Religion????????
-
Only suckers believe in religion. The Vatican is really just a soundstage.
Typical espeir answer "gotta love it" :) But in all seriousness what are your believes? -Richard
-
Whats your take on religion. Do you "believe" or not. "When a man ceases to believe in god, he does not believe in nothing. He believes in everything." ..........G.K. Chesterson "When in comes to bullshit...bigtime, major league bullshit...you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims...religion." ..........George Carlin "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." ..........Ben Franklin
I don't have religion, but I do have Faith. :) For me it's an intensely personal thing...I don't preach, and firmly believe that if someone is destined to come to Faith they will do so when and where they are ready and not before. No amount of discussion or convincing would have led me to God earlier in my life...I just wasn't ready. When I was ready, I knew. Anna :rose: Currently working mostly on: Visual Lint :cool: Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work.
-
Whats your take on religion. Do you "believe" or not. "When a man ceases to believe in god, he does not believe in nothing. He believes in everything." ..........G.K. Chesterson "When in comes to bullshit...bigtime, major league bullshit...you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims...religion." ..........George Carlin "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." ..........Ben Franklin
Religion or faith? The tigress is here :-D
-
I thought you were Druze? My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
-
If by that you mean is there a God then absolutely yes. All you have to do is look out your window to prove that :) And before everyone trys to say that evolution caused it all remember that even Darwin himself said that evolution wasn't true. If I remember correctly he said something to the following: If any organism is so complex that it could not have come to its current state by a series of small mutations then I am wrong and the Eye is such and organism. (not a direct quote) -Richard Parsons
Richard Parsons wrote:
And before everyone trys to say that evolution caused it all remember that even Darwin himself said that evolution wasn't true. If I remember correctly he said something to the following: If any organism is so complex that it could not have come to its current state by a series of small mutations then I am wrong and the Eye is such and organism.
You are an ignorant fool. Darwin never said that evolution wasn't true and never said that the eye could not have evolved by a series of small mutations (actually, he never referred to mutations at all since his work preceded the modern understanding of genetics). For expository reasons, he did write that it "seems" absurd to suppose that the eye evolved through natural selection but he then went on to argue that this difficulty is apparent rather than real. He concludes his discussion with the following: If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. Not knowing this falls under the category of ignorance. Where the foolishness comes in is in so readily accepting the improbable claim that Darwin could be the father of modern evolutionary theory and that evolutionary theory would be so widely accepted if Darwin had himself claimed that evolution was false. No doubt you heard this story from some Christian apologist. News flash. Christian apologists frequently talk rubbish and not uncommonly tell lies. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
If by that you mean is there a God then absolutely yes. All you have to do is look out your window to prove that :) And before everyone trys to say that evolution caused it all remember that even Darwin himself said that evolution wasn't true. If I remember correctly he said something to the following: If any organism is so complex that it could not have come to its current state by a series of small mutations then I am wrong and the Eye is such and organism. (not a direct quote) -Richard Parsons
Richard Parsons wrote:
Eye is such and organism
You might want to read Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker where he demonstrates exactly how the eye came in to being citing ample evidence to back up this claim.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage (1791-1871) My: Website | Blog
-
Richard Parsons wrote:
Eye is such and organism
You might want to read Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker where he demonstrates exactly how the eye came in to being citing ample evidence to back up this claim.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage (1791-1871) My: Website | Blog
Thanks for the reference. :)
-
Whats your take on religion. Do you "believe" or not. "When a man ceases to believe in god, he does not believe in nothing. He believes in everything." ..........G.K. Chesterson "When in comes to bullshit...bigtime, major league bullshit...you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims...religion." ..........George Carlin "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." ..........Ben Franklin
I don't. Everything has an explanation. - बुरा जो देखण मै चला, बुरा न िमलया कोय, जो मन खोजा आपणा तो मुझसे बुरा न कोय। Translation
-
Richard Parsons wrote:
And before everyone trys to say that evolution caused it all remember that even Darwin himself said that evolution wasn't true. If I remember correctly he said something to the following: If any organism is so complex that it could not have come to its current state by a series of small mutations then I am wrong and the Eye is such and organism.
