|
|
Quote
nat smythe :
1. prove to me how education and prosperity lead to the decline in Christianity; and where is this decline, the only declines i know of in Christianity are in the liberal and Anglo-Catholic churches who accept science over God and the Bible. thats seems to be extremely ironic with your point.
and maybe with prosperity you can ponder over the verse "how hard it is for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven".
There is definitely a correlation: the more educated a person or society becomes the less fundamentalist they become in their religious views. I guess I can't say that there is a definite causation here but I am sure you would agree that over the centuries an increase in knowledge and critical thinking has been accompanied by a decrease in the power of religion and belief.
Quote
2. for your second point; weren't you just saying evolutions fact? hahaha looks like your denying your previous ground when you come up with the stumbling block of people who actually take seriously darwinism and apply it to the world not just "selectively" read it like you do.
so if this scientific theory is a truth (even though you just denied it), what is wrong by drawing conclusion from this truth; for example evolutionary racism? are you saying you have morals, cos i remember hearing you say you didnt? wow your hypocrisy is revealing itself.
What? Evolution is a Scientific Theory and as such it is as much a fact as Relativity. You have the incorrect idea that science is some kind of life philosophy. There's an old joke that Gravity is a law but that doesn't mean we should all lie down flat in order to follow the law of gravity to it's natural conclusion.
I went and had a look at the wiki site you used for your definition of a theory, and I am now convinced that you were trying to deceive intentionally. The paragraph you quoted was directly above a paragraph which distinguished a Scientific theory from a normal theory.
Quote
3. well if i "seriously can't reading what you're writing" haha neither can you. i just said if you couldnt read, ive shown you evidence for God but you wont accept it from your prior convinced (well not exactly) evidence of evolution. but dont feel sad, i dont accept evolution because of my prior conviction of Gods sovereignty and my logical conclusion prior even to that conviction that evolution is impossible without God, and God says evolution didnt happen. so in my mind thats a double NO for evolution. game over. but remember i did say you wouldnt like being called a hypocrit but if im delusional then your even more delusional than me. your not even sure of evolution but you let it take priority over evidence for God which i am 100% sure of. there you go.
It's funny how you try to use the rational thought that goes into science and which is diametrically opposed to belief. You try to accuse science of the very things which it opposes and that can be a very subversive yet powerful line of argument. I accuse you of being delusional and you just throw it back in my face without any backing...
You try to say that you would have dismissed evolution even without your fundamental beliefs. I find this highly unlikely! It is generally the case that people who reject evolution are also people who believe some kind of creation story which is contradicted by evolution. Is this a coincidence?
Quote
4. initially about science / schools whatever you were trying to suggest that education is supressed by Christianity. i said no because statistically Christians support schools and education probably 1000 times more than say science departments do. subsequently you tried to distance science from education by saying science teachers are not scientists; im sure our good friend simuse wont like that, because from my understanding he is a teacher, and a scientist; a science teacher? (correct me if im wrong)
you wouldnt want your teachers teaching without actually researching for themselves would you? thats inconsistent and a danger to the education system? come on you must agree with me here, its not possible for someone who isnt a mathematician to become a maths teacher. that is the truth.
the point about Christians in Africa and scientists NOT in africa is just highlighting the point, Christians would rather teach people who've never heard of science, science - so it can benefit and save their lives; but scientists would rather find out whether billionares can live on Mars before the year 3000. and what does this all cost? money.
Christians (and i should say some who arent) want to get the AIDs drug to millions of Africans, what does this cost? money. what are scientists using it on? bloody Mars.
Again what is your point? Evolution is still a fact...
Quote
5. my last point which actually was pretty easy to understand. "science" (the collection of official sciences and what might or might not be science) is a double-edged sword. it can do as much damage as it can do good; from the Atomic bomb to electricity, the electric chair to anti-Cancer drugs, illicit recreational drugs to life support machines.
how can you put your faith in science as a whole? the answer; you can't. since science is not defined by an underlying idealogy (like say, Christianity) it is impossible to distinguish between what it can be used for; good or evil. and how can you say whats good and evil when you dont even believe in that (like you)??
