lol Zerwit That makes sense!

The problem is, what if both Athiests and Christians are wrong? Bwahahahah! I''ll see you xians in hell!

Because there are so many different forms of Christianity, and according to some of these forms, all the other people are going to hell!

Thus another question: In the unlikely chance that Christianity is right, how do you know your particular form is correct?

Most Christians don''t like to even think that they might be wrong because they are so afraid of going to hell, which is why they are hard to convince. Anyways they can love a fairy tale character all they want, but they sure aren''t going to heaven for it . Sorry to burst your collective xian bubble!

-David

quote:

---

Original post by Anonypous Moster
1) The Big Bang: My understanding of the big bang is that there was some ball of matter, that exploded, and from the expansion of that matter, the universe was formed. Granted this is a brief summary, but it is the essence of the theory. Only two things are not well understood/explained. First off, where did this matter come from? Second, what made it explode? The best explanation of the first that I''ve heard comes from the equality of energy and mass, and the idea of positive and negative. Essentially it stated that neutral (nothing) separated into positive and negative (Quantum Physics anyone?).

---

I have debated this in my mind alot, and what I can comprehend
it comes down to two methods;

1) Something from nothing
2) Eternal existance
3) I need a new book

If 1 prove true, than the universe will eventually burn
out it''s hydrogen fuels and grow cold and dark.
(The Ice theory of the end of the Universe.)

If 2 proves true, than the universe expands and contracts.
Upon expansion, all matter explodes and eventually clusters
to form more complex matter and eventually forms starts,
galaxies, blackholes, life, etc. At the end, everything
begins to contract and the universe collapses upon itself,
thus breaking all matter into the most basic of elements.
Then, repeat process.
(The Fire theory of the end of the Universe.)

If 3 proves true, which I already need some updated
reading anyway, since I''m bored, than I can''t answer.
I think the most accepted is the fire theory. (Oscillating
universe.)

Keep in mind that just because it can''t be explained,
doesn''t mean it''s God. God also fits into the "eternal
existance" catagory.

> Thus another question: In the unlikely chance that
> Christianity is right, how do you know your particular form is
> correct?

To understand why we believe our particular ''division'' is correct you would have to understand Christianity. You don''t understand it enough however because you are at another place in your life. The critical question for you (that you evidently have answered) is whether life evolved or was created. So the question of which is correct among Christians is irrelevant, so going into that discussion is not worth mentioning.

> Most Christians don''t like to even think that they might be
> wrong because they are so afraid of going to hell, which is why
> they are hard to convince. Anyways they can love a fairy tale
> character all they want, but they sure

I don''t like being wrong, but I''m certainly not afraid of it. I pursue truth as one of the highest pursuits in life.

I thought I would give you these to think about while I rest another day from responding intensely to posts. Taken from pg 31-32 of ''The Facts On Creation vs. Evolution'' by John Ankerberg & John Weldon.

the (c) stands for creationist position, (e) for evolutionist. Prediction is the prediction each side makes, and data is the available data that needs to be explained:

Predictions: (c) eternal omnipotent Creator; (e) eternal matter [ eternal matter is held by some; most scientists now accept the universe had a beginning].
Data: Universe began; matter degrades; life highly ordered.

Predictions: (c) natural laws and character of matter unchanging; (e) matter and laws evolve [held by some; most scientists believe laws are constant].
Data: laws constant; matter constant; no new laws.

Predictions: (c) trend toward degradation; (e) trend toward order.
Data: second law of thermodynamics.

Predictions: (c) creation of life the only possibility; (e) spontaneous generation.
Data: biochemical improbabilities.

Predictions: (c) life unique; (e) life-matter continuum.
Data: life-matter gap; biochemicals [not] formed naturally from nonlife.

Predictions: (c) life eternal; (e) life began.
Data: law of biogenesis.

Predictions: (c) basic categories of life unrelated; (e) all life related.
Data: law of biogenesis; reversion to type; fossil gaps; heterogeneity; simiilarities.

Predictions: (c) world catastrophe; (e) uniformity.
Data: fossils; sedimentary strata; frozen muck; present uniformity.

Predictions: (c) organs always complete; (e) gradual evolution of organs.
Data: organs always fully developed; natural selection culls

Predictions (c) mutations harmful; (e) mutations can improve.
Data: mutations vitiate; laws of information science.

Predictions: (c) language, art, and civilization sudden; (e) civilization gradual.
Data: archeology and anthropology show civilization sudden.

Predictions: (c) man unique; (e) man an animal.
Data: man-animal similarities; also gap - art, language, religion.

Predictions: (c) design manifest; (e) naturalism.
Data: life complex and highly ordered; natural syntheses

quote:

---

Original post by The Kid

I will participate in your survey. I am an avid christian. I also love writing code. Does being Christian or not make me a better coder ? What the FOG do you know/care ? They aren''t related, so there is no way of figuring out, and nothing that ties the two together but chance.

