental set. I did not add them to avoid unpleasant situations where we indeed would observe -10 on our scale. Still I must give in and say it is all in the name of science. But we take no responsibilities for the outcome of experiments[/B]. A disclaimer of liability will be posted later, and must be read and agreed to by all test subjects.
-
*Just raises an eyebrow and shakes her head*
-
*Just raises an eyebrow and shakes her head*
-
I think she's trying to tell you guys that you forgot the redundency factor or R, in yer equation.
-
*shakes his head*
Science is science and there is no way of knowing whether the results are useful before you have them. Who would have thought the experiments finding the structure and composition of atoms would lead to the invention of bombs. Perhaps these experiments will have a similar fate...
-
Aye *sighs, nods and shrugs*
-
Harloff - 11/24/2005 4:24 AM
*shakes his head*
Science is science and there is no way of knowing whether the results are useful before you have them. Who would have thought the experiments finding the structure and composition of atoms would lead to the invention of bombs. Perhaps these experiments will have a similar fate...
Muhahahahahahaahahahah! folish readers haahahah! THought this topic only should lead to fun! soon all women would be destroyed muhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah.... did I just write this loud?!
-
destroy women and you would also remove men, so also all human *chuckles*
-
*arcs a brow* While I fully admit that I am evil and proud to be so... It has nothing to do with the requirement of money from anyone but myself and more the wanton need to destroy those who extrapolate the complexities of women who are so shallow the deserve not to be mentioned.
-
???? what are you talking about? why would we need women? Did you know that babies (dont know why Im talking about this!) is found under the gooseberry bush? phfff evil evil woman?! ;)
-
*runs out into garden to check this bush, then comes back*
eh, nothing found there :p ;)
-
*Drops really large anvil on Niles, looks down quickly and furtively pushes leg sticking out, from beneath, behind him*
Now luvs, don't be taking heed of nasty echos going around *grins* how about you buy me a drink and we can talk...hrrrr....maths *smiles*
-
*scrathes head*
Again, I thought this was just a joke... *shrugs* Oh well.
-
LoL it is ;) *mentally makes sure his hiden blades are all where they should be...for defending porpoises of course...and keeps a sharp eye on his drink to make sure t'is good stuff* :p
-
joke! bwahahahahahahhaah! yeeeess foolish humans! its only a joke hirhirhirhirhirhir! soon hehhehhe soon enough! muhahahahahahhahah!!! naive hirhir humans hirhir!
-
Curses, how did ye manage to get out from under there? *Thinks, shrugs then drops an even bigger one, on him*
-
Try this one.
Power corrupts and Absolute power corrupts absolutely
Yes
And
God is all powerful yes or put it this way has Absolute power
Ergo
God has Absolute power and is there for absolutely corrupt.
The Only why for this not to be true is for
God not to have Absolute power, so he would have to crate a thing he did not hove power over, say the human soul which can chuse good or evil.
So this can ether be weak proof of god being absolutely corrupt or a strong proof of why god would make man.
That said I know feel much better
VAROOOO ZIN ZIN WERRRR
-
Try that one :p
Power corrupts and Absolute power corrupts absolutely, Mankind.
Yes
And
God is all powerful yes or put it this way has Absolute power,over his creations.
Ergo
God has Absolute power and is there for absolutely corrupt. Not with the little text in blue it doesn't, with what fallows. ;)
The Only why for this not to be true is for God not to have Absolute power, so he would have to crate a thing he did not hove power over, say the human soul which can chuse good or evil. What he did was give freedom of choice to mankind, how does that take away from his powers?
Still fell better? :p
This comming from an egnostic that believes Jesus and his teachings really existed, along with a mess of other, esoteric things, but who also believe that anything coming from man can and will be warped to suit whatever point that human is wanting to make, all too often.
Now who's buying me this drink, I'm out of anvils? ;)
-
heheh very fun...
no really, power corrupts because its too great for a humanmind so Power corrupts and Absolute power corrupts absolutely, if you're a human.
God is over power, or say, he is the greatest power, love, which not at any point corrupts people. He is so great he can control it.
I would certainly love to go on with this discussion, espicially about why God gave us our free spirit, but Im not sure if religious talk is alowed at these forums, or funny things involving such stuff..
oh yes, by the way, you cant use math on such great things, human created rules is way too small for it.
-
Gah... my head hurts from all this philisophical mumbo-jumbo...
-
Tell me about it *groans* and still no one to buy this poor jester a drink *sighs*
Oh the chaos theory comes pretty close to it Niles, sure there's a few others ;)
-
Niles09 - 11/24/2005 8:29 PM
God is over power, or say, he is the greatest power, love, which not at any point corrupts people. He is so great he can control it.
oh yes, by the way, you cant use math on such great things, human created rules is way too small for it.
*grins* I think a monk in the "dark ages" *a wolf howles* proved the exsistence of god by some kind of philosophical argument. Unfortunately the argument later turned out to be faulty.
Hmmm, I think that one of the things that really corrupt people is indeed love. What people will do for love is truely incredible killing, lying, stealing, etc. I see no proof in the world around me that love doesn't corrupt, even very religious people can be corrupted by this feeling. e.g. the swedish priest that convinced his housekeeper/lover to kill his wife for him, and she did it out of love for him and god...
But i guess that math is as god a way to proof the exsistence of god as any. To put it simple math is not a set of man made rules, math is logic in its finest form. Every part of math can be proven and this is the reason why it can be used as a common language in science. So saying that it can't be used is the same as saying that the exsistance of god is ilogical.
-
*Getting away from flammable topics*
Power attracts the corruptable.
*ergo*
Absolute power attracts the absolutely corruptible.
-
As the Roman say
"Amantes sunt amentes"
-
Harloff - 11/24/2005 1:16 PM
*grins* I think a monk in the "dark ages" *a wolf howles* proved the exsistence of god by some kind of philosophical argument. Unfortunately the argument later turned out to be faulty.
Hmmm, I think that one of the things that really corrupt people is indeed love. What people will do for love is truely incredible killing, lying, stealing, etc. I see no proof in the world around me that love doesn't corrupt, even very religious people can be corrupted by this feeling. e.g. the swedish priest that convinced his housekeeper/lover to kill his wife for him, and she did it out of love for him and god...
But i guess that math is as god a way to proof the exsistence of god as any. To put it simple math is not a set of man made rules, math is logic in its finest form. Every part of math can be proven and this is the reason why it can be used as a common language in science. So saying that it can't be used is the same as saying that the exsistance of god is ilogical.
Love cant corrupt, cause the essence of it is not ot harm others. Though it can be corrupted by evil, in some cases. We are all humans, and no matter how clever we are, or in what we believe we can do bad things, even with good intentions (though killing people is really far out), we tend to cast our love on only some few persons, and then, as your own example says, we can create destruction on others.
But! Love cant be corrupted if it is complete, if you love every being in the universe, your love cant be corrupted, since no one is better than the other.
by the way ther is one "love" tat can coruupt. The love to yourself, your ego.
About math, right it is logical, but putting God into something so simple as the example above, cant be done, he is much much more advanced. Anyway I am studing matthematics, physics, chemics and so on for the moment. And the fact that the world is putted together in such an advanced, and though complete logical way, proofs that there is something greater. Trust me, you cant just say, "everything is maked of atoms and paticles, and thats pretty simple?!" Every science guy would laugh at you.
And about math, solve this:
A runner and a toad is compeeting. The toad starts ten meters ahead, and then moves 1/10 the runner's speed. When the runner has moved 10 meters, the toad is one meter ahead, eleven meters the toad is 1/10 meter ahead. how can the runner ever get past the toad?
-
Niles09 - 11/25/2005 12:22 PM
And about math, solve this:
A runner and a toad is compeeting. The toad starts ten meters ahead, and then moves 1/10 the runner's speed. When the runner has moved 10 meters, the toad is one meter ahead, eleven meters the toad is 1/10 meter ahead. how can the runner ever get past the toad?
The runner easily get's past the toad. I know the riddle and at 12 meters the toad would be a 1/100th of a meter ahead. It's like the one where you say when you sit and try to stand you first move half the distance, then you move half the distance of the remaining distance again and so forth untill you will realise you will never reach standing because there's always half a distance left, but we all know that is not true. You have to be careful not to get into places like this where you end up with a solution that perhaps sounds right when you look at it but still you will see your solution has no physical basis.
just to finish the toad and the runner off. If we state that the runner moves at 10 m/s and the toad then at 1 m/s then even with 10m head start it is obvious that the toad would be passed within seconds. distances are as follows:
postition runner [m] position toad [m] speed runner [m/s] speed toad [m/s] time
0 10 10 1 0
10 11 10 1 1
20 12 10 1 2
30 13 10 1 3
40 14 10 1 4
50 15 10 1 5
60 16 10 1 6
70 17 10 1 7
80 18 10 1 8
so already after 2 seconds the toad is overtaken. The riddle is fun enough, but you just can't look at things that way. :)
hehe as a small addition I would call myself a "science guy" to use that term ;), and still I say the world is indeed made of atoms, they are everywhere and in everything, even we are made of them. I don't say the physics of atoms is simple, but it is what the world is made of. and yes I know we could go into smaller parts like protons, but that is beyond the point. :)
-
I am 100% science and think the world is not “Turtles all the way down”
To add
See you can not use Logic against firth for firth precludes logic.
You can not use faith against logic for logic precludes faith.
Or put this way
Is it not amazing that the gap from your ass to the floor is exactly the same size as your legs. All hail god/gods for it/they do in deed move in strange ways.
Ouch I have just been shot by an Arrow that passed throw an infonaut number of fractions to hit me.
Ouch ouch help Medic!
>And about math, solve this:
>A runner and a toad is compeeting. The toad starts ten meters ahead, and then moves 1/10 the
>runner's speed. When the runner has moved 10 meters, the toad is one meter ahead, eleven
>meters the toad is 1/10 meter ahead. how can the runner ever get past the toad?
-
NEXUS7 - 11/25/2005 12:56 PM
Ouch I have just been shot by an Arrow that passed throw and infonaut number of fractions to hit me.
Ouch ouch help Medic!
>And about math, solve this:
>A runner and a toad is compeeting. The toad starts ten meters ahead, and then moves 1/10 the
>runner's speed. When the runner has moved 10 meters, the toad is one meter ahead, eleven
>meters the toad is 1/10 meter ahead. how can the runner ever get past the toad?
hehe :)
-
"See you can not use Logic against firth for firth precludes logic.