My faith in science? That has no meaning. There's a difference between science and research and development. What I am talking about is forming theories and explaining obersvations, this is a different area to building rockets or creating vaccines.
In any case the uses or conclusions people take from a Scientific Theory have no bearing on it's the truth. This much is clear, how many times must I have to repeat it though?
On Morality: Morality, recognition of concepts of good and evil do make sense within an evolutionary framework. All moral behaviour can usually be explained in that it is beneficial to the survival of an individual or that it is beneficial to the survival of the individual's family (and therefore their genes).
This video is an interesting watch. It's all about symbiosis and social and moral behaviour in humans (i think):
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=8068309038544717701&q=dawkins+nice+guys
|
|
|
stop saying evolution is fact, its not. your fooling yourself.
to jonnymartyr
i said this before
nat smythe
my view of a theory came from wikipedia. its not my fault that people use Christianity as an excuse to promote racism; but they have no biblical grounds to do it on (racism is never, ever encouraged in the Bible). but if i read a verse (hypothetically) that said "thou must smighteth all negroes" and read it and said that it had no racial connotations; should i be shocked to find the congregation subsequently abused people according to their race; is it my fault? yes. it is the same, evolution paves the way for racism in its basic teachings, we all evolve from wherever, upon observance it is possible to come to the conclusion that some are indeed less evolved than others, in retrospect the less evolved are obviously not as "human" as the ones who are; but is it evolutions fault for teaching things that lead to that (actually imprinted in its doctrine)? id say yes and you can observe that it leads to racist bigotry; socio-Darwinism for example.
there is no material in the Bible that can support any kind of abuse, but darwinism has all the possibilities, but of course you can choose to ignore them. so your not being true to Christianity if your racist, but are you being true to evolution if you are? maybe you can answer that.
kashmir, without acting in the theory of evolution it becomes irrelevant. we live in the law of gravity, we observe the theory of relativity; evolution means nothing unless you help it shape your thinking and understanding.
how does science oppose war? i wouldve thought war was impossible without science. i said science has no underlying idealogy. you obviously skipped that part.
ive been convinced that evolution didnt happen longer than ive been a "creationist" as you call it. correctly, i just believe the Bible. but id thought about evolution before id thought about how God did creation; and its impossible without God, but God says it didnt happen.
i think this is all off topic. and ive already said what ive said here, and youve asked the same questions, and of course, we are going round in circles. how bout i give you more evidence that theres God with a mathematical theory.
zero cannot equal one. division cannot make zero into one, neither can multiplication. but using the outside factor of addition, zero can be turned into one. zero is by definition, nothing. addition is an outside factor, and must exist prior to one for it to be possible (it is not a number, but it is something). addition makes the one, not the zero. zero is the nothing that addition makes one out of. correct?
this is an allegory for the creation of the universe. stating that it is impossible for their to be A (any number) without a B (addition). as you know division can't make a number out of nothing, neither can multiplication (representing colliding matter). because for division and multiplication to work on zero, addition is needed to make the number 'active' in a sense.
so addition was mathematically needed for zero to become one (for the creation of the universe). agreed? addition is not a number, but it is a mathematical being impossible to confine.
the conclusion is, addition can make one out of zero. in no other way can zero become one. in no other way can nothing turn into a universe without God.
by the way your definition of morality is hilarious. and about stem cell research, are chickens humans? no, end of case.
|
|
|
i don't understand how evolution supports racism, would someone clarify this for me?
21/08/04 :: 20/12/04 :: 22/11/06 :: 16/06/07 :: 16/08/08 :: 28/08/11
Have you seen fattys leg? Its fucking fucked! :: Matt
ZAFO!
|
|
|
you can come to the conclusion that some are less or more evolved than others. i dont know how you can come to a different conclusion, do we all somehow evolve at the same rate? thats not possible.
|
|
|
The colour of our skin has nothing to do with how evolved we are. We are the same species, the melanin pigmentation is simply there to protect humans in hotter climates from constant exposure to the sun. In a way people from hotter climate sporting darker skin tones supports the theory of human adaption.
and any level headed biologist is aware of this, only those with a loose grasp of basic human biology would think that negroes are "less evolved" because to put it bluntly, they arent. and this isnt a reflection of evolution at all
sorry i posted that too late
21/08/04 :: 20/12/04 :: 22/11/06 :: 16/06/07 :: 16/08/08 :: 28/08/11
Have you seen fattys leg? Its fucking fucked! :: Matt
ZAFO!
|
|
|
why am I not surprised that there is talk of racism in the Christian bit?
|
|
|
there is no physical evidence that makes black people any inferior to whites,
racism comes from intolerance, prejudice and victimisation, NOT evolution.
