Posted by tooscoops

thanks for the response todd.

 

 

one problem is when you say you don't see this as being the norm, when referring to the sudden change of faith on a deathbed.  as most real or halfhazard psychologists will tell you, everyone goes through pretty much the same type of stages of death and dying.. one of those stages is barganing.  apparently whether religious or not, people go through that stage and do all they can to 'get in good' with god... after all, at that point, what can it hurt? and when dying, it will be pretty sincere... or at least in the dying persons mind it will be sincere.

 

oh well.  i'm sure you have more important things to do than respond to me todd, so with that, peace be with you, and go in the grace of god!

 

 

Mike, I think a common misconception of Christianity is that it is driven by selfish motives to avoid a state of eternal agony (hell). I think that when people "bargain" or try to get in "good" on their deathbed is usually motivated by selfishness; that is they really don't know so they hurry up and by "insurance" from any place they can.

True Christianity does not put their faith in Jesus Christ for the sole purpose of avoiding God's wrath. Faith is a response to what God has done for them. For example, a child does not merely obey his parents because he's afraid that if he doesn't then he will be punished. A child honors and obeys his parents because he loves them (although he doesn't know how to love perfectly). It is a child's response to a caring, protecting, and providential parents. A Christian worships God because of who God is and because He has shown us grace, not simply because he wants to avoid punishment.

So, I suppose that you're right when you suggest that people are sincere on their death bed, but what are they sincere about? Are they sincere about not wanting to go to hell or are they sincere about recognizing who God is and what He's done for them? I would say the former is driven by selfish motives, therefore sincerity may be lacking. If it is the latter, then I believe that this was the experience of the "thief on the cross" in Luke 23.

What I always find curious about people with a strong religious belief is; do they believe they would have just as strong a faith in a different religion, had they only been born into another culture?

If the answer to that is "no", then how come?

If the answer to that is "yes", then how can they claim that their religion is the "correct" one?


(Please, pretty please, someone say "yes", it could get interesting )

Posted by tooscoops

hopefully you know i actually am walking my talk when i pussy foot around everything lakia!  you know that i'm a big old softy.  its how i roll... on a big tire made of flowers and marshmallows.

 

nice to see you around gez!  you just waking up from your hangover after the stanley cup?

 

 

hey scoops, I'm ashamed to admit, I missed the playoffs entirely! I picked the wrong time to move outta town, heh. couldn't get espn or the internets quickly enough. hurrah for the Pens though. fingers crossed next year brings Leafs vs. Oilers!

Posted by ivar80
What I always find curious about people with a strong religious belief is; do they believe they would have just as strong a faith in a different religion, had they only been born into another culture?

If the answer to that is "no", then how come?

If the answer to that is "yes", then how can they claim that their religion is the "correct" one?


(Please, pretty please, someone say "yes", it could get interesting )

This seems like a "strawman" question to me, and I'm not really sure that I see your point. People who are sincerely devoted to all kinds of different faiths (even atheism) because of the culture in which they were raised convert to other faiths all the time.

[Edited by lakia on 7/11/2009 at 12:16 AM]

Posted by lakia

Well paolo the simple fact that you have probably only spent time around fire and brimstone churches shows why you have that viewpoint. There alot of churches who do not preach the negatives and consequences, but love and rewards. I dont expect you to believe that though. After all, you are an "enlightened" individual who cant be bothered with with such fodder. Which is why you believe the theory of evolution to be true.

 

In order for a theory to become a fact in the scientific community it requires 7 pieces of corroborating evidence. Now to be perfectly honest i dont know how many pieces of corrorborating evidence they have to support evolution. If they had 7 it wouldnt be a theory.

 

So lets talk about the first law of thermodynamics paolo. The first LAW of thermodynamics states that energy can not be created or destroyed. It can and does change from one form to another (liquid to gas to solid). But the amount of energy in the universe remains constant and unchanging.

 

So simple question paolo. All that energy that created the big bang came from some where. So where did it come from? Seeing as the first law of thermodynamics states that all of the energy was already here, or it had to be at least in order to create the universe as we know it. It had to be there for the big bang to happen. Nothing comes from nothing. So.....enlighten me paolo. Where did it come from?