Q : How many athiests does it take to screw in a light bulb ?
A : 0, they let it evolve on its own.

mckracken -
"Well... Supose that there is a god... omnipotent... Could he creates a so big and so hard rock that it could''nt be picked up by himself???"

A stupid, nonsensical question like that does not become anywhere near intelligent just because you add the word "God". I say this because both you and I know that it is a trick question. If you think it is not, you better check your brain, because only 2 of your 3 brain cells are working correctly.

Just grow up a little. There is no problem with someone having a reference to a higher power in their sig. There is a problem if they try to push their beliefs of a higher power on someone else, but that is not happening here. Just let sleeping dogs lie, and get back to writing code; that is, after all, what this forum is about.

The kid

I don''t know what the future holds, but I know who holds the future.

---

I agree that religion and coding are seperate. I do however disagree with the rest of your post. The question "If god is all powerful then can he or she make a rock so large that he or she can not lift it." Is a attack on the idea of giving god attributes, such as all power or all knowing etc only creates contradictions as is shown by the above quote.

Another example is the attach on free will and christianity "If god is all knowing then god would have to know everything that has been, is, and will be (god knows the future). How can you have freewill if god already knows what your going to do?".

Lets not forget the attack on god being all powerful and all good. "If god is all powerful then wouldn''t such a god be capable of the greatest good as well as the greatest evil. Then if god is all good then god''s own nature limits his power.". I think you can see were this is going. Daism seems to be the more enlightened view of god and there aren''t any contradictions.

anyway if people want to put religious references in their sigs more power to them, just don''t expect anyone to convert. I stick to atheism.

quote:

---

Original post by The Kid

First off, I want to apologize for two things. Firstly, my horrible spelling. It was never something I was good at. Secondly I want to apologize to every that my last post may have offended. I don''t believe that you are in any way inferior, just because your non-Christian.

David20321 -
I would like to point out to you that your beliefe about Christianity excluding all other religions is incorrect. I''m not sure where you heard it, but whoever told you must be talking about a different Christianity. My Christianity stresses that the particular label of the religion does not matter, but what gets you to Heaven is your personal relationship with the allknowing, infinate, and personal God, Jesus Christ.

This post has been very interesting to follow. I enjoy discussion religion with people who share my beliefs, and people who oppose them. I think its a good test of both people''s knowledge, and what they believe. But I must agree with many other people that have posted in saying that this isn''t exactly the place to post about religion. Thanks everyone for listening, I''m going to take my own advice now and shut up.

The Kid

I don''t know what the future holds, but I know who holds the future.

---

"personal relationship with the allknowing, infinate, and personal God, Jesus Christ." I hope you see the many contradictions in that signal statement.


On an unrelated topic: The 5 proofs for gods existance have refuted many times. They don''t prove that the christian god exist. It might work for daism though.

I personally lean toward daist view of god (that is god is like a watch maker that creates universes like a watch maker creates watches. There made and left to fend of them selves.). Anyway speaking of religion what the big deal with creation or evolution. It''s prefectly logical to me to say that god created creatures to evolve. I think the catholic church saw this thanks to Renee Descart (i probably spelled his name wrong).

I can sum up orginized religion very simply. We give god all our good trats and were left with crap. Trying reading "Will the center hold" a very handy little book warning my piss off atheist and orginized religious types.

>Predictions: (c) eternal omnipotent Creator; (e) eternal matter >[ eternal matter is held by some; most scientists now accept the >universe had a beginning].
>Data: Universe began; matter degrades; life highly ordered.

Matter doesn''t degrade. One of the *constant* laws of
the scientific physics is that matter cannot be created
nor destroyed. Again, I have old reading materials,
but I doubt the laws of physics have changed.
Matter degrading simply means it changed form... When the
universe collapses upon itself and restarts all matter is
torn down the the lowest of the subatomic particals,
so it doesn''t really matter.

>Predictions: (c) natural laws and character of matter >unchanging; (e) matter and laws evolve [held by some; most >scientists believe laws are constant].
>Data: laws constant; matter constant; no new laws.

Actually, All the creationist here, Including you, Tyreth,
seem to think that the speed of light de-accelerates.
That isn''t very unchanging. Science hols laws as constant.
Again, these are twisted view. Science hold the laws of
physics as unchanging. That is what makes them laws.

>Predictions: (c) trend toward degradation; (e) trend toward >order.
>Data: second law of thermodynamics.

Data: 5 diminsional space, which God doesn''t wish to
be a part of, from what I am told. Told, by you, Tyreth,
and you cronies.

