ADVERTISEMENT

Over 90% of us believe in God and half don't believe in . . .

Originally posted by nmaddog:

Originally posted by jrotten666:

Originally posted by nmaddog:
How does religion explain man's "belief" in evolution?

Evolution can explain man's belief in religion, so I was just wondering if the reverse is true.

Trying to guess I come up with these possibilities


It's a false concept propagated by Satan to lead man away from God's truth; or


It's God testing man's faith.

Is there anything else?

Is there a place in religion for evolution, without it being a lie or a test?


There is no place in religion for evolution, because they are diametrically opposed. The religionists have it right on this one. I suppose one could be a deist and say that God started everything in motion and let the natural processes take over. However, that brings up one major issue, which is what evolutionary mechanism would allow for the human soul? To clarify, does a home Erectus lack a soul and then all of a sudden Homo Sapiens possess one? And as you know, in evoutionary terms, there is no clear dividing line between the two species, they are classifications that work well, but are only a model. I suppose you could say that every living thing posesses a soul, but then we are talking about the lowest bacteria and single-celled organisms.

As much as some try to reconcile the two, they cannot honestly be reconciled.

Most of the religious people I know accept evolution. Most do not take the bible literally or view it as inerrant. Nor are they Deists.

There is, of course, no evidence for the existence of a soul. Like God, there isn't even a definition that would withstand logical or scientific scrutiny, yet still retain the intended significance religious people impute to soul.

One of the best books I have ever read that I forget the title of, but I will let you know when I dig it out, postulated that not only were science and religion incompatible, but that even asking questions like "Is there a God?" was not even very scientific. What do you even mean by God? We can ask "Is there a Bigfoot?", because we at least can conceretely describe some properties he posesses, if by nothing else, at least the photo of the guy in the monkey suit. And we know he probably lives in the Pacific Northwest.

But what about God? He lives in Heaven. Oh, yeah! I know where that is. I'll set up my camera there hoping to capture a snapshot of Him. He is jealous, loving and quick to anger. Well, so is my finacee, but I can prove she exists. At least as far as anything can be proven.

The God of the Bible, apart from His alleged physical interventions in the world (talking out of an ass, impregnating a virgin, etc.) that have dubious historical authenticity, to say the least, we can really say very little about Him, except in abstract terms.

All this as opposed to Darwin who seeing concrete examples of the variations among species asked the question as to why this was and came up with a pretty good answer overall.
 
I think the original post was pretty pessimistic. Half DO believe in evolution.

Come on, man.
 
Originally posted by fsu1jreed:
Man, Hounded is a trip. Reminds me of Fletch/Accuro.
The similarity is that both he and are often alone facing the "The Mock Squad." LOL. It's an interesting dynamic.

Speaking of that, what in the world are you guys doing on a message board on Saturday night? Shouldn't you be out partying some where, flexing & satisifying those Darwinian desires of yours? I can see me here; I'm a mid forties religious guy who did some work around the house and am typing away while eating, before I go watch a movie with the kids.

You guys are destroying my image of you as handsome, intelligent, a witty young men ready to take on the world. Are you nothing more than geeks?
 
Originally posted by Kotz_72:
I think the original post was pretty pessimistic. Half DO believe in evolution.

Come on, man.
You've got a point. I see my expectations have unnecessarily lowered.
 
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:
Originally posted by fsu1jreed:
Man, Hounded is a trip. Reminds me of Fletch/Accuro.
The similarity is that both he and are often alone facing the "The Mock Squad." LOL. It's an interesting dynamic.

Speaking of that, what in the world are you guys doing on a message board on Saturday night? Shouldn't you be out partying some where, flexing & satisifying those Darwinian desires of yours? I can see me here; I'm a mid forties religious guy who did some work around the house and am typing away while eating, before I go watch a movie with the kids.

You guys are destroying my image of you as handsome, intelligent, a witty young men ready to take on the world. Are you nothing more than geeks?

when the arguement goes awry, resort to low blows and personal insults. nice touch.
to respond though- i've been cleaning the house, made dinner, bout ready to shave and go out to a party, bring my gf back to my house and have pre-marital sex with her that may or may not last more than 2 minutes.
 
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Originally posted by jrotten666:
Those are selective pressures?
Yes, of course they are. And, BTW - I said it was "like" this, that is I used a simile, a comparison using like or as. I didn't ever say it was a perfect analogy. Nothing could be. But it is very similar in that it is all about the accumulation of "positive" information without destroying itself.


Originally posted by jrotten666:
What you are talking about are system failures analogous to diseases in the human organism, but not even really that, because it is a MACHINE.
One is a biological machine, the other manmade.