You can not use faith against logic for logic precludes faith."
That is indeed a very very one-dimensial way to look at things. The more I learn about science, the more my own religion makes sense.
Since Ive both a religious person and a science guy, Ive know both kind of people:
Ultra-one-dimensional-religious person... Religous sane person.... religous sane science guy.... sane science guy.... ultra-one-dimensional-science-guy...
ok what Ive seen is the first person from right throw rocks on the fifth person, and vice verca. There are big gabs in both camps, thoguh I dont see any in the middle.
oh yes and the toad thing, i didnt make the question, it was some ancient greek aristoles or something like that.
About the atom things. yse the world are mad of atoms, but its not that simple, cause then I would be able to make a nuclearbomb.
-
Stop stop my hands from there flame intent *slaps hands*
Well that’s Logic for you all one-dimension, dorm that scientific methodology
It’s just so restrictive.
I will say this you have a lot of sanity in your
Statements of types
I would say with Science you have to privet sanity
but with religion you can just take it on faith.
Dont know if thats good or bad
I think that’s why the Scientologist have such a downer on psychiatrists
Which rases the point how would a LG, LN and LE PC think of the scientific methodology sould it
ever get out in to Layonara
Are if only our world had provably and repeatable magic
I think that one of the main facters in why Harry Potter such a hit
All that magic with out the religion and always provably and repeatable.
*points wand* Evalushearnus!
Hummmm
-
Niles09 - 11/25/2005 12:22 PM
Love cant corrupt, cause the essence of it is not ot harm others. Though it can be corrupted by evil, in some cases. We are all humans, and no matter how clever we are, or in what we believe we can do bad things, even with good intentions (though killing people is really far out), we tend to cast our love on only some few persons, and then, as your own example says, we can create destruction on others.
But! Love cant be corrupted if it is complete, if you love every being in the universe, your love cant be corrupted, since no one is better than the other.
by the way ther is one "love" tat can coruupt. The love to yourself, your ego.
About math, right it is logical, but putting God into something so simple as the example above, cant be done, he is much much more advanced. Anyway I am studing matthematics, physics, chemics and so on for the moment. And the fact that the world is putted together in such an advanced, and though complete logical way, proofs that there is something greater. Trust me, you cant just say, "everything is maked of atoms and paticles, and thats pretty simple?!" Every science guy would laugh at you.
And about math, solve this:
A runner and a toad is compeeting. The toad starts ten meters ahead, and then moves 1/10 the runner's speed. When the runner has moved 10 meters, the toad is one meter ahead, eleven meters the toad is 1/10 meter ahead. how can the runner ever get past the toad?
First of all, all "science guys" would indeed laugh at me for saying that everything was made of particles and that it was simple because it isn't simple it is actually quite complex, quantum physics and all. As far as I understand it only a very small number of scientist actually understand quantum physics. But most sceintist are atheist like me (I count my self to "science guys" due to my education as civilingeneer and the Ph.d. studies that i have just finished.), eventhough about 40 % of scientist are religious (these are the figures I have heard).
The math example you mention is indeed inveted aristotele, and is normally used in education systems as an example of faulty arguments. So like the other guys here i find it hard to see the point of you mentioning it.
Love... As i stated before I find love more corrupting than anything else. Another examle is that the love of the christian god has killed more human beings than anything else in human history. dispite the fact that is is stated in the bible that "you shall not kill", yet people tend to forget this if others whorship another god. Or as in the example of the inqusition they just killed people if they had another believe system than the church allowed. And i guess the more complete your love is the closer it is to a state of madness and you would do anything in the name of this love.
Even though you could prove the existance of a greater being creating the earth, you would still have the problem that you wouldn't know whether this greater being was the christian god, the muslim god, the jewish god, or if he/she was just a part of many gods as the wikings believed. There is no proof that god inspired the writing of the bible, eventhough it is written in the bible that he did it. But that is no more proof than a writer like Dan Brown stating "everything from this page forward is true". Hence in the end it all boils down to a religious person believing that there is a god, and that this god wants him to behave in a particular way, and thiswill earn him a reward. There is simply no proff that this is so, just a lot of people believing that it is. But science is not a democracy, you don't win by being many believing something you win by presenting the most solid evidence. But Nexus put it very elequantly:
NEXUS7 - 11/25/2005 12:56 PM
See you can not use Logic against fiath for fiath precludes logic.
You can not use faith against logic for logic precludes faith.
This sums it up... On a side note it must be mentioned that many of historys great scientist were religious men e.g. Charles Darwin and Gallieo Gallilei.
Niles09 - 11/25/2005 2:19 PM
About the atom things. yes the world are made of atoms, but its not that simple, cause then I would be able to make a nuclearbomb.
But you would be able to make an atomic bomb it is just a matter of passing the critical weight, if you pile a sufficiently large amount of uranium 235 together, it will blow up. The trick is of course to control it n such a way that you survive, and that you do as much damage to your fellow human beings as possible.
-
Harloff - 11/25/2005 5:37 AM
Love... As i stated before I find love more corrupting than anything else. Another examle is that the love of the christian god has killed more human beings than anything else in human history. dispite the fact that is is stated in the bible that "you shall not kill", yet people tend to forget this if others whorship another god. Or as in the example of the inqusition they just killed people if they had another believe system than the church allowed. And i guess the more complete your love is the closer it is to a state of madness and you would do anything in the name of this love.
Even though you could prove the existance of a greater being creating the earth, you would still have the problem that you wouldn't know whether this greater being was the christian god, the muslim god, the jewish god, or if he/she was just a part of many gods as the wikings believed. There is no proof that god inspired the writing of the bible, eventhough it is written in the bible that he did it. But that is no more proof than a writer like Dan Brown stating "everything from this page forward is true". Hence in the end it all boils down to a religious person believing that there is a god, and that this god wants him to behave in a particular way, and thiswill earn him a reward. There is simply no proff that this is so, just a lot of people believing that it is. But science is not a democracy, you don't win by being many believing something you win by presenting the most solid evidence. But Nexus put it very elequantly:
ahh there is a problem there you see, most of those things wasnt done in the name of God, although it should look that way, it was done for power and well, sometimes maybe in the name of God, but that only proofs what I said, love can be corrupted by evil. My point was that God himself, is not corrupt, cause he cares for us all. And by the way, if you look back to fx the spanish invasion of Mexico they slaughtered the population. Though if you read some of their diaries and stuff, the soldiers and commanders wrote about gold, power in the name of the queen. Some of the monks wrote about how deeply disgusted they were, seeing how children was killed. They didnt think things would end up that way.
About proving what God is true. The Christian, Jewish and Muslim god is the "same" be origen. All three religions starts the same way, the jewish and muslims was splitted up from one family (that is both in the old testament and the muslims book). About which one is true, that is a matter of believe. I believe in forgiving people, love etc even though I must admit Im not always good at it, but I cant see any other way, to make the world a good place to be. I dont know what the muslims believe, but so far I know Messia exists in their religion as well, though as a profet, exactly like in the jewish religion.
Oh yes and thanks for the recipe of the nuclear bomb. Har! Im going to blow up every science place in the world, since I cant be both religious and a science guy!
No guys, I cant say I preclude science or religion, so either I (logically) doesnt exist, or maybe your were wrong. There are gabs in the traditional christian way of how the earth was created, gabs as big as those in the darwin theori. Intelligent design = no gabs
-
*scratches head and looks back at the topic name*
Got a little off topic, did we?
-
Niles09 - 11/25/2005 6:17 PM
ahh there is a problem there you see, most of those things wasnt done in the name of God, although it should look that way, it was done for power and well, sometimes maybe in the name of God, but that only proofs what I said, love can be corrupted by evil. My point was that God himself, is not corrupt, cause he cares for us all. And by the way, if you look back to fx the spanish invasion of Mexico they slaughtered the population. Though if you read some of their diaries and stuff, the soldiers and commanders wrote about gold, power in the name of the queen. Some of the monks wrote about how deeply disgusted they were, seeing how children was killed. They didnt think things would end up that way.
About proving what God is true. The Christian, Jewish and Muslim god is the "same" be origen. All three religions starts the same way, the jewish and muslims was splitted up from one family (that is both in the old testament and the muslims book). About which one is true, that is a matter of believe. I believe in forgiving people, love etc even though I must admit Im not always good at it, but I cant see any other way, to make the world a good place to be. I dont know what the muslims believe, but so far I know Messia exists in their religion as well, though as a profet, exactly like in the jewish religion.
No guys, I cant say I preclude science or religion, so either I (logically) doesnt exist, or maybe your were wrong. There are gabs in the traditional christian way of how the earth was created, gabs as big as those in the darwin theori. Intelligent design = no gabs
*grins* I know that most of the killings were done in the name of god but in the quest of power/gold/fame. But some of the murders were done of religious people because they felt they were doing the right thing. Similar to the suicede bombers killing people in the middleeast.
I know that many people think that it is the same god, and perhaps it is but then you have a real problem. Is god the kind loving chrisian god? The vengeful (jewish) god from the old testamente with his flame sword? or is he more like the muslim god (havent got around to reading the Coran yet), or is he perhaps a third god that is neither of these possibileties (perhaps the corrupt god that just like letting people think that there is an afterlife). It is really a gamble to try and live by a set of rules hoping to be rewarded afterwards. I must admit that i look forward to hear a christian saying that we should live by the bible and start stoning women to death that aren't virgins when they marry "5th book of moses" 22.13-21 . At that point i will shout "let the ones without sin throw the first stone" (technically i could throw the stone since i cannot sin not believing in suc a notion).
Not suprisingly I disagree with you on the matter of inteligent design versus darwinism. The huge difference between the two is that darwinism is theory based on experimental evidence. Wereas inteligent design is a philosopical/religious theory, that cannot even be tested. It all boils down to "this looks to complex to be natural, ergo someone must have designed it" however this cannot be tested. Testing is however a prequsite for all scientific theories, which means that intelligent design is not more scientific than the bible. You can choose to believe it out of personal reasons like any other religion, but it will always remain a religious belief. Unless god suddently chooses to reveal himself to us and say, "I made this" and prove that he really did. but until that day it is just another religion be it false or true but a science it is not.
An to quote Karl Marx on the subject religion: "It is the opium of the people."
Niles09 - 11/25/2005 6:17 PM
gabs as big as those in the darwin theori"
*grins* I guess that is your opinion on the matter, however none of the things in the creation from the bibe was ever proven. The gaps in Darwinism are actually filled with other theories that have been veriefied by experiments/observations as well.
