The proof that women are evil!

[Snowleaf]

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.

[Niles09]

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.

[Harloff]

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.

[Harloff]

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?

[Harloff]

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.

[Niles09]

How did the eye evolve?

[PsychicToaster]

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.

[Niles09]

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.

[PsychicToaster]

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

[Niles09]

"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?

[EdTheKet]

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

[Niles09]

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.

[PsychicToaster]

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.

[Niles09]

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.

[NEXUS7]

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

[Niles09]

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.

[freemen2]

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

[Harloff]

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.

[Harloff]

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.

[NEXUS7]

>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.