Originally posted by jrotten666:
When a computer system is able to replicate itself and pass it's properties to it's "offspring", corruptions and all, then get back to me (i.e. when it becomes something more than a machine created by man.
You're missing parts of the comparision. I never said the computer would replicate itself. I compared it to the world. Does the world replicate itself? No, it is the environment in which evolution is alleged to have occurred. I plainly stated I was referring the software developing. Don't create straw mans here for me now to deal with. I've got enough to do.


Originally posted by jrotten666:
By the way, what is an example of a "carnivourous" program, apart from a virus? Applications do not develop on their own,
Ah, and this is a part of the point.

A computer is a MACHINE, do you understand that? Do you even understand how computers work? They do exactly what they are told and nothing more. They are a machines made by man, like a wind-up watch and nothing more. For all their alleged complexity, they really are below that of even the most basic organism.

So a hard drive becomes corrupted. That causes an application to crash. Do you know why? Because the executable code is no longer available to execute. Applications, even within the closed computer system you are trying to propose do not replicate themselves. They are not designed to. They do not spawn other applications. A living organism may become "corrupted", in other words, suffer from disease or have genetic mututions. However, if they survive and create offspring, then their genetic code is passed on. Computers do not do this because they are machines, and still fairly primitive ones at that. You really need to quit getting hopped up on the science fiction and read PC's for Dummies or something like that.
This post was edited on 3/31 6:52 PM by jrotten666if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 
Originally posted by nmaddog:
I challenge you to explain how your"answers" make sense in a natural selection context.
They are elements that create pressure on a potential program initially forming and improving.

Originally posted by nmaddog:
For some reason people put up with your bizarre language skills and rediculous assertions . . .
My language skills do allow me to correctly spell "ridiculous."

Originally posted by nmaddog:
For some reason people put up with your bizarre language skills and rediculous assertions and respond to you like you're not an idiot. I think it's time to call your hand. Put up or shut up.
That's because I am not an idiot. I see I touched nerve with "You go girl." I repent in sack cloth and ashes. You're usually quite civil with me and I don't want to ruin that.
 
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

If god is perfect and all powerful as you say, why doesn't he simply just destroy evil? If he is all powerful, that should certainly be well within his power. Either he chooses not to destroy evil and he is wicked or incompetent, or he is not all powerful and thus can't destroy evil.

The problem of evil.

Because then He would have to destroy freedom of choice, and then there would be no purpose for mankind.

So, mankind would have no purpose if Osama bin Laden did not have the free will to murder infidels? And does free will shield me against tornadoes and other natural disasters? And why did "god" create animals that need to eat each other to survive? Is that intelligent? Is there no other way? And what motivation do all the macroevolutionists having for lying about it? If it is a big lie, what do they gain by convincing me otherwise?
 
Originally posted by jrotten666:
A computer is a MACHINE, do you understand that? Do you even understand how computers work? They do exactly what they are told and nothing more. They are a machines made by man, like a wind-up watch and nothing more. For all their alleged complexity, they really are below that of even the most basic organism.
Yes, I am aware of that. And we are biological machines. And I believe our code also does what it is told and we do our thing, unless it somehow amazingly has a good mutation, and does something else. That's what I am addressing with the randomly mutating hard drive. It is where the code is for these programs. When mutations happens they are not positive. They don't add positive instruction sets.

Originally posted by jrotten666:
So a hard drive becomes corrupted. That causes an application to crash. Do you know why? Because the executable code is no longer available to execute. Applications, even within the closed computer system you are trying to propose do not replicate themselves. They do not spawn other applications. A living organism may become "corrupted", in other words, suffer from disease or have genetic mututions. However, if they survive and create offspring, then their genetic code is passed on. Computers do not do this because they are machines, and still fairly primitive ones at that. You really need to quit getting hopped up on the science fiction and read PC's for Dummies or something like that.
I know how they basically work. And computers are turned off and on. Any mutation of the code is passed on to the next boot. It never makes the program better.

One of the people in our congregation is a big wig in Adobe, a software prodigy. He created the original "Frogger" while a boy and initial programs for golf. I ran my little scenario here by him and he agreed and thought it was a good comparison. I think you would excuse me if I decide to take the genius' word over yours.
 
Originally posted by DTP2:

Originally posted by HoundedHawk:


If god is perfect and all powerful as you say, why doesn't he simply just destroy evil? If he is all powerful, that should certainly be well within his power. Either he chooses not to destroy evil and he is wicked or incompetent, or he is not all powerful and thus can't destroy evil.

The problem of evil.

Because then He would have to destroy freedom of choice, and then there would be no purpose for mankind.

So, mankind would have no purpose if Osama bin Laden did not have the free will to murder infidels? And does free will shield me against tornadoes and other natural disasters? And why did "god" create animals that need to eat each other to survive? Is that intelligent? Is there no other way? And what motivation do all the macroevolutionists having for lying about it? If it is a big lie, what do they gain by convincing me otherwise?