-
*Sighs* There are things that have proven to me, that God is a god of love, logiacally proofs by the way. About intelligent design and darwism. Darwism isnt all proven by experiments its a theory, every physic teacher says that. Intelligent design is indeed proven logically, not by faith, scientits that believe in intelligent design, dont nesacary have a religion, they just see the logic. About the jewesh god, he aint that revengeful. Look at the ten commands and tell if any of them is meant bad?
-
Love is like eating chocolate. ;)
-
Niles09 - 11/26/2005 3:11 AM
*Sighs* There are things that have proven to me, that God is a god of love, logiacally proofs by the way. About intelligent design and darwism. Darwism isnt all proven by experiments its a theory, every physic teacher says that. Intelligent design is indeed proven logically, not by faith, scientits that believe in intelligent design, dont nesacary have a religion, they just see the logic. About the jewesh god, he aint that revengeful. Look at the ten commands and tell if any of them is meant bad?
That is correct all scientific theories are indeed theories that is why we call them theories, otherwise we would call the rules. Fyrthermore, a common trait for all scientific theories is that they can not be proven, false theories can be disproven, but none can be proven. This is caused by the way scientific research is done: 1) formulate a theory. 2) analyse the consequences of the theory. 3) test the consequences of the theory by experiments. This sceme ensures that all models that predict something faulty will be rejectet, but those that have predictions similar to the observation wil survive. However, there is never any garuentee that an experiment in the furture won't disprove the theory. This has been shown many times in history, e.g. Newtons theory proved to be inadequate and was replaced by Eisteins special theory of relativety, however, when Newton lived there was no evidence that contradicted his theory.
Back to darwinism, darwinism says that the fittest species will survive. This is in agrement with what experiments show. The famous finch observations from the galapagos islands show that: In case of a draught where the only remaining food supply is nuts with very hard shells, the finches with sufficiently strong beaks are the only ones that survive. However this does not prove darwinism it only shows that it is a plauseble theory, but darwinism can not be rejected cause no evidence show that it is faulty. Furthermore, darwinism doesn't state that surviving of the fittest is the only mechanism that drives evolution, other mechanism are also foun to be important and together all of these theories are the "theory of evolution". And this joint theory has yet to be disproven.
Intelligent design: intelligent design say that some sort of intelligens has created animals/us. There is however no veryfiable consequences of such a theory, which means that it lacks the common trait of scientific resarch. Hence it isn't a scientific theory, it is a simple as that. This is also seen in what you state "the scientist that believe in ID" well scientific theories is something that you prove or not, not a thing that you believe in. Beliefs are as I stated ealier religions and not science.
Religion: correct there is nothing vengeful in the 10 commandments. however this is just one tiny little bit of the old testament. Examples of a vengeful god: sodoma and gomore, Lots wife, the 7 plagues (Everytime god has given the egyptians a plague, he acts his will on the farao and gets him to keep the isralites in egypt. so that he can give them yet another plague just to show his power. (if you don't belive me read the section in the bible)), a man is collecting wood on the sabbat the isralites ask god what to do about him and he says "kill him", the earlier mentioned rule about stoning women that are no longer virgins to death, other rules about stoning people, everytime the isralites abandon god he acts his wrath on them, etc. etc. That is the vengeful god that i am talking about.
It is fine that you say that many things a proven to you, yet there is no evidence for what you claim, which means that these are not things that are proven to you but things you believe in, hence a faith or religion call it what you want. I think that it is fine that you have a religion and i am not trying to convince you to abadon your religion. I just say don't mix science and religion, cause science is the land where things can be disproven or shown plauseble. But religion is the land where you have no evidence you just have to believe in the things that you are presented with nothing more. Hence we are back to where we started religions and science can not be mixed.
Filatus - 11/26/2005 3:41 AM
Love is like eating chocolate. ;)
you don't have any proofs for this statement Filatus, it is unscientific. ;)
-
*coughs* It contains phenylethylamine. There are researchers who believe the substance is also released when someone interacts with his/her 'loved' one.
Of course you miss the physical and emotional attraction.
-
About things that have proven to me, it was scientinfic proofs, and there is evidence, yet that is something personal to me. About God striking when people abondon him. Really I dont think any human could have done better. About what books are true. There are many archelogic researches that proff the existense of David fx. Ofcourse that doesnt proofs that God helped him. Its also aknowlegded that Messia did walk on the earth, and that was my old not-at-all religious history teacher (who truly believe in Darwin) who said that. About the inteligent design. Most people have their own vision of things, and my "inteligent design" is at most partr scientific at other parts just logical. There aer things in the darwism, that is so far out, that it annoys me that the sciencemen just skip it but also makes me laugh.
And this should be it, the both of us have our own believes, and it doesnt look like any of us are going to convince the other.
-
Harloff's longer explanation does it more justice, but I'll reiterate a key point. There is no such thing as scientific proof. Things cannot be scientifically proven. Anyone who said they can be lied to you. They can only be confirmed or contradicted. Confirmation is not proof since no theory can possibly account for all contingencies. Nor does contradiction mean that every part of the initial theory is false.
There is no such thing as scientific proof.
Mathematic proofs are very different from scientific ones.
Speaking of mathematic proofs, to return to the original topic. This proof has always bothered me because of the word "And" in the original premise. And, as was already pointed out, is defined as addition. I am currently at a loss for a better wording.
-
Niles
With intelligent design see
http://www.venganza.org/
Also good fight last night in Minator Land :o)
-
It was indeed fun to get off Mistone!
About the proof that woman are evil, I thought of the "and" first time I heard it too. But really, it is just for fun.. We dont need mathematical things to proof the evil of woman, we know it all ready;)
-
Ok, the theoretic proof that woman are evil:
1. Their nails.. It cant be pleasant to have such long nails, they must constantly be in the way, so "they" should only have them if the loos is weightened up by something good (for them!). They are pointy! I think most of us have feeled how they can be used as weapons as their last desperate act in a conversation.
2. They wear dresses, but when we do they laugh at us.. Why cant we wear those cool dresses:( Its sex discrimination!
3. Ever seen the movie "evil woman"? (I havent)
4. They always go into toilets in big groups, hah! surely they must be planning something!
5. Wasnt it Icedragon... that admitted her evil herself?
6. Actually once in physics, we calculated which was worst, an a stamp of an elephants foot, or a stamp of a lady's shoe. And given the small (we used a 1 x 1cm) area of the womans shoe, the power in N was actually greater than a stamp with an elephant's big foot. EVIL!
-
1.Those very same sharp claws can be quite nice when their running over your body ;)
2.Well wear a kilt and if you got the legs for it, women wont be laughing, the men yes :p
3.Same for the movie never heard of it...irrelevant then for either of us then ;)
4.Yup like most males have to watch sport games together...just more human quikrs if you ask me.
5.If Ice be evil I be the devil himself :p
6.Yup high heals shoes are considered a weapon in most court of laws 1. But where most likelly invented by a male (Leonardo DeVinci very probably) and 2. well think of all the foot fetchists out there with drooling smiles, ever since :p
Women can be evil only because they are part of the human race...hmmmm, kind of like us males, hey? :p
Skarp, love isn't evil, it's the little plug-ins we add to it that can turn it into that...see the 7capitals sins to keep with the religious talks, for starters ;)
Which takes us to that :p Written scriptures, from religions had to be written by humans, a wee burning bush beeing one of the exceptions? and thus warped either from the start or soon enough by humans...so how does that make it a god, who gaved humans: freedom of choice, responsible?
Oh and yeah Chocolate's yumm, there's even a little mexicain recipe which mixes it with chili peppers...if you thought just chocolate gaved you a high, you should try that ;)
-
Darwin himself put it best at the end of his book outlining evolutionary theory 'The origon of Species', that he doesn't say he is right, but that he offers an alternate idea to what was commonly believed at the time (the idea of creationism). Darwin himself is well documented for being terrifically humble in his work, his ideas are just the most sensible explaination to date of such diversity within species.
Of course by the very nature of the Church's stance at the time, this did mean that Darwinian thought conflicted, challenged and weakened accepted thought towards such creationism and continues to do so today.
-
his ideas are just the most sensible explaination to date of such diversity within species..
That is your point of it.
Of course by the very nature of the Church's stance at the time, this did mean that Darwinian thought conflicted, challenged and weakened accepted thought towards such creationism and continues to do so today.
No, actually its the oppesite today, most people believe in darwin, and they tend to not even care to hear other explanations.
-
Niles09 - 11/26/2005 12:20 PM
About things that have proven to me, it was scientinfic proofs, and there is evidence, yet that is something personal to me.
I have no idea what this sentence means. Are scientific proofs personel to you?
Niles09 - 11/26/2005 12:20 PM
About God striking when people abondon him. Really I dont think any human could have done better.
No but we are not talking about god being better than humans, but if he was the forgiving loving god. And I gave an example from the bible where he isn't very forgiving nor loving. Yet you start comparing him to humans which is uninteresting cause no humans can be as loving and carring as the god you claim consist almost entirely of love.
Niles09 - 11/26/2005 12:20 PM
About what books are true. There are many archelogic researches that proff the existense of David fx. Ofcourse that doesnt proofs that God helped him. Its also aknowlegded that Messia did walk on the earth, and that was my old not-at-all religious history teacher (who truly believe in Darwin) who said that.
I have never stated that i didn't belive that Jesus had walked the earth nor David, but as your teacher I doubt that he was divine.
Niles09 - 11/26/2005 12:20 PM
About the inteligent design. Most people have their own vision of things, and my "inteligent design" is at most partr scientific at other parts just logical. There aer things in the darwism, that is so far out, that it annoys me that the sciencemen just skip it but also makes me laugh.
I have no idea what these "far out things" are can you give an example? Similar to the Huge gaps you mentioned ealier what are they I have never heard of them.
However, you state that people have their own version of things, and I say yes most things are ver dependent on the beholder. But scence is independent of viewer, it only depends on what can be verified and what we can disprove. So when we enter the realm of people having their own believes it is no longer science. Of coure there are disagrements in science otherwise it would end with a stand still, in some cases the scientific theories are almost treated religously, but in the end only theories that is not disproven survives.
-
Filatus - 11/26/2005 10:51 AM
*coughs* It contains phenylethylamine. There are researchers who believe the substance is also released when someone interacts with his/her 'loved' one.
