quote Originally posted by jstricker: It does have to happen in one place, one way, to support the Theory of Evolution. It has to have happened HERE on Earth and at whatever time the current thinking is that life began here. You see if it did not happen here, at that time, then it's not creation by evolution but creation by intelligent design. I was actually being quite generous in the 5%, but since that's too taxing, take it to, oh, one in a million or so. I'll wait for you to get back to me. John Stricker

No, ever hear of a comet? Some people believe comets can contain organic matter. Do I believe that? Not really, but it certainly disproves your single minded way of thinking. Life can have occurred in many different places or it might have occurred in only one place and spread. Maybe only one found its way here and evolved from a comet. Or maybe it did occur from a primordial soup right here on Earth, which I happen to believe. But by no means does life have to have started in only one place in the universe. Or do you not believe there are other planets capable of supprting life?

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: But then I 'd have to give up my biting sarcasm. You wouldn't want that would you?

Oh, no. I love your sarcasm!

Hey, was that just double sarcasm???

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Oh, no. I love your sarcasm! Hey, was that just double sarcasm???

Yeah, I'm SURE you love my sarcasm.
.
.
.
triplicate??

There are two main reasons why religionists can't believe evolution regardless of the evidence supporting it. One is that the world in their opinion is only a few thousand years old, that's nowhere near long enough for random chance to create the amino acid chains that are the basis for life. The other reason is because the bible, at least the Christian bible, says that God created this world and created the human race starting with Adam and Eve. Since in this view Adam and Eve are the start of human life it's obvious that evolution can't be true.

All the other games and semantic arguments are just fluff and filler around these two basic elements. Jstricker says it's mathematically impossible for random chance to create the amino acid chains needed for basic cellular biology. Well, let's see the math that proves it to be impossible. As you can see, it doesn't exist. They're right, in a few thousand year old God-created earth there isn't really time to have a 5% chance like creationists are looking for. In a 4.5 billion year earth the ballgame changes entirely, but since creationists are only interested in evident that support a magical creation all that evidence is wasted on them.

One thing is for certain, absolutely for certain, and that is that no Christion creationist will ever, not in a million years, be swayed from a magical creation ideology.

The way I see it is that if God is too impotent and stupid to be able to create something so complicated as evolutionary biology and origin for life, then that God is too stupid for me to be interested in following.

JazzMan

Nice dissertation on what you think I believe, too bad you don't address any of my points.

Forget what I believe on how life began. Personally, I think the Ancients brought us through the Stargate from a far galaxy, but that's neither here nor there. What I do recognize is that the theory of creation as taught in evolution does not stand up to the light of scrutiny either mathematically when based on probabilities OR with empirical evidence of one species morphing off somehow into an entirely new species.

Perhaps speculation by that noted Bible Thumper Stephen Hawkings might put things in some persepctive:

We do not know how DNA molecules first appeared. The chances against a DNA molecule arising by random fluctuations are very small. Some people have therefore suggested that life came to Earth from elsewhere, and that there are seeds of life floating round in the galaxy. However, it seems unlikely that DNA could survive for long in the radiation in space. And even if it could, it would not really help explain the origin of life, because the time available since the formation of carbon is only just over double the age of the Earth.

One possibility is that the formation of something like DNA, which could reproduce itself, is extremely unlikely. However, in a universe with a very large, or infinite, number of stars, one would expect it to occur in a few stellar systems, but they would be very widely separated. The fact that life happened to occur on Earth, is not however surprising or unlikely. It is just an application of the Weak Anthropic Principle: if life had appeared instead on another planet, we would be asking why it had occurred there.

Be sure to click the link and read the lecture for yourself as this is just one snippet and he then immediately goes on to contradict himself by saying that this is how he thinks life evolved, in spite of his own stated overwhelming odds against it happening.

