Post by: chilin_dude on September 25, 2004, 02:42:00 PM
| QUOTE (slamer @ Mar 24 2003, 03:01 PM) |
| one word: BAAAH! |
That is so not true, he is so not sexy
Post by: bong888 on September 25, 2004, 07:48:00 PM
i Remeber back in the day when that was my sig.
Crazy little Bunny
nice to see you still got it.
Post by: PSU on September 25, 2004, 08:07:00 PM
| QUOTE (yanke10 @ Mar 12 2003, 05:51 PM) |
| bill gates created the universe |
the compute universe anyway
Post by: nemt on September 25, 2004, 08:09:00 PM
Post by: pegasys on September 25, 2004, 08:29:00 PM
Post by: moistness on September 25, 2004, 08:40:00 PM
| QUOTE (nemt @ Sep 26 2004, 03:12 AM) |
| I love the cock....... |
Post by: EvilWays on September 25, 2004, 09:11:00 PM
If God did indeed create everything, did he have a big frickin' "laser" and a moon base? And that one question was never answered: "What does God need with a starship?"
Post by: Trisman on September 25, 2004, 11:15:00 PM
| QUOTE (Raised @ Mar 14 2003, 09:51 PM) |
| We are at a higher level than other animals. Look around. Who's on the top of the food chain? Ever heard of any animal spending 20 of the best year of their lives to educate themselves? Ever heard of an animal writting a book, or leaving any kind of legacy to their offspring? Do animals learn from one generation to the other? We sleep, we shit and we like sex, but that isn't to say that we are on the same level as animals. |
"man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much-the wheel, New York, wars and so on-whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man-for precisely the same reasons."
-Douglas Adams
It's amazing how one person can say something so well.
Post by: zboy2004 on September 27, 2004, 02:28:00 PM
THE END CASE CLOSED U ALL ARE FUCKING IDIOTS
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 27, 2004, 02:33:00 PM
Post by: zboy2004 on September 27, 2004, 02:44:00 PM
Post by: SKoT on September 28, 2004, 08:11:00 AM
Post by: jujupinto85 on March 12, 2003, 02:34:00 PM
im discussing some things in my theology class, and one of the topic is Where is the universe, the world, come from?
like how was it created and the such (how did we become into excitence?)
any side, point of view, religion, beliefe, is of course, welcome
thanks
Post by: ocojaa on March 12, 2003, 02:36:00 PM
Its the ciiiiiirrrrcle of life... blah, blah, blah, blah, blah blaaaaah. Its the something, something... i cant remember any of the lyrics..... la, la, la
Post by: brass monkey2 on March 12, 2003, 02:37:00 PM
i think the big bang is true.
Post by: jujupinto85 on March 12, 2003, 02:45:00 PM
Post by: yanke10 on March 12, 2003, 02:48:00 PM
Post by: reli on March 12, 2003, 03:00:00 PM
Institute for Creation Research
A Christ-Focused Creation Ministry
I am sorry, but i think you should not read this if you are looking for answers for yourself.
it is you who has to do the thinking, reading biased views will get you nowhere.
Post by: Fuzzy on March 12, 2003, 03:02:00 PM
Post by: nonamer66 on March 12, 2003, 03:27:00 PM
Post by: msnyder on March 12, 2003, 03:28:00 PM
Post by: feflicker on March 12, 2003, 04:00:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| i think you should really give "A brief history of time" by Stephen Hawking a read. |
Most people remember Stephen as the "wheel chair guy" instead of the genius that he is. (Unfortunately).
I don't believe the universe was "created". I believe the universe has always been. (Even though my puny human mind cannot grasp such a concept).
Post by: brass monkey2 on March 12, 2003, 04:45:00 PM
| QUOTE (reli @ Mar 12 2003, 06:55 PM) |
| i think you should really give "A brief history of time" by Stephen Hawking a read. |
ISn't that book very long for a berief look at the history of time.
Post by: socrates on March 12, 2003, 04:48:00 PM
.
Post by: Wargen on March 12, 2003, 05:44:00 PM
One of my friend believes that we come from monkeys. I'll put my own opinion on this. Darwin invented this theory, and he didn't even believe his thoery himself. That is fact one. Fact two, there would be no monkeys on the planet.
I hope this could help you.