Of course you miss the physical and emotional attraction.
Sorry, I went to far with my acusations, and had you swritten these arguments to begin with I would NEVER had... can you ever forgive me?
-
freemen2 - 11/26/2005 9:39 PM
Skarp, love isn't evil, it's the little plug-ins we add to it that can turn it into that...see the 7capitals sins to keep with the religious talks, for starters ;)
Which takes us to that :p Written scriptures, from religions had to be written by humans, a wee burning bush beeing one of the exceptions? and thus warped either from the start or soon enough by humans...so how does that make it a god, who gaved humans: freedom of choice, responsible?
Nay love is not evil in it self I was just trying to prove that love could indeed corrupt. Even the love of a loving god.
7 captial sins *scractches his head* i am not sure if we have those in the lutheranian church.
The burning bush... well that is written in the bible that he saw the buring bush but that is not an evidence for him actually seing a burning bush, keeping in mind that the bible was written hundreds of years later.
Freedom of choice we certainly have, but responsebilety i guess we would have to look hard to see that. But my personal view on the matter is that we are just mamels with larger brains and the illusion that we are something speciel. "The last link in the evolutionary chain" so to speak, which is of course a contradiction since evolutionary theory states that we will evolve further from this state as well.
-
How did the eye evolve?
-
I just want it to be clear before anyone responds that you are using that question to bait laypersons into offering an answer they are not necessarily informed enough or qualified to give. We're talking about a question that would take a four year undergrad in biology, and another three to four on a postgraduate program specific to this issue in order to answer completely. It would probably take at least two years of biology to fully grasp the full technical explanation once given and be able to intelligently critique the response.
Science doesn't give nice neat little answers to toss about like trivia. The answers are highly complex and technical and take years of expertise to understand in full. Now this is not completely unlike the roles of religious leaders who spend much of their time studying and pondering over the implications of (insert chosen text) in modern society. However, it differs in one key way: methodology.
Scientific reasoning (Observe, question, hypothosize, test, observe, publish, rinse & repeat) provides a framework that allows laypersons to reasonably accept the consensus result of scientists. Theories are tested, and the false ones are thrown out. Only those that withstand rigorous testing survive. These theories help give us some understanding of the world around us.
For instance, the model of the atom that we use may be wildly inaccurate. However, it is effective in that it can be used to consistently and correctly predict future atomic behavior. If a theory is sound, it will allow you to extrapolate from it with reasonable success. We are not talking about retrofitting results (for instance claiming Nostrodamus predicted 9/11 after 9/11 happened; a real prediction would have given forewarning). A sound theory will predict future behavior with more accuracy than simple guessing.
The reason the Thoery of Evolution (please do not use the term "Darwinism" as though it were some sort of religious belief, it is most certainly not in any way connected to religion or lack thereof) is so widely accepted is precisely because it can and does predict future results. It does not explain the origin of life itself, nor does it attempt to. It only explains how and why we see biodiversity on Earth.
As for your specific question, I cannot answer. I will also point out that this is a perfectly reasonable answer in science, and a very important one. Much disservice has been done to science by those who assume to know more than they actually do. I do not have the knowledge or the expertise to properly explain it, however I also have no reason to doubt the consensus of the scientists who are qualified to answer that question.
-
well you asked for gabs, and then I named one.. Noone has ever givin me and answer to that, not even a start of one.
About studiying things. People (ofcourse this could also occuor to darwism, but Ive studied that a bit) tend to say, "the bible arent true, cause I dont understand it, so it doesnt make sence." That is a very uintelligent reason for saying it aint true. The bible is as complex probaly even more than biologi or physics. It require you to think over it. Becuase Ive thought of it, I can suddenly understand things, that kept bordering me a few years ago, cause I didnt saw the sense in it. The bible is not a book of fairy tales, its a book which must be read with a greater insight.
-
Sorry if I was curt, but that question is often used as bait in this kind of discourse. I again ask you to please stop refering to it as "Darwinism." That is a pejorative term meant to ridicule those who accept the sceintific merit of the Theory of Evolution.
There are various mechanisms by which evolution takes place. However, I am by no means an expert on this topic. You may as well be asking me the intricacies of the Five Pillars of Islam. I could list them, but I couldn't explain it in as great of detail as a member of the Muslim religion could, just like they could not describe them as well as an imam of a mosque could.
However, the difference is that scientists spend most of their time offering critiques and contradictions to each other's work. In that way a synthesis of ideas emerges that is better than either of the original theories at explaining the true nature of the universe. Relgions, by and large, try to shut down these debates by relying on faith and revealed knowledge. For instance, the explanation for why demons cannot be detected for exorcism is that they are invisible, or crafty. Is not the more reasonable explanation that there are no demons but that the person is, in fact, choosing to behave that way (or clinically insane and unaware of their actions)?
Every theory undergoes rigorous attempts to disprove it before it is accepted. Even after acceptance it is not "proven." It is only accepted as the most reasonable explanation. The problem with Intelligent Design is that it introduces additional complexities (the creator) that are not necessary to explain the results seen in the data. Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate
-
"However, the difference is that scientists spend most of their time offering critiques and contradictions to each other's work. In that way a synthesis of ideas emerges that is better than either of the original theories at explaining the true nature of the universe. Relgions, by and large, try to shut down these debates by relying on faith and revealed knowledge. For instance, the explanation for why demons cannot be detected for exorcism is that they are invisible, or crafty. Is not the more reasonable explanation that there are no demons but that the person is, in fact, choosing to behave that way (or clinically insane and unaware of their actions)?"
First, I dont think there is a christian who believe in God the exact sameway as another, truly we discusses it, I for one is very much against what many of the conservative religious persons in the US say, ask me they tend to say things that a very illogical and tend to forgot this: thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Second have I ever said I think that demons exists? Actually very few christians (over here) think that.
And about the eye think, it was just one example, I could say another if you wish?
-
Niles09 - 11/27/2005 2:51 PM well you asked for gabs, and then I named one.. Noone has ever givin me and answer to that, not even a start of one.
Just by typing your question in Google you get all kinds of interesting (or at least I think they're interesting :) ) links with possible answers to the question you ask, such as:
http://www.karger.com/gazette/64/fernald/art_1_0.htm
or
http://www.embl.org/aboutus/news/press/2004/press28oct04.html
-
Thanks!
Now that indeed only makes it more clear for me, that what I believe is right. This explains how the eye would evolve, but the chance that those few species that first mutated would survive and give the mutate to their children is very small. Besides the stages from moving those ligth cells to an eye, and making connections and all that, would involve many mutations, and those stages wouldnt give the animal an advantage, besides it could easily mutate into a different thing half the way. That process have probaly happened, but if you ask me, it did with the help of a greater power, pushing them that way.
"When Darwin's skeptics attack his theory of evolution, they often focus on the eye" makes you feel stupid! No it was not like I knew it was a common attack, I could name other things.
-
It's just one of those radioactive topics in the debate. You just don't want to touch it since it is brought up so often.
The thing is, with life the way it is, any advantage can be enough sometimes, even an underdeveloped light-sensitive membrane. That changes the probability equations significantly. It's the biological equivalent of using loaded dice. It just takes one to start it.
There's 6 billion people in the world. What events have a 1 in 6,000,000,000 chance of happening? Consider it is (roughly) four generations of people spread over the world. Millions die in childbirth, millions more before age 1, and so on. The youngest generation are the product of those most capable (either due to biological or societal reasons) of surviving the last 100 years. And that's just one species, homo sapiens.
If you consider how many bacteria exist right now, and that their average lifespan is anywhere from hours to months depending on the strain, how many generations have gone by in the same amount of time(100 years)? Those far flung probabilities don't really seem so impossible anymore do they? The probability that at least one survived to pass on its traits is actually very likely.
Gather 27(I think, its been a while since I worked this problem) people in a room. There is a greater than 50% chance that two will have the same birthday(excluding year). Now, that's not a guarantee, and it is possible that everyone will. However, there is still a better chance of two having the same than none.
-
Gather 27(I think, its been a while since I worked this problem) people in a room. There is a greater than 50% chance that two will have the same birthday(excluding year). Now, that's not a guarantee, and it is possible that everyone will. However, there is still a better chance of two having the same than none.
If you're talking about living things that both have the same mutation, but need to find eachother to bring it on, then we're not talking about a room, but about earth. Besides its not a advantage to have some light sensetive cells at your head, you need to be able to use them, which would require many many stages of mutating, and as I said before, they would fade out. I dont know if it true but Ive heard that the chance to give some sort of a start to an eye to the animals children would be 1 to 6x6 a thousand times.
-
O look close at what I rote
"you can not use Logic against firth for firth precludes logic.
You can not use faith against logic for logic precludes faith. "
Niles09 you have faith your a beliver "no" amout of logic any one uses to shake that faith will work
as you see logic as a test of your Faith. Now some here are trying to make what started as a bit of fun
into an atempet to use Logic against you faith. look at my words, it is pointless to try and do this
they live in to worlds.
But saying this ID should not me used against logic becuse its pure Faith and never will be logic
so it just will not work sorry but true.
Is your Faith good?
yes just as much as my love of Logic is, we use them in our lives to make them better
for me logic gives me my world view for you it is faith.
other than that Logic and faith have nother in commen
So back to the fun a Layonorts
-
Well, I must still disagree, cause I find the things I believe in, more logical than the limits of the darwin evolution.
Ofcourse I cant proof it all, by the common metodes. I cant analyse God's influence in the evolution to a paper with numbers, functions etc. But I can use my faith my logic and my experiences.
If my faith is good? well I suppose that wasnt really a question but Ill say, it does change my ways of acting and looking at life the better way, and my god himself is pure goodness and Ill do my best to make him happy, though it sometimes can be hard since we all has our bad sides.
-
Yeah Harloff but how can you get a true point across if it's slanted by them Plug-ins to begin with? You want to prove that love can corrupt when t'isn't love that corrupts things but those very plug-ins. Now tell me that peole used what they thought was solelly love to mass-murder a nation or 2 and then I'll buy you an ale and 3 to then drink to that statement with you, because it's true. Certainly not when you keep trying to say that love corrupts when it doesn't in itself. The same goes for the love of loving a god, in almost all cases but a few religions that have gods of destruction, evil or death.
Like you say we have responsibilities, one of them beeing to me one of the most important: Use words carefully to mean exactly what you want them to mean and as clearly as possible.