If that's not religion, I don't know what is. In the meantime, quit demeaning my religious beliefs when you can't even admit that you have your own since nothing you've said you believe has happened to originate life can be supported empirically either.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: There are two main reasons why religionists can't believe evolution regardless of the evidence supporting it. One is that the world in their opinion is only a few thousand years old, that's nowhere near long enough for random chance to create the amino acid chains that are the basis for life. The other reason is because the bible, at least the Christian bible, says that God created this world and created the human race starting with Adam and Eve. Since in this view Adam and Eve are the start of human life it's obvious that evolution can't be true. All the other games and semantic arguments are just fluff and filler around these two basic elements. Jstricker says it's mathematically impossible for random chance to create the amino acid chains needed for basic cellular biology. Well, let's see the math that proves it to be impossible. As you can see, it doesn't exist. They're right, in a few thousand year old God-created earth there isn't really time to have a 5% chance like creationists are looking for. In a 4.5 billion year earth the ballgame changes entirely, but since creationists are only interested in evident that support a magical creation all that evidence is wasted on them. One thing is for certain, absolutely for certain, and that is that no Christion creationist will ever, not in a million years, be swayed from a magical creation ideology. The way I see it is that if God is too impotent and stupid to be able to create something so complicated as evolutionary biology and origin for life, then that God is too stupid for me to be interested in following. JazzMan

Science is full of THEORIES. Religion is full of BELIEFS. Take each one as you will and live your life to the fullest in the NOW. Who gives a rats [posterior] about the past. believe if you wish, study theories or just party.
Either way its all good.
S.Williams

------------------
1988 Fiero Formula T-tops
CJB 143 of 1252 "factory T-top cars"

1⁰ = ?
1 ^x 0 = ?

scientificly imposible to product anything from absolutely nothing.
and as long as you start with somthing, you have to ask; where did it come from.

that is the simplest fact in which all science is based .

so either science and evolution proves that it takes something to evolve into something else or there is more than science being presented as fact in regards to evolution. Dare i call that extra bit of info (someone else's ideology, faith, religon,?)

the fact is

1⁰ = ?
1 ^x 0 = ?

says that evolution points more toward an adavanced being , life form, creator or what ever some choose to call it. What it doesn't do is prove that God doesn't exist. so either our math is wrong and all of our science is junk or religon at best , or it simply doesn't fit the common beliefs of those evolutionist who try to dismiss a creator or God.

you simply can't have it both ways. either Somthing with more intelligence created all of this or our basis for science (simple math) is the biggest hoax ever pulled on mankind...

good day!

------------------
James M.
AkA
JRM-2M6

†

Yes something made all of this.
No it doesnt revolve around Israel, Mecca, Giesha, Buddha or any other stupid human belief / religion

Even the New Agers and scientoligists piss me off.
Its a weakness or perhaps a strength (to some) to have to believe in something or someone.

I even remember hearing that there is a gene thats been identified that makes humans believe in Gods etc. (the need to feel something is controlling everything)

I still think the Greeks and Aztecs had the coolest gods
The New World Order is full of Judaism and Mohammed B.S.
Virgin births, walking on water...dont eat meat etc.
Damn thats some stupid ****

Caveman had it right
OUT>

[This message has been edited by G-Nasty (edited 08-24-2005).]

quote Originally posted by G-Nasty: Its a weakness or perhaps a strength (to some) to have to believe in something or someone. I even remember hearing that there is a gene thats been identified that makes humans believe in Gods etc. (the need to feel something is overseeing everything) OUT>

Most of us seem to have a "special" area for "god".... whether we believe in it/him/her/them or not...

http://www.godpart.com/html/the_premise.html

[This message has been edited by FieroRumor (edited 08-24-2005).]

Rumor:
Thats a good thread about genetics. There are many journals on that and other traits.
Environment and genes are what we are.
Now go hold up your sagging fiero wasp doors...biatch.
Off topic-BTW
Thanks for the honesty on your scissor door struts. I was going to do that to my car -still might, but I have a clutchline and a leaky bilstein strut that need fixin'

OUT>

[This message has been edited by G-Nasty (edited 08-24-2005).]

Evolutionism is a theory and so is creationism. I happen to believe in creationism, as I believe in God. My facts are in the bible, and supported in the world around. I have put up many post before in a similar thread about this. I recognise that evolution is a theroy, but I have never seen an evolutionist want to recognise creationism as a theory, but rather a made up story. What ever. My theory (God's truth) will be proven true on judgement day. Before everyone tries to tear apart my theory, I invite you to read my textbook, the Bible. Please read it before you refute it. I have read plenty of evolutionist text books. well, who hasn't.