You are an ignorant fool. Darwin never said that evolution wasn't true and never said that the eye could not have evolved by a series of small mutations (actually, he never referred to mutations at all since his work preceded the modern understanding of genetics). For expository reasons, he did write that it "seems" absurd to suppose that the eye evolved through natural selection but he then went on to argue that this difficulty is apparent rather than real. He concludes his discussion with the following: If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. Not knowing this falls under the category of ignorance. Where the foolishness comes in is in so readily accepting the improbable claim that Darwin could be the father of modern evolutionary theory and that evolutionary theory would be so widely accepted if Darwin had himself claimed that evolution was false. No doubt you heard this story from some Christian apologist. News flash. Christian apologists frequently talk rubbish and not uncommonly tell lies. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
My apologies for not looking up the exact quote but I was in a hurry to leave the office :) so if for that I am an “ignorant fool” then so be it. Here is the exact quote: “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” For those who would actually like to read about it here is the clickety: Darwin vs the eye[^]
-
My apologies for not looking up the exact quote but I was in a hurry to leave the office :) so if for that I am an “ignorant fool” then so be it. Here is the exact quote: “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” For those who would actually like to read about it here is the clickety: Darwin vs the eye[^]
Richard Parsons wrote:
My apologies for not looking up the exact quote but I was in a hurry to leave the office so if for that I am an “ignorant fool” then so be it.
The problem is not with the "exactness" of the quote. The problem is that you have asserted something that is simply false, namely that Darwin believed that the supposed inability of the eye to arise from evolutionary processes refuted his theory of evolution.
Richard Parsons wrote:
“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” For those who would actually like to read about it here is the clickety: Darwin vs the eye[^]
And after the passage you quote we read: "Yet, later on in the same chapter of his book, he explained how he believed it evolved anyway and that the ‘absurdity’ was illusory." So even Answers in Genesis (a notoriously dishonest organization) isn't supporting your original ludicrous claim that Darwin believed that difficulties with the evolution of the eye disproved his theory. Answers in Genesis returns to form in claiming: "Had Darwin had the knowledge about the eye and its associated systems that man has today (which is a great deal more than what it was in his time), he may have given up his naturalistic theory on the origin of living things." Yeah. Pigs may fly. Belief in evolution among modern scientists is stronger than it was in Darwin's time. The more evidence we have, the stronger the case for evolution becomes. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
Whats your take on religion. Do you "believe" or not. "When a man ceases to believe in god, he does not believe in nothing. He believes in everything." ..........G.K. Chesterson "When in comes to bullshit...bigtime, major league bullshit...you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims...religion." ..........George Carlin "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." ..........Ben Franklin
Religion is the result of a set of very fundamental instincts which define our humanity. We all place our faith in something. It is impossible not to. The most modern incrnation of religion consists of reason and rationality and the scientific methodlogies. Yet, the notion that the human mind is even capable of comphrehending the true nature of the universe is an act of faith in and of itself. Science, ultimately, is nothing more than a way of quantifying what we observe, of reducing it down to a set of precise mathmatical relationships. The problem with that is that we have to accept on faith that what we are observing and measuring is real, while the only reality we have any direct experience with is the phenomenon of our own conscious existence which we have yet to achieve anything remotely approching a satisfying explanation for. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
Richard Parsons wrote:
My apologies for not looking up the exact quote but I was in a hurry to leave the office so if for that I am an “ignorant fool” then so be it.
The problem is not with the "exactness" of the quote. The problem is that you have asserted something that is simply false, namely that Darwin believed that the supposed inability of the eye to arise from evolutionary processes refuted his theory of evolution.
Richard Parsons wrote:
“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” For those who would actually like to read about it here is the clickety: Darwin vs the eye[^]
And after the passage you quote we read: "Yet, later on in the same chapter of his book, he explained how he believed it evolved anyway and that the ‘absurdity’ was illusory." So even Answers in Genesis (a notoriously dishonest organization) isn't supporting your original ludicrous claim that Darwin believed that difficulties with the evolution of the eye disproved his theory. Answers in Genesis returns to form in claiming: "Had Darwin had the knowledge about the eye and its associated systems that man has today (which is a great deal more than what it was in his time), he may have given up his naturalistic theory on the origin of living things." Yeah. Pigs may fly. Belief in evolution among modern scientists is stronger than it was in Darwin's time. The more evidence we have, the stronger the case for evolution becomes. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
John Carson wrote: The more evidence we have, the stronger the case for evolution becomes. Interesting except it is not true, actually the more science learns the more they disprove the theory of evolution. For instance the moon is moving away from earth at a rate of 3.8 centimeters/year (http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1282.html[^]) if evolution were true then at one time (several million years ago – I didn’t do all the math for you) the moon would have been sitting on top of the earth. However if you believe God then the earth is only about 6000 years old and you wouldn’t have a close-up view of the moon. -Richard
-
John Carson wrote: The more evidence we have, the stronger the case for evolution becomes. Interesting except it is not true, actually the more science learns the more they disprove the theory of evolution. For instance the moon is moving away from earth at a rate of 3.8 centimeters/year (http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1282.html[^]) if evolution were true then at one time (several million years ago – I didn’t do all the math for you) the moon would have been sitting on top of the earth. However if you believe God then the earth is only about 6000 years old and you wouldn’t have a close-up view of the moon. -Richard
Richard Parsons wrote:
Interesting except it is not true, actually the more science learns the more they disprove the theory of evolution. For instance the moon is moving away from earth at a rate of 3.8 centimeters/year (http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1282.html\[^\]) if evolution were true then at one time (several million years ago – I didn’t do all the math for you) the moon would have been sitting on top of the earth. However if you believe God then the earth is only about 6000 years old and you wouldn’t have a close-up view of the moon.
