Suck it down fundie bitches. EVOLUTION ROCKS ONWARDS!

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-01-26 02:15pm

Falcon wrote: I can't disprove your fire breathing dragon, but that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. God set up religion for the express purpose of it being unverifiable, ie requiring faith.

Fire-breathing-dragons were designed with the express purpose of being unverifiable too....concesion still seems to be well and truely accepted....isnt that nice....

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » 2003-01-26 02:16pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Falcon wrote:You can't have any kind of proof that God exists or does not exist, what is so hard to understand about that?
For the umpteenth time, absolute proof is a sophistic demand which leads directly to the uselessness of solipsism. What is so hard to understand about that?

You can't even absolutely prove that the Earth exists; absolute proof is a pathetic sophist's last-ditch excuse to pretend that it's irrational to say there's no God.

You can be rational and believe that God doesn't exist. I think you're wrong, and we'll all find out someday, but its still rational. Faith is about belief in that in which there is no proof. I will believe in God, if you do or not is up to you.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-01-26 02:19pm

Falcon wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Falcon wrote:You can't have any kind of proof that God exists or does not exist, what is so hard to understand about that?
For the umpteenth time, absolute proof is a sophistic demand which leads directly to the uselessness of solipsism. What is so hard to understand about that?

You can't even absolutely prove that the Earth exists; absolute proof is a pathetic sophist's last-ditch excuse to pretend that it's irrational to say there's no God.

You can be rational and believe that God doesn't exist. I think you're wrong, and we'll all find out someday, but its still rational. Faith is about belief in that in which there is no proof. I will believe in God, if you do or not is up to you.

I've got faith in the fact you're an idiot.....

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » 2003-01-26 02:19pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:
Falcon wrote: I can't disprove your fire breathing dragon, but that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. God set up religion for the express purpose of it being unverifiable, ie requiring faith.
Fire-breathing-dragons were designed with the express purpose of being unverifiable too....concesion still seems to be well and truely accepted....isnt that nice....

You seem to believe I've said something that could be conceeded to, which isn't true. I've not said anything which can be disproven or proven, which is my whole point. Threads that say 'religion fails again' or whatever are blatently untrue because you can't disprove or prove religion. Just like you can't prove or disprove fire breathing dragons (so threads saying 'fire dragons fall again' would also be pointless)

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-01-26 02:20pm

Falcon wrote:
Keevan_Colton wrote:
Falcon wrote: I can't disprove your fire breathing dragon, but that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. God set up religion for the express purpose of it being unverifiable, ie requiring faith.
Fire-breathing-dragons were designed with the express purpose of being unverifiable too....concesion still seems to be well and truely accepted....isnt that nice....

You seem to believe I've said something that could be conceeded to, which isn't true. I've not said anything which can be disproven or proven, which is my whole point. Threads that say 'religion fails again' or whatever are blatently untrue because you can't disprove or prove religion. Just like you can't prove or disprove fire breathing dragons (so threads saying 'fire dragons fall again' would also be pointless)

Fire-breathing dragons fail to prove thier existence and claims....would be fine...which is what this says about religion.....

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-26 02:21pm

Falcon wrote:You can be rational and believe that God doesn't exist.

Precisely, because absolute proof is a waste of time. Reasonable proof is simply demonstration that it is the only logical conclusion. For example, you can prove someone is a murderer by showing that his fingerprints are on the murder weapon, he was at the scene of the crime, etc. However, that is only a reasonable proof, not absolute proof.

When you jump into every goddamned thread about creationism and screech that you can't disprove religion, you are wrong unless you are talking about absolute proof, and as we have explained, absolute proof is a bullshit sophistic demand.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-01-26 02:25pm

Falcon wrote: You seem to believe I've said something that could be conceeded to, which isn't true. I've not said anything which can be disproven or proven, which is my whole point. Threads that say 'religion fails again' or whatever are blatently untrue because you can't disprove or prove religion. Just like you can't prove or disprove fire breathing dragons (so threads saying 'fire dragons fall again' would also be pointless)

Firstly, this thread is title "Evolution rocked forward", not "religion falsified". The first title is, more than possible, actually a scientific fact.

Secondly, and again, not all opinions are equal. Some are more valid than others. The scientific method is a means of reaching valid conclusions and disregarding the wrong ones. Proving a negative is, by definition, impossible. It's not a valid reasoning, and you cannot base an argument on it. Again, Science cannot disprove a very subte God. It does disprove many "facts" believed by Biblical schoolars.

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » 2003-01-26 02:27pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Falcon wrote:You can be rational and believe that God doesn't exist.
Precisely, because absolute proof is a waste of time. Reasonable proof is simply demonstration that it is the only logical conclusion. For example, you can prove someone is a murderer by showing that his fingerprints are on the murder weapon, he was at the scene of the crime, etc. However, that is only a reasonable proof, not absolute proof.