I pray that all those who doubt will be saved as they read the bible.

God bless

quote Originally posted by jstricker: It's always the very young who think they see with clarity and certainty when, in fact, they see through tunnel vision. John Stricker

Well, maybe I'm blessed in that fact. I haven't gotten old and gotten to the point where I have to believe in 'something', no matter how ridiculous that something is.. "oohh.. There's a god, and he loves me, and he's going to do magical things for me when I die".. Yup.. Thats great. I don't think believing in something magical and godlike is 'seeing with clarity'.. that is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever of.. But who knows.. Maybe god will speak to me one day.. Then again, maybe I'll be so desperate for something one day that I'll believe he did as well.. Sorry, but I want to know why things are the way they are, but not by saying "Thats just the way they are."

i find it highly amusing how some people refuse to believe generation of life from inorganic substances is possible, yet have no difficulty believing in an eternal, intelligent and omnipotent creator.

i ask you, which is more complex and improbable?

lurker,

Exactly my point. I find it highly amusing that there are those that scoff at the mere existence of a God and deride others for their belief but will so vehemently defend a THEORY that will not stand the test of close scrutiny. Do you know WHY they so readily embrace it? Because that theory is NOT God.

Here's another one for you. My THEORY is that before time began, the nothing congealed into a whole lot of nothing, and then something happened that caused an implosion, which contracted the universe to the size of a marble (or a little smaller, we're still working on that one) at which point the marble could no longer contain all the energy and it began expanding outward and continues to do so right now. At some point in time (we don't know when, we're still working on that one) massive pockets of radiation somehow caused carbon to form and then somehow caused that carbon to modify to somehow cause amino acids to form and then, although it's never, ever been duplicated in any kind of lab, something caused these amino acids to be alive and form a single cell and, miraculously, that single cell grew and morphed all on it's own, completely by random chance, into the MILLIONS of species we now see on the face of this planet.

Either that or the Ancients put us here through the Stargate.

Honestly, the Ancient theory stands a better chance of being correct based on probabilities than the miraculous mutation/morph single cell somehow came from random chance theory. Those of you die hard supporters that scoff at any outside influence are doing it on blind faith alone, there is no empirical evidence to support your position and the ONLY reason you do it is because it isn't GOD. Period. You think, somehow, that it makes you in control of your life. It doesn't. We're all at the mercy of many outside influences. It's what we do when they influence us that matters.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by lurker: i find it highly amusing how some people refuse to believe generation of life from inorganic substances is possible, yet have no difficulty believing in an eternal, intelligent and omnipotent creator. i ask you, which is more complex and improbable?

quote Originally posted by jstricker: lurker, Exactly my point. ..... Either that or the Ancients put us here through the Stargate.

unfortunately, we are still left with the question, what made the "ancients"? so ultimately it relies on a more complex system preexisting a less complex one.

quote Originally posted by jstricker: We're all at the mercy of many outside influences. It's what we do when they influence us that matters.

no argument with this

[This message has been edited by lurker (edited 08-24-2005).]

Only if you assume that time had a beginning. Did it? Prove it.

Seriously, it is not out of the realm of possibility that some things have always been here. Things without beginning and without end. Try and wrap your mind around that one for awhile and see where it takes you. (that's not sarcasm, seriously, think through the possibilities that could exist if SOME things or someone had no beginning or end)

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by lurker: unfortunately, we are still left with the question, what made the "ancients"? so ultimately it relies on a more complex system preexisting a less complex one.

In the last few years, creationists have gone from "Evolution is impossible!" to "Everything evolved from the original kinds that were on the ark." This is some super duper evolution to get to the millions of species that we know about today in a few thousand years. They claim that "microevolution" can occur but "macroevolution" can't, but they use their own definations. That, and the fact that they can't define the original "kinds" makes creation "science" pretty muddy.

Probability of abiogenesis:

"Problems with the creationists' "it's so improbable" calculations

1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.

2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.

3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.

4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.