 

Then after the big bang happened, and the planets are forming, and on this molten, volatile rock called earth there is pool of primordial soup (did campbells make it?) where some how, and against infintecimal odds an ameba is forming (the same odds that make you believe god doesnt exsist). Which brings me to my second law of thermodynamics, or you might know it as entropy.

 

Now entropy just says that when energy is exchanged, if no energy enters or leaves the system the energy of the state will be less than that of the initial state. So this ameba has to split. It has to become a multi cell organism as well so the whole theory of evolution can progress in to its various stages over billions of years to bring us to our current cro-magnon point. But it not only has to split once and become a multi cell organism, it has to do this twice (male and female right in order for the billions of years of evolution to happen). The LAW of entropy says its not possible. The LAW of entropy.

 

Since these complex organisms, that came from a single celled organism that miraculously formed in a primordial soup (made by campbells) on a forming planet that came from no where had to be replenished with energy so it could split twice! So out of one single celled organism, where did the energy come from for it to not only split once, but twice?

 

Then not to mention if we are talking about billions of years of evolution these species that we evolved from somehow miraculously lasted over one generation to procreate into another form? As you would say paolo......bollocks. There are plenty of laws of science that go against the THEORY of evolution, which is why it remains a theory, and not a fact. Also adaptation does not constitute proof of evolution.

 

So paolo. Once again, with your enlightened, opened, free thinking mind. Please, tell me. Where did all the energy come from that was there in nothingness to create this massive universe? All that energy that created the big bang. Where did that primoridial soup come from? Where did that ameba come from? That single celled life form which never exsisted in the first place. Where?

 

Thermodynamics is one of the binding phyiscs of the universe paolo. And, its ok to say you dont know, and you cant prove it, because when it comes down to it, through even the basic LAWS of physics, its not possible.

[Edited by lakia on 7/11/2009 at 12:16 AM]

Nice big wall of text, but your logic is faulty. The laws of physics (including the ones you mention) could not have existed to stop the universe from forming until after the universe had already been formed.

What came first, the chicken or the egg?  People much smarter (and much dumber) than we have been rehashing this debate for years.  Every individual has to come to their own conclusion about their place in this universe.  When you die, do you just lay there in your embalming fluid encased in a coffin, entombed in a concrete box six feet underground waiting for the bugs to find their way in?  Does your soul exit your dead shell of a body and get transported somewhere for your life to be judged and your eternal destination to be decided?  Does the way you've lived this life determine how you'll come back in your next life?

 

Posted by lakia

In order for a theory to become a fact in the scientific community it requires 7 pieces of corroborating evidence. Now to be perfectly honest i dont know how many pieces of corrorborating evidence they have to support evolution. If they had 7 it wouldnt be a theory.

 

I am not entirely sure that evolution is a theory anymore. Certainly it was introduced as ‘Darwin’s theory of Evolution’ as back then, old Charlie boy was unaware as to the vector providing the inheritable traits he saw in Galapagos Finches etc…..

 

Crick and Watson arrived and discovered this thing called DNA and hey presto! Suddenly evolutionary processes had a means…. A smoking gun! And thus theory no more.

 

If evolution is just wishy washy ‘faith’….. then how is it that we see selective breeding and gene therapies being wholesale in this day and age?

 

So lets talk about the first law of thermodynamics paolo.  All that energy that created the big bang came from some where. So where did it come from?

 

The simplicity of the question attempts to undermine the scale of what you are referring to. This energy you speak of, was enough to form and propel all that we know exists thru the heavens and then in addition all that we do not know exists (yet). That is a quite a lot!

 

My answer to you tho, is admittedly theoretical: a singularity. You need a factual, steadfastly certain answer? Well I do not have one. But does this compel me to suggest it all falls to some bearded dude in a robes….?

 

Then after the big bang happened, and the planets are forming, and on this molten, volatile rock called earth there is pool of primordial soup where some how, and against infintecimal odds an ameba is forming….

 

So this ameba has to split.  Since these complex organisms, had to be replenished with energy so it could split…. where did the energy come from for it to not only split once, but twice?

 

Nutrients from the soup (Heinz I think it was) provide energy….. just as the decaying bodies of organisms reintroduce said energy back into the soup. In addition to this, there is the ‘free energy’ provided by the sun. 