For the 7 capital sins are you saying you do not know what I speak off, lad? Carefull you be loosing your ale stash, if you lie :p
Fot the eye bit, yup t'is another thing scientist bang their heads against walls on and also that religious people use to prove their unfliching righteousness based only on faith. Faith cannot be proven and that to me gives one to the scientists as they're just trying to prove things based on theories, at least most of them and not only on something untangible like faith which you stated yourself is different for most people, Niles and definatly not scientifical logic, on its' own, which is what others where talking to you about. As to why the eye evolved well my theory is that amebas were just sick and tired of banging into each others all the time :p
Personally as long as felines have better eyeballs, then humans. Well that along with a few other things, will place the common house cat as the one on top of the evolutionary chain on this planet right now and not humans althought between cats and ants it be a close tie ;)
For the bush thing, well a guy walks up a mountain by himself and later walks down with a set of stone tables, am betting it was the bush that gaved it to him :p Of course that's taking into account what's written in one scripture or another ;)
Agreed all things are always in an evolutionary process or cease to be. But I think that considering it in the now and not the futur, is a logical given ;)
-
Niles, I asked you for a gap and you answered me by asking a question, about how the eye came into being. I must admit that I haven't got the answer to that one. But that is not a gap, a gap would be that something couldn't possibly happen. like for instance the human couldn't evolve from monkey because the two species had different kinds of DNA cellular structuce, something. The question here is do you diny the excistance of "mutation" or "survivel of the fittest", these are some of the basic principels of the "evolutionairy theory". And in what i have read about ID none of them diny these pricipels, they just claim that evolution driven by these mechanism are unlikely. However, evolution took place hundreds of thousands years, and the creation of an eye could have failed hundred thousend times, many mutants would be unfit to survive and die. But if it was created succesfully, there would be a being with a huge advantage over all his "kinsmen" and the part of his offspring that got eyes as well would also have this advantage, and during some generations there would be none witout eyes since they would be less fit to survive than the others. In my oponion it is unlikely that a the genes of a mutant with succh a high advantage would die with it. This would be the basic outline for the creation of an eye through evolution. Whether it is likly or unlikely is, however, hard to establish since we have no means of mimicing this in a lab, we simply don't have that time span to see the eye evolving. Therefore, it is unlikely that we ever have a precise answer to the question.
If we take the ID instead the creation of an eye would be: the desingner created the eye, period. no more no less. However, there is one major gap for ID, there is NO proof that such a designer excist. There is not a mechanism in this scheme that we can all agree upon excisting. Of course if we accept the excistance of this designer there is no gaps in this theory since the designer is all powerfull and could do as he pleased. But before ID could be accepted as a scientific theory there had to be evidence for the excistance of a higher being, and that this being had the means of creating. (I think I read somwhere that some suggested aliens as designers, but again we would have the same problems, proof the excistance of alians and the power to create). This means that in order to accept ID you would have to accept the notion of a designer, without any evidence for the exsistance of this designer, that is why i keep calling it a religion, since we have the same pricipels there.
Furthermore, if we look at the DNA string it is just completely filled with junk, bit after bit filled with nonsenc that the cells don't use. In the evolutionary theory this is caused by randomness, a mutant is created which doesn't use this part of the string any longer. But why would an intelligent designer write rubish? it would be similar to a programmer writing page after page of useless code. maybe i am biased but that doesn't sound very intelligent to me. Furthermore, an intelligent designer could have used several different codes for all animals, but he chose to use just one, whereas the DNA code being the same for all species is a prequisite for the evolutionary theory.
-
freemen2 - 11/27/2005 9:41 PM
Yeah Harloff but how can you get a true point across if it's slanted by them Plug-ins to begin with? You want to prove that love can corrupt when t'isn't love that corrupts things but those very plug-ins. Now tell me that peole used what they thought was solelly love to mass-murder a nation or 2 and then I'll buy you an ale and 3 to then drink to that statement with you, because it's true. Certainly not when you keep trying to say that love corrupts when it doesn't in itself. The same goes for the love of loving a god, in almost all cases but a few religions that have gods of destruction, evil or death.
Like you say we have responsibilities, one of them beeing to me one of the most important: Use words carefully to mean exactly what you want them to mean and as clearly as possible.
For the 7 capital sins are you saying you do not know what I speak off, lad? Carefull you be loosing your ale stash, if you lie :p
I don't agree on the love bit, I think it can corrupt, take jelosy for instance. But I think we disagree on defenitions, I think that jelosy is a part of love, "the other side of the coin" so to speak. And I agree that most wars in the world have been for power/independence/etc. and that the role of religion is mostly propeganda. But my understanding of it is that some of the soldiers do it for the sake of their faith. What i am saying is that i think that those plug-ins you refer to is a part of love, and that you cannot discriminate between the two, look at the one seperately from the other. But this is of course a philosophical question and i don't think there is one single answer.
I am using my words carefully i guess, but i often use them in ways of provocation. My theory is that you sometimes have to stirr up things in order to get from where you are. I was close to use the word progress but not all changes are to the better.
I am quit honest here, I am unsure if I had heard the term before I saw the movie "Seven", but i had no idea what the sins were before i saw it. And I have followed all what has been tought on christianity in school i have even confimed my baptism (to get the gifts) and followed the lectures I had to attend in order to do the confirmation. But no one has ever told me about the capital sins. I think this is somethin katholic that Luther abandoned, like all those angels and stuff they speak about in "Dogma" never heard about it before. Our religion is more free spirited in some ways i guess, sins: killing, stealing, etc. things that really hurts other people but premarritual sex, gambling, drinking, sex in general (multipel partners) etc. are hardly even offences. (this is however dependent on the fraction of the church, we have hardliners as well). So we do have the 10 commandments but we are not that bad sinners in gods eyes.
-
>Well, I must still disagree, because I find the things I believe in, more logical than the limits of the Darwin evolution.
>Of course I can’t proof it all, by the common methods. I can’t analyze God's influence in the evolution to a paper with numbers,
>functions etc. But I can use my faith my logic and my experiences.
Well I don’t know what to say abut this one other than you I think are willful misusing Logic, the logic you espouse seem to be an odd
Hybrid form of faith. Statements like "I find the things I believe in, more logical than the limits of the Darwin evolution"
And "I can’t proof it all, by the common methods" eg Logic means you just do not grasp the basic concepts of Logic and faith.
Well it is time to shock you; I know you will say that this dos not because of pride and the pride you have in your faith.
But you are not Logic because you can only prove you have faith
(That would be in refusing to acknowledge any thing that questions your faith like this e-mail)
Not that what you believe in exists.
Look at that again
You “HAVE!” prove you have faith
You “HAVE NOT!” proven what you believe in exists.
Try reading it a few times, that’s right You “HAVE NOT!” proven what you believe in exists only that you have faith.
Sorry but thats all you have done.
Even if every one on the planet earth believed in your god and all his believes.
This would not using true logic prove that god existence, it would only prove that we all
believed in the same god.
Sorry that is TRUE
I know you believe it would because that’s the way faith works, you would say “See god has made all
believe the same thing ergo there must be a god”. But that’s not how true logic works that’s more
of your own belief twisting logic.
Sorry to have to brake it to you! but all the above is TRUE!
See
science try’s to get the theory to fit the facts as known
Where as faith, tries to limet known facts to fit the theory. (see galileo)
Open mind V closed mind
See heres a big one for you
Religion is primarily about belief it’s about disbelief.
It is not enough that you believe that your religion and faith is right and good you must disbelieve all other faiths and religions as bad and evil. All religions seem to have this in there coda some where.
Now your religion is but one of many, all have believers and all can prove there faith just like you and each one
Believes in one religion = one
heresy Disbelieve in all religions = many
So you spend more time disbelieving not believing.
I know that you will say are but part of my believe is to Disbelieve all other believes.
Where as Science can and dos look for many theories to explain facts.
Then once you have some you look at them and they could all be right, so do we believe them all! Nope we go looking for more facts to test them. Not in the way you are “tested by god” that’s just going over old ground, no logic say we have to find out MORE! Then rethink the whole thing over and over again until we could start to test, and then would could remove the theories that failed to fit all the facts we have so for, we would however not stop there we would keep looking to test the facts and thiry.
In Faith you only play at it, when a fact do not fit you just hold up your hands and say lets keep the thirey it must be us nit understanding the facts.
That is just willful self dilution don’t you thing.
If you won’t to prove to me your faith then read this web site.
http://www.christianitymeme.org/
See science can even explain your faith.
-
Hi there,
it's been a while, but i've been monitoring you silently from my little selfimposed prison, also known as marriage, which I got sucked into 2 months ago...
I must admit that I started reading this thread rather enthusiasticly (spelling..) but soon lost my concentration because noone wanted to by Path a beer....
So back on topic..
*Runs to the innkeeper, gets a mug of ale and hands it to Path*
"There you go ! You don't think I'm evil do you Path ?"
Cya soon .. I hope.
No stop this ranting and get back into the game :-)
-
NEXUS. we can never agree cause you lack my point of view. You say I have not proven my faith, well you havent proven darwism as well.
Second, Im NOT the traditional christian. You say when we (I) just hold up our hands when something other is proven, I don't, and by the way, I dont think I know a scientist who dont do that, when extraordinary strange things happen. Even scientic proofs is not accepted when they interfere with the evolution teory. and through the evolution there are sooo many things, where you can only say, well it was a spot of luck.
About disbelieving other religions, I dont neccasarely do. As Ive said before the jewish, arabish and christian people original had the same god.
About that webside *sigh* yup a mind-virus. I could ofcourse name some of the feelings Ive had, but then I know what you would say. No I rather name some things thhat had occured to others. First a sign of something greater:
This story is, and you can keep saying it cant be possible, true, Ive heard it from my grandparents they did know the persons. There was this man, working as a builder he got a crane or something down on him, chrusing his legs. His wife came soon by. Noone had called her, and she should be on work, she said, I just felt that somethng was very wrong, and he said ofcourse I screamed for you.
In the litlle christian group of 15 on my "high" school we talked about such things, and we could all tell about a extraoridary case of luck, or a prayer being answered though the type of it would made it a nearly impossible accidental. We dont only believe because we have this feeling, no we've seen it, we've been answered.
Science cant explain that, it cant explain my faith.