5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Whatever you consider the probability, there were billions, literally oceans of coin flips or dice rolls. If the probability is one in a million, after several billion tries it just might happen.

GL

quote Originally posted by Tugboat: 1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.

It's not? According to Wikipedia, "Abiogenesis, in its most general sense, is the hypothetical generation of life from non-living matter. Today, the term is primarily used in the context of biology and the origin of life.Some confusion exists on this topic, because early concepts of abiogenesis were later proven to be incorrect." It takes first the formation of complex proteins before there can be the first cell, much less the miracle, err, random chance, that makes that a living thing. Explain to me the difference.

quote Originally posted by Tugboat: 2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.

There ARE a fixed number of proteins we are dealing with because you see, we have to work backwards from what we have now. It's theoretically possible to have silicone based life instead of carbon based as we know it, but since that didn't happen here it's a moot point. To explain how THIS life originated on THIS planet you have to assume that a certain type and complexity of protein was somehow randomly generated and then mystically sprang forth as life.

quote Originally posted by Tugboat: 3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.

Some do, but there are several that don't. And the oceans are still seething with life, why isn't new life being formed every day now? Was it just a one time thing? Were conditions so perfect, only ONCE, in the last however many billion years that it could occur? If that's the case, the odds of a random protein that could support life being available at that precise moment just went up astronomically.

quote Originally posted by Tugboat: 4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.

I guess all of my stats classes in college as well as the genetic research I did in college were wrong. I'm humbled by the power of the internet

quote Originally posted by Tugboat: 5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences."

Same argument as number one and just as invalid. To explain life here, as we know it, ALL life here, plant and animal, we have to work backwards and that leads to the same very few types of proteins. Anything else, while it might be possible, doesn't matter because they didn't happen.

quote Originally posted by Tugboat: Whatever you consider the probability, there were billions, literally oceans of coin flips or dice rolls. If the probability is one in a million, after several billion tries it just might happen. GL

So this is the basis of your belief in the "Theory" of evolution? That "it just might happen"? Good luck with that one, you religious fantic you.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by jstricker: So this is the basis of your belief in the "Theory" of evolution? That "it just might happen"? Good luck with that one, you religious fantic you. John Stricker

I suspect the root of the belief (and evolution is a belief, whether they want to admit it or not) is that it excuses the individual from having to answer to a higher power, and the accompanying rules and morality.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: I suspect the root of the belief (and evolution is a belief, whether they want to admit it or not) is that it excuses the individual from having to answer to a higher power, and the accompanying rules and morality.

Oh yeah... Me and the others who believe in evolution on the board are certaintly heathens who are on a highway to hell.. Oh wait.. seems we haven't had a disregard for rules or morality so far, and we didn't need an invisible man to do it.. So that idea is debunked.

quote Originally posted by jstricker: lurker, Exactly my point. I find it highly amusing that there are those that scoff at the mere existence of a God and deride others for their belief but will so vehemently defend a THEORY that will not stand the test of close scrutiny. Do you know WHY they so readily embrace it? Because that theory is NOT God. Here's another one for you. My THEORY is that before time began, the nothing congealed into a whole lot of nothing, and then something happened that caused an implosion, which contracted the universe to the size of a marble (or a little smaller, we're still working on that one) at which point the marble could no longer contain all the energy and it began expanding outward and continues to do so right now. At some point in time (we don't know when, we're still working on that one) massive pockets of radiation somehow caused carbon to form and then somehow caused that carbon to modify to somehow cause amino acids to form and then, although it's never, ever been duplicated in any kind of lab, something caused these amino acids to be alive and form a single cell and, miraculously, that single cell grew and morphed all on it's own, completely by random chance, into the MILLIONS of species we now see on the face of this planet. Either that or the Ancients put us here through the Stargate. Honestly, the Ancient theory stands a better chance of being correct based on probabilities than the miraculous mutation/morph single cell somehow came from random chance theory. Those of you die hard supporters that scoff at any outside influence are doing it on blind faith alone, there is no empirical evidence to support your position and the ONLY reason you do it is because it isn't GOD. Period. You think, somehow, that it makes you in control of your life. It doesn't. We're all at the mercy of many outside influences. It's what we do when they influence us that matters. John Stricker

