|
|
|
|
overlord
Apr 10, 2006, 7:25 AM
Post #26 of 47
(1520 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
In reply to: Sith., You don't see the need to use a rope right? Leap of faith kind of thing I bet.:wink: Hard core man... hard core! I know. Gravity is 'just a theory' isn't it? Evolution, pfffttt... just another theory in my books. I see no difference between the two! None-at-all. Theories, one-and-the-same! I'm like you man. I have yet to see a picture of the earth that isn't flat. Preach the gospel of free soloing Sith! Influence others, especially young impressionable ones. Start with those you love. Save'em 1st! Take them out, save them. Go light! Once they start using a rope, the next thing you know they'll start typing on those evil boxes they call computers. Wires, chips, plasma... I don't trust'em! They're built on theories I'm told. Just a bunch of theories. Preach to all to let loose their bonds! Untie those ropes! Get jesus or get stoned! Amen! Cover up! Cover-up those naughty bits! Its about to get hot out! Its just common sense. It gets hot... put on some wool. Keeps the light out.
ROFLMAO
http://img320.imageshack.us/img320/1589/h0209bk.gifhttp://img320.imageshack.us/img320/1589/h0209bk.gifhttp://img320.imageshack.us/img320/1589/h0209bk.gif
i wish i could give thropies in community...
|
|
|
|
|
bloodyhands
Apr 10, 2006, 7:55 AM
Post #27 of 47
(1520 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 29, 2005
Posts: 78
|
In reply to: (snip) Get jesus or get stoned!
I get high on the love of Christ.
|
|
|
|
|
nickh
Apr 10, 2006, 1:09 PM
Post #28 of 47
(1520 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2004
Posts: 19
|
This one may be lost on the religous right, but I think it was Richard Dawkins who asked "Why would an intelligent designer put the sewer system right next to the entertainment complex?"
Answer that one bible-thumpers,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
robbovius
Apr 10, 2006, 1:35 PM
Post #29 of 47
(1520 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 20, 2002
Posts: 8406
|
In reply to: ... You've probably seen a Discovery channel special or two with enough nudity to send you blushing to your room, to weep and masturbate in quiet religious shame...
oh my go_WAD, this is the best quote ever ;-) styndal, you fricken rule!
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Apr 10, 2006, 3:41 PM
Post #33 of 47
(1520 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
In reply to: In reply to: I think it was Richard Dawkins who asked "Why would an intelligent designer put the sewer system right next to the entertainment complex?" Same question applies to evolution. How could such an arrangement, with its attendant risk of infection, be the best solution?
And yet it seems to work pretty well. Of course, that answer also applies to both.
|
|
|
|
|
qwert
Apr 10, 2006, 4:11 PM
Post #35 of 47
(1520 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 2394
|
people like this guy make satanism look like a good alternative to cristianity. :roll: :roll:
why do such stupid bumhuts always have to take the bible literately? do you actually know i wich context the passage you reffering to has been written? have you read it in an original? do you know how much got lost in translation?
or this this all just a stupid troll to get some nice pics of hot muscular climbers, that want to prove you wrong? if so, please pm me your email, i could provide you some stuff for your little religious ehr "activities"
qwert
|
|
|
|
|
nickh
Apr 10, 2006, 4:50 PM
Post #36 of 47
(1520 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2004
Posts: 19
|
In reply to: How could such an arrangement, with its attendant risk of infection, be the best solution?
Its not the best solution, it is simply a good enough one.
Evolution is misconstrued as "the survival of the fittest" it is more accurately "the survival of the adequate". Locating those two next to each other is not a "best solution", it was the easiest evolutionary step that did not confer a high degree of selective disadvantage.
Read Gould's "The Panda's Thumb". The best argument for evolution is not in cases of perfect adaptation( i.e. the panda's thumb) , but in cases of imperfect adaptation.
Cases where better structures could easily be "designed", but natural selection did the best it could with what it had to work with.