When you jump into every goddamned thread about creationism and screech that you can't disprove religion, you are wrong unless you are talking about absolute proof, and as we have explained, absolute proof is a bullshit sophistic demand.

Fair enough, and as always, the proof is open to interpertation. (like the fossile records, dating, etc...)

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2003-01-26 02:27pm

Sir Sirius wrote:
Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:Oh Falcon, please change your avatar. It's offensive to anyone who likes Count Dooku.
I agree, Falcon should change his avatar.
Count Dooku with his force lightnings and curved lightsaber is cool, ignorant fundy biggots aren't.

I'm thinking that this would work nicely...
Really Disturbing Picture of a Pakled. Actually ALL Pakleds are that frighteningly UUUUGly
So that every one will say "Look it's a Pakled!" when they see one of Falcons posts.

PERFECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2003-01-26 02:56pm

Falcon wrote:God set up religion for the express purpose of it being unverifiable, ie requiring faith.

Just wondering...where in the bible does it say this? Book, chapter and verse?

And if beleiving in god is voluntary as you claim, why does god punish those that do not worship him with eternal damnation?
According to the bible worshipping Yahweh doesn't sound very voluntary, actualy it sounds more like being held up at gun point.
Worship or face eternal torment.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-01-26 03:36pm

Falcon wrote:
Keevan_Colton wrote:
Falcon wrote: I can't disprove your fire breathing dragon, but that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. God set up religion for the express purpose of it being unverifiable, ie requiring faith.
Fire-breathing-dragons were designed with the express purpose of being unverifiable too....concesion still seems to be well and truely accepted....isnt that nice....

You seem to believe I've said something that could be conceeded to, which isn't true. I've not said anything which can be disproven or proven, which is my whole point. Threads that say 'religion fails again' or whatever are blatently untrue because you can't disprove or prove religion. Just like you can't prove or disprove fire breathing dragons (so threads saying 'fire dragons fall again' would also be pointless)

Yes, you can't disprove religion, but it is more logical to believe that religion is wrong, since stuff in the world around us can be logically explained without pointing to men in the sky.

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2003-01-26 03:37pm

innerbrat wrote:OK, here's why I'm ground up:

birds evolved from raptors - you know, the fast running predators. The feathered dinosaurs all seem to be small, fats, terrestrial running predators. Archaeopteryx was not well adapted to climbing or perching.

Thing is, although biomechanists like to say 'Trees Down is easier', WTF should evolution take the easiest route? The fossil evidence (this one specimen aside) seems to clearly show progression from fast running dinosaurs to fast running dinosaurs with feathers to birds. There's a whole host of climbing dinosaurs missing to support the Trees Down model.

There is of course the chance that it may have evolved in parallel, though it looks like the archeoptrx body type was more successful. But the fact that it may have developed in parallel, means that there is a FAR higher chance that birds are decended from dinos.
It technically lends more credence to the tress down, but it lends credence in large part to the idea of flight coming from reptilians.

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » 2003-01-26 04:03pm

Sir Sirius wrote:
Falcon wrote:God set up religion for the express purpose of it being unverifiable, ie requiring faith.
Just wondering...where in the bible does it say this? Book, chapter and verse?

And if beleiving in god is voluntary as you claim, why does god punish those that do not worship him with eternal damnation?
According to the bible worshipping Yahweh doesn't sound very voluntary, actualy it sounds more like being held up at gun point.
Worship or face eternal torment.

Jesus said 'blessed are they who believe and yet have not seen' I don't know exactly what verse that is, but its right after he was killed on the cross.

You have to make the choice to believe, but unfortunately for those who don't, there are still consequences.

Utsanomiko · Post by **Utsanomiko** » 2003-01-26 04:46pm

Heh, I think it's kinda cute that he started his post in this thread with a bait-and-switch of 'young-Earth creationism' with 'religion', and then began to deride us for saying that fossils can disporve 'religion'.

*Pokes Falcon with a stick* Tee-Hee! Do it again, boy! Do a bait-and-switch again! C'mon, it's funny!

Here, I'll say "creation science flood theories are worthless", and you can claim I said "religious beliefs are worthless"! *Snicker snicker*

Arrow · Post by **Arrow** » 2003-01-26 05:39pm

You have to make the choice to believe, but unfortunately for those who don't, there are still consequences.

The typical religious scare tactic, employed successfully by western religions. "Now give us ten percent of your income and do what we tell you, or burn in hell for all eternity."

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-01-26 05:42pm

Arrow Mk84 wrote:
You have to make the choice to believe, but unfortunately for those who don't, there are still consequences.
The typical religious scare tactic, employed successfully by western religions. "Now give us ten percent of your income and do what we tell you, or burn in hell for all eternity."

And yet mafia style protection rackets dont get tax exempt status....its shocking!