Or to use logical sophistry:

1) God is a perfect being
2) God created the world
3) Evil exists in the world
4) A perfect being could not create evil
5) Therefore God does not exist

Thomas Aquinas should have kept his mouth shut. I don't really believe in this argument, but it is as logical as any of the sword sophistry arguments out there. Fortunately, science requires a little bit more than being a word wizard.
This post was edited on 3/31 7:12 PM by jrotten666if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

If god is perfect and all powerful as you say, why doesn't he simply just destroy evil? If he is all powerful, that should certainly be well within his power. Either he chooses not to destroy evil and he is wicked or incompetent, or he is not all powerful and thus can't destroy evil.

The problem of evil.

Because then He would have to destroy freedom of choice, and then there would be no purpose for mankind.

What about kids born with genetic disorders? They clearly did not choose to have the problems they have. Why doesn't god end suffering? Does he enjoy to watch us suffer in pain we didn't choose and didn't bring on ourselves? If God is all powerful, then he should be able to eliminate suffering. But suffering exists, so he either chooses to allow it to exists or he doesn't have to power to end it. Your god is either wicked or impotent.


This post was edited on 3/31 7:03 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Originally posted by jrotten666:
A computer is a MACHINE, do you understand that? Do you even understand how computers work? They do exactly what they are told and nothing more. They are a machines made by man, like a wind-up watch and nothing more. For all their alleged complexity, they really are below that of even the most basic organism.
Yes, I am aware of that. And we are biological machines. And I believe our code also does what it is told and we do our thing, unless it somehow amazingly has a good mutation, and does something else. That's what I am addressing with the randomly mutating hard drive. It is where the code is for these programs. When mutations happens they are not positive. They don't add positive instruction sets.


Originally posted by jrotten666:
So a hard drive becomes corrupted. That causes an application to crash. Do you know why? Because the executable code is no longer available to execute. Applications, even within the closed computer system you are trying to propose do not replicate themselves. They do not spawn other applications. A living organism may become "corrupted", in other words, suffer from disease or have genetic mututions. However, if they survive and create offspring, then their genetic code is passed on. Computers do not do this because they are machines, and still fairly primitive ones at that. You really need to quit getting hopped up on the science fiction and read PC's for Dummies or something like that.
I know how they basically work. And computers are turned off and on. Any mutation of the code is passed on to the next boot. It never makes the program better.

One of the people in our congregation is a big wig in Adobe, a software prodigy. He created the original "Frogger" while a boy and initial programs for golf. I ran my little scenario here by him and he agreed and thought it was a good comparison. I think you would excuse me if I decide to take the genius' word over yours.

Code does not mutate. Code does not rewrite and recompile itself (for compiled vs. interpreted code, but the prtinciple is the same). It just doesn't work. Tell your frogger boy that I will corrupt his hard drive sectors where his apps are installed, and his apps will crash when they hit that point. Just because your boy knows how to design a frog jumping around on the screen doesn't mean he knows anything about evolution to make a judgement.

It is a machine. Like a watch, it does not propogate. If a part is removed, it either won't work properly or just not at all. Software is the same way. It does not mutate. It executes exactly what it is instructed to do.

Using your analogy, then any machine created by man could be used to demonstrate that evolution is false. The watch does not evolve, even when undergoing the selective pressures of being dropped in the toilet. Well, evolution must be false then. The caveman's club stays a club even when burned in the fire that his screwball mate threw it into. So evolution is false. These are just tools. Nothing more.
 
Originally posted by DTP2:

Originally posted by HoundedHawk:


If god is perfect and all powerful as you say, why doesn't he simply just destroy evil? If he is all powerful, that should certainly be well within his power. Either he chooses not to destroy evil and he is wicked or incompetent, or he is not all powerful and thus can't destroy evil.

The problem of evil.

Because then He would have to destroy freedom of choice, and then there would be no purpose for mankind.

So, mankind would have no purpose if Osama bin Laden did not have the free will to murder infidels?
Removal of free will for men to do evil is also removal of free will for men to do good. Plus, some of mankind's best moments are the choices they make while being confronted by evil.

Originally posted by DTP2:
And does free will shield me against tornadoes and other natural disasters?
Free will can give you the choice to lessen your odds of being killed by natural disasters. According to the Bible, mankind's sins kicked him out of paradise. Mankind's sin led to the removal of the old Earth system with its benign weather, etc. Sin makes things worse in the world, including the changing of the entire planet to include natural disasters. Sin also makes many to look for something better than this existence and to question existence. In that way it is a good thing.

Originally posted by DTP2:
And why did "god" create animals that need to eat each other to survive? Is that intelligent? Is there no other way?
It's both intelligent and to be expected. God created an amazing variety of things on the Earth. It was His intention. He could have made things "better" from out point of view. He could have designed a human to get better, stronger, smarter with each successive decade. But He doesn't want life to go on forever. It's a temporary staging area for mankind's testing and learning.