 

Then not to mention if we are talking about billions of years of evolution these species that we evolved from somehow miraculously lasted over one generation to procreate into another form? As you would say paolo......bollocks.

 

Yes indeed. Bollocks. 

 

The process of evolution takes many many generations. 

 

Freak mutations arise from the combinations of genetic information. By fluke, some of these mutations actually proffer benefit to their host. This benefit, in the form of ‘fitness’ means that they can fuck more, to ensure that this and other pieces of DNA pass on to subsequent generations.

 

Also adaptation does not constitute proof of evolution.

 

So you say. But you are wrong.

 

Please, tell me. Where did all the energy come from that was there in nothingness to create this massive universe?

 

A singularity

 

Where did that primoridial soup come from?

 

From the molten rock which became this planet

 

Where did that ameba come from?

 

From the freak coincidental occurrence that a self replicating molecule managed to combine, from all those gazillion pieces of singular proteins which formed the aforementioned soup.

 

Thermodynamics is one of the binding phyiscs of the universe paolo. And, its ok to say you dont know, and you cant prove it, because when it comes down to it, through even the basic LAWS of physics, its not possible.

 

Oh but it is possible. It has been witnessed and the methods and processes documented. And it remains ‘head and shoulders’ more tangible and more plausible than any other explanation for those ‘unanswerable questions’ that have plagued the minds of self aware animals!

 

Good to really hear from you again tho Laki…. It has been a long time.

Oh but it is possible. It has been witnessed and the methods and processes documented. And it remains ‘head and shoulders’ more tangible and more plausible than any other explanation for those ‘unanswerable questions’ that have plagued the minds of self aware animals!

 

Good to really hear from you again tho Laki…. It has been a long time.

Posted by collisson

Posted by lakia

Well paolo the simple fact that you have probably only spent time around fire and brimstone churches shows why you have that viewpoint. There alot of churches who do not preach the negatives and consequences, but love and rewards. I dont expect you to believe that though. After all, you are an "enlightened" individual who cant be bothered with with such fodder. Which is why you believe the theory of evolution to be true.

 

In order for a theory to become a fact in the scientific community it requires 7 pieces of corroborating evidence. Now to be perfectly honest i dont know how many pieces of corrorborating evidence they have to support evolution. If they had 7 it wouldnt be a theory.

 

So lets talk about the first law of thermodynamics paolo. The first LAW of thermodynamics states that energy can not be created or destroyed. It can and does change from one form to another (liquid to gas to solid). But the amount of energy in the universe remains constant and unchanging.

 

So simple question paolo. All that energy that created the big bang came from some where. So where did it come from? Seeing as the first law of thermodynamics states that all of the energy was already here, or it had to be at least in order to create the universe as we know it. It had to be there for the big bang to happen. Nothing comes from nothing. So.....enlighten me paolo. Where did it come from?

 

Then after the big bang happened, and the planets are forming, and on this molten, volatile rock called earth there is pool of primordial soup (did campbells make it?) where some how, and against infintecimal odds an ameba is forming (the same odds that make you believe god doesnt exsist). Which brings me to my second law of thermodynamics, or you might know it as entropy.

 

Now entropy just says that when energy is exchanged, if no energy enters or leaves the system the energy of the state will be less than that of the initial state. So this ameba has to split. It has to become a multi cell organism as well so the whole theory of evolution can progress in to its various stages over billions of years to bring us to our current cro-magnon point. But it not only has to split once and become a multi cell organism, it has to do this twice (male and female right in order for the billions of years of evolution to happen). The LAW of entropy says its not possible. The LAW of entropy.

 

Since these complex organisms, that came from a single celled organism that miraculously formed in a primordial soup (made by campbells) on a forming planet that came from no where had to be replenished with energy so it could split twice! So out of one single celled organism, where did the energy come from for it to not only split once, but twice?

 

Then not to mention if we are talking about billions of years of evolution these species that we evolved from somehow miraculously lasted over one generation to procreate into another form? As you would say paolo......bollocks. There are plenty of laws of science that go against the THEORY of evolution, which is why it remains a theory, and not a fact. Also adaptation does not constitute proof of evolution.