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-01-27 03:15am

innerbrat wrote:OK, here's why I'm ground up:

birds evolved from raptors - you know, the fast running predators. The feathered dinosaurs all seem to be small, fats, terrestrial running predators. Archaeopteryx was not well adapted to climbing or perching.

Thing is, although biomechanists like to say 'Trees Down is easier', WTF should evolution take the easiest route? The fossil evidence (this one specimen aside) seems to clearly show progression from fast running dinosaurs to fast running dinosaurs with feathers to birds. There's a whole host of climbing dinosaurs missing to support the Trees Down model.

I don't know; it's just an Ockham's Razor thing with me, I guess. Maybe it isn't necessary in this case, but it just seems more elegant to have them start out heading downwards, and elegant things in biology - or in engineering for that matter - tend to also be theoretically or "structurally" sound, so to speak.

That's why I don't think stuff like garbage they call art these days is art, as well. Art imitates nature - or industry - because functional things tend to be elegant, and the human eye and the human mind recognize this.

In the same fashion, I just instinctively see the "tree down" theory as being a more elegant and simple explanation, and I do believe - within the bounds of my confessedly limited knowledge on the subject - that it is, and eventually I'll perhaps be proven right.

Or perhaps not.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-01-27 03:25am

Knife wrote:What, birds came from dino's?

Does it suprise you that birds are related to reptiles? Both lay egg and a crocodile tastes like chicken.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-01-27 03:34am

Vympel wrote:You really need to be locked up. Maybe you should go and find the garden? I wonder if the flaming sword is still there.

I often wondered, when I was around 7, what it would be like to take a time machine back to that hypothetical time.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-01-27 03:56am

I would just like to mention that Orthodox Christianity is not exactly unified when it comes to evolution. Most Orthodox are against it; some say that it's reconcileable with the statements of Church fathers; others simply don't care.

Honestly, I probably fit more into the third category. The Church Fathers, although wise in many aspects, weren't 600-800 years in advance of their times. Let's face it: the prevailing theory of the time concerning the universe said that the Earth was at the very center. This leaves the second category, the apologists, stranded like whales on a beach.

So, speaking rationally, it's insane to take the Bible literally when it comes to creation. Folklore does not scientific evidence make; it doesn't matter if it was inspired by God, because the people of the time did not have adequate terms to describe something like the creation (or whatever) of the universe.

I hope this explains my relative disinterest in creationism debates.

Arrow · Post by **Arrow** » 2003-01-27 07:29am

Falcon, take a lesson from Crayz. The bible is folklore and should not be used to explain how and why the world works. That is the realm of science. I've heard many Christans (including priests) say this.

Back to my "burn in hell post", I find it funny that the Vatican has said that heaven and hell are just mental concepts/constructs and not actual places.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-01-27 08:09am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
innerbrat wrote: birds evolved from raptors - you know, the fast running predators. The feathered dinosaurs all seem to be small, fats, terrestrial running predators. Archaeopteryx was not well adapted to climbing or perching.

Thing is, although biomechanists like to say 'Trees Down is easier', WTF should evolution take the easiest route? The fossil evidence (this one specimen aside) seems to clearly show progression from fast running dinosaurs to fast running dinosaurs with feathers to birds. There's a whole host of climbing dinosaurs missing to support the Trees Down model.
I don't know; it's just an Ockham's Razor thing with me, I guess. Maybe it isn't necessary in this case, but it just seems more elegant to have them start out heading downwards, and elegant things in biology - or in engineering for that matter - tend to also be theoretically or "structurally" sound, so to speak.

That's why I don't think stuff like garbage they call art these days is art, as well. Art imitates nature - or industry - because functional things tend to be elegant, and the human eye and the human mind recognize this.

In the same fashion, I just instinctively see the "tree down" theory as being a more elegant and simple explanation, and I do believe - within the bounds of my confessedly limited knowledge on the subject - that it is, and eventually I'll perhaps be proven right.

Or perhaps not.

Yeah, it may be more elegant, and indeed more structurally sound, and all other flying vertebrates (bats and pterosaurs) clearly seem to have evolved from parachuters like the flying foxes and lemurs. But there's no reason why evolution should always tkae the quickest route - it's not as if the raptor with featehrs down its spine that chased and caught insects had any idea it was ever going to fly.

The wing structure of pterosaurs and bats reflects their parachuting heritage - the flaps of skin stretched between limbs evolved into wings. But a feathered wing in only really useful as a a parachute if it's also a fully funtional wing.

if you're realyl interested, read up on the early birds and feathered raptors. Perching and tree dwelling seems to have evolved after flying. For trees down, climbing needs to have evolved first, and no ancestral bird had many climbing adaptations.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2003-01-27 08:30am

Falcon wrote:Jesus said 'blessed are they who believe and yet have not seen' I don't know exactly what verse that is, but its right after he was killed on the cross.