Originally posted by DTP2:
And what motivation do all the macroevolutionists having for lying about it? If it is a big lie, what do they gain by convincing me otherwise?
Is it really that difficult? There is an amazingly strong motive, that is, to not be accountable to a God. To not have to live up to His expectations, and thus satiate our desires by any way we deem fit. For example, people don't like God's rules on sexuality, marriage, etc. It gets in the way of what they want, though His ways are always truly best.

It's an ancient motivation, from before time. The Devil would rather rule on Earth than to serve in heaven.
 
jrotten,

You're missing the point and I will attempt to clear it up later. Right now it's time for me to go be with my family. I've got a life, you know.

You take care.
 
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:
jrotten,

You're missing the point and I will attempt to clear it up later. Right now it's time for me to go be with my family. I've got a life, you know.

You take care.

Fine, in the meantime I will put this in very simple terms:

1) A computer system who's hard drive suddenly becomes corrupted and produces Windows is not analogous to the radiation of species. What you are talking about is a computer system randomly generating software. If you want to compare this to the origin of life, fine. But that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about the origen of species. How life began is a legitimate question and one that science has some good theories about, but no hard answers, That doesn't mean that we need to insert God into the equation. It just means that it is one of those questions that we do not have a real certain answer for and that we may never have. This is a different problem than the radiation of species.

2) If you want to use a better analogy, you would use an example of software becoming "corrupted" and then propagating this corruption to another instance of that software (it's descendant) and producing over time a superior piece of software. Problem is, software does not do this. Applications do not propagate. They are designed to execute their set of instructions and nothing more. They do not pass their code to their offspring, because they do not reproduce. This makes your analogy fall flat right there. You try to fool people and maybe even yourself into thinking that if evolution were true, then a computer should also just be powered on and Windows could be the result.

3) Software can be designed to propogate, like oraganisms. It could be designed to reproduce copies of itself and to be driven to do so. However, even in this instance, your analogy would fail. Say an application did become corrupted, so that when it replicated itself, this mutation carried over. In every instance this would not be a good thing. When that set of instructions executed, it would fail. In other words, it would not be a viable organism. It would be like every genetic variation being [insert your always fatal genetic disease]. There would be no enviromental situation where the "corruption" would be beneficial. This is not true with living things. Mutations (i.e. genetic variations) are not necessarily a bad thing. Take melanin for example. This genetic trait is beneficial in warmer climates and not in colder climates. With your analogy, the mutation would always be destructive, to the point where the organism would not even be viable. As the melanin example demonstrates, this is not true with living organisms.

4) Of course you use a computer as an example to try to fool people into thinking evolution is false. But why not a watch? If evolution were true, then a watch that was dropped into the toilet should have also suffered "selective pressures" and a superior watch produced as the result. Of course your ordinary person would see right through this metaphor as false because even a child could see that a watch is a man-made machine. So you try to use the "mysticism" of computer technology and feed off the general lack of technical knowledge a lot of people possess to try to get your point across.

You really are better off just sticking to the faith angle. Doesn't matter what the facts are or the evidence. You just need to have faith in God. Too bad that the general population is a little more sophisticated than a few hundred years ago, so that you have to try to put some kind of scientific veneer on superstitious nonesense.
This post was edited on 3/31 11:20 PM by jrotten666if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
This post was edited on 3/31 11:37 PM by jrotten666if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 
Just out of curiosity...I see people like Hounded capitalizing "God" and capitalizing pronouns when referring to God as "Him", "He", etc....

Do you guys that do this really believe that we should worship a "being" that needs us to capitalize his name in pronouns to show respect to him????
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thefisherhawk
I am not trying to be offensive at all in saying this. I just don't know sometimes if the people that do this are joking around because it is so ridiculous or if they are actually (somehow) serious.
 
Originally posted by GoHawkeyes811:
I am not trying to be offensive at all in saying this. I just don't know sometimes if the people that do this are joking around because it is so ridiculous or if they are actually (somehow) serious.

It technically is correct English to captalize. Whether you will end up with a ticket to Hell for not doing so is a question best left tot Hounded.
 
Originally posted by GoHawkeyes811:
Just out of curiosity...I see people like Hounded capitalizing "God" and capitalizing pronouns when referring to God as "Him", "He", etc....

Do you guys that do this really believe that we should worship a "being" that needs us to capitalize his name in pronouns to show respect to him????
He doesn't need anything from us in any known way. I only capitalize it out of respect. It is a way I honor Him.

Ac 17:24-25 - “The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; neither is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all life and breath and all things; - (NASB)
 
Originally posted by GoHawkeyes811:
I am not trying to be offensive at all in saying this. I just don't know sometimes if the people that do this are joking around because it is so ridiculous or if they are actually (somehow) serious.
I am completely serious. If there is a God in heaven that we will all stand before is it really ridiculous to show such a simple aspect of honor?
 