You really are a fool. Here is another link from the same site: http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1711.html[^] Is it true that the Moon is moving away from the Earth? Yes, and this has been confirmed through more that a decade of lunar ranging experiments using the reflectors left on the Moon by Apollo astronauts. It has also been verified by looking at fossil deposits. In both cases, the rate works out to be about 3.8 centimeters per year, and the fossil sediment layering records show that this motion has been constant for over 900 million years at this same rate. Let me do the math for you. 900 million times 3.8cm gives 34,200 km. The moon is currently an average of about 385,000 km from earth, so bringing it 34,200 km closer doesn't bring the moon on top of the earth. What about 4 billion years ago? Well, it is in fact widely hypothesised that the moon formed from the earth (probably as a result of a collision between the earth and another object), so there is nothing troubling to standard scientific views in the idea that, if you go back far enough, the earth and moon come together. You show no evidence of any serious thought on this subject so I won't waste any more time on you. If you have any interest in getting a clue, then the following may be a good place to start. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html[^] John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
#hackC++ wrote:
Whats your take on religion. Do you "believe" or not.
I believe that religion exists - There is a church at the end of my street and I see people going there on Sunday. There are other churches in town and I've seen people go to them also. I saw people go to church when I was a child. I have seen people go to the mosque in Edinburgh. There is ample evidence that religion exists. :-D
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage (1791-1871) My: Website | Blog
Nothing like a pedantic reply in a thread about religion... :rolleyes:
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Richard Parsons wrote:
Interesting except it is not true, actually the more science learns the more they disprove the theory of evolution. For instance the moon is moving away from earth at a rate of 3.8 centimeters/year (http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1282.html\[^\]) if evolution were true then at one time (several million years ago – I didn’t do all the math for you) the moon would have been sitting on top of the earth. However if you believe God then the earth is only about 6000 years old and you wouldn’t have a close-up view of the moon.
You really are a fool. Here is another link from the same site: http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1711.html[^] Is it true that the Moon is moving away from the Earth? Yes, and this has been confirmed through more that a decade of lunar ranging experiments using the reflectors left on the Moon by Apollo astronauts. It has also been verified by looking at fossil deposits. In both cases, the rate works out to be about 3.8 centimeters per year, and the fossil sediment layering records show that this motion has been constant for over 900 million years at this same rate. Let me do the math for you. 900 million times 3.8cm gives 34,200 km. The moon is currently an average of about 385,000 km from earth, so bringing it 34,200 km closer doesn't bring the moon on top of the earth. What about 4 billion years ago? Well, it is in fact widely hypothesised that the moon formed from the earth (probably as a result of a collision between the earth and another object), so there is nothing troubling to standard scientific views in the idea that, if you go back far enough, the earth and moon come together. You show no evidence of any serious thought on this subject so I won't waste any more time on you. If you have any interest in getting a clue, then the following may be a good place to start. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html[^] John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
Ok so maybe not several million years, maybe several billion years. Either way you are arguing a point you know I am correct on. ;) At one point the Moon would have been on earth (or been apart of it). Now you expect people to believe that something caused the earth to split and it just happened to end up as 2 spherical objects and that one of these objects continued to grow life while the other died and orbited the other? Come on... If this were true then both would have continued to contain life or at least some trace of it. Also if some "thing" caused a split then the gravitational forces on both objects (earth and moon) would have caused them to pull back together or the moon would have been shot away from the earth and never quit moving at that speed unless it was hit by more objects that just happen to stop it far enough away from the earth that it could escape not being pulled back together with earth. Do you really think that so many coincidences are possible to help "create" and sustain life? If so you have more faith than me, to bad it isn’t in something that is real. -Richard
-
#hackC++ wrote:
Whats your take on religion. Do you "believe" or not.
I believe that religion exists - There is a church at the end of my street and I see people going there on Sunday. There are other churches in town and I've seen people go to them also. I saw people go to church when I was a child. I have seen people go to the mosque in Edinburgh. There is ample evidence that religion exists. :-D
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage (1791-1871) My: Website | Blog
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
There is ample evidence that religion exists.
I contend that there is no religion. It's just a cosmic electrochemical inbalance.