 

So paolo. Once again, with your enlightened, opened, free thinking mind. Please, tell me. Where did all the energy come from that was there in nothingness to create this massive universe? All that energy that created the big bang. Where did that primoridial soup come from? Where did that ameba come from? That single celled life form which never exsisted in the first place. Where?

 

Thermodynamics is one of the binding phyiscs of the universe paolo. And, its ok to say you dont know, and you cant prove it, because when it comes down to it, through even the basic LAWS of physics, its not possible.

[Edited by lakia on 7/11/2009 at 12:16 AM]

Nice big wall of text, but your logic is faulty. The laws of physics (including the ones you mention) could not have existed to stop the universe from forming until after the universe had already been formed.

Posted by lakia

Well if you would have taken the time to read the big wall of text, and thought about it. You might be able to grasp is that im using them as the reason EVOLUTION is false. No where did i say that they could have kept the universe from forming. Because apparently the fundamental laws of physics exsisted in some way considering they bind our entire universe.

 

Now stop trying to join the big kid talk, and go play with your pre-pubescent girlfriend.

Forgive me for misunderstanding exactly what you were trying to get at in that poorly written and ill-thought out excuse for an argument of yours. You see, when you asked paolo, "Where did all the energy come from that was there in nothingness to create this massive universe?", I figured you were employing the use of a rhetorical question as a way of claiming that the laws of thermodynamics should have somehow prevented the formation of the universe. As such, I countered the point I thought you were trying to make with one of my own. My mistake.

Additionally, I am hardly offended by passe insults coming from 25 year olds who consider the theory of evolution to be false, all the while failing to grasp even the simplest concepts of physics.

[Edited by collisson on 7/15/2009 at 1:13 AM]
[Edited by collisson on 7/15/2009 at 1:13 AM]

Evolution is NOT a theory.  That is all, carry on now!

Posted by TheMasochist
Evolution is NOT a theory.  That is all, carry on now!

[Edited by davesc2 on 7/15/2009 at 2:47 AM]
[Edited by davesc2 on 7/15/2009 at 2:56 AM]

 

Posted by davesc2
Really?  People have witnessed the primordial soup become single-cell organisms become multi-cell organisms become fish and so on and so forth...?

 

No. what I was referring to however, was the witnessing of mutations creating distinct and variable phenotypes, which persist to create radiation of new species. Aka evolution.

 

Darwin stated evolution to mere ‘theory’ because in his day, that is all that it was. Unlike the clergy, scientist tend to be more modest with what is deemed factual and unequivocal.

 

Since then, scientific collaboration has found the vector of Darwin’s theory; applied study and research to and thru it, and found that this theory is true and thus the principle is factually precise. Aka FACT.

 

 Who's to say that the entire fossil record isn't some elaborate mind-fuck by some bearded guy in robes?

 

To put it simply….

 

Evidence of evolution: DNA recombination

Evidence of fossil planting bearded guy in a robe: not a sausage!

 

Paolo has faith that the science he knows to be 'true' actually is true simply because most of what science has told us can be demonstrated and shown to be true thru direct or indirect means.  There are still many many things that science accepts as fact that are still just theories.  

 

And there are even more things proven to be factually correct, which bible bashers find intolerable, to the extent of burning books and vilifying those of an opposing point of view. 

 

Meanwhile, scientists remain objective and open minded for the purpose of self fulfillment. Whose work would you presume to be more worthy of study?

 

people accept the bible as truth and believe god is all around us, watching and guiding each of us thru our lives without anyone even knowing.

 

Which is as arrogant as it is bizarre.

 

People accept scientific theories as truth and believe that we are on our own to make our own decisions and accept the rewards/consequences of those decisions and when they die they should be left to decompose and return their energy to the universe to be used again.

 

Such is accepted as truth only once it is demonstrable. As for the recycling of carbon and energies….. I would find it interesting to read try to claim otherwise.

 

But both are based to one extent or another on faith.

 

Not at all true.

 

How do we know that the singularity that begat our universe wasn't just a pimple on god's ass and when it popped that was our big bang?  

 

It could well be. However, there is no such evidence of a god, nor a god’s arse, nor a pimple on such an arse….. and so why such a distaste for the modesty that comes with saying that prior to this singularity, we simply do not know?

 

Does it hurt paolo to have christians in the world?