You guys always use the same arguments. Evolution is JUST a theory. The problem is, you don't understand the meaning in Scientific terms. Evolution is NOT "just a theory". It is a Scientific theory. That means something very different from "just a a theory". You see John, your supposed "theory" or the "theory" of intellectual design is not a technical theory at all. Both of them are Hypothesis'. Not theories.

the·o·ry, n., pl. -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Math. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.
[1590–1600]
—Syn. 1. THEORY, HYPOTHESIS are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A THEORY in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A HYPOTHESIS is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.

scientific fact. A scientific fact is a highly corroborated hypothesis that has been so repeatedly tested and for which so much reliable evidence exists, that it would be perverse or irrational to deny it. This type of reliable knowledge is the closest that humans can come to the "truth" about the universe (I put the word "truth" in quotation marks because there are many different kinds of truth, such as logical truth, emotional truth, religious truth, legal truth, philosophical truth, etc.; it should be clear that this essay deals with scientific truth, which, while certainly not the sole truth, is nevertheless the best truth humans can possess about the natural world).

scientific theory. A theory in science is not a guess, speculation, or suggestion, which is the popular definition of the word "theory." A scientific theory is a unifying and self-consistent explanation of fundamental natural processes or phenomena that is totally constructed of corroborated hypotheses. A theory, therefore, is built of reliable knowledge--built of scientific facts--and its purpose is to explain major natural processes or phenomena. Scientific theories explain nature by unifying many once-unrelated facts or corroborated hypotheses; they are the strongest and most truthful explanations of how the universe, nature, and life came to be, how they work, what they are made of, and what will become of them. Since humans are living organisms and are part of the universe, science explains all of these things about ourselves.

quote Originally posted by JohnnyK: Oh yeah... Me and the others who believe in evolution on the board are certaintly heathens who are on a highway to hell.. Oh wait.. seems we haven't had a disregard for rules or morality so far, and we didn't need an invisible man to do it.. So that idea is debunked.

I didn't say anything about you, or anyone else, being "on the highway to hell". Typical overinterpretation. I said that such a belief excuses you from a standard that is (purported to be) above human morality, or an absolute morality, outside of human's flexible morality.

On the subject of human morality - it's a joke. It is as flexible as rubber, and changes depending on which way the wind is blowing. What is legal and moral in one part of the world is an abomination in another part of the world. Human morality changes. There are no absolutes. Human morality can justify anything.

I'm not telling you you're going to hell, or that you must believe. I'm proposing that the root of people's rejection of God may lie in the desire to be free from a sense of "ought".

quote Originally posted by fierobear: I suspect the root of the belief (and evolution is a belief, whether they want to admit it or not) is that it excuses the individual from having to answer to a higher power, and the accompanying rules and morality.

If you don't follow my rules, then you must be an evil devil worshipper.

Well, guess what. **** your rules.

If you don't follow my rules, then it's because you want to live immorally. BULL(*&T

I live by a code of ethics and morality that doesn't need a superior being to enforce them. They are self correcting basic truths of the universe.

If you need a father figure to spank you if you've been bad, or give you eternal life when you've been good, then that's your psychological problem, not mine.

If you had the ability to look at these opposing views rationally without years of baggage and emotion, then you would be able to see reality a little clearer, but you want to hold onto a fairy tale instead. Something adults tell you to make you feel better at night. Well you're not a kid anymore. You don't need a carrot or a stick.

Was that harsh??

You're damn right it was. Because I'm sick of you and your ilk defining what makes a person good or bad. You have been doing it for centuries. Jews are evil devil worshippers according to your rules, because they don't accept the savior. Atheists are devil worshippers because they don't believe in your fairy tales. Wiccan's are mysterious devil worshippers because they believe in the natural world instead of the fantastical miraculous world. Do you see the pattern. Anyone who isn't a Christian is a devil worshipper. Or by your current definition, devoid of morality. Damn man! When will the BS end? Who is the one with bad morals?

[This message has been edited by connecticutFIERO (edited 08-24-2005).]