Post by: socrates on March 12, 2003, 05:46:00 PM
Post by: Wargen on March 12, 2003, 05:47:00 PM
| QUOTE (socrates @ Mar 12 2003, 08:46 PM) |
| But what about the dinos? |
Yeah, there were once Dinos, but they're all gone now.
Wouldn't it be fun to have a pet T-Rex
Post by: socrates on March 12, 2003, 06:01:00 PM
Post by: Rollo on March 12, 2003, 06:08:00 PM
God created the universe.
Don't ask me who created God tho.
Post by: Wargen on March 12, 2003, 06:11:00 PM
| QUOTE (Rollo @ Mar 12 2003, 09:08 PM) |
| Don't ask me who created God tho. |
Lol
. About othet life on other planets, that is maybe possible, but I'd like to see a proof first.
Post by: socrates on March 12, 2003, 06:11:00 PM
Post by: HSDEMONZ on March 12, 2003, 06:26:00 PM
God Bless BLue People.
Post by: XxxTHEILLONExxX on March 12, 2003, 06:37:00 PM
Post by: Wargen on March 12, 2003, 06:40:00 PM
| QUOTE (XxxTHEILLONExxX @ Mar 12 2003, 09:37 PM) |
| wargen adam and eve werent the first humans its been scientifically proven... |
Ok then, first official humans related to the Bible, is that good?
Post by: XanTium on March 12, 2003, 06:41:00 PM
http://www.google.co...niverse created
Post by: socrates on March 12, 2003, 06:42:00 PM
Post by: Rollo on March 12, 2003, 06:43:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| wargen adam and eve werent the first humans its been scientifically proven |
Basic scientific theory states that there must be an observation............how can this be "scientifically" proven if there were no humans present to observe the creation of the first human.....(and obviouslly there weren't, it's paradoxical)
Post by: XxxTHEILLONExxX on March 12, 2003, 06:48:00 PM
Post by: Wargen on March 12, 2003, 06:50:00 PM
| QUOTE (Icculus @ Mar 12 2003, 09:45 PM) |
| Well i think that if as fuzzy stated that no time existed at one point. (sort of tough naming a time when time was created huh? ) That very well may open the doors to the fact that there is a God...man i have stuff to do lemme keep this short as i have all sorts of theories, i might post later Anyway, i'm open for different viewpoints...i've seen convincing arguments to the fact that there is a God and the fact that there isn't. However, the more science can explain about the universe and its creation, the more inexplicable points they come across. The concept of complete nothingness is as foreign to me as a supreme being. Perhaps what we experience now is not what it seems- here's something to think about: The way we see ANYTHING is completely subjective. Think about the computer and desk in front of you. How do we know that is what it really looks like? Well i can say my desk is woodgrain, i can see it. However, can i really make that assumption? It does physically exist, i can feel and see it, lets assume this much is true- however, what if from a completely objective viewpoint the desk is polka-dotted but i see wood? If i took a picture suppose the picture shows a polka dotted desk but my eyes still see wood? Is what i see as wood really wood to you? What if i see purple and you see pink- we would have been trained from preschool to equate the same flashcard with the color name, so its possible. ...ok i'll be back tommorrow. I'm just warming up. |
Whoa man! Ideas are swriling in your head! Keep it up, that is interresting me
Post by: Rollo on March 12, 2003, 06:51:00 PM
Post by: Wargen on March 12, 2003, 06:51:00 PM
| QUOTE (XxxTHEILLONExxX @ Mar 12 2003, 09:48 PM) |
| rollo they took a old skelton and checked to see how old it is using dna shit which is science and discovered that its the oldest human found and there doesnt need to be anybody there at the time to observe the creation of humans thats whats science is for...derrrrrr |
What if Adam and Eve came before the oldest scientific human?
Post by: feflicker on March 12, 2003, 06:52:00 PM
Post by: XxxTHEILLONExxX on March 12, 2003, 06:55:00 PM
Post by: Wargen on March 12, 2003, 07:00:00 PM
| QUOTE (XxxTHEILLONExxX @ Mar 12 2003, 09:55 PM) |
| wargen did i or did i not say that IT HAS BEEN SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN THAT ADAM AND EVE WERE NOT THE FIRST HUMANS!!! AND WHERE DID YOU GET SCIENTIFIC HUMAN FROM?!?! |
lolol, I think you did
and the first "scientific" human was to recognize him. Adam and Eve could be called First "Biblical" Humans...or something
Post by: Rollo on March 12, 2003, 07:01:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| rollo they took a old skelton and checked to see how old it is using dna shit which is science and discovered that its the oldest human found and there doesnt need to be anybody there at the time to observe the creation of humans thats whats science is for...derrrrrr |
Very intriguing conversation...................especially the "derrrrrr", that almost won me over.