 

It is not so much the effect they have upon me. Personally I find it amusing that so many have been so badly conned. But for the broader case of humanity, the ill-effects of organized religion of every strain is profound, ongoing, and entirely lamentable.

 

And now I'm going to be late for work, oh well.  Maybe I'll cut a bunch of people's cable off and tell them it's paolo's fault.  People get awfully ornery when they lose their internet access....

 

Go get em cable guy….. tell them of this mythical paolo that makes you tardy. They wont believe you, there is no evidence of my existence; coz apparently according to you, if you can’t see it, it never happened!

I have seen evolution, and even caused it to occur, within populations of bacteria in ninth grade biology class.

Posted by collisson

Posted by lakia

Well if you would have taken the time to read the big wall of text, and thought about it. You might be able to grasp is that im using them as the reason EVOLUTION is false. No where did i say that they could have kept the universe from forming. Because apparently the fundamental laws of physics exsisted in some way considering they bind our entire universe.

 

Now stop trying to join the big kid talk, and go play with your pre-pubescent girlfriend.

Forgive me for misunderstanding exactly what you were trying to get at in that poorly written and ill-thought out excuse for an argument of yours. You see, when you asked paolo, "Where did all the energy come from that was there in nothingness to create this massive universe?", I figured you were employing the use of a rhetorical question as a way of claiming that the laws of thermodynamics should have somehow prevented the formation of the universe. As such, I countered the point I thought you were trying to make with one of my own. My mistake.

Additionally, I am hardly offended by passe insults coming from 25 year olds who consider the theory of evolution to be false, all the while failing to grasp even the simplest concepts of physics.

[Edited by collisson on 7/15/2009 at 1:13 AM]
[Edited by collisson on 7/15/2009 at 1:13 AM]

Go back and read what you wrote earlier. You most definitely made the argument that according to the first law of thermodynamics, the universe should not have been able to form.

That aside, your claim that the asexual reproduction of microorganisms is impossible due to the second law of thermodynamics is absurd. It happens all the time today, and happened under the same laws billions of years ago. Do you not understand that microorganisms can gain the energy to reproduce and grow through actions such as eating and photosynthesizing?

Finally, evolution did take place in my ninth grade biology class when we implanted certain bacteria with a gene that caused them to produce a phosphorescent chemical. Since these glow-in-the-dark bacteria put energy into producing a chemical that other bacteria living in the same petri dish did not, they were inefficient. As a result of this inefficiency, the phosphorescent bacteria could not compete for resources as well as the the other bacteria, reproduced less, and their kind soon died out. The reason my ninth grade experiment does not make the theory of evolution fact is because it does not prove that life on Earth got where it is today through evolution. It only demonstrated that evolution is possible, and a naturally occuring phenomena.

Oh, and if anyone needs to get over themselves and put up a real argument, it's you.

[Edited by collisson on 7/16/2009 at 2:29 AM]

Posted by lakia

Which i still find amusing because if that was the case, thinking logically, the laws would be very different in our very real universe. I was gettin that the laws of thermodynamics go against the theory of evolution. Not how the universe was created. Comprehending this yet kiddo?

Posted by collisson
Go back and read what you wrote earlier. You most definitely made the argument that according to the first law of thermodynamics, the universe should not have been able to form.

That aside, your claim that the asexual reproduction of microorganisms is impossible due to the second law of thermodynamics is absurd. It happens all the time today, and happened under the same laws billions of years ago. Do you not understand that microorganisms can gain the energy to reproduce and grow through actions such as eating and photosynthesizing?

Finally, evolution did take place in my ninth grade biology class when we implanted certain bacteria with a gene that caused them to produce a phosphorescent chemical. Since these glow-in-the-dark bacteria put energy into producing a chemical that other bacteria living in the same petri dish did not, they were inefficient. As a result of this inefficiency, the phosphorescent bacteria could not compete for resources as well as the the other bacteria, reproduced less, and their kind soon died out. The reason my ninth grade experiment does not make the theory of evolution fact is because it does not prove that life on Earth got where it is today through evolution. It only demonstrated that evolution is possible, and a naturally occuring phenomena.

Oh, and if anyone needs to get over themselves and put up a real argument, it's you.

[Edited by collisson on 7/16/2009 at 2:29 AM]