And now Im sick and tired of this, Ive tried to see things from your view, Ive forced to do that very often, yet you keep seing faith as a strange illogical mind-virus, you even think we're all the same, that the lot of us ignore the clearly scientic proofs. Now I wont say YOU to this, you're not been so bad as this as other people can be, it just happens people take us as blind unintelligent people, which need a cause to live, so far I can say Im proud of my intelligence, im proud of my faith, that I dont have it for my own cause.
And a little not did you know that the final evolution of the human intelligence was that we became able to see and understand that there was something greater?
ohh and Harloff I will come to you later.
-
Plaese refrain from giving path more beer he just becomes silly.
But back to or original topic, in order to inspire the rest of you to follow my example i have made a few preliminary investigations.
[TABLE=head;sort=1a,2,3]time |money|Mood factor|number of experiments|
100%|0 %|7 and 9|2|
75 %|0 %|8|1|
[/TABLE]
Hence these first experiments show no depedency on money atl least not when you spend a lot of time with your girlfriend. Thus it is a waste of money to give her anything if you just have a sufficiently high amount of time. Furthermore, there is absolutely no indications that my girlfriend is evil in these experiments so far, but that could be caused by her knowing that I was conducting them, which means that she could have influenced the results by manipulating me.
I am counting on Meizter to post the disclaimer of liabilety ASAP so that all of you can go out experimenting gathering data for this rocket science investigation.
-
Niles, my mission has never been to try to convince you that religion is a virus nor a bad thing in all cases. You have just filled this thread with claims without any arguments starting with your "intelligent design = no gaps". These kinds of things act as a piece of red cloth on me (eventhough bulls are colorblind). And still you keep saying that "darwinism" lacks proofs, but you have not mentioned any experiments or observations that it cannot explain. As I stated earlier intelligent design has one mayor gap/flaw there is no scientific proof for the exsistance of god nor any other creator.
You may believe in what you want to i don't mind, but please stop saying that darwinism lacks proffs without saying what it is lacking. Furthermore, if you want to dismiss "darwinism" on grounds of lack of evidence how come you keep defending a theory that lacks any kind of scientific evidence. The exsistance of god might be proven to you but I have never seen any kind of evidence, neither in my own life nor in the litterature.
In your post you keep using the term "darwinism" without specifieng whether it is darwins theory "survivel of the fittest" or it is the entire "evolutionairy theory" please be more specific. It is hard to argue with you when we don't know what theory you are talking about.
The funny thing about ID is that it is so old that even Darwin had to fight with it, it was just called "creationism" at that point. But in reality it is excactly the same, old wine on new bottles so to speak.
*rubs his hands* I am glad to hear Niles, for a moment I though you had given up.
-
>You say I have not proven my faith,
read my post again I said YOU HAVE proven you have faith, buy that dos not prove that god exist
Sorry but true.
>About disbelieving other religions, I dont neccasarely do
What! is this a new kind of religen i missed one that lets you belive in all gods?
>Science cant explain that, it cant explain my faith.
At last we get there! becouse faith is not Science and so not logic it is belife, im glad you see that now.
>Ive tried to see things from your view.
Sorry but I dont think for one moment you did, you just can not step out of faith like that sorry.
>proud of my faith
are pride see it was there all the time
>final evolution of the human intelligence
there is no final evolution of the human intelligence its an ongoing ever changing thing untill we are human no longer and we pass out gods.
>see and understand that there was something greater
and last of all hope
Hope that some thing or some one will save us from our selfs lest we pass our gods.
>It just happens people take us as blind unintelligent people
No I think you are unintelligent just that you try to use logic to prove your faith and that is wrong.
Your faith is just that faith it do not need logic to sutaion it for logic deniys faith.
Stop trying swist Science and logic to fit your belife
Keep your faith where it belongs and god will love you trust me he will.
-
And this is why many people do not discuss religion for more than a few minutes at a time.
*Puts on his burka...his star of david..cucifix..anhk...prayer shawl...orthodox cross....eastern ortho symbol...Indalo symbol...saffron robes...hermetic seal, grabs his begging bowl, druid staff, a sack of other neckalaces, makes the sign of the Mudra and promptly falls over*
Only because I've been there...*muffled under all the junk*
Once you feel you believe in anything the real work begins.
-
"What! is this a new kind of religen i missed one that lets you belive in all gods"
*sigh* didnt you hear, they all come from the same part, the difference is what way we believe in god, I believe in him as pure goodness, besides at least you can show respect to other religions.
"At last we get there! becouse faith is not Science and so not logic it is belefe can you see that now.
You belive things to be as they are not throw logic but throw faith. Just exsept it and stop tring to prove it with Logic
your faith is not logical it is unrashnal and ilogical just exspet that and stop trying to parm ID off as Science its not and never will be."
*sigh again* either we have a different sight on what logic is or either we keep disagreeing. I think its logic that something greater must have made those nearly imposible things in the evolution happen (and Harloff Ill come to those gabs later, at the moment Im concentrating on this since Ive got a chemical report hanging)
"For me a state of self denale of the facts just will not give me cunfort, I wont to know more that just "GOD made it so"
I like so many others feel that to ask WHY! is the core of being human."
ofcourse I feel the same, Ive been seeking answers the last five years of my life, and probaly will keep doing that until I die, but one thing I know is, as Ive been thinking more about it, God makes more sense (five years ago I thought God existed at that he started the BIG BANG then nature took over, but now I see thats to far out)
"PS story are no good FACTS or all you have is mistasisem"
this is not a story the story way (a confusion because that means two things in danish) its true it did happen, and I can name other things later.
"proud of my faith"
no not the knightish pride way, not that I feel better or anything, not that I cant change my view.
"there is now final evolution of the human intelligence its an ongoing ever changing thing untill we are human no longer"
oh come on! you should know what I mean, yes we keep evolving but there is a bit more difference on our intelligence 3000 years ago and 15000 years ago.
"see and understand that there was something greater "
again you misunderstand my on purpose, its not because I hope that, it because it makes sense.
"after all you faith is just that Ilogical"
after this I do really hope I we dont have the same view of logic cause if we have, I really dont know how to express me in a kind way.
"exsept that and god will love you trust me he will"
well I dont know if this means anything to you, but he loves you as well.
-
Niles09 - 11/28/2005 8:51 PM
and Harloff Ill come to those gabs later, at the moment Im concentrating on this since Ive got a chemical report hanging
There is no hurry this discussion is just for fun, other things come first for me as well. :)
If you have any problems just ask, I am a chemical engeneer ;)
-
well actually yes I do indeed need help to a question here.
It is: explain how the beginningconsentration (c) of S2O3(aq) can be 0,0004 M when the concentration of 10 mL Na2S2O3(aq) is 0,004 M. The problem is I never made the little exercises with such calculating since I didnt get the notes on that. The only thing I can think of is to put it like Na2S2O3 -> S2O3 + 2Na
n:
c:
but it seems like I need to find the volumen of S2O3. ;)
-
>It is: explain how the beginningconsentration (c) of S2O3(aq) can be 0,0004 M when the concentration of 10 mL Na2S2O3(aq) is 0,004 M. The problem is I never made the little exercises >with such calculating since I didnt get the notes on that. The only thing I can think of is to put it like Na2S2O3 -> S2O3 + 2Na
>n:
>c:
Pass, god im glad im a mechanical engineer EngD and not a chemist PhD
Good luck with that one
-
Welcome back rusleBIFFEN ;) bout time you popped-up again and thanks for the ale ;)
Harloff - 11/28/2005 5:43 PM Plaese refrain from giving path more beer he just becomes silly...
Hey! I resent that you poor excuse for a viking decendant :p I'll have you known I can drink you under the table and still keep a serious converstaion going...that's how silly I be ;) Well no jalousy is just another plug-in as well as a bunch of, tidious, others that seems to come with beeing in love with someone, for most people. If you want to use the coin bit for an example I would say that hate would be the other side of the coin. Try and look at the emotion of loving someone at it's core, until you see only that. Then you'll be able to see why and how those pesky plug-ins come into play...and only then. Jalousy is just another emotion that can only comme from a sense of propriety of the person you're in love with. Feeling you own a person isn't loving them. And actually this has nothing to do with philosophy, psycology would come a little bit closer to it but then again, depending on which psy school is looking at it would depend on it's real distance away from it. It always makes me smile to hear things like: "that you cannot discriminate between the two, look at the one seperately from the other." Of course you can, anyone can if they really want to. That sentence is just a cope-out in order to not dig deeper, not look closer at something. In anycase, how can you truly see what a whole is made out of if you do not differiencate all the pieces that supposedly, makes it a whole? Since you like equations try this one: X(how you feel about anyone) = [L(love)] + (H(hate) = (F(fear) = s(sum of all plug-ins)) but wheras L is a constant H is defined by F, which in turn is dependent on s. ;) Well if you see change as a way to see that something is good or not, for ones' self, then it is progress isn't it ;) Yeah Cathos have this interesting quirk about auto-flagalation ;)
-
so simple yet so far.. It seems that I complely overrated how advanced thing was in the earlier work I made. I get it now, though not the question in the report. The thing is if fx NA2SO4 with 0,1 M goes into 2NA + SO4 the consentration for NA is 0,2, because there is two and 0,1 M for SO¤ cause there is one (SO4 is one complex) Though in this question it goes into 2Na + S2O3 so the S2O3 should be the same as NA2S2O3 though the concentration shows to be ten times smaller?! THe only thing I can see is that the 0,004 M for Na2S2O3 is both for that and the starch, and the starch is the biggest part of....
-
Niles09 - 11/28/2005 2:04 PM
so simple yet so far.. It seems that I complely overrated how advanced thing was in the earlier work I made. I get it now, though not the question in the report. The thing is if fx NA2SO4 with 0,1 M goes into 2NA + SO4 the consentration for NA is 0,2, because there is two and 0,1 M for SO¤ cause there is one (SO4 is one complex) Though in this question it goes into 2Na + S2O3 so the S2O3 should be the same as NA2S2O3 though the concentration shows to be ten times smaller?! THe only thing I can see is that the 0,004 M for Na2S2O3 is both for that and the starch, and the starch is the biggest part of....
I think I remember this assignment from when I was at high school. Can you give me the number and I'll go look it up in my archive?
-
Niles09 stop sighing it make you sound patronizing, look all I'm tying to do is make you see that the Scientific method and logic
Just don’t work when it comes to matters of faith.