But i have a problem with man dating an item with another item that man deems is old........all of your "references" end up being assumtions when you consider that there is no rock in the smithsonian that has a inscription of "mesozoic era....Jake wuz here" on it! Furthermore, DNA does not tell age, It tells lineage.
Consider this, there is no place on earth that has an exact showing of the fossil record as scientists would like to see it for their dating methods to work.........I'm not saying you should believe in God or anything, I just don't think you should be so quick to believe in man either.
Post by: Heet on March 12, 2003, 07:01:00 PM
Post by: Wargen on March 12, 2003, 07:10:00 PM
| QUOTE (jujupinto85 @ Mar 12 2003, 05:34 PM) |
| Well, im discussing some things in my theology class, and one of the topic is Where is the universe, the world, come from? like how was it created and the such (how did we become into excitence?) any side, point of view, religion, beliefe, is of course, welcome thanks |
You can always ask Billy Graham, he'll be glad to help you
Post by: Rollo on March 12, 2003, 07:12:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| p.s. We already had this conversation, and my head is still hurting from it last month, although it was a good one. |
This is a hard one not to get caught up in! I remember one time M3Del started a topic about Howard Stern of all things and it somehow turned into this debate!
Post by: XxxTHEILLONExxX on March 12, 2003, 07:13:00 PM
Post by: Rollo on March 12, 2003, 07:22:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| dna does tell the age unless the discovery channel likes to lie which i believe not so i will stick with what i heard adam and eve were not the first humans |
Actually it tells lineage........what the Discovery Channel did was trace the DNA patterns back to what they believe is the oldest human skeleton found to date. (there is that "oldest" term again)
That date is then determined using fossil record. and carbon 14 dating and all that shit.
Just how that is supposed to disprove Adam and Eve, i'm not sure.
Consider this: what happens tomorrow when someone digs up the new oldest human to date?..............rewrite the science book.
Post by: gainpresence on March 12, 2003, 07:25:00 PM
| QUOTE (Rollo @ Mar 12 2003, 09:22 PM) | ||
Actually it tells lineage........what the Discovery Channel did was trace the DNA patterns back to what they believe is the oldest human skeleton found to date. (there is that "oldest" term again) That date is then determined using fossil record. and carbon 14 dating and all that shit. Just how that is supposed to disprove Adam and Eve, i'm not sure. Consider this: what happens tomorrow when someone digs up the new oldest human to date?..............rewrite the science book. |
Carbon dating is innaccurate, someone got a rock formed by Mt. Saint Helen's most recent explosion, it was dated as being tens of thousands of years old. And there was a fossilized mining hat dated at several thousand years (the owner remembers when he dropped it).
Post by: Rollo on March 12, 2003, 07:30:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| Carbon dating is innaccurate, someone got a rock formed by Mt. Saint Helen's most recent explosion, it was dated as being tens of thousands of years old. And there was a fossilized mining hat dated at several thousand years (the owner remembers when he dropped it). |
Yet we put our trust in man...........Man that will lie, cheat, and steal his way all up in yo ass!
How can it be so easy to wholeheartedly believe what man says without knowing or understanding it just like you and me.
Post by: sith on March 12, 2003, 08:22:00 PM
| QUOTE (gainpresence @ Mar 13 2003, 04:25 AM) |
| Carbon dating is innaccurate, someone got a rock formed by Mt. Saint Helen's most recent explosion, it was dated as being tens of thousands of years old. And there was a fossilized mining hat dated at several thousand years (the owner remembers when he dropped it). |
i normally agree with u gain.. but this is just dumb.. firstly carbon dating is only for living and or recently dead organics, it is the comparison of c12 to c14 which is at a perfect ratio while things are alive.. we know that it takes x amount of time for c14 to become c12 and therefor by examining the new ratio, we can find, quite acuratly(within hours in the first month, days after that) the time of death...
what i think u are refering to i beleive is ratioactive dating for rocks.. which is even more acurate.. some rocks have been dated at the mid-oceanic ridge and then again at thousands of km away, and it matches with a few Months of the time it would have taken for the rock to travel that far on the contental plates..half-life never varies, i minor in geology, but this is learned on day one..