You have to make the choice to believe, but unfortunately for those who don't, there are still consequences.

Yeah, it's called Creativity, Inventiveness, Knowledge, Logic, and Freedom from tyrannical fucktards like you! Concession Accepted. Time to die, Troll.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-01-27 08:33am

Arrow Mk84 wrote: Back to my "burn in hell post", I find it funny that the Vatican has said that heaven and hell are just mental concepts/constructs and not actual places.

You don't understand what the Vatican is saying when they say that. The Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas is still the heart and soul of the interpetation of the Bible in the Catholic Faith.

Remember that in Catholicism the Church proclaimations - in the form of Papal decree - are, if anything, more important than the Bible, because they're the living word of God, effectively a continuing revelation through the heir to the Apostle Peter, IE, the Pope. The Bible is simply the historical revelation, and is not nearly as important as it is in Protestantism.

Thomas Aquinas was an Aristotlean Philosopher, effectively - The Church flucuated between Platonic and Aristotlean flirtations before William of Ockham threw nominalism into the mix - and, well, Aristotlean Philosophy is still a Big Deal for the Catholic Church.

I think the proper interpetation of that statement would be that heaven and hell exist in the universe of Ideal Forms, not in our universe, since Intellect to the Socratic/Platonic/Aristotlean line of philosophy is the Ideal Form of humanity (The debate between Platonic and Aristotlean schools is really over if we can comprehend the world on our own or not; this was continued in a fashion by the fact that St. Augustine was a Platonist and Thomas Aquinas an Aristotlean); or, essentially, the part of us that counts is going to a totally different place when this immaterial and irrelevant forms die, and that place is either heaven or hell, but it's in a different universe: The Ideal Universe.

That universe we can only conceive of mentally while we exist on Earth, because our minds, or our Intellect, is the only part of us that comes from it - That is the connection between us and God. Depending on if you believe Augustine or Aquinas, the connection is either God illuminating our minds directly, or Man exercising his innate talents to comprehend the world, through this piece of the Ideal that existed within him.

So what the statement essentially means is that Heaven and Hell are not physical places in this universe. They exist instead as part of the higher universe, or the universe of the Ideal.

You cannot merely read the Bible to understand Catholicism: You also have to study classical philosophy extensively, or read the writings of church theologians.

Here, for example, is a quote from St. Augustine:

When one enters into oneself, one finds Christ, the eternal son of God, who mediates the world of eternal ideas, that is, the mind of God, which illuminates the human mind so that it can truly know the particular things of the world.

That is to say that St. Aguustine believed that God in fact provided an animating force inside each human being, to allow our mind to "comprehend" the "world of phantasms" (IE: the universe we live in), through that direct knowledge of "the world of Ideal Forms" that He provided - That is to say, the Mind of God.

Or, in otherwords, if God didn't exist and provide a spark of comprehension in our minds, our sensory perception would consist of a constant LSD trip of incomprehensible wavery stuff.

Thomas Aquinas - like Aristotle - was much more firmly grounded in reality. His epistemological maxim was: Nihil in intellectu quod prius non fuerit in sensu, and agreed with Aristotle that "universals are not subsistent things, but have their being only in singulars." Aquinas thus proceeded to demonstrate the existence of God a posteriori -- Which was really the first chink in the armour of Christian Theology when one thinks about it. Most critically he thought that reason contained divine illumination, instead of being provided by Christ.

The critical linkage between the two thoughts in Aquinas' summa was provided by a basic agreement, however: "Forms which are in matter come from forms which are without matter, and to that extent the saying of Plato is true: that seperate forms are the principles of forms which are in matter." (Or that the universal exists ante rem, in re, and, through abstraction, in mente.)

Aquinas placed the universal within things, and took it as an intelligible within the mind: And only through the abstracted universal did one know something. (As knowledge is biased towards like knowing like, the intellect being a universal allows this comprehension.) The basic idea that knowledge is of an intellectual or spiritual sort remained - It would take Ockham's nominalism to suggest something different in that regard.

One should note that not only does the Catholic Church still raise aloft the Summa Theologica as just that, but Calvinists are in fact, at least nominally these days, Augustinians.

(Some reference to The Age of Reform by Steven Ozment, and original source material, of which Mike was right a while back; I have entirely to much of.)

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2003-01-27 09:24am

Falcon wrote:Jesus said 'blessed are they who believe and yet have not seen' I don't know exactly what verse that is, but its right after he was killed on the cross.

You have to make the choice to believe, but unfortunately for those who don't, there are still consequences.

Here's a question that I bet you haven't been asked yet: Why do you need to believe in a god? What reason do YOU have for your faith? Think carefully before you post off the cuff, if you intend to answer that at all - you're defending faith here. Faith has a purpose. It doesn't just exist of its own accord.