-
Ok so maybe not several million years, maybe several billion years. Either way you are arguing a point you know I am correct on. ;) At one point the Moon would have been on earth (or been apart of it). Now you expect people to believe that something caused the earth to split and it just happened to end up as 2 spherical objects and that one of these objects continued to grow life while the other died and orbited the other? Come on... If this were true then both would have continued to contain life or at least some trace of it. Also if some "thing" caused a split then the gravitational forces on both objects (earth and moon) would have caused them to pull back together or the moon would have been shot away from the earth and never quit moving at that speed unless it was hit by more objects that just happen to stop it far enough away from the earth that it could escape not being pulled back together with earth. Do you really think that so many coincidences are possible to help "create" and sustain life? If so you have more faith than me, to bad it isn’t in something that is real. -Richard
Richard Parsons wrote:
If this were true then both would have continued to contain life or at least some trace of it
Based upon what principle?
Richard Parsons wrote:
Also if some "thing" caused a split then the gravitational forces on both objects (earth and moon) would have caused them to pull back together or the moon would have been shot away from the earth and never quit moving at that speed unless it was hit by more objects that just happen to stop it far enough away from the earth that it could escape not being pulled back together with earth.
The moon is being shot away from the earth. Its just doing it rather slowly. Someday the earth will have no moon. How careless of God, eh?
Richard Parsons wrote:
Do you really think that so many coincidences are possible to help "create" and sustain life?
Ever stop to consider that perhaps conincidence is how God gets his work done? Maybe that is why he created such a huge universe - in order to provide sufficient probability of getting the desired results. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
Nothing like a pedantic reply in a thread about religion... :rolleyes:
Software Zen:
delete this;I aim to please.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage (1791-1871) My: Website | Blog
-
Richard Parsons wrote:
If this were true then both would have continued to contain life or at least some trace of it
Based upon what principle?
Richard Parsons wrote:
Also if some "thing" caused a split then the gravitational forces on both objects (earth and moon) would have caused them to pull back together or the moon would have been shot away from the earth and never quit moving at that speed unless it was hit by more objects that just happen to stop it far enough away from the earth that it could escape not being pulled back together with earth.
The moon is being shot away from the earth. Its just doing it rather slowly. Someday the earth will have no moon. How careless of God, eh?
Richard Parsons wrote:
Do you really think that so many coincidences are possible to help "create" and sustain life?
Ever stop to consider that perhaps conincidence is how God gets his work done? Maybe that is why he created such a huge universe - in order to provide sufficient probability of getting the desired results. "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
Based upon what principle?
Based on the "theory" that life evolves. It is a logical assumption that if the earth split than both it and the moon would contain at least some kind of life that would have continued until now.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The moon is being shot away from the earth. Its just doing it rather slowly.
Yes but if it had always moved that slow then when it split to begin with the earth and moon would have pulled themselves back together unless the moon was moving faster away than earth's gravity could pull it back. That lead to the next statement I made that if it was moving that fast then why all the sudden did it slow down? It most likely would have come from yet another collision with another "object" to stop it just in time to still be held by earth's gravity but it also stopped just far enough away that it wouldn't be pulled back to earth killing us all. Seems like a lot of coincidence went into that all working out for us.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Ever stop to consider that perhaps conincidence is how God gets his work done? Maybe that is why he created such a huge universe - in order to provide sufficient probability of getting the desired results.
Sure I have thought of it. God's word says that there is a time and place for everything and it actually list "chance" as one of those things that just happens. I however don't believe that it was by chance that everything came into existence because we are told that God created everything in six days and then rested on the seventh. -Richard
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Based upon what principle?
Based on the "theory" that life evolves. It is a logical assumption that if the earth split than both it and the moon would contain at least some kind of life that would have continued until now.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The moon is being shot away from the earth. Its just doing it rather slowly.
Yes but if it had always moved that slow then when it split to begin with the earth and moon would have pulled themselves back together unless the moon was moving faster away than earth's gravity could pull it back. That lead to the next statement I made that if it was moving that fast then why all the sudden did it slow down? It most likely would have come from yet another collision with another "object" to stop it just in time to still be held by earth's gravity but it also stopped just far enough away that it wouldn't be pulled back to earth killing us all. Seems like a lot of coincidence went into that all working out for us.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Ever stop to consider that perhaps conincidence is how God gets his work done? Maybe that is why he created such a huge universe - in order to provide sufficient probability of getting the desired results.
Sure I have thought of it. God's word says that there is a time and place for everything and it actually list "chance" as one of those things that just happens. I however don't believe that it was by chance that everything came into existence because we are told that God created everything in six days and then rested on the seventh. -Richard
Richard Parsons wrote:
I however don't believe that it was by chance that everything came into existence because we are told that God created everything in six days and then rested on the seventh.
What on earth, if I may be so bold to ask, have made you believe that? Ask yourself, has God ever told you this, or have you been told by other men?