Printable View
There might be only two side of the debate in one manner (ID or creation vs "not designed"), but if you get into the hows and whens of each side, there are probably millions of known ideas and billions more that are unknown and not really thought of .... that's a lot of work :DQuote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
There is no possible nuetrality. There is no perfect unbias.Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome View Post
A person has to be open for something to be proven to them. There can be proof, but we value in our minds and hearts what's reasonable as proof. SOme people see things with their own eyes and it's not proof enough. For some people with some things their never enough proof. It's just a lack of faith, it's not reasonable or logical.
mfqr:
There's a difference between being open enough to be able to evaluate both sides of the argument and come up with your own conclusion, or remaining neutral, and being open minded to the extent that you believe everything you read/hear/see. It's a lack of faith, sure. But it doesn't make sense to have that faith without a believable story. To me, the story is fairly unbelievable. I am open-minded. Open-minded enough to say that it's a possibility, and hinted with enough narrow-mindedness to say there's not enough evidence, and thus is more improbable than probable. I think that's reasonable, don't you? I think it's pretty logical thinking, too.
I'll have to look into that. I would think knowledge of drawings like that would be well circulated. You seem to say It's something you really believe in so I thought maybe you could find me a few examples.Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
natureisawesome:
can you show me some examples?
Google can. It's documented that people back in the days of Christ, and even before, have made drawings and paintings of strange objects in the sky, which look quite like the ones we imagine and see today. I am not saying it is 100% true that people back then believed they were gods. I am assuming that they would, because it's far beyond them in any sort of explanation. Remember, back then, anything out of the ordinary was supernatural.
That's true.Quote:
Quote:
natueisawesome:
mfqr:Quote:
And are you referring to the catholic church ? I already pointed out that the catholic church isn't Christian earlier in this thread. They're not Christian and Jesus did not teach us to have any kind of physcial warfare, the opposite actually. If you want me to explain a few things about the catholic babylon mystery religion another thread can be started about that later. ( Like when thsi thread is done at least), but otherwise let's leave the rcc out of this.
Catholicism was only used as an example. Jesus did not teach anybody to have physical war, sure, that's true. However, people obviously took it into their own hands and used religion as a form of control, whether or not your Christian God exists.
Millions of people are evil and ignorant. But when it comes to something like conflict in Christian doctrine, It's possible to hold it accountable to scripture. Unlike people have been indoctrinated to believe, there are not many interpretations to scripture, and the correct understanding can be found. The meaning is not fundamentally ambiguous.Quote:
natureisawesome:
mfqr:Quote:
The evangicals and everyone else who votes in a Democracy all judge easch other through the ballot so everyone is guilty. But again, evangicals are obviously not Christians either. And I know their false doctrine.
Well, you believe their doctrine to be false - millions of others don't. Another example of conflicts between different faiths.
I wish you understood the hypocricy when people say that sheep are close minded and igorant, or when they say they don't think for themselves. If I didn't think for myself, I would go along the same wide path that the world takes, but instead I use discernment and swim against the flow. And many people want to be and "special" and "unique", but they don't understand that everything they have is a gift from God. They in fact conform to unconformaty, but I think it's really only rebellion and selfishness.Quote:
Quote:
natureisawesome:
I will reiterate a previous declaration in my post. There is no morality without God. And yes, I'm a sheep and I'd rather be a sheep than a wolf.
There is no morality without God? That's quite the statement there. I would say I am a moral human being, and yet I do not endorse the belief of any God but myself. You'd rather be a sheep than a wolf? Are you using the "wolf" as a metaphor to describe someone who is mentally free, and at the same time using that as a comparison to a sheep, like a wolf eats sheep, and is therefore a vicious animal?
mfqr:
Not all religions believe that. Not at all. But some do.Quote:
Let me get down to explaining something that might peak your interests.
There are many, many, many religions and faiths. Most religions will tell you that if you do not believe in that particular religion, that you will ultimately go to hell in the afterlife. Am I right? Well, then let's dig a bit deeper.
I think that a lot of people don't really care whether it's correct or not honestly. Or at least not that much. And a lot of people convinced that there is no Truth only personal truth (which is a contradiction) or a few people like Imitator who think it's close to being or is unsearchable or unknowable. It's interesting how one can assert to know it's unknowable.Quote:
Everyone who believes in a particular religion believes their religion is correct, right? Obviously, because then they would not believe it. A bit deeper now...