21/08/04 :: 20/12/04 :: 22/11/06 :: 16/06/07 :: 16/08/08 :: 28/08/11
Have you seen fattys leg? Its fucking fucked! :: Matt
ZAFO!
|
|
|
but why have people used evolution to justify racism and got away with it?
racism has nothing to do with black and white by the way, just take a look at africa; the rwandan genocide was spurred by one race thinking they were superior to another and tried to back it up with evolution. why do you think the nazis did scientific experiments on the jews? because they thought they were lowly evolved.
from my understanding of evolution, however limited kashmir might suggest it is, i dont understand how it does not condone racism. i understand how skin colour is determined by environment, but does that mean white people who live in australia will turn out aboriginal in 1000 years? yeah so what its genetic adaption but there are just so many holes in evolution for it to ever seem possible. and even if there weren't holes, the chance of it actually taking place is impossible without God, and God says it didnt happen.
and hitchcockm00 think before you chime in.
|
|
|
People have justified racism with evolution for their own evil purposes, and it certainly hasnt happened in recent years, and its certainly not beleived by intelligent people, just gullable redneck KKK members who just wanted any old excuse for their hatred and were stupid enough to beleive it.
racism stems from human ignorance, not medical or biological reasons.
The causes for it are purely psychological, evolution does not support racist groups: Rasist groups try to bend evolution to justify themself. But unfortunately if they looked into the biology of it, their justifications would be useless.
Of course, as much as you hate the phrase, the changing of a skin colour from white to black takes thousands of years, we cannot record it in our lifetimes, but yes, as humans slowly adapt to their surroundings, australians will get darker in skin pigmentation. you can see it on a very small scale as humans tan when they emmigrate to hotter countries.
the people of australia are natively black, the white population stems from the colonization of australia by the british in the 1700's.
21/08/04 :: 20/12/04 :: 22/11/06 :: 16/06/07 :: 16/08/08 :: 28/08/11
Have you seen fattys leg? Its fucking fucked! :: Matt
ZAFO!
|
|
|
yes so does that mean if white people live in africa for 1000 years will they end up black?
sounds like a stupid questions but seriously, are you sure the genes arent naturally black, to my knowledge black people in england dont get whiter because there isnt as much sun, however you're right that some white peoples pigment in countries like australia is much darker than say england, but thats not entirely true as a whole. it can't be generalized, because there are families that are hundreds of years older than mine (as in, have been in Australia), who are still whiter than us. i dont see how humans can be generalized as a whole, so does this mean if i live around jews long enough ill have a big nose, or if i live in the middle east long enough ill be hairy, and if i live in sweden long enough ill have blond hair? this might sound stupid. but i think races are genetically specific not a genetic adaption to outside circumstances; and your going to cringe at this, but its a result of the Tower of Babel.
so overall the question is, do you think all humans are genetically the same until you consider outside factors?
i seriously cant understand this thinking.
|
|
|
I see none of the creationists have answered my point about Young Earth creationism and carbon dating, made on Page 43.
Well there's a surprise.
Shall we try again?
(a) is young earth creationism feasible?
If you answer Yes, then....
(b) So .... everything mankind knows about chemistry, physics and geophysics is therefore wrong?