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: You guys always use the same arguments. Evolution is JUST a theory. The problem is, you don't understand the meaning in Scientific terms. Evolution is NOT "just a theory". It is a Scientific theory. That means something very different from "just a a theory". You see John, your supposed "theory" or the "theory" of intellectual design is not a technical theory at all. Both of them are Hypothesis'. Not theories.

I want to put a thought out there, purely philosophical and subjective...call it "what happens when you die?"

1. jstricker is wrong. when he dies, despite any belief in God and an afterlife, he ceases to be, and his body decays. End of jstricker

2. connecticutfiero is wrong. When he dies, what will his lack of believe in God result in?

Again, just a philosophical thought, no flame, just food for thought.

Energy never dies. It is transferred just like in all other cases in the universe. You give food and sustinence back to the earth. You pass on your genes to the next generation. Your ideas, creations, and emotions impact others and they will in turn impact others. These are things we KNOW, they are basic truths. I am happy to know that I can feed the earth when I die and leave behind a mark on others of my species.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: Was that harsh?? You're damn right it was. Because I'm sick of you and your ilk defining what makes a person good or bad. You have been doing it for centuries. Jews are evil devil worshippers according to your rules, because they don't accept the savior. Atheists are devil worshippers because they don't believe in your fairy tales. Wiccan's are mysterious devil worshippers because they believe in the natural world instead of the fantastical miraculous world. Do you see the pattern. Anyone who isn't a Christian is a devil worshipper. Or by your current definition, devoid of morality. Damn man! When will the BS end? Who is the one with bad morals?

You know, I was trying to have a decent, respectul conversation with you about philosophy. Then you decided who I was, what I believe, and put words in my mouth. So, let me tell you where I *really* am...

I was raised Catholic, until about the age 13 or 14. Then we started going to a Protestant/Born Again church (Pentecostal, no less! Talk about a shock!). I went to a Christian high school. Since then, I've kinda ended up being Agnostic, meaning "I don't know". I believe in the possibility of a God, but I have my doubts. I believe evolution is not only possible, but happened at least to some degree. I'm just not convinced it happened from scratch. I simply don't know, and I'm not comfortable believing what I'm told by either a preacher or a scientist. My search for truth continues. It seems to be a journey, not a destination.

As for human morality...universal truth? Based on what? Human feelings and opinion? That's FLEXIBLE. No absolutes. If that undermines your comfort zone, too bad. You have no problem trashing others beliefs. And yes, yours is a BELIEF.

The next time you want to define me and make the assumptions you did, take your opinion and shove it up your ass, rather than typing it up here on the forum. If you want to have a civilized debate on religion, ethics, morality, fine. Otherwise, keep your stereotypes and assumptions to yourself.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: You know, I was trying to have a decent, respectul conversation with you about philosophy. Then you decided who I was, what I believe, and put words in my mouth. So, let me tell you where I *really* am... I was raised Catholic, until about the age 13 or 14. Then we started going to a Protestant/Born Again church (Pentecostal, no less! Talk about a shock!). I went to a Christian high school. Since then, I've kinda ended up being Agnostic, meaning "I don't know". I believe in the possibility of a God, but I have my doubts. I believe evolution is not only possible, but happened at least to some degree. I'm just not convinced it happened from scratch. I simply don't know, and I'm not comfortable believing what I'm told by either a preacher or a scientist. My search for truth continues. It seems to be a journey, not a destination. As for human morality...universal truth? Based on what? Human feelings and opinion? That's FLEXIBLE. No absolutes. If that undermines your comfort zone, too bad. You have no problem trashing others beliefs. And yes, yours is a BELIEF. The next time you want to define me and make the assumptions you did, take your opinion and shove it up your ass, rather than typing it up here on the forum. If you want to have a civilized debate on religion, ethics, morality, fine. Otherwise, keep your stereotypes and assumptions to yourself.

Hey it was YOU who likened not accepting God to immorality. If you are agnostic which I already knew from previous conversations, then that means you believe in God but don't have a specific religion. But you just told us you were raised Christian, so your ideas are still based in that thought process. I understand you are more open minded then most here of that persuasion, but you still come out with nasty little quips denigrating people now and again. If you can't see the rudeness of saying people not of faith are immoral, or that people choose not to believe in God in order to BE immoral, then that's your shortcomming. I grouped you in with the past majority and today's radical majority because of that sentiment alone. Not because I believe you are completely similar.

