Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
The Unthinkable....I'm linking HuffingtonPost
Author Message
Lord Stanley Offline
L'Étoile du Nord
*

Posts: 19,103
Joined: Feb 2005
Reputation: 994
I Root For: NIU
Location: Cold. So cold......
Post: #41
RE: The Unthinkable....I'm linking HuffingtonPost
(10-23-2009 02:02 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  The theories regarding the creation of the universe are do not stem from abiogenesis.

In my experience, one of the weaknesses in the evolution / creationists argument is that creationists often conflate evolution with a variety of other subjects, from abiogenesis to the Big Bang.

When we say "evolution," we're talking about a specific theory regarding how life forms change over time. When creationists say "evolution," they're talking about everything in science that contradicts a literal reading of Genesis.
10-23-2009 02:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
I45owl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,374
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Dallas, TX

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #42
RE: The Unthinkable....I'm linking HuffingtonPost
(10-23-2009 02:10 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  
(10-23-2009 02:02 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  The theories regarding the creation of the universe are do not stem from abiogenesis.

In my experience, one of the weaknesses in the evolution / creationists argument is that creationists often conflate evolution with a variety of other subjects, from abiogenesis to the Big Bang.

When we say "evolution," we're talking about a specific theory regarding how life forms change over time. When creationists say "evolution," they're talking about everything in science that contradicts a literal reading of Genesis.

This is a good point in that evolution itself does not presuppose any mechanism regarding how life forms themselves first came to be - just that they did in some form that is not the same as it is now. One can believe in both evolution and some form of creation.
10-23-2009 02:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SumOfAllFears Offline
Grim Reaper of Misguided Liberal Souls
*

Posts: 18,213
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation: 58
I Root For: America
Location:
Post: #43
RE: The Unthinkable....I'm linking HuffingtonPost
(10-23-2009 02:02 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  
(10-23-2009 11:26 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  By that reasoning, what created the inital matter in the universe? Abiogenesis has never been observed. It is a "theory" with no solid scientific evidence to back it up. Although scientists claim to be close to being able to produce it in a lab (a form of "intelligent design" of its own?), even if they do, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that it has ever or will ever occur naturally on its own.

Also, how can you stand to support such "feeble minded" politicians such as Ron Paul, Mark Sanford, Jeff Flake, etc. who all strongly believe in God? Furthermore, do you really want to call 90%+ of Americans "feeble minded?" To me, that is the epitome of arrogance.

The theories regarding the creation of the universe are do not stem from abiogenesis. Most of them are rather "quantum-esk" in nature. Multiple universes like a bubbling foam... ours split off another ... etc. Neither science or religion can go back to the very beginning with any certainty. But at least science is based on existing observations, laws, and properties of matter. Religion is based off a book of questionable content and questionable origin which has been written and written and adapted and altered throughout time.

Creating it in a lab is not intelligent design, as the creatures creating it arose by Darwinian means.

Unlike most of my fellow Americans, I do not see religion as playing any relevancy in politics. I elect on who can follow the Constitution and maximize my liberty. Religion doesn't enter the mix in that, unless you're talking extremists. Note, btw, that the converse is not true, as less people would elect an atheist President than a gay President, according to Gallup. The human species, as a whole, is feeble minded. It is unclear whether we will exit our technological infancy without destroying ourselves altogether. We've been killing each other by the millions over millenia over who has the better imaginary friend. It has been less than 100 years since we allowed women and blacks to vote. Slavery is still engaged in rampantly across the globe. The overwhelming majority of the planet doesn't have a high school level education. Nearly a quarter of the planet has no potable water or steady food supply. We are an undeniably sad lot. Personification of God as having human-like qualities is an extension of this overconfidence and under delivery of our species.

The accuracy of the Old Testament has been verified (for the most part) by the discovery of the dead sea scrolls. For some 5,000 years scribes of the Torah have taken their work very seriously. Their accuracy is undeniable. Now, if you are wrong about this point, (book of questionable content ) could you be wrong on other points, possibly ? Just asking as I really do not want to get involved in this as there can be no ending in sight. You can understand that some people have a hard time believing that life sprang from non-life and evolved from one-celled animals into human beings.Measuring dick on this subject is impossible.

Code:
Ancient Israel
Scribes in Ancient Israel, as in most of the ancient world, were distinguished professionals who could exercise functions we would associate with lawyers, government ministers, judges, or even financiers. Some scribes copied documents, but this was not necessarily part of their job.