130200Bristol 250600Glastonbury 080401Notts 190801VFest 011101Leicester 240802Reading 281103Nottingham 031203NEC 050604RockAmRing 201204EarlsCourt 280606ShepB 200806Lowlands 181106Sheffield 221106Wembley 160607Wembley 101109NIA 280811Reading 301012LG
|
|
|
Let's be clear racist interpretations and abuses of evolutionary theory have absolutely no bearing on the truth of evolution.
|
|
|
to you yes (and probably in its basic definition, yes), but to some the truth of evolution IS racism. can science draw the line on what level evolution is meant to be taken, or do you actually have to let morality get a grip on it?
and tell me what you think of this theory;
oh and to simuse, paul can answer all your young earth creationist questions, im sure he enjoys that. i highly doubt that im a young earth creationist but i seem to agree with most that he says.
nat smythe
zero cannot equal one. division cannot make zero into one, neither can multiplication. but using the outside factor of addition, zero can be turned into one. zero is by definition, nothing. addition is an outside factor, and must exist prior to one for it to be possible (it is not a number, but it is something). addition makes the one, not the zero. zero is the nothing that addition makes one out of. correct?
this is an allegory for the creation of the universe. stating that it is impossible for their to be A (any number) without a B (addition). as you know division can't make a number out of nothing, neither can multiplication (representing colliding matter). because for division and multiplication to work on zero, addition is needed to make the number 'active' in a sense.
so addition was mathematically needed for zero to become one (for the creation of the universe). agreed? addition is not a number, but it is a mathematical being impossible to confine.
the conclusion is, addition can make one out of zero. in no other way can zero become one. in no other way can nothing turn into a universe without God.
|
|
|
OK, this has gone on for a great many posts, so I think it's time to snuff this one out: EVOLUTION DOES NOT PROMOTE RACISM IN ANY WAY!:
Firstly, when properly understood, Evolution refutes racism. To see this, you have to understand that before Darwin's time, people categorised different plants and animals into "kinds", which they defined along morphological lines. This gave rise to the misleading conception of distinct human races, which were and are crudely delimited by outward physical appearance. In fact, genetic studies have shown that humans are remarkably homogeneous genetically, and since we can all (theoretically!) interbreed, all humans are only one biological race. Darwinism helps eliminate typological thinking, and with it the basis for racism. Therefore, Evolution does not teach racism; it teaches the very opposite!
Secondly, there's been a significant amount of confusion over the word "evolved", and the concept of "more evolved". To say that one individual is "more evolved" than another doesn't really make sense. Evolution concerns itself with the shift in gene frequencies in a population over time, not with the genetic make-up of any one individual. The combination of genes that find themselves in an individual's body is essentially random, and largely irrelevant to the process.
Thirdly, racism is thousands of years older than the theory of Evolution, and its prevalence has probably decreased since Darwin's day; certainly slavery is much less prevalent now. That is the opposite of what we would expect if evolution promotes racism.
Fourthly, to claim that Evolution leads to anything is fallacious. This is an example of the naturalistic fallacy - the argument that how things are implies how they ought to be. But "is" does not imply "ought." Evolution is a scientific theory which only tells how things are; it does not say how they should be. Some misguided fools may think Evolution gives them the right to kill Jews or Blacks, but they're wrong. Dead wrong.
Finally, and most importantly, While we may disagree over exactly what they are, the moral implications of Evolution do not impact in any way on its truth or falsity as a description of the origin of biodiversity on Earth. I've said this many times, but people are still debating whether or not Evolution leads to racism, so clearly it needed saying AGAIN  . So, can we please stop talking about the non-existent "implications" and "consequences" of Evolution, and focus on the evidence for or against it as a Scientific Theory?
Also, a quick summary of the questions I've asked that are as yet unanswered:
- I’m not suggesting that this discrepancy automatically makes you wrong, because that’s fallacious, but nonetheless, how do you account for the statistical fact that you disagree with the majority of relevant scientists?
- What do you think of the observations outlined and explained by Ken Miller on the subject of ape chromosomes in the video I provided?
I'm not trying to be facetious here; I appreciate that it's hard to answer everything in one post, so I like to keep reminding people rather than letting it slide . Also, if I still haven't answered any of yours, please point them out; it's easy to lose them in a fast-moving debate.