>God makes more sense
Or
>I think its logic that something greater must have made those nearly impossible things in the evolution happen
Sorry just will not cut it in a Scientific paper sorry just try righting one and see how for you get
2: >yes we keep evolving but there is a bit more difference on our intelligence
Infect there is some discussion that we have indeed past the point of being human and should be called now Homo-tecnia Why you ask, well flowing in your veins are antibodies made throw inoculations you had as a child and now with live genetic manipulation. We are now longer as nature or god made us we are on the road to recreate our self’s in what ever image we can throw out skill. (That’s a very
Simple outline of the whole debate.)
>well I dont know if this means anything to you, but he loves you as well.
Well I’m glad you believe that.
So please stop trying to say your faith (as it is now) is logical and scientific just is not.
“Feeling” it is and saying “it makes sense to be logic” just will not cut it sorry
So you are going to stop hiding behind pseudoscience and start saying.
My faith and my science are separate.
If not then god help you because Science can not.
-
I made it, though the happiness was shortly after replaced with the feeling of hitting a wall or something. Question 7 is even worse. Well it would be nice with a hand, the book is: KEMI øvelser af Helge Mygind 2/3. øvelse 2 spørgsmål 7.
I dont want the result since that doesnt make me clever, but a point i nthe right direction would be nice. So far Ive said that n must be the same for both Na2S2O8 and S2O8 so they must be different in volumen.
-
Freemen2 and nilos09
>Hey! I resent that you poor excuse for a viking decendant :p
>I'll have you known I can drink you under the table and still keep a serious converstaion going...that's how silly I be
Right your on get your sorry asses over to
http://www.tentacles-convention.de/
Theres now escuse its in germany.
And we will just see just how well you two chaps stand up to good german beer and fine o so fine scots wisky
and I will go into long talks about faith and god and fine beer.
If you wont ill bring some UK beer as well
can not say more than that
-
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO WAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ok no need for help, after staring on those numbers I suddenly saw a connection..... damn
-
YAREKA!
-
i really wanted to avoid this Evolution vs creation argument as it really has no place here in these forums, but i wish to mention that evolution has been observed, and is often seen in insects due to their short life spans it's easier to see this is why insect become immune to bug poisons
-
Thats it for me no more talk unless its with drinks.
I will end with
"Life is doubt, And faith without doubt is nothing but death."
Miguel de Unamuno (1864-1936)
-
Har! ye blooody tease you, NEXUS7 :p Their next convention be in May 2005 :s
-
freemen2 - 11/28/2005 10:53 PM Hey! I resent that you poor excuse for a viking decendant :p I'll have you known I can drink you under the table and still keep a serious converstaion going...that's how silly I be ;)
I am not a poor excuse for viking decesdant, I am 1.92 m 120 kg and the beard on Skarp's picture is my own beard pastet onto the picture. SO TAKE THAT BACK. Besides i don't believe that you can drink me under the table. You puny little frogeater you. *shakes his fist at path* My ancestors have beaten your ancestors, and we could do it again if we wanted to. Unfortunately you guys have nothing we want so we stay where we are.
freemen2 - 11/28/2005 10:53 PM Well no jalousy is just another plug-in as well as a bunch of, tidious, others that seems to come with beeing in love with someone, for most people. If you want to use the coin bit for an example I would say that hate would be the other side of the coin. Try and look at the emotion of loving someone at it's core, until you see only that. Then you'll be able to see why and how those pesky plug-ins come into play...and only then. Jalousy is just another emotion that can only comme from a sense of propriety of the person you're in love with. Feeling you own a person isn't loving them. And actually this has nothing to do with philosophy, psycology would come a little bit closer to it but then again, depending on which psy school is looking at it would depend on it's real distance away from it. It always makes me smile to hear things like: "that you cannot discriminate between the two, look at the one seperately from the other." Of course you can, anyone can if they really want to. That sentence is just a cope-out in order to not dig deeper, not look closer at something. In anycase, how can you truly see what a whole is made out of if you do not differiencate all the pieces that supposedly, makes it a whole? Since you like equations try this one: X(how you feel about anyone) = [L(love)] + (H(hate) = (F(fear) = s(sum of all plug-ins)) but wheras L is a constant H is defined by F, which in turn is dependent on s. ;)
*shakes his head* you are assuming a lot of things here, one of the major assumptions is that you are holding the one true answer. The next big assumption is that I don't see the light because I don't want to look deeper into it. The first assumption is in my view rather arogant, no single person holds all the answers not even a frenchmen. The second assumption is rather strange i think you don't know me very well so how can you assume that haven't looked deeper.
As I said before, I don't agree with you. There is in my openion no such thing as unconditional love, you might love someone highly but if they don't live up to your exspectations you will sease loving them at some point. Like some people stop loving god when they feel that he has led them down. And I don't agree with you that Jelosy originates from ownership but rather fear of lossing your loved one. Which is why I think that jelosy is a natural part of loving someone, since you depend on the other persons love and therefor fears loosing it.
I have tried to understand your equation but it doesn't seem to make any sence to me at all. Are you saying that X = L + H where H = F = plugins? If this is what you are saying i must disagrre with you, the few people that I truely hate are persons that has dne me or my family wrong, which has absolutely nothing to do with me fearing them it is just old fashioned hate. Besides that you say that L is a constant, is it a constant for all people, e.i. you love all people equally much, some people you just hate a bit which is why you don't love them? I disagree with all of it, I don't see love as constant in any way it is a function of how you feel that person is treating you. Furthermore, I don't have positive or negative feeling for persons that i don't know which means that love is not a constant in that relation either.
What i was trying to say in my last post is that, I thik we are fundamentally different in our worldview. From my point of view feelings can not be divided into bits, they are all internally correlated, which is why I say that you cannot look on love as a only positive feeling since it has s many side effects.
-
Skarp: "My ancestors have beaten your ancestors, and we could do it again if we wanted to. Unfortunately you guys have nothing we want so we stay where we are."
-> Soooo true! *grinning*
Unfortunately wars are not fought one-on-one.
-
Niles09
ya right I have just had a run of very bad luck so there must be a God
I wont go into detailes but BUGGERATION! how can all this happon in one day..
Serves me right for pushing the Logic v Faith thing to for
Bad Nexus7 bad!
-
whaaaaaat?!?!?!?!? why do you take a note my char has said into this?????? it has nothing to do with anything. The point of it is that she earlier hated her peolpe, now she just thinks its sad that they cant see the wonders of the surface, that have absolutly nothing to do with this.
So please stop trying to say your faith (as it is now) is logical and scientific just is not.
“Feeling” it is and saying “it makes sense to be logic” just will not cut it sorry
So you are going to stop hiding behind pseudoscience and start saying.
My faith and my science are separate.
If not then god help you because Science can not.
well that is the end of that discussion. Either we dont think pn logic the same way if we do, then its with the develoment of this I think its best if we end here, cause it wont end out in anything good.
-
>Either we dont think pn logic the same way if we do, then its with the develoment of this
> I think its best if we end here
Like I said some posts back
lets let it go agrae to disagre and have some fun
ya mad religus nut you :o)
Spugly will still play with ya
-
Freeman2
>Har! ye blooody tease you, NEXUS7 :p Their next convention be in May 2005 :s
Come on thats not that long and man is it the con to drink at
Casel above rine with its own vinyard
The chaps that run it have beer at 1 euro
and Mead by the bottel
Its cheap as chips that con and just grate fun
and the LARPS man I have played some garte LARPS there
I think its the setting and all.
Go grap ye Axe and long bout and set sail
Book soon last time it was filled way to erly
-
no, damn it! "ya mad religus nut you:o) heh nah I just defend my belives, and Im stronger in it after this, then Ill forgot about the bad things, that is what God would say ;)
and I :)
Hmmm what about the giants Kloss talked about, never really seen one myself :o
-
Hmmmmmmmmmm, meeeeeade *starts drooling* WAIT A MINUTE! May 2005 ye daft giant, we be in November 2005! *grumbles walking away wondering if he can get his hands on a bottle of mead now*
-
Yep but there will be one in 2006 belive me they are just slakers and have not been updateung the bloody web site
Fabs will get it from me ill tell ya
Niles09 just some fun:-
"Enter no conflict against fanatics unless you can defuse them. Oppose a religion with another religion only if your proofs (miracles)
are irrefutable or if you can mesh in a way that the fanatics accept you as god-inspired.
This has long been the barrier to science assuming a mantle of divine revelation. Science is so obviously man-made.
Fanatics know where you stand, but more important, must recognize who whispers in your ear.
Missionaria Protectiva Primary Teaching"
Chapterhouse: Dune
-
*Mumbles while picking on his C4-west* ignorant bastard mmhmh son of a jackal mhm *the west shows to be difficult, mumbles again* Damn ebay, I did not order a small! HAH! and it is defuse-proof! ;)
-
>*Mumbles while picking on his C4-west*
So heres a thing
Evil in NWNs as I see it in the DnD world evil is apsalut a real and tangebel thing
its not about perspective its a phiscal thing you have
called Alinment
Evil gods
Evil Goblins
etc
So you just cast a spell and POW hit the evil dooer true
or im I wrong
-
Given up! No way! Harloff
well Im gonna make this as short as posible, and its not to start the discussion all over again, so any other than Harloff shouldnt care about this, and Harloff I would ask that you only answer on the most critical things here, and not those things we cant agree on anyway.
ok, the eye, I find it a bag since I think its the change that it would succed is to small, you got a good point that when a specie got the eye, most thing would go from there, but my point is the space between having the cells in the brain and actually getting a slight version, involves so much time and so much chance for going lost, so its too far out. Other examples is the organ system, that must be created somehow at the same time. About God doing it my point is he does push the evolution a bit, not so it is instant, he makes sure that those species which is beginnig to get the eye dont dissapear. About our useless parts, they are parts we had earlier in the evolution, to help us survive at that time, and I dont think they are disturbing in anyway, so why should God remove them? About scientic proofs, well I cant put it under a scope, but there is fx the history I told before, which is true, and there are others, besides as Ive said the world is so complicated putted toegether yet so logical, that I dont think its made by noone, for ME its "logic" that there would be something greater.
when I talk about darwism I talk about the evolution, which so far I know mostly is controlled by the survival of the fittest, and (now Im past teh what darwism is) God ;)
and well Im happy you dont think my religion is a virus :)
-
well about the aligment thing. THe preprogrammed monsters is programmed to kill you no matter what, and thats a little sad cause it distrubts the roleplay, but it would be very hard to make it different.