In 586 B.C., Jerusalem was captured by the Babylonians. The Temple was looted and then destroyed by fire. The Jews were exiled.

About 70 years later, the Jewish captives returned to Jerusalem from Babylon. According to the Bible, Ezra recovered a copy of the Torah and read it aloud to the whole nation.

From then on, the Jewish scribes solidified the following process for creating copies of the Torah and eventually other books in the Old Testament.

They could only use clean animal skins, both to write on, and even to bind manuscripts.
Each column of writing could have no less than forty-eight, and no more than sixty lines.
The ink must be black, and of a special recipe.
They must verbalize each word aloud while they were writing.
They must wipe the pen and wash their entire bodies before writing the word "Jehovah," every time they wrote it.
There must be a review within thirty days, and if as many as three pages required corrections, the entire manuscript had to be redone.
The letters, words, and paragraphs had to be counted, and the document became invalid if two letters touched each other. The middle paragraph, word and letter must correspond to those of the original document.
The documents could be stored only in sacred places (synagogues, etc).
As no document containing God's Word could be destroyed, they were stored, or buried, in a genizah.
After Jerusalem was sacked by Rome in the First Century, the process was lost. While a Hebrew version of the Old Testament continued to exist, the language wasn't spoken by many. Greek and eventually Latin versions continued to be copied.

[b]Scribe accuracy[/b]
Further information: Dead Sea Scrolls
Beginning in the 6th century and into the 10th century A.D., some European Jewish scribes continued a similar method for copying manuscripts of the Old Testament in the original Hebrew language as originated by the scribes before Christ.

Until 1948, the oldest manuscripts of the Old Testament dated back to 895 A.D. In 1947, a shepherd boy discovered some scrolls inside a cave West of the Dead Sea. These manuscripts dated between 100 B.C. and 100 A.D. Over the next decade, more scrolls were found in caves and the discovery became known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Every book in the Old Testament was represented in this discovery except Esther. Numerous copies of each book were discovered, such as the 25 copies of Deuteronomy that were found.

While there are other items found among the Dead Sea Scrolls not currently in the Old Testament, the texts on the whole testify to the accuracy of the scribes copying down through the ages, though many variations and errors occurred. The Dead Sea Scrolls are currently the best route of comparison to the accuracy and consistency of translation for the Old Testament, due to their date of origin being the oldest out of any Biblical text currently known.

[b]Sofer[/b]
Sofer (scribe)
A Sofer (Hebrew: סופר סת”ם‎) are among the few scribes that still ply their trade by hand. Renowned calligraphers, they produce the Hebrew Torah scrolls and other holy texts by hand to this day. They write on parchment.
(This post was last modified: 10-23-2009 03:22 PM by SumOfAllFears.)
10-23-2009 03:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Artifice Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,064
Joined: Jul 2008
Reputation: 168
I Root For: Beer
Location:
Post: #44
RE: The Unthinkable....I'm linking HuffingtonPost
(10-23-2009 08:30 AM)GGniner Wrote:  You really reduced to saying the Universe didn't come into being by Random Chance?

What's more asinine is your assertion that if it wasn't, then the only possible alternative is your personal religious belief, because your zero evidence belief is more valid than hundreds or thousands of others with equal (zero) scientific or logical support.

Your desperate need for absolutes is fascinating. At first, I thought it was just a convenient vehicle for you to play the role of evangelical, but I now see that it covers a deeper psychiatric weakness or scarring. What scares you so badly about having your religious devotion to absolutism shattered?

(10-23-2009 09:12 AM)niucob86 Wrote:  swagger:
Any behavior that survives today must have conferred some evolutionary advantage - otherwise it would have been weeded out by natural selection.

That is completely absurd. Why is this argued so often? We have appendixes & tailbones, and do not need them (and havent for many, many generations).

Remnants? Okay, then explain red hair. It confers no advantage other than diversity, yet it has proliferated recently (relatively speaking) in human lineage. Same with other hair or eye colors. Mutations do not have to confer advantage to survive. It sure does help, but they can get by with just being aestheticly pleasing diversity, or even having no appeal whatsoever, but no harm (MALE PATTERN BALDNESS, and hundreds of other similarly useless, and less appealing mutations).
(This post was last modified: 10-23-2009 03:31 PM by Artifice.)
10-23-2009 03:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 51,420
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 2019
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU, WYO
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #45
RE: The Unthinkable....I'm linking HuffingtonPost
(10-23-2009 03:09 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  The accuracy of the Old Testament has been verified (for the most part) by the discovery of the dead sea scrolls. For some 5,000 years scribes of the Torah have taken their work very seriously. Their accuracy is undeniable. Now, if you are wrong about this point, (book of questionable content ) could you be wrong on other points, possibly ? Just asking as I really do not want to get involved in this as there can be no ending in sight. You can understand that some people have a hard time believing that life sprang from non-life and evolved from one-celled animals into human beings. Measuring dick on this subject is impossible.