To ask what is the meaning of the universe is like asking what is the angular momentum of Much Ado About Nothing. ~ Steven Poole
|
|
|
remind me again who campaigned to free the slaves in England?
who determines whether it is wrong to draw social conclusions from Darwinism?
how on earth does a shift in gene frequency remain consistent with all people let alone an individual population?
if we evolved from lower species, are we going to transform into higher ones and why arent monkeys (who are our "genetic cousins") turning into humans over time?
and doesnt my mathematical equation cancel out the possibility of there being no God?
|
|
|
Quote
nat smythe :
to you yes (and probably in its basic definition, yes), but to some the truth of evolution IS racism. can science draw the line on what level evolution is meant to be taken, or do you actually have to let morality get a grip on it?
You take evolution to be something it is not. Even if evolution led to morally reprehensible conclusions would this necessarily mean it was untrue?
Quote
and tell me what you think of this theory;
the conclusion is, addition can make one out of zero. in no other way can zero become one. in no other way can nothing turn into a universe without God.
and doesnt my mathematical equation cancel out the possibility of there being no God?
Well I must say I honestly don't know how the universe began. I don't know if the universe in fact ever began, it may have always existed. I don't know how life began. This may be a foreign concept to you but in science and in my life "I don't know" is a perfectly good answer to a question.
If god always existed and is timeless, then it is perfectly conceivable that existence and the universe have the same propertites... I don't know!
So your "mathematical" "equation" actually proves and means nothing.
|
|
|
Quote
remind me again who campaigned to free the slaves in England?
William Wilberforce I think, what's your point?
Quote
who determines whether it is wrong to draw social conclusions from Darwinism?
No-one determines it's wrong. I personally feel that trampling on others to get ahead in life (a simplification of Social Darwinism) is undesirable, but that's a personal political opinion, not a scientific one. My main point, as ever, is that while we disagree on what exactly they are, the moral consequences of Darwinism have no impact on its truth or falsity as a description of the natural world. Invoking the moral implications of Evolution is still a naturalistic fallacy, and has no bearing on this debate.
Quote
how on earth does a shift in gene frequency remain consistent with all people let alone an individual population?
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're asking here, perhaps you could rephrase?
Quote
if we evolved from lower species, are we going to transform into higher ones and why arent monkeys (who are our "genetic cousins") turning into humans over time?
You seem to again be suggesting that we evolved from monkeys. I believe I've already answered this one:
We are NOT descended from chimps. In fact, Evolution purports that humans and other apes are descended from a common ancestor, whose population split to become two (and more) lineages. This question is rather like asking, "If many Americans and Australians are descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans around?" To be fair to you, though, the statement "Humans descended from apes" is a common mistake, even among people who accept Evolution. The correct statement is "Humans and apes both descended from a common ancestor."
(As a quick aside, I think the very idea of us being a "higher species" is just anthropocentric arrogance. Admittedly, our high intelligence and sociality are impressive and very successful adaptations. However, you could make the same case for bats with their amazing ability to navigate by echolocation, or for the cheetah's supreme physical speed...)
Quote
and doesnt my mathematical equation cancel out the possibility of there being no God?
Your mathematical analogy is really just a numerical sleight of hand, but the point is still valid. I'll just qoute Kashmir since I totally agree:
Kashmir
I honestly don't know how the universe began. I don't know if the universe in fact ever began, it may have always existed. I don't know how life began. This may be a foreign concept to you but in science and in my life "I don't know" is a perfectly good answer to a question.
Since I don't know and I don't think we ever will for certain, then I guesss you could posit a God to create the Universe, or call the Universe itself God, whichever takes your fancy. But I see no reason to postulate a supernatural cause for anything beyong that initial moment, so the argument from first cause doesn't really affect my views on Evolution or the existence of a personal saviour God.
There we go, I've answered 4 of your 5 questions, which I invited, and I'm waiting to answer the fifth. However, I notice your post was conspicuously devoid of answers to MY questions, . So here they are again:
- I’m not suggesting that this discrepancy automatically makes you wrong, because that’s fallacious, but nonetheless, how do you account for the statistical fact that you disagree with the majority of relevant scientists?
- What do you think of the observations outlined and explained by Ken Miller on the subject of ape chromosomes in the video I provided?