Why are you doomed to hell? If there's the right religion, then you can find it.Quote:
If every religion claims you will go to hell if you do not believe in it, and you can only choose one religion, then you are ultimately doomed to go to hell. Your only way of not going to hell, in the eyes of religion, is to believe and have faith in every single religion. Of course, that is not possible either, because every religion tells you that you can only believe in that particular religion. But then again, your religion/belief is correct, right? Correct just like catholicism is correct, and Islam is correct, and Judaism is correct, and so on. Sigh. So which religion should you believe in? Any of them. Mostly all of them have the same general beliefs as to how a human being should act, and they all believe theirs is the correct one.
You don't have to believe in every religion, it's not unsearchable. So few have truly tried with honestly . And I know people will disagree with mwe on that. Just because many religions believe theirs to be correct does not mean a correct one exists, or that it is impossible to find. And there are big big differences between these religions.
Looks like I have some catching up to do.
There is truth in what you say. You will tend to find the "correct" answer if you look at what both sides are saying, and try to find what sits in the middle.Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
If you can provide me a few links to some people who have been treated as such, I would gladly read them, but I dont have much desire to do the looking myself. Figured it was one of those things that the burden of proof wasnt on me.
Still, I believe there are places where bias is purposely seeked and destroyed. There are magazines, and publications who try their best to not have a bias. Yes, some will still be there, even if the bias is that they try to have no bias.
Its quotes like these that keep me in discussions like this.Quote:
Just because many religions believe theirs to be correct does not mean a correct one exists, or that it is impossible to find. And there are big big differences between these religions.
And I dont mean that in a bad way. I enjoy talking with people are willing to entertain possibilities outside of those that they believe are the truth.
A question for you natureisawesome. You have said that there are many different religions, and that these many religions can be very very different from each other. What purpose do you think these other religions serve? Assuming that there is only one correct religion/god? Assuming that there is a pantheon-esque scheme?
Personally, I see religions as a tool to aid man. Its something that is there to help give us answers when we have nothing but questions, to give us strength when we feel weak, and to give us hope when things seem bleak. It allows people to keep on through life with their chin up, and for some it gives their lives meaning.
The bible, the Qur'an, The Noble Truths and The Noble Eightfold Path, etc etc... They are all texts that are there to help show people how to live a good life. And even if no god(s) exist at all, these texts have helped millions upon millions of people with their lives, and for that they are amazing. A person can read the bible, take the lessons that it teaches through its stories, and live a great life without ever having to believe in anything that the bible actual said was true. The stories dont need to be true to convey the important message. I say the important message, because we can debate about gods and afterlife til we are blue in the face, but we have no way of knowing the truth behind the matter. But we do "know" that we are living here and now, and that if nothing else, if there is no afterlife or god or rewards, we can still be happy if we live a good life now. And that is what these texts, in my belief, are really for, and what their true purpose is.
Imitator:
I've read several atricles on this now.Quote:
I was just watching Colbert Report, an old one, that had a paleantologists(sp) on there, who had discovered a fossil from 375 million years ago, that was a link between fishes and the first land creatures. It had parts of a land creature in it, and still parts of a fish, and was believed to live in shallow water and ventured onto land occasionally.
It was called Tiktaalik, and here is a link to a transcript of a Nature documentary on its discovery.
: Nature
I think thats a pretty good example of evolution in action right there.
This is a fish that is supposed to be a missing link between fish and tetrapods. First off, it's not even complete. Scientists as of yet unable to determine what the hind fins and tail might have looked like. A picture of it is here:
http://www.icr.org/i/articles/news/tiktaalik_roseae.jpg
And from that they conclude that he could walk like a normal land creature.
Quote:
In his description of this fossil, evolutionist Shubin states the front fins look basically ??like a scale-covered arm? with ??bones that correspond to a shoulder, upper arm, elbow, forearm and a primitive version of a wrist? (AP 2006)...
One should note that the bones in Tiktaalik??s fins have no axial skeleton connections. This is significant because without this direct connection, no true walking could be done by Tiktaalik. Furthermore, the fins of this creature enclose rays, not digits such as toes or fingers..
The media gives the impression that this is something new but it's really not. There are more than a few fish than can breathe air and slide around on thier bellies for long distances with help of pectoral fins. The northern snakehead and walking catfish are air breathing fish that can travel for some notable distances. MUdskippers can breathe air through thier skin and can skip along with thier fins. The climbing perch breathes air and walks on land and can even climb trees. The flying fish can glide hundreds of yards over water. There are other examples also.Quote:
The hind limbs in particular have a robust pelvic girdle securely attached to the vertebral column. This differs radically from that of any fish including Tiktaalik. Essentially all fish (including Tiktaalik) have small pelvic fins relative to their pectoral fins. The legs of tetrapods are just the opposite: the hind limbs attached to the pelvic girdle are almost always more robust than the fore limbs attached to the pectoral girdle.