[This message has been edited by connecticutFIERO (edited 08-24-2005).]

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: Hey it was YOU who likened not accepting God to immorality. If you are agnostic which I already knew from previous conversations, then that means you believe in God but don;t have a specific religion. But you just told us you were raised Christian, so your ideas are still based in that thought process. I understand you are more open minded then most here of that persuasion, but you still come out with nasty little quips denigrating people now and again. If you can't see the rudeness of saying people not of faith are immoral, or that people choose not to believe in God in order to BE immoral, then that's your shortcomming. I grouped you in with the past majority and today's radical majority because of that sentiment alone. Not because I believe you are completely similar.

Oh, man, let's try this again. I did NOT say you choose not to be religious because you want to be immoral. That's your ASSUMPTION. I am saying that you might choose not to be religious because it excuses you from the morality that is from, and associated with, a supposed absolute that is supposedly beyond human morality, and a standard set by a higher power. If you cannot see the difference, it is either that you can't comprehend the difference (unlikely, because I don't think you are stupid) or your anger and preconceptions are preventing you from discerning the difference.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Oh, man, let's try this again. I did NOT say you choose not to be religious because you want to be immoral. That's your ASSUMPTION. I am saying that you might choose not to be religious because it excuses you from the morality that is from, and associated with, a supposed absolute that is supposedly beyond human morality, and a standard set by a higher power. If you cannot see the difference, it is either that you can't comprehend the difference (unlikely, because I don't think you are stupid) or your anger and preconceptions are preventing you from discerning the difference.

Are you serious? Read what you just wrote.

The result is the same. A rock is still a rock even if it was formed from sand. Immoral from not being religious, or possibly excusing yourself from morality tied to belief in a higher power. I hear you and understand you. I just don;t AGREE With you, and I responded. You know I'm right about this. You can't back peddle from your intentions.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: Are you serious? Read what you just wrote. The result is the same. A rock is still a rock even if it was formed from sand. Immoral from not being religious, or possibly excusing yourself from morality tied to belief in a higher power. I hear you and understand you. I just don;t AGREE With you, and I responded. You know I'm right about this. You can't back peddle from your intentions.

No, CT. Sorry. You are still trying to tell me what I am saying, and pidgeon-hole the statement and concept. We aren't getting anywhere.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: No, CT. Sorry. You are still trying to tell me what I am saying, and pidgeon-hole the statement and concept. We aren't getting anywhere.

I understand what you are saying, you may or may not mean it to be malicious, but either way it is denigrating. I agree, no more confrontation. What about my response to your other question a few posts up?

quote Originally posted by fierobear: I suspect the root of the belief (and evolution is a belief, whether they want to admit it or not) is that it excuses the individual from having to answer to a higher power, and the accompanying rules and morality.

i believe i'll go have a beer.

Energy never dies? So it follows that it can never be created? Kind of wipes out the big bang theory, no?
Before anybody jumps in with all the laws of thermodynamics and entropy, I know them well, which is one more reason that I have serious doubts about the big bang theory and the spontaneous generation of life.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: Energy never dies. It is transferred just like in all other cases in the universe.

quote Originally posted by jstricker: Energy never dies? So it follows that it can never be created? Kind of wipes out the big bang theory, no? Before anybody jumps in with all the laws of thermodynamics and entropy, I know them well, which is one more reason that I have serious doubts about the big bang theory and the spontaneous generation of life. John Stricker

If it is infinite in its scale and scope. Then it is all possible. I believe there is no smallest scale or largest scale. I think everything is infinite. The big bang is probably one of constant cycles. In that case, a retraction and an expansion both fall into the energy idea.

quote Originally posted by jstricker: (snip bunch of other bull I'm not bothering to import) So this is the basis of your belief in the "Theory" of evolution? That "it just might happen"? Good luck with that one, you religious fantic you. John Stricker

Didn't read the link, eh?

GL