To ask what is the meaning of the universe is like asking what is the angular momentum of Much Ado About Nothing. ~ Steven Poole
|
|
|
ill answer all your questions in one (i'll admit truthfully i didnt fully understand a lot of the video and gave up watching it, keep in mind i am 16); i put the knowledge of God above all other knowledge; therefore all else is irrelevant, especially ideas that contradict God's word. im sure i said that before.
i didnt say we came from monkeys. i said they are our genetic cousins (word for word) which is what you said by saying we both came from a common ancestor; im not saying that we came from apes, we already covered that, but how come if both apes and humans came from the same lower species, why is there difference? surely it cant be that theyre different 'kinds'?
my misunderstood question was one stemming from what you said about shifts in gene frequencies causing evolution. my question was how can that law remain consistent over all mankind let alone a single population?
oh, and i believe william wilberforce was very much a Christian.
|
|
|
Quote
nat smythe :
i i put the knowledge of God above all other knowledge; therefore all else is irrelevant, especially ideas that contradict God's word. im sure i said that before.
Apathy is a very dangerous thing.
Quote
oh, and i believe william wilberforce was very much a Christian.
Again, what is your point? Mahatma Gandhi was very much a Hindu.
And will someone please answer simuse's question?
As cool as a year 7 on the first day of term...
|
|
|
nat smythe
i didnt say we came from monkeys. i said they are our genetic cousins (word for word) which is what you said by saying we both came from a common ancestor; im not saying that we came from apes, we already covered that, but how come if both apes and humans came from the same lower species, why is there difference? surely it cant be that theyre different 'kinds'
Fair enough, you did say genetic cousins, sorry about that!
Genetic sequencing data suggests humans and chimps shared a common ancestor about 5 million years ago. The reason chimps aren't turning into humans over time is that we're now on different "branches" of the evolutionary "tree" if you like ( see this diagram).
To illustrate this: when a population becomes separated in two by a physical barrier, the two groups may have different selection pressures on them, so they evolve in different directions (for example, Darwin's Finches). Eventually, their genomes will become so different that they'll no longer be able to interbreed successfully. Therefore they can no longer exchange genetic information, and so speciation has occurred.
The idea that chimpanzees should slowly be turning into humans over time seems to stem from the misconception that humans are somehow the pinnacle of evolution, some goal to strive for. This is not the case: our ancestors successfullly occupied one niche in the environment, so survived to evolve into us, and chimpanzee ancestors occupied another, so surived to evolve into them. Therefore, there's no reason to expect chimpanzees to somehow evolve into humans; they're on their own, parallel evolutionary path. (Hope that's clear; let me know if it isn't and I'll try and explain it better  )
nat smythe
ill answer all your questions in one (i'll admit truthfully i didnt fully understand a lot of the video and gave up watching it, keep in mind i am 16); i put the knowledge of God above all other knowledge; therefore all else is irrelevant, especially ideas that contradict God's word. im sure i said that before.
The main point made in the video was that the chromosome evidence given very strongly suggests evolution by common descent. To give an analogy:
Scientists have known for a long time that the human genome is made up of 23 cigarettes. Each has a butt at one end and a filter at the other. However, the chimpanzee and other great ape genomes are made up of 24 cigarettes. Scientists also suspect from other evidence that humans and chimps had a common ancestor. The outright loss of a whole cigarette would be devastating to an organism and could not happen. So, if the common descent hypothesis is to be true, we would expect to find that one of the human cigarettes was made by fusing together two chimp cigarettes.
Upon looking more closely at human cigarettes, which is only possible with modern technology, we find that one of our cigarettes is actually two cigarettes end on end, and looks like this: butt------filter-butt-------filter. In fact, it's even more obvious that this human cigarette is two chimp ones fused together, because the bits between the butts and filters also correspond.
Therefore, the unavoidable conclusion is that there may still be an omnipotent designer, since by definition he can do anything, but if there is, he has purposely designed the chimp and human genomes to create the illusion of common ancestry.
Do you see how this could be very compelling evidence for common ancestry? And if you do not agree, then how do you explain human and chimpanzee cigarettes (chromosomes) correspond as they do?