How is an older copy of the same constantly changing and unverifiable crap validation and accreditation of the text in question? The bible simply can not be considered reliable as a historical document, having had so much of the original text destroyed or ruthlessly altered, hundreds of years after the death of its original architects.
10-23-2009 03:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 51,420
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 2019
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU, WYO
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #46
RE: The Unthinkable....I'm linking HuffingtonPost
(10-23-2009 03:30 PM)Artifice Wrote:  
(10-23-2009 08:30 AM)GGniner Wrote:  You really reduced to saying the Universe didn't come into being by Random Chance?

What's more asinine is your assertion that if it wasn't, then the only possible alternative is your personal religious belief, because your zero evidence belief is more valid than hundreds or thousands of others with equal (zero) scientific or logical support.

Your desperate need for absolutes is fascinating. At first, I thought it was just a convenient vehicle for you to play the role of evangelical, but I now see that it covers a deeper psychiatric weakness or scarring. What scares you so badly about having your religious devotion to absolutism shattered?

(10-23-2009 09:12 AM)niucob86 Wrote:  swagger:
Any behavior that survives today must have conferred some evolutionary advantage - otherwise it would have been weeded out by natural selection.

That is completely absurd. Why is this argued so often? We have appendixes & tailbones, and do not need them (and havent for many, many generations).

Remnants? Okay, then explain red hair. It confers no advantage other than diversity, yet it has proliferated recently (relatively speaking) in human lineage. Same with other hair or eye colors. Mutations do not have to confer advantage to survive. It sure does help, but they can get by with just being aestheticly pleasing diversity, or even having no appeal whatsoever, but no harm (MALE PATTERN BALDNESS, and hundreds of other similarly useless, and less appealing mutations).

DAYUM
10-23-2009 03:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GGniner Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,370
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 38
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #47
RE: The Unthinkable....I'm linking HuffingtonPost
(10-23-2009 09:40 AM)I45owl Wrote:  
(10-23-2009 08:30 AM)GGniner Wrote:  Bottom half of shirt is cut off here but you can tell, Dylan Klebold, big beleiver in Natural Selection

Why does it really matter what a psychopath believes, unless you are going to argue that without belief he would either (1) not be a psychopath, or (2) be a harmless psychopath? Either one of those propositions is stupid prima facie, but, please rant on...


Because you have to account for it

Plus, few know this because the videos were embargoed, but these two idiots filmed themselves in the basement talking about what they were about to do and why. Natural Selection/Darwinism was a topic they talked alot about(why they wore the T-Shirts they did that day, and the Hammer and Sickle), and how what they were doing was OK(given their worldview, i.e. godless macro-evolution) because they were just atoms bumping up against each other in time, etc.


Anyway, I'd argue what they did(and other historical monsters of similar commonly used here) was perfectly OK and a Logical Conclusion given their worldviews and foundations they reasoned from.
10-23-2009 05:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
niucob86 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 784
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation: 8
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #48
RE: The Unthinkable....I'm linking HuffingtonPost
Red hair? Don't ask me! I'd encourage you to email Dr. Provine or someone like him.

Here is a link on the appendix that might interest you.
http://www.physorg.com/news170010855.html

Also, a link on 'Junk RNA' (You mentioned DNA earlier.)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...105809.htm
10-23-2009 05:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GGniner Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,370
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 38
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #49
RE: The Unthinkable....I'm linking HuffingtonPost
(10-23-2009 10:32 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  
(10-23-2009 08:30 AM)GGniner Wrote:  You really reduced to saying the Universe didn't come into being by Random Chance?

Bottom half of shirt is cut off here but you can tell, Dylan Klebold, big beleiver in Natural Selection

and why not, his atoms are still just floating around bumping up against each other, after all.

By the way, ho do mutations occur? Randomly or non-randomly?

How the universe was or existed PRIOR to the Big Bang is anybody's guess. Science has a few theories with no substantive proof, religion has more rhetoric about a spooky incompetent father figure with an attitude problem.