If there really is a god in heaven that I will have to stand in front of someday, I am going to have no problem telling him that he gave me no reason to believe in him, and that his system of faith really makes no sense. I will tell him thanks for the gift of reason, but no thanks for making up a system that does not allow me to use it to its fullest. If he damns me to hell, so be it.
This post was edited on 4/1 12:08 AM by uiowa08if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:
Originally posted by GoHawkeyes811:
I am not trying to be offensive at all in saying this. I just don't know sometimes if the people that do this are joking around because it is so ridiculous or if they are actually (somehow) serious.
I am completely serious. If there is a God in heaven that we will all stand before is it really ridiculous to show such a simple aspect of honor?

Yes, it is ridiculous. God is omniscient. By definition, he doesn't need honor or respect. All he cares about is how you treat the rest of his creation (all sentient beings). Why is this concept so elusive for christians? Oh yeah, its because most christians are only concerned with what happens to them after they die. The psychological underpinnings of the fear of death is a powerful force, indeed.
 
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Originally posted by GoHawkeyes811:
Just out of curiosity...I see people like Hounded capitalizing "God" and capitalizing pronouns when referring to God as "Him", "He", etc....

Do you guys that do this really believe that we should worship a "being" that needs us to capitalize his name in pronouns to show respect to him????
He doesn't need anything from us in any known way. I only capitalize it out of respect. It is a way I honor Him.

Ac 17:24-25 - “The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; neither is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all life and breath and all things; - (NASB)


But God does actually require something from us, our worship of Him. Remember the 1st Commandment "You shall have no other gods before Me.
You shall not make for yourself an idol". God obviously made this Commandment because he has some psychological need to be worshipped exclusiveley.
 
Originally posted by jrotten666:
Fine, in the meantime I will put this in very simple terms:
Fine, but I don't need you to put it in simple terms.

Originally posted by jrotten666:
1) A computer system who's hard drive suddenly becomes corrupted and produces Windows is not analogous to the radiation of species.
It is if you would understand I'm talking about the accumulation of information through mutation.

Originally posted by jrotten666:
What you are talking about is a computer system randomly generating software.
Well, of course. That's what I exactly said.

Originally posted by jrotten666:
If you want to compare this to the origin of life, fine. But that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about the origen of species.
No, you still don't get it. Life or species, is irrelevant. It is about the accumulation of information through mutation.

Originally posted by jrotten666:
How life began is a legitimate question and one that science has some good theories about, but no hard answers, That doesn't mean that we need to insert God into the equation. It just means that it is one of those questions that we do not have a real certain answer for and that we may never have.
We need to insert God into the equation if He is a possibiliy for the production of all life, especially since you plainly say, we have no hard answers and may never have.

Originally posted by jrotten666:
2) If you want to use a better analogy, you would use an example of software becoming "corrupted" and then propagating this corruption to another instance of that software (it's descendant) and producing over time a superior piece of software.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. I thought it was obvious.

Originally posted by jrotten666:
Problem is, software does not do this. Applications do not propagate. They are designed to execute their set of instructions and nothing more. They do not pass their code to their offspring, because they do not reproduce. This makes your analogy fall flat right there. You try to fool people and maybe even yourself into thinking that if evolution were true, then a computer should also just be powered on and Windows could be the result.
Ah, but it does reproduce. You need to think of it in another way. Let's say a harddrive is constantly making little errors. Doubling small parts of the code, ommitting other parts, and doing other slight mutations. The computer is rebooted and therefore these changes are passed on to the next generation of software life (use).

It will never make the program better for long. Who knows, amazingly one small mutation will eventually yield a positive. The point is that since mutations are almost exclusively bad, it will kill the program long before it gets better. And you could have a million machines doing the same thing and only the ones producing positive outcomes wouldn't lock up and they would continue. You would never end up with something useful.

Originally posted by jrotten666:
) Software can be designed to propogate, like oraganisms. It could be designed to reproduce copies of itself and to be driven to do so. However, even in this instance, your analogy would fail. Say an application did become corrupted, so that when it replicated itself, this mutation carried over. In every instance this would not be a good thing. When that set of instructions executed, it would fail. In other words, it would not be a viable organism. It would be like every genetic variation being [insert your always fatal genetic disease]. There would be no enviromental situation where the "corruption" would be beneficial. This is not true with living things. Mutations (i.e. genetic variations) are not necessarily a bad thing. Take melanin for example. This genetic trait is beneficial in warmer climates and not in colder climates. With your analogy, the mutation would always be destructive, to the point where the organism would not even be viable. As the melanin example demonstrates, this is not true with living organisms.
Nope, you're wrong. Perhaps just the color changed in the background of windows and it saved some extra hard drive space by being a mutation that did it more efficiently. Therefore, it saved itself from that sector that went bad the next week.