To be honest, all I really wanted was a written confirmation from you that if any evidence came along strongly contradicting your previously held beliefs, you'd reject it without question, which you just admitted. I'm afraid that brings us to a dead end: you've openly stated that you will never be turned from your view, which renders any further efforts I might make to do so futile. I'll still be sticking around talking about this though, and I'll gladly try to answer any questions you have on Evolution, but not in order to convince you, since you've assured me it can't be done. It's been nice debating with you, though
To ask what is the meaning of the universe is like asking what is the angular momentum of Much Ado About Nothing. ~ Steven Poole
|
|
|
I am a firm beliver that without religion there would be a dramatically decreased amount of wars and tension between places and people. Im not saying that religion is the sole causer, but there is alot of influence to wars from religion
NOW WHATS THE FUCKING POINT
Im an atheist but I NEVER put anyones view down i will always let them speak there mind and yes i will put my point across but i wont declare anyone wrong even if i do think its so totally stupid
most of my female friends are christian and one of them very Christian and even she has asked me what im doin in a christian school. Now because i was christened i have just as much rght as she does to be there. Just because i didnt want to declare my undying love to a god who in MY opinion doesnt exist people think i dont belong in my own school. Now make your own mind up its just religion fires me up so much. Grrr
Sorry if i have offended anyone, i tend to keep out this thread coz it irritates me and im sorry i just had a rant
So rant over, for now
10.11.06- MEN Arena
16.06.07- Wembley Stadium
5.11.09- Liverpool Echo Arena
Check out my new mop bling...BLING
|
|
|
Nat,
My original point was that you cannot claim that science is a "double-edge sword" and religion is not - but Kashmir is right, the implications of either of these bears no relation to their inherent truth.
Also, your "mathematical equation" is rubbish - it doesnt mean anything at all. Its far too broad a brushstroke to define something as complicated as the postulated beginning of the universe, and assumes too much to be of any use. Just out of interest, where did you get it from?
|
|
|
Quote
miss_musey :
I am a firm beliver that without religion there would be a dramatically decreased amount of wars and tension between places and people. Im not saying that religion is the sole causer, but there is alot of influence to wars from religion
NOW WHATS THE FUCKING POINT
Im an atheist but I NEVER put anyones view down i will always let them speak there mind and yes i will put my point across but i wont declare anyone wrong even if i do think its so totally stupid
most of my female friends are christian and one of them very Christian and even she has asked me what im doin in a christian school. Now because i was christened i have just as much rght as she does to be there. Just because i didnt want to declare my undying love to a god who in MY opinion doesnt exist people think i dont belong in my own school. Now make your own mind up its just religion fires me up so much. Grrr
Sorry if i have offended anyone, i tend to keep out this thread coz it irritates me and im sorry i just had a rant
So rant over, for now
I dont know about other people on this thread, but I for one am not arguing as such, its an intellectual debate. I am enjoying this thread a hell of a lot, I have learnt a lot from it, I have gained a lot of insight from it. People, either religous or not, enjoy talking passionately about something they strongly beleive in, and you cant do that with just the people who agree. If it irritates you dont read it.
21/08/04 :: 20/12/04 :: 22/11/06 :: 16/06/07 :: 16/08/08 :: 28/08/11
Have you seen fattys leg? Its fucking fucked! :: Matt
ZAFO!
|
|
|
Quote
Also, your "mathematical equation" is rubbish - it doesnt mean anything at all. Its far too broad a brushstroke to define something as complicated as the postulated beginning of the universe, and assumes too much to be of any use. Just out of interest, where did you get it from?
It seemed to me that he was just trying to think for himself, which is laudable I guess, even though I think it was a bunch of words amd numbers signifying nothing!
Nat: I really think your understanding of evolution is far less accurate and in depth as you would like to think. I'm not suprised as there is some pretty complicated stuff intermingled with the superficial way in which the Theory is sometimes presented. I would urge you to perhaps try to understand it better over time, if only so that you can dismiss it with full understanding of what it means. After all, how can you say you don't like green eggs and ham when you haven't even tried it....
Incidentally, I think jomo did a good job of explaining his video with that chromosome prediction thingy!
|
|
|
By the way, I do rather take my hat off to you, Nat, for sticking around all this time fighting your corner. Even if I do disagree with most of what you say, a lot of people would've got bored with it long ago and gone back to discussing Matt's shoes or some other crap.
As cool as a year 7 on the first day of term...
|