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
nickh
Apr 10, 2006, 5:08 PM
Post #37 of 47
(1520 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2004
Posts: 19
|
OOPS- I meant that the Pandas thumb was an example of imperfect adaptation, not perfect adaptation.
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
kubi
Apr 10, 2006, 5:48 PM
Post #38 of 47
(1520 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2004
Posts: 815
|
In reply to: In reply to: How could such an arrangement, with its attendant risk of infection, be the best solution? Its not the best solution, it is simply a good enough one. Evolution is misconstrued as "the survival of the fittest" it is more accurately "the survival of the adequate". Locating those two next to each other is not a "best solution", it was the easiest evolutionary step that did not confer a high degree of selective disadvantage. Read Gould's "The Panda's Thumb". The best argument for evolution is not in cases of perfect adaptation( i.e. the panda's thumb) , but in cases of imperfect adaptation. Cases where better structures could easily be "designed", but natural selection did the best it could with what it had to work with. Nick
tradman will completely ignore the logic of this post in 5....4....3...
|
|
|
|
|
jred
Apr 10, 2006, 6:20 PM
Post #39 of 47
(1520 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2003
Posts: 750
|
In reply to: The only logical explanation for this is in Genesis ch 3.
Yeah, that's it, the bible is the only logical explanation. Are you aware of carbon dating? Did you know that we are not the first species to walk the earth? Where are the dinosaurs in the bible? Where is the ice age? ETC, ETC. Do you really want to argue credibility bible vs. science?
Oh, and about your stupid question about why we wear clothes, humanity migrated out of Africa (warm) to other places in the world (cold). Evolution does not happen that quickly, heh it is not god it can't all happen in a week.
|
|
|
|
|
jeremy9876543
Apr 10, 2006, 10:25 PM
Post #40 of 47
(1520 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 29, 2005
Posts: 119
|
In reply to: In reply to: The only logical explanation for this is in Genesis ch 3. Yeah, that's it, the bible is the only logical explanation. Are you aware of carbon dating? Did you know that we are not the first species to walk the earth? Where are the dinosaurs in the bible? Where is the ice age? ETC, ETC. Do you really want to argue credibility bible vs. science? Oh, and about your stupid question about why we wear clothes, humanity migrated out of Africa (warm) to other places in the world (cold). Evolution does not happen that quickly, heh it is not god it can't all happen in a week.
This crap is really pretty funny if you think about it. They can date the rings of Bristlecone pines back further than the deluded Christian wacko right thinks the earth has existed (using the live trees as well as the deadfalls). Clearly if god wanted us to believe Jerry Faldwell wasn't a wacko he would have changed the evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Apr 11, 2006, 7:40 AM
Post #41 of 47
(1520 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: The only logical explanation for this is in Genesis ch 3. Yeah, that's it, the bible is the only logical explanation. Are you aware of carbon dating? Did you know that we are not the first species to walk the earth? Where are the dinosaurs in the bible? Where is the ice age? ETC, ETC. Do you really want to argue credibility bible vs. science? Oh, and about your stupid question about why we wear clothes, humanity migrated out of Africa (warm) to other places in the world (cold). Evolution does not happen that quickly, heh it is not god it can't all happen in a week. This crap is really pretty funny if you think about it. They can date the rings of Bristlecone pines back further than the deluded Christian wacko right thinks the earth has existed (using the live trees as well as the deadfalls). Clearly if god wanted us to believe Jerry Faldwell wasn't a wacko he would have changed the evidence.
http://img320.imageshack.us/img320/1589/h0209bk.gifhttp://img320.imageshack.us/img320/1589/h0209bk.gifhttp://img320.imageshack.us/img320/1589/h0209bk.gif
ROFLMAO
|
|
|
|
|
coloredchalker
Apr 11, 2006, 12:16 PM
Post #42 of 47
(1520 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 6, 2005
Posts: 550
|
well this thread is certainly a good arguement againnst INTELLIGENT design. Actually make that intelligent anything.