About DM quests, its up to the DM to make it more than nine aligments, but yes if you play it right after the book aligments can be disturbing. I mean there are many palas who never have been actually good the good way? but only the the duty way? (which isnt good)
-
and about the viking thing. HAH! I live in the most drunken municipality in all Denmark! Tørring-Uldum kommune hah! in your face Copenhagen! no hey wait a moment we've been putted into the Juelminde-municipality! And the little village I live in was splitted away to Vejle! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*scratch scratch* hey I dont drink much anyway?!
-
>well Im gonna make this as short as posible, and its not to start the discussion all over again,
BUT!
See Niles09 ya just will not let it go
>its not to start the discussion
to late
>for ME its "logic"
This is not logic its just your world view and a religes one at that based on faith thats all just faith, if you ever stud up in a scince convention and said
Will my proof is "I think it makes scance" and to me its "logical" IF you did that out HARD FACTS! to back it up
then you would be asked to go see a docter as you would be seen as STACK RAVING MAD.
Stop parming your faith of as logic it is not and never will be if all you can ever do is say
"Will i think im right so I am" Then your just making storys thats all.
Now right a paper and sumit it pear revue and stop preching you MAD LOGIC to the sain.
We have better things to do like findng out how the world works than wasting it on none thirsy and half baked
rubesh parmed off as logic
Look your are wrong I know you think you are right but to the sain you have proven
that you are mad so your view are suspect.
Saying that
Good luck and my your god go with you
-
Nexus this was to Harloff, I just wanted to answer his questions ok, just to be nice not to ignore him, and STOP that logic thing we have a different view of waht logic is so stop it, I dont believe logic is science ok? The stratego game requires a bit of logic the tacticvs in Layo requires a bit of logic but it aint science, and if you think such think aint logic then it becuase we do have a different view of logic and then DO NOT answer cause then we can keep discussing something where we actually aint discussin the same. AND STOP CALLING IT MAD LOGIC, adn do not at all %¤&¤%¤%#% call me mad, so far Ive been really nice so shut the hell up
some GM please freeze this threat, or no wait! let Nexus get his last word first so he can feel fine.
-
>AND STOP CALLING IT MAD LOGIC
Hay Niles09 if your a christen
Then Forgive me
>different view of waht logic is so stop it
Look go read up on LOGIC please.
and you did say you wonted to "end this".
But I see now what you ment with "end this" was you wonted me to stop pushing you.
so alowing you to keep on pushing you piont of view.
Sorry thats not how an open and free debate works.
Just like all religens in history when the fact stop fiting the thirey
they try and silance the criticks. It use to the at the stake now its by calling on the GMS.
If as you say your faith can take this then dont ask thows that push you to stop
and then when things dont go your own way ask that the whole debat be ended.
It just seems rude.
Like I said befor
Right a papaer on your new and astounding form of logic and send it in for review to a scintifc genrnel.
I would realy like to see what they say out it.
From what I can see it will go some thing like this
evaltion is wrong becosue
"Well you have not got all the ansers"
So ID must be right as it dos"
The ansers to all being "we have faith that god did it"
Becouse well "That looks logicl to me"
If thats all then you have them im going to be on your back all the way in this open debate.
Good luck and my your god go with you
-
I did read it up. It means things that have a connection, and I KNOW that there a connections between my faith and the real world, and listen, we are different here, cause you do not believe in anything greater, so accept it, thats my view, consider seeing things like I do before you call me or my logic mad, cause it really hurts ok. I why like this debat to end cause its not sane anymore, not in our believes, but in the way we throw rocks at eachother. respond if you like, if you would like to have the last word then dont wriet thing as a question. And the thing before was to Harloff. yes Im a christian, and indeed I would be happy to forgive you, after all we've spent some good hours in the game. But you must regret what you've said or It wont do anything good. If you started writing all that >_< because Ive offended you then sorry.
-
I didn't see that you had postet an answer before just now. That is why it has taken me so long not becuase i gave up...
Niles09 - 11/30/2005 2:17 ok, the eye, I find it a bag since I think its the change that it would succed is to small, you got a good point that when a specie got the eye, most thing would go from there, but my point is the space between having the cells in the brain and actually getting a slight version, involves so much time and so much chance for going lost, so its too far out. Other examples is the organ system, that must be created somehow at the same time.
There is no one that states that the eye was created just like that *snaps his fingers* the basic thing for an eye is a light sensitive cell of sorts. These do exist for species much further down in the evolutionairy chain. Hence the could have evolved into an eye by slowly growing more and more light sensitive cells and a better system for interpreting the informations coming from these cells. But the real issue here is whether it can be shown that it is unlikly that such an evolution would take place. No one can look on a system and just saying i didn't think it is possible. You would have to prove that it is indeed impossible by model calculations or by experiments. These systems are simply to complex for the human brain to calculate likelyhood without the help of a computer. Or you can present a model that is a refinement of the other model and show that your new parts to the model exist. But you cannot implement a "designer" without naming this designer and proving its exsistance. This is the crusial part, and I don't think many scientist question that Jesus has lived but there is no proof that he was gods son.
Niles09 - 11/30/2005 2:17 About God doing it my point is he does push the evolution a bit, not so it is instant, he makes sure that those species which is beginnig to get the eye dont dissapear.
As I stated earlier there is no reason why a designer should interfere at this point, since species with superior genes will survive acording to the theory of survival of the fittest.
Niles09 - 11/30/2005 2:17 About our useless parts, they are parts we had earlier in the evolution, to help us survive at that time, and I dont think they are disturbing in anyway, so why should God remove them? About scientic proofs, well I cant put it under a scope, but there is fx the history I told before, which is true, and there are others, besides as Ive said the world is so complicated putted toegether yet so logical, that I dont think its made by noone, for ME its "logic" that there would be something greater. when I talk about darwism I talk about the evolution, which so far I know mostly is controlled by the survival of the fittest, and (now Im past teh what darwism is) God ;)
One of major constituenst to the evolutionairy theory is "the survivel of the fittest" but changes are driven by mutation and DNA exchange between species.
But the main point here is that, the scientific logic is "things that can be disproven and things tha can't" if you suggest something that cannot be verified by hard facts e.g. the existance of god. that is simply not science. This might seem ilogical to you but that is the hard facts of modern science. If you go back to the greeks you would see a logic/philosofi based science and most of the theories have been proven false since that. Eventhough the idea of an atom constituing all things was invented by the greeks.
-
Just so
>But the main point here is that, the scientific logic is "things that can be disproven and things tha can't" if you suggest something that cannot be verified by hard facts e.g. the >existance of god. that is simply not science. This might seem ilogical to you but that is the hard facts of modern science. If you go back to the greeks you would see a logic/philosofi >based science and most of the theories have been proven false since that. Eventhough the idea of an atom constituing all things was invented by the greeks.
Ok pure Logic
>I KNOW that there a connections between my faith and the real world,
Ok lets look at this you know
1st peren andidotel evidance
>My faith is real
Yes I think that you could demastart that you have real faith
Throw your actions and by directly demenstating it throw direct and indirect sbservation.
So you have real faith you are in the world so ergo your faith is in the world and can be said to be throw this
Irefutebly connected to the world.
So you HAVE proven you have FAITH
Now is what you belive in with this FAITH "real",
you have yet to prove this.
Just haveing faith in god
dos not that god real or that this god is any thing more that
a MEME of god that lives in your mind.
You have to prove god is real with out relying on your faith as proof.
Now get out of that one
-
Luck does not exist, there is only an individuals failure to be aware of their own self-limitations and the limitations of the event at hand. Without full understanding of what's going on, who's involved and what's required to safely succeed one should not succumb to the blindness of ego and the bias of self-image. In other words:
- always do your best to be aware of the situation
- understand your skills and weaknessess
- don't get careless with repetitious tasks
- don't get over-careful with important tasks
- constantly re-evaluate your situation and take appropriate action
Which can be summarised as: "Quit while the winning is good, otherwise you'll face the inevitably of going broke (or getting rediculous amounts of DTs in the case of Layonara or getting rediculous amounts of DTs in the case of women)."
-
"As I stated earlier there is no reason why a designer should interfere at this point, since species with superior genes will survive acording to the theory of survival of the fittest."
No thats not what I meant. I meant that those species that which maybe starts to have a few light cells outside, dont die, do they can evolve on into they get some sort of vision.
"One of major constituenst to the evolutionairy theory is "the survivel of the fittest" but changes are driven by mutation and DNA exchange between species."
yes I knew that.
-
there is a problem here, you see while I dont believe that such things ad the eye or organs could evolve by luck, you ignore things like the history I told (and I can tell more if you like, not some Ive heard from my friend who heard it from... no Ive heard it from the ones that experienced it.) So we can never come to and agreement, now again I would say something about logic, but its not worth it anymore. Ive proven God excist for myself, trust me, ive always had an inborn hardness of accepting things that cant be explained by science.
"Just haveing faith in god
dos not that god real or that this god is any thing more that
a MEME of god that lives in your mind."
I could explode now, damn that could make me mad. But thinking of all the enjoyment Ive had playing with you in Layonara takes it. This all crappy topic saddens me, damn why did it go this way? That saddens me.
Bye Spugle, I just cant play with you anymore without having that ithcy feeling in my backhead.
-
I think this thread has run its course and is no longer 'Just for fun'.
-
I agree with Ed this thread has gone too far. When players are refusing to rp/adventure with other players because of OOC reasons as it is happening now I think it’s time to end this discussion. Maybe the “do you believe in science/god” threads should be stopped as well as they can have the same effect on the player base.
-
I have to concur...there has already been a character or two who's character description, in game, invites a sharp stick in the eye. And this thread seems to be fueling it.
Hasn't stopped me RP'ing with them...but it's right off the chart otherwise.
*Feels all whiny, goes off to get a root beer*
-
Nexus a last note maybe you'll come to understand this. Im not dumb. When I saw that site, it only shocked me that there was an organisation against a belief that pushed people towards good. Ive already thought about that, the feelings ive had could be my mind, long ago. I dont base my believes on feelings Ive had, not without the things that have happened outside my head, not things that was unlikely to happen, no things that physically was impossible. There is another thing, no I better not say that, you should know it, we're talked alot about it already.
all respect for cursing rules but this is some stupid &%%&¤%&¤¤%&¤&%¤ crap!
Im sorry, this whole thing saddens me cause Spugle was one of the best chars I knew, but no matter what, I can't forget this. I can't forget what you said about my believes. sorry :(
-
I think we have had enough in this thread for now. I am freezing it.