Finally, no fish (including Tiktaalik) has true finger or toe bones. Instead, fish have slender bony fin rays, which even evolutionists concede are not homologous or related in any way to digits. While fin rays are ideal for swimming in water, they are unsuited to bear weight on land and thus permit only a slithering and belly-dragging mode of locomotion on land (in certain living species) that can be described as ??walking? in only the most trivial sense of the word.
None of these though are considered to be anscestors of tetropods by evolutionists, they're just special fish. It's important to understand that fish come in lots of forms that defy consistant classification. There are different classifications depending on the bias of the classifier.
Evolutionists are not sure whether lungs came first before gills or vice verca .They're not sure whether cartaligious or bony fish came first either.
These sensational claims appear every now and then, and then soon faid away into obscurity when the evidence is more closely examined.
One thing is for sure, it's a fish.
more can be read about it here:
Tiktaalik and the fishy story of walking fish, part 2 - Answers in Genesis
tool 9:
A couple days. I know it's long, but I think it's really important to have a thorough and concise line of reasoning to begiinning to end. too often people nit pick about various evodence but it never really goes anywhere.Quote:
I hope you didnt type all that stuff... and if you did how long did it take?
Staurm:
I understand. I didn't mean for it to get like this. There's so many side questions and differnet objections. It's a deep post though, so it's not suprising. It's easier if you just stick to the posts relevant to the original thread, but I think a lot of stuff besides has gotten some good coverage.Quote:
WOW- - - i n f o r m a t i o n o v e r l o a d
DANGER Will Robinson....
Just stick to the posts between me and you and you'll be fine. Remember there are several other people who have been posting in this thread.Quote:
Could you perhaps condense this thread into a scientific text and next time I'm in Waterstones I'll pick up a copy and then I can read in on the train on the way to work?
Quote:
You seem keen to dismiss Prigonine's theories very quickly, I find that surprising since you seem to know a thing or two about a thing or two. I feel out of my depth. I am somewhat sceptical about your bible babble though. I hope I can get round to replying to your comments. Order and disorder are confusing and somewhat subjective concepts when it comes to thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. It's perhaps better to think of it in terms of equilibrium, non-equilibrium and quasi-equilibrium.
It's easy to discredit. Especially when Prigonine himself addmited it was not an obstacle to the second law. There is order, and then there is complexity. Randomness, order, and compexity are three seperate things. Life has order and specific complexity. But there is also "order" (really patterns) which arise from natural physical processes inherent to the nature of the molecules and natural laws themselves. But this is still the wrong direction from going to life. I hope you get around to replying to my comments too. I would like to actually confront the original post more than what has been done.
Hope to hear from you soon.
Nature:
The big difference is the bone structure in its fins. There is an almost complete wrist and finger structure there, not found in any other fish during that era.
They arent saying it walked on land, but that it was the father of land walking creatures.
And even if they found tommorow that the back half of it was fish like, the front half is still enough to show the difference.
And no fish during that time could even slide around on land. So this one was a first.
Ill post more in a bit, I am on my way out the door from work, and then off to a GH2 competition. Wish me luck. =P
Imitator:
I sat here trying to understand what you mean and what your objection is but I don't get it.Please clarify for me.Quote:
Every other person that he is supposed to have descended from, according to the bible, they state that he is to descend from said person. But not with Jacob.Quote:
Quote:
1. Messiah is to be born of a woman (Genesis 3:15)
?? Jesus was born by Mary (Matthew 1:18??25, Luke 2:1??7, Galatians 4:4)
2. Messiah was to be descended from Abraham (Genesis 12:3, 18:18)
?? Jesus traces his ancestry from Abraham (Luke 3:34, Acts 3:25, Galatians 3:16)
3. Messiah to be born of Jacob (Numbers 24:17,19)
?? Jesus traces his ancestry from Jacob (Matthew 1:2, Luke 3:34)
4. Messiah to be descended from Judah, a son of Jacob (Genesis 49:10)
?? Jesus traces his ancestry from Judah (Luke 3:33, Matthew 1:2)
5. Messiah to be descended from King David (Psalm 132:11, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:15, Isaiah 11:10)
?? Jesus is a direct descendant of Kind David through both his mother and adoptive father (Matthew 1:6, Luke 1:32??33, Romans 1:3, Acts 2:30)
Why the difference when it came to Jacob?