So once again, just like against Ron Paul, you can't argue on the issue at hand so you point out a psycho who happens to side with the other guys. I don't think you really want to go there, given that your bestest buddies in the middle east flew airplanes into buildings, because they were going to be martyrs and get those 72 virgins in heaven ... you know ... up there with God and everything? And I don't even have to pick on the religious extremists to rip you a new ******* on this one.

Scientist: The world isn't flat? Christians: Burned him at the stake.
Scientist: The Earth isn't the center of the universe. Christians: Burned him at the stake.
Scientist: The universe is infinite. Christians: Burned him at the stake.

Let's go into the Inquisition too, shall we? Hitler and the Pope is another interested topic for discussion. Hey hey hey -- no discussion of Catholics is complete without talking about choir boy pedophile acts.

And to be specific ... Dylan Bennet Klebold of Columbine fame was a devout Lutheran (which is just as irrelevant as your psycho).

So, using GGNiner non-sequitir-non-logic: LOL GGNINER BELIEVES THE WORLD IS FLAT AND IS A NAZI PEDOPHILE WHO ENJOYED COLUMBINE!


Mutations occur semi-randomly (the number of places for entire or parts of genes to swap around during reproduction is too great to enumerate here). HOWEVER, the natural selection that acts on these mutations is the exact opposite of chance. Anybody who claims evolution is random/pure chance doesn't even have a third grader understanding of it.

Wow, just Wow

Its much better to just state you have no answer than to waste your anger and time writing a bunch of nothing and ultimately admitting that Mututations occur Randomly. Mutuation being the FOUNDATION OF NATURAL SELECTION.


http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/ev...ndom.shtml

Quote:Mutations are Random

The mechanisms of evolution—like natural selection and genetic drift—work with the random variation generated by mutation.

03-nutkick
10-23-2009 05:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Brookes Owl Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,965
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 165
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:

The Parliament AwardsCrappiesDonators
Post: #50
RE: The Unthinkable....I'm linking HuffingtonPost
(10-23-2009 05:12 PM)GGniner Wrote:  
(10-23-2009 09:40 AM)I45owl Wrote:  
(10-23-2009 08:30 AM)GGniner Wrote:  Bottom half of shirt is cut off here but you can tell, Dylan Klebold, big beleiver in Natural Selection

Why does it really matter what a psychopath believes, unless you are going to argue that without belief he would either (1) not be a psychopath, or (2) be a harmless psychopath? Either one of those propositions is stupid prima facie, but, please rant on...


Because you have to account for it

Plus, few know this because the videos were embargoed, but these two idiots filmed themselves in the basement talking about what they were about to do and why. Natural Selection/Darwinism was a topic they talked alot about(why they wore the T-Shirts they did that day, and the Hammer and Sickle), and how what they were doing was OK(given their worldview, i.e. godless macro-evolution) because they were just atoms bumping up against each other in time, etc.


Anyway, I'd argue what they did(and other historical monsters of similar commonly used here) was perfectly OK and a Logical Conclusion given their worldviews and foundations they reasoned from.

And David Koresh justified his abominable actions with the Bible. We are now in agreement that crazy people inappropriately use established information to support their crazy actions. So what?
10-23-2009 05:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GGniner Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,370
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 38
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #51
RE: The Unthinkable....I'm linking HuffingtonPost
(10-23-2009 02:30 PM)I45owl Wrote:  
(10-23-2009 02:10 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  
(10-23-2009 02:02 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  The theories regarding the creation of the universe are do not stem from abiogenesis.

In my experience, one of the weaknesses in the evolution / creationists argument is that creationists often conflate evolution with a variety of other subjects, from abiogenesis to the Big Bang.

When we say "evolution," we're talking about a specific theory regarding how life forms change over time. When creationists say "evolution," they're talking about everything in science that contradicts a literal reading of Genesis.

This is a good point in that evolution itself does not presuppose any mechanism regarding how life forms themselves first came to be - just that they did in some form that is not the same as it is now. One can believe in both evolution and some form of creation.


Yet countless Atheist have used the theory of Macro-Evolution to explain the Orgins of the Universe, as well as Species.

That is why it gets brought up in these debates.


Its a violation of the Law of Non-Contradition to state that Something coming into being from Nothing. It would have to be before it was, basic Logic shows how silly of an idea that is.