>Predictions: (c) creation of life the only possibility; (e) >spontaneous generation.
>Data: biochemical improbabilities.

Spontaneous generation has been proven to fail when in a glass
of water for a few weeks no complex organisms appear.
That has little to do with mixing chemicals on trillions of
planets for billions of years and generating the very basis
of life.

>Predictions: (c) life unique; (e) life-matter continuum.
>Data: life-matter gap; biochemicals [not] formed naturally from >nonlife.

Biochemicals consist of nonlife. Biochemicals consist of
matter just like everything else. The only difference is
the chemical processes taking place due to the special
combination of chemicals.

>Predictions: (c) life eternal; (e) life began.
>Data: law of biogenesis.

Read above. Also, the bible doesn''t say life is eternal.
God created life, didn''t he?

>Predictions: (c) basic categories of life unrelated; (e) all >life related.
>Data: law of biogenesis; reversion to type; fossil gaps; >heterogeneity; simiilarities.

All life is related because all life shares the same core
concepts. DNA, for example. At the lowest chemical reaction
level, life IS all linked, and all has common ancestry.
Can anyone say.. Prokaryotes? Naah, didn''t think you could.
After all, you obviously flunked biology class.

Life occurs randomly in science. So, if life occurs again on
another planet, it is unbelievable unlikely that it would occur
in the same way. It''s would have DNA or any of our cell
parts; We would be unrelated and therefore unique to each
other.

>Predictions: (c) world catastrophe; (e) uniformity.
>Data: fossils; sedimentary strata; frozen muck; present >uniformity.

World catastrophes that have been detailed and proven
would be the dark ages, caused by a massive volcanic
explosion. There is evidence of a massive flood in the region
that the bible was written, but nowhere else. No recent
flood, anyway. Also consider the the plistoscene age;
The polar icecaps expand and retract, and so water levels
change. Another thing to mention is that Noah was supposed to
have all the land\sky animals on his boat. Obviously he didn''t,
or we would have Dinosuars.

>Predictions: (c) organs always complete; (e) gradual evolution >of organs.
>Data: organs always fully developed; natural selection culls

Wrong, wrong, wrong.
There are types of works and flatworms which have partical
eyes and general nerve coords for basic reflexes. Above
that are animals that have nerve clusters that act
as brains. Above that we have brains. Also, to say that
we are fully developed is to say it is impossible for
a species to exist with better organs. We aren''t perfect,
obviously. Therefore, we aren''t done yet. We never will be
because there is ALWAYS something that can be improved.

>Predictions (c) mutations harmful; (e) mutations can improve.
>Data: mutations vitiate; laws of information science.

Both. Most mutations are bad, but usually the bad ones
get "weeded out" of the system. Natural selection helps keep
1-armed people out. A good mutation would be 4 arms without
damaging some other body part. That would be cool, if you
think about it..

>Predictions: (c) language, art, and civilization sudden; (e) >civilization gradual.
>Data: archeology and anthropology show civilization sudden.

Early pre-human species developed groups, like dogs.
That would be the "you help me you share the profit" stage.
Then they started grouping together in more advance structures
as communication developed. Of course, if you think about
it we are just pack animals with *complex* language.

So animals at first had basic signals like "woof" and "yip."
Sometimes "yap."

Then animals get more advanced with sharing ideas and
giving signals. This "feature" gradually gets better and
better. Now we can argue.
So then people noticed some liquids stain! So they started
drawings eventually. No history book will tell you half-art
or pre-art forms existed and evolved into full blown
impressionism.

>Predictions: (c) man unique; (e) man an animal.
>Data: man-animal similarities; also gap - art, language, >religion.

"Man" as you call it, are animals because we fit the
classification in every way. We also have the same
cellular structure and the same common traits that show
we are all from the same original semi-living microbe; DNA,
for example.

Keep in mind that language is simply an advanced form
of communication, just a bit more so than barking.

Predictions: (c) design manifest; (e) naturalism.
Data: life complex and highly ordered; natural syntheses

I have to go; I will answer this last one shortly.
Netscape is about the flood the swapdrive.

quote:

---

Original post by Anonymous Poster
Predictions: (c) design manifest; (e) naturalism.
Data: life complex and highly ordered; natural syntheses

I have to go; I will answer this last one shortly.
Netscape is about the flood the swapdrive.

---

I forgot to mention; -Frapazoid

That wouldn''t be the first time.

Ok.. I just cleared my swap partition and I am ready tor
roll agian!

Now then.. Well, I say it was natural.
Now, I common question for this is "Why do we form
in just the right way to work proper?"

There is a great answer to that, and guess what it it?
WE SURVIVED.