Mutations are almost exclusively bad. A species would be wiped out by nagging ones that didn't benefit, but didn't quite kill it, before anything truly productive, like an eye, could develop. The eye itself wouldn't even make it, since it would be prone to the negative influence of mutations while it was allegedly mutating toward something useful.

It's all about the accumulation of "positive" information.

Originally posted by jrotten666:
4) Of course you use a computer as an example to try to fool people into thinking evolution is false. But why not a watch? If evolution were true, then a watch that was dropped into the toilet should have also suffered "selective pressures" and a superior watch produced as the result. Of course your ordinary person would see right through this metaphor as false because even a child could see that a watch is a man-made machine. So you try to use the "mysticism" of computer technology and feed off the general lack of technical knowledge a lot of people possess to try to get your point across.
LOL - don't be so dramatic. I used a computer because it has an information/code system that can mutate. Of course, I wouldn't use a watch.

And after reading everything you've thrown out I don't see one reason to stop using this illustration.

Originally posted by jrotten666:
You really are better off just sticking to the faith angle. Doesn't matter what the facts are or the evidence. You just need to have faith in God. Too bad that the general population is a little more sophisticated than a few hundred years ago, so that you have to try to put some kind of scientific veneer on superstitious nonesense.
And macro evolutionists are better off just sticking with the faith part too in this religion. The theory has been around for over a century and a half and hundreds of millions aren't buying it. And included in those hundreds of millions are also real working and contributing scientists who know its demise is only a matter of time.
 
Originally posted by uiowa08:
If there really is a god in heaven that I will have to stand in front of someday, I am going to have no problem telling him that he gave me no reason to believe in him, and that his system of faith really makes no sense. I will tell him thanks for the gift of reason, but no thanks for making up a system that does not allow me to use it to its fullest. If he damns me to hell, so be it.
You'll have your chance, and He may even gracefully decide to show you why you were wrong. But I doubt it.
 
Originally posted by Scott Plate:
Yes, it is ridiculous. God is omniscient. By definition, he doesn't need honor or respect. All he cares about is how you treat the rest of his creation (all sentient beings). Why is this concept so elusive for christians? Oh yeah, its because most christians are only concerned with what happens to them after they die. The psychological underpinnings of the fear of death is a powerful force, indeed.
Why don't you get it? I plainly stated He doesn't need it.
 
Originally posted by jrotten666:
But God does actually require something from us, our worship of Him.
Why are you doing this? Are you expecting me to believe you don't understand the difference between requiring something and needing something?

He doesn't need anything. He just does what is right.
 
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:
Originally posted by Scott Plate:
Yes, it is ridiculous. God is omniscient. By definition, he doesn't need honor or respect. All he cares about is how you treat the rest of his creation (all sentient beings). Why is this concept so elusive for christians? Oh yeah, its because most christians are only concerned with what happens to them after they die. The psychological underpinnings of the fear of death is a powerful force, indeed.
Why don't you get it? I plainly stated He doesn't need it.

What a relief. Now I can rest comfortably knowing that I am not going to hell for my lack of belief in Jesus the savior.
 
Originally posted by jrotten666:
God obviously made this Commandment because he has some psychological need to be worshipped exclusiveley.
LOL - obviously. After all, He has low self-esteem.
 
Originally posted by Scott Plate:


What a relief. Now I can rest comfortably knowing that I am not going to hell for my lack of belief in Jesus the savior.
Well, it's one less thing.

No, I can't leave it at that. You are going to Hell for your lack of belief in Jesus the savior. He doesn't need it, but you certainly do.


btw - I've been thinking about your sig line. I think it would be better if it read as follows.

A LACK OF religion would be a monumental chapter in the history of human egotism.

This post was edited on 4/1 12:47 AM by HoundedHawkif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 
Originally posted by whatdidido:
The Creationist/ID school of thought never produced any meaningful contribution to science and medicine and human achievement. It's just a conversation piece for people wandering aimlessly outside the circle of accomplishment.

Spoken by someone clearly unaware of the profundity wrapped in a condundrum otherwise known as Debunking Evolution Dogma Via Jar of Peanut Butter Argument. As with all arguments promulgated by the Creationist set - the logic displayed therein is super-duper TIGHT. If you doubt me, please go open your nearest jar of peanut butter. Did any furry creatures leap out at you? If no leaping there be, Darwin was a loon and the current scientific establishment is bent on duping the masses with LIES. Get it?

In the future, once humanity has managed to finally shake off the ridiculous Disney ride known as fundamentalist Christianity - the culture will collectively have a hearty chuckle and shudder in disbelief how millions of us could harbor such delusions, repudiating the fundamental tenets of what many of us have otherwise come to know as 'reality' and 'scientific method'.