|
|
|
|
|
nickh
Apr 13, 2006, 4:26 PM
Post #43 of 47
(1520 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2004
Posts: 19
|
Tradman will completely ignore the logic of this postIn reply to: Where is Tradman? pinktricam or curtis_g will serve as suitable replacements. Please respond to my point above. Thanks, Nick Edit-for the quote |
|
|
|
|
jackflash
Apr 13, 2006, 5:43 PM
Post #44 of 47
(1520 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 5, 2002
Posts: 483
|
I'll give your point a try...
In reply to: Read Gould's "The Panda's Thumb". The best argument for evolution is not in cases of perfect adaptation( i.e. the panda's thumb) , but in cases of imperfect adaptation. Cases where better structures could easily be "designed", but natural selection did the best it could with what it had to work with.
Though biology is rife with examples of structures that could certainly have been crafted better, they are not proof that natural processes, rather than supernatural ones, are the cause. This is for two main reasons. First, such an argument would be contingent on the assumption that supernatural forces have the knowledge and the ability to create optimal structures. Second, even if the first assumption is true, supernatural forces may have reasons not to create optimal structures. A supernatural being such as God may have different goals in mind for the structures than we think it does. God is said to work in mysterious ways.
Science cannot test the supernatural, and the above examples are two reasons why it cannot do so. It can neither verify or deny the existence of the supernatural. The best argument for evolution is not the imperfections of anatomy, but is seen in the fossil record and in genetics. Even so, they do not disprove the influence of the supernatural: nothing in science can.
|
|
|
|
|
nickh
Apr 13, 2006, 7:39 PM
Post #45 of 47
(1520 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2004
Posts: 19
|
Jack-
Excellent points. Science cannot prove that God didn’t intentionally create flaws in the design. In fact, I think that would be an interesting point to speculate about.
However, Science cannot prove that an angry unicorn on the darkside of the moon didn’t intentionally create those flaws either.
Fact is, despite what some might think, science isn’t very good at “proving” anything; be it evolution, gravity, or the magical powers of the liger. Unless you are all-knowing or commune regularly with someone who is (like Pat Robertson does), there will always be an abstract philosophical objection that can be raised to any conclusion of “proof”.
To take this thread on a related tangent- This is precisely the reason why ID/Creationism should never be taught in the science classroom. Postulates that by definition cannot be tested are not science. Now, if you want to argue that the existence of God can be determined from a double-blind, placebo controlled study, then I’ll help you write the grant and we’ll see how it goes, but I don’t think the results are gonna’ sway anybody.
The fossil record, molecular evidence, comparative anatomy, observed microevolution, etc. overwhelmingly supports an explanation of species origin via natural selection. This is an evolving theory, so to speak, and new evidence leads us to better, and more complete explanations all the time. Current evolutionary theory is not Darwin’s evolutionary theory (though his major principles are correct). Perhaps someday there will be an objection to evolution that will stand, and a new, better explanation will be adopted, that’s the way science works. However, no theory that explains unknowns with “ ’cause God did it that way” can be a scientific theory, or should be taught in a science classroom.
I have no problem with belief in any form and I do not self-identify as an atheist. Teach ID/Creationism in Social Studies, History, Theology/Philosophy or P.E. for all I care, just leave it out of the science classroom and science textbooks.
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
kydd76
Apr 14, 2006, 11:41 AM
Post #46 of 47
(1520 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2005
Posts: 228
|
Science is a theory, but religion is fiction .
|
|
|
|
|
coloredchalker
Apr 14, 2006, 6:05 PM
Post #47 of 47
(1520 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 6, 2005
Posts: 550
|
In reply to: Science is a theory, but religion is fiction .
Thanks for your opinion, its been noted.
BTW how do you define "theory"
|
|
|
|
|
|