Contrast that with the concept of an eternal, self-existent being with the power of being within himself, and dependent on nothing outside of himself to be, violates no formal Laws of Logic.
(This post was last modified: 10-23-2009 05:44 PM by GGniner.)
10-23-2009 05:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GGniner Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,370
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 38
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #52
RE: The Unthinkable....I'm linking HuffingtonPost
(10-23-2009 05:37 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  
(10-23-2009 05:12 PM)GGniner Wrote:  
(10-23-2009 09:40 AM)I45owl Wrote:  
(10-23-2009 08:30 AM)GGniner Wrote:  Bottom half of shirt is cut off here but you can tell, Dylan Klebold, big beleiver in Natural Selection

Why does it really matter what a psychopath believes, unless you are going to argue that without belief he would either (1) not be a psychopath, or (2) be a harmless psychopath? Either one of those propositions is stupid prima facie, but, please rant on...


Because you have to account for it

Plus, few know this because the videos were embargoed, but these two idiots filmed themselves in the basement talking about what they were about to do and why. Natural Selection/Darwinism was a topic they talked alot about(why they wore the T-Shirts they did that day, and the Hammer and Sickle), and how what they were doing was OK(given their worldview, i.e. godless macro-evolution) because they were just atoms bumping up against each other in time, etc.


Anyway, I'd argue what they did(and other historical monsters of similar commonly used here) was perfectly OK and a Logical Conclusion given their worldviews and foundations they reasoned from.

And David Koresh justified his abominable actions with the Bible. We are now in agreement that crazy people inappropriately use established information to support their crazy actions. So what?


and what he did wasn't biblical, nor the Logical Conclusion to draw from it. However, sinners(the key concept in understanding any of this) along with the absolute depravity of mankind as whole, have often done evil things while standing behind the Bible(and mis-representing it).

Same goes for the Inquisition or any other atrocity that MAN(i.e. Sinners) committed, violating Gods Law every time in doing so.

btw GTS, research what the Protestants thought about the Pope and Inquisition.


Back to my larger point:

If Darwinism/Natural Selection/Macro-Evolution is true, then what any of these people did was not wrong by any objective standard, and is in fact the Logical Conclusion to be drawn from their worldview.

Racism is also a logical conclusion to derive from it, though no longer as popular an acknowledgement as it once was among Darwinst and the "New Atheist"(see Eugenics era).
10-23-2009 05:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GGniner Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,370
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 38
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #53
RE: The Unthinkable....I'm linking HuffingtonPost
(10-23-2009 03:30 PM)Artifice Wrote:  
(10-23-2009 08:30 AM)GGniner Wrote:  You really reduced to saying the Universe didn't come into being by Random Chance?

What's more asinine is your assertion that if it wasn't, then the only possible alternative is your personal religious belief, because your zero evidence belief is more valid than hundreds or thousands of others with equal (zero) scientific or logical support.

Your desperate need for absolutes is fascinating. At first, I thought it was just a convenient vehicle for you to play the role of evangelical, but I now see that it covers a deeper psychiatric weakness or scarring. What scares you so badly about having your religious devotion to absolutism shattered?

I see you continue to Violate the Law of Non-Contradiction, not only in ABSOLUTELY rejecting the possibility of Absolute Truth, Right and Wrong03-lmfao

but extending same violation as a legitimate possible explanation for the creation of the Universe.

atleast you are consistent.
10-23-2009 05:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Brookes Owl Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,965
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 165
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:

The Parliament AwardsCrappiesDonators
Post: #54
RE: The Unthinkable....I'm linking HuffingtonPost
(10-23-2009 05:35 PM)GGniner Wrote:  Its much better to just state you have no answer than to waste your anger and time writing a bunch of nothing and ultimately admitting that Mututations occur Randomly. Mutuation being the FOUNDATION OF NATURAL SELECTION.


http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/ev...ndom.shtml

Quote:Mutations are Random

The mechanisms of evolution—like natural selection and genetic drift—work with the random variation generated by mutation.

03-nutkick

Ugh, I've done what I said I wouldn't do anymore - I've jumped back into an evolution debate. But as pointed out by several posters above, this isn't even an evolution discussion because half the folks in this conversation continue to freely cross over from evolution to abiogenesis to the origin of the cosmos.

The EVOLUTION of life, not the ORIGIN, progresses as a result of random mutations AND how nature selects for the more advantageous mutations. No issue here, no problem identified. GG, you appear to be trying to assert that this means the universe came into being as a result of random chance. The truth or falsehood of that statement is not germane to this particular discussion. The origin of the universe is another conversation. In any case, the existence of random mutations, which is not really debatable, doesn't also mean that natural selection is random. In fact, it is quite ordered. Even if you choose not to accept the science (or lack thereof - hey to Torch), you really can't argue that the process is random.
10-23-2009 06:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Brookes Owl Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,965
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 165
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:

The Parliament AwardsCrappiesDonators
Post: #55
RE: The Unthinkable....I'm linking HuffingtonPost
(10-23-2009 05:53 PM)GGniner Wrote:  Back to my larger point:

If Darwinism/Natural Selection/Macro-Evolution is true, then what any of these people did was not wrong by any objective standard, and is in fact the Logical Conclusion to be drawn from their worldview.