America has alot of growing up to do in the meantime. A nice start will be when the present IDiot in chief is thrown in jail or out of office. But I digress.
 
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Originally posted by jrotten666:
Fine, in the meantime I will put this in very simple terms:
Fine, but I don't need you to put it in simple terms.


Originally posted by jrotten666:
1) A computer system who's hard drive suddenly becomes corrupted and produces Windows is not analogous to the radiation of species.
It is if you would understand I'm talking about the accumulation of information through mutation.


Originally posted by jrotten666:
What you are talking about is a computer system randomly generating software.
Well, of course. That's what I exactly said.


Originally posted by jrotten666:
If you want to compare this to the origin of life, fine. But that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about the origen of species.
No, you still don't get it. Life or species, is irrelevant. It is about the accumulation of information through mutation.


Originally posted by jrotten666:
How life began is a legitimate question and one that science has some good theories about, but no hard answers, That doesn't mean that we need to insert God into the equation. It just means that it is one of those questions that we do not have a real certain answer for and that we may never have.
We need to insert God into the equation if He is a possibiliy for the production of all life, especially since you plainly say, we have no hard answers and may never have.


Originally posted by jrotten666:
2) If you want to use a better analogy, you would use an example of software becoming "corrupted" and then propagating this corruption to another instance of that software (it's descendant) and producing over time a superior piece of software.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. I thought it was obvious.


Originally posted by jrotten666:
Problem is, software does not do this. Applications do not propagate. They are designed to execute their set of instructions and nothing more. They do not pass their code to their offspring, because they do not reproduce. This makes your analogy fall flat right there. You try to fool people and maybe even yourself into thinking that if evolution were true, then a computer should also just be powered on and Windows could be the result.
Ah, but it does reproduce. You need to think of it in another way. Let's say a harddrive is constantly making little errors. Doubling small parts of the code, ommitting other parts, and doing other slight mutations. The computer is rebooted and therefore these changes are passed on to the next generation of software life (use).

It will never make the program better for long. Who knows, amazingly one small mutation will eventually yield a positive. The point is that since mutations are almost exclusively bad, it will kill the program long before it gets better. And you could have a million machines doing the same thing and only the ones producing positive outcomes wouldn't lock up and they would continue. You would never end up with something useful.


Originally posted by jrotten666:
) Software can be designed to propogate, like oraganisms. It could be designed to reproduce copies of itself and to be driven to do so. However, even in this instance, your analogy would fail. Say an application did become corrupted, so that when it replicated itself, this mutation carried over. In every instance this would not be a good thing. When that set of instructions executed, it would fail. In other words, it would not be a viable organism. It would be like every genetic variation being [insert your always fatal genetic disease]. There would be no enviromental situation where the "corruption" would be beneficial. This is not true with living things. Mutations (i.e. genetic variations) are not necessarily a bad thing. Take melanin for example. This genetic trait is beneficial in warmer climates and not in colder climates. With your analogy, the mutation would always be destructive, to the point where the organism would not even be viable. As the melanin example demonstrates, this is not true with living organisms.
Nope, you're wrong. Perhaps just the color changed in the background of windows and it saved some extra hard drive space by being a mutation that did it more efficiently. Therefore, it saved itself from that sector that went bad the next week.

Mutations are almost exclusively bad. A species would be wiped out by nagging ones that didn't benefit, but didn't quite kill it, before anything truly productive, like an eye, could develop. The eye itself wouldn't even make it, since it would be prone to the negative influence of mutations while it was allegedly mutating toward something useful.

It's all about the accumulation of "positive" information.


Originally posted by jrotten666:
4) Of course you use a computer as an example to try to fool people into thinking evolution is false. But why not a watch? If evolution were true, then a watch that was dropped into the toilet should have also suffered "selective pressures" and a superior watch produced as the result. Of course your ordinary person would see right through this metaphor as false because even a child could see that a watch is a man-made machine. So you try to use the "mysticism" of computer technology and feed off the general lack of technical knowledge a lot of people possess to try to get your point across.
LOL - don't be so dramatic. I used a computer because it has an information/code system that can mutate. Of course, I wouldn't use a watch.

And after reading everything you've thrown out I don't see one reason to stop using this illustration.


Originally posted by jrotten666:
You really are better off just sticking to the faith angle. Doesn't matter what the facts are or the evidence. You just need to have faith in God. Too bad that the general population is a little more sophisticated than a few hundred years ago, so that you have to try to put some kind of scientific veneer on superstitious nonesense.
And macro evolutionists are better off just sticking with the faith part too in this religion. The theory has been around for over a century and a half and hundreds of millions aren't buying it. And included in those hundreds of millions are also real working and contributing scientists who know its demise is only a matter of time.