Those whom fail in nature appear often. They appear,
and they die. If all the failues die, that leaves
the successful species to rule. Every living thing
on the planet counts under this group. Every extinct
group does not. Usually species will go extinct because
they become obsolete or a natural disaster. How is this
different? Well, these "failure" species I am refering
to never get very far in the first place. They usually
have a population under 10. They are the mutations that
just don''t make it. Those mutations that do make it
are the ones that are still around.

On a side note, we have fingernails. My theory is;
Fingernails are claws. Why would God give us claws?
He knew we would never use them. Was that part of
his punishment to Adam and Eve?
"Thouh shall forever be given thy responibilty to
CUT THY NAILS!"

Why would evolution give us claws? Simple. The pre-human
generations them. They came from way back when we were
the extinct primate whome all presentday primates evolved
from. They were around before that. Dogs have them.
I guess they haven''t had the time to fade.

quote:

---

>>"I have heard of several cases where there are fossil
>>remains of sea creatures in the some of the higher
>>mountain ranges that could only have been deposited
>>during a very sudden dry up of the water that had them
>>there.

Those places used to be under water, the Earth was experiencing massive geological transformations. It doesn''t have to be a very sudden dry-up either, if that happened they would just follow the water down. The fish were buried by something, and then the water slowly left the area. Or of course they could obviously have lived in a river that used to be there.

---

the Earth was experiencing massive geological transformations?... where did you pull that from?

quote:

---

>>(mostly horse & soldier bones and remains of chariots)

Wow an archeologist finds some bones and holds them up to a magnifying glass... "WOW THESE ARE SOLDIER BONES!"

---

Remains of chariots, horses, most likely that there were also weapons... just a farmer I suppose then

quote:

---

Also, if they found bones at the bottom of an ocean, the cavalry was either being transported by a boat, which crashed, or they were fighting on an area that later became a sea. That area used to be dry land, but then the nearby sea, which had been slowly eroding a natural dam holding it back, broke through and flooded the area.

---

The term "drawing at straws" seems to spring to mind. Wouldn''t there have also been remains of boats with them if they were being transported by boat? And if they fought in an area which was previously dry... wouldn''t it seem strange that there was no enemy? And the fact that no one cleaned up?

quote:

---

About what happened ''2000 odd years ago'' exactly what biceps said, an average carpenter who went around saying he was the son of God and got killed for his bizarre blasphemy.

---

And this average capenter managed to raise himself from the dead and was seen by > 500 people, including non-Christians after he had risen? And also he was teaching people in the temple at a very early age (about 10 I think)

quote:

---

I just checked out your site and it is almost as stupid as creationscience.com, but not quite. It''s arguments are:

1) Lack of transition fossils, since fossils of animals that were in the process of changing from reptiles to birds, are uncommon.

Well, duh, most of these "transition animals" were killed and eaten, they weren''t usually buried. The very large changes are usually rather sudden, as in less than a million years, because the ''"transition" species couldn''t survive very well.

---

I''m not sure what website that is, and personally, I believe that we came about by evolution, but just to broaden your ideas: if all these "transition animals" were killed, then the evolution would not continue as these animals are the ones that need to reproduce to continue survive (and therefore go on evolving)

quote:

---

2) It is unlikely that self-replicating proteins could evolve by chance.

Nothing evolves by chance, otherwise it is not evolution. Evolution is more like a recursive algorithm, like the A* pathfinding, it finds the best path as it goes along but sometimes branches off.

---

Actually, evolution is by chance. It isn''t like an animal decides that it needs to be stronger so its next kid is stronger, rather, by chance, one of its kids is stronger so it survives longer and reproduces mre than a weaker one.

Research Genetic Algorithms, (see... I''m trying to make this partially relevant to GameDev ) and check it out... it is quite cool.

quote:

---

>>"Hoyle has said that if you filled the solar system
>>shoulder-to-shoulder with blind men shuffling Rubik’s
>>cubes randomly (this would mean 1050 blind men), the
>>chances of getting one simple long chain molecule of the
>>type on which life depends is the same as all of those
>>blind men simultaneously achieving the solution by
>>random shuffling!

I would like to see the how the chances are the same... I would think it would take more than 1050 blind men to fill the solar system, but anyways if these blind men were shuffling their rubik''s cubes for billions of years they would undoubtedly eventually find the right result.

---

I agree with you . I''d say that either Hoyle (who is he?) is either stupid, or he has been misquoted.

quote:

---

3) If energy is all that is needed for life, why doesn''t blowing hot air on food keep it fresh?

Ok I''m sure you will agree that this is moronic. Hot air promotes the growth of bacteria, so the food goes bad.

---

I agree yet again.

quote:

---

4) One author of one atheistic book misquoted a scientist.

And this proves that God exists?

---

I agree with you again


And what you said about my example of predestination being irelevant... that was kind of the point I was trying to make

Trying is the first step towards failure.