That was your point?! Not only was that hard to discern, it's just plain wrong. Let me boil down the essence of evolution: He/she who has the most reproductive sex wins. The Columbine killers did nothing to advance the progress of their genes and therefore are evolutionary losers in every way. I get it though: your basic premise is that an evolutionary view is equivalent to a God-less view (patently false, by the way, as noted by I45 above), and therefore also unethical and amoral. So the killers had no objective behavioral standards, like those listed in the Bible, right? I simply don't accept that ethics must have a supernatural basis. The multiplicity of world religions with differing ethical/moral bases is a good place to continue this thread. But let's face it, if morals only exist because of the punishment to be exacted by <insert here> for infractions, well, that's kind of creepy, right?
10-23-2009 06:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SumOfAllFears Offline
Grim Reaper of Misguided Liberal Souls
*

Posts: 18,213
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation: 58
I Root For: America
Location:
Post: #56
RE: The Unthinkable....I'm linking HuffingtonPost
(10-23-2009 03:35 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  
(10-23-2009 03:09 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  The accuracy of the Old Testament has been verified (for the most part) by the discovery of the dead sea scrolls. For some 5,000 years scribes of the Torah have taken their work very seriously. Their accuracy is undeniable. Now, if you are wrong about this point, (book of questionable content ) could you be wrong on other points, possibly ? Just asking as I really do not want to get involved in this as there can be no ending in sight. You can understand that some people have a hard time believing that life sprang from non-life and evolved from one-celled animals into human beings. Measuring dick on this subject is impossible.

How is an older copy of the same constantly changing and unverifiable crap validation and accreditation of the text in question? The bible simply can not be considered reliable as a historical document, having had so much of the original text destroyed or ruthlessly altered, hundreds of years after the death of its original architects.

Regarding the Old Testament, the Five Books of Moses, the Torah, the Tanakh, (all the same book) Interpretations have changed, but the scribe in Hebrew has not. It has remained unchanged since 450 BCE. It was compiled by the Men of the Great Assembly ("Anshei K'nesset HaGedolah"). The original text has not been destroyed or altered.
10-23-2009 08:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #57
RE: The Unthinkable....I'm linking HuffingtonPost
Good God, this is why I don't get into religious topics. None of you are going to convince the other of a damn thing.
10-23-2009 09:00 PM
Quote this message in a reply
Paul M Offline
American-American
*

Posts: 21,196
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 649
I Root For: OU
Location: Next to Boomer
Post: #58
RE: The Unthinkable....I'm linking HuffingtonPost
Being agnostic, I guess I'm the only one with the correct answer. 03-lmfao
10-24-2009 01:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nomad2u2001 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,356
Joined: Nov 2006
Reputation: 450
I Root For: ECU
Location: NC
Post: #59
RE: The Unthinkable....I'm linking HuffingtonPost
I, for one, believe that God created the heavens, the earth, and everything on it. I just don't believe that it all stays the same.
10-24-2009 06:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
I45owl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,374
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Dallas, TX

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #60
RE: The Unthinkable....I'm linking HuffingtonPost
(10-23-2009 05:39 PM)GGniner Wrote:  
(10-23-2009 02:30 PM)I45owl Wrote:  
(10-23-2009 02:10 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  
(10-23-2009 02:02 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  The theories regarding the creation of the universe are do not stem from abiogenesis.

In my experience, one of the weaknesses in the evolution / creationists argument is that creationists often conflate evolution with a variety of other subjects, from abiogenesis to the Big Bang.

When we say "evolution," we're talking about a specific theory regarding how life forms change over time. When creationists say "evolution," they're talking about everything in science that contradicts a literal reading of Genesis.

This is a good point in that evolution itself does not presuppose any mechanism regarding how life forms themselves first came to be - just that they did in some form that is not the same as it is now. One can believe in both evolution and some form of creation.


Yet countless Atheist have used the theory of Macro-Evolution to explain the Orgins of the Universe, as well as Species.

cite one.
10-25-2009 03:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.