In the first place, whether you are speaking about the first life forms coming into being vs. evolution is relevant, because you are speaking about two different things. The birth of the first life forms was not merely the "passing of information". You are trying to combine the two. Evolution deals with the radition of species (how life forms change over time and develop into new species). The origin of life itself deals with just that, the origen of the first life forms. You want to combine the two because evolution gets a big step up once life begins.

In the second place, you do not understand computers or software. Software does not "mutate" or replicate itself, even if there is a failure.

Also, hardware failures do not duplicate executable code (or even duplicate code unless there is something in the OS that would do so in case of problems). Computers do NOT mutate. If your lucky they just bug out. If not, they outright crash.

And your reference to the "next generation of software life" is not analogous to reproduction in the natural world. I gave you the closest example as far as software was concerned.

I'm sure your metaphor goes over well with the google-eyed Jesusites, but some of us know better,.
 
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Originally posted by jrotten666:
But God does actually require something from us, our worship of Him.
Why are you doing this? Are you expecting me to believe you don't understand the difference between requiring something and needing something?

He doesn't need anything. He just does what is right.

If he just does what is right, then he must have some compelling need to do create such a law. Or is worshipping him a categorical imperative that even transcends God himself?
This post was edited on 4/1 1:14 AM by jrotten666if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 
Originally posted by Scott Plate:

Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Originally posted by Scott Plate:
Yes, it is ridiculous. God is omniscient. By definition, he doesn't need honor or respect. All he cares about is how you treat the rest of his creation (all sentient beings). Why is this concept so elusive for christians? Oh yeah, its because most christians are only concerned with what happens to them after they die. The psychological underpinnings of the fear of death is a powerful force, indeed.
Why don't you get it? I plainly stated He doesn't need it.

What a relief. Now I can rest comfortably knowing that I am not going to hell for my lack of belief in Jesus the savior.

You could try the Catholic Church. I don't think they sell indulgences anymore, but just make up some BS sins in confessional each week, say some hail Mary's and you should be OK.


Don't forget to get your complimentary wine!
This post was edited on 4/1 1:15 AM by jrotten666if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 
And there are numerous scientists in history who would disagree with you as they studied what they found in God's creation and then made a magnificent contribution from what they've learned.

Oh baloney. Creationism says "This is the truth, now go find support for it." Just like Bush with the Iraq war and WMDs.

That school of thought never cured a disease! It led to opened veins bleeding into bowls and anuses stuffed full of spices in order to cure maladies caused by evil spirits.

The concept of Macro Evolution has never produced one single microspeck of any contribution of any conceivable nature to humanity.

I don't think you know what the theory of evolution really is. You've been doing this for years, the straw man thing. Your caricature of evolution is as ludicrous as the Creationist peddler who holds up a picture of a chimp and says "This doesn't look like my grandpa, does it kids?" The theory of evolution simply suggests a biased change in population gene allele frequencies as a function of time in response to selective pressures. That it appears to somehow advance in form or improve life as a function of time is both a coincidence and a gross error in perception.

It's just science. Science solves real problems, and Creationism is not science at all. The next time one of your children gets an infected cut, are you going to pray it away, or "gamble" on antibiotics?
 
Originally posted by DTP2:
And what motivation do all the macroevolutionists having for lying about it? If it is a big lie, what do they gain by convincing me otherwise?
Is it really that difficult? There is an amazingly strong motive, that is, to not be accountable to a God. To not have to live up to His expectations, and thus satiate our desires by any way we deem fit. For example, people don't like God's rules on sexuality, marriage, etc. It gets in the way of what they want, though His ways are always truly best.

It's an ancient motivation, from before time. The Devil would rather rule on Earth than to serve in heaven.[/B][/QUOTE]

What a load of crap! Besides the fact that many believers disagree with you on what God's supposed rules are, it is beyond absurd to think that scientists invented macroevolution just so they could fulfill any desires they may have without any accountability to your god. If they believe God is real, how does convincing others he is not by way of their big lie allow them to avoid god's judgment? I doubt such a being would be fooled. Furthermore, you didn't tell me why they need to convince me of this "lie" if they need to believe it to fulfill their own desires. I'm an atheist and the things that convince me that your god is imaginery have nothing to do with evolution. And guess what? I'm not out running around breaking all of your god's rules precisely because I have no desire to do so. I don't disbelieve in your god because I want to do all sorts of things that go against his rules. If I believed such a being was real and I disagreed with its rules, I'd still follow my own morality. Your god's morality does not trump my own simply because he might squash me like a bug. For example, no matter how many times people like yourself tell me that homosexuality is an abomination to god, I will still never spend one moment bothered it.
 
In church faith trumps reason. Everywhere else its a slam dunk the other way.

Why do you hate people with brains?
 
ADVERTISEMENT