AND as for the mining hat.. do u have any idea how long a fossil(carbon fossil, not a mold) takes to form?? or he is dating a mold, which really has nothing to do with the hat... and the st. helens rock, either never nappened or is a date of the rock that was not liquified, mabye from the cone blast??
anyway.. hah
as for my insights on the universe, "a brief history of time" is very close to what i beleive, however the first chapter of "the age of spiritual machines" by Ray Kurzwell is a better summation of the hawking theory and also fills the small gaps with other accepted thoughts..
.sith.
Post by: sinhowang on March 12, 2003, 08:56:00 PM
Post by: gainpresence on March 12, 2003, 09:00:00 PM
| QUOTE (sinhowang @ Mar 12 2003, 10:56 PM) |
| I'm not saying not to turn against the bible, but I believe in the big bang theory just because some things in the bible are off. Ok, let's start with where GOD destroyed everyone on the Earth except for Noah and his wife and two of each animals. Then that means everyone is cross-breed, and that everyone has to be one race either it is white, black, asian, or ... So as you can see, there are many races in the world. |
http://www.answersin...g/docs/3811.asp
Post by: penguinofdoom564 on March 12, 2003, 09:20:00 PM
Post by: Mage on March 12, 2003, 09:34:00 PM
You cannot know the truth yet...hell it's possible for you to NEVER know.
Faith != knowledge btw, so you can't use the line "I believe in God, therefore the bible has to be right."
No one can prove this...it's just something you guys will argue about over and over and over and over again.
Post by: gainpresence on March 12, 2003, 10:07:00 PM
http://www.christian...y-problems.html
Post by: jasonmvt on March 12, 2003, 11:08:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| I also recommend this book "Starlight and Time" by Dr. Russell Humphreys http://www.icr.org/s...ghtandtime.html |
this is not an attack towards you or anything else you have stated, but I just wanted to point out this post that you had made earlier.
The problem I have with a book like this is that not ONE recognized expert in the field of relativity or the cosmos will support the 'science' presented in this book. The theories illustrated are easily proven wrong by 'believers' and 'non-believers' alike. As a matter of fact, the last I had heard about this book was that even most expert Christian physicists would not go on record as supporting this becuase of the inaccuracies themselves and the damage it would do to the 'young earth' philosophy in the eyes of more 'mainstream' science. If someone wishes to utilize the tools of mainstream science to provide religious backing, they had better get the science straight before attempting to apply it to God.
For an amusing fiction read, perhaps. For a more realistic approach, I'll look elsewhere.
Post by: gainpresence on March 12, 2003, 11:18:00 PM
The underlying concepts behind Creationism (as found in the Bible) have never been disproven. That is the main advantage Evolutionism has over it, everything about evolution can change as it is disproven (happens a lot), but nothing about Creationism (unless it is an extra man-made theory) can change (or God's a liar and the Bible is null and viod).
But these fun little changeable/updatable theorys are nice and interesting as well.
BTW, Starlight and Time is just a chapter in an unfinished book, I'm sure he'll (Dr. Humphreys) address any inaccuracies found in the BIG book!
Post by: Mage on March 12, 2003, 11:53:00 PM
| QUOTE (gainpresence @ Mar 13 2003, 12:18 AM) |
| Well, science does get disproven quite often, most of his theorys have held, though. The underlying concepts behind Creationism (as found in the Bible) have never been disproven. That is the main advantage Evolutionism has over it, everything about evolution can change as it is disproven (happens a lot), but nothing about Creationism (unless it is an extra man-made theory) can change (or God's a liar and the Bible is null and viod). But these fun little changeable/updatable theorys are nice and interesting as well. BTW, Starlight and Time is just a chapter in an unfinished book, I'm sure he'll (Dr. Humphreys) address any inaccuracies found in the BIG book! |
The bible hasn't been proven also...you cannot prove something that is purely based on faith...hence it being faith
Post by: gainpresence on March 12, 2003, 11:57:00 PM
| QUOTE (Mage @ Mar 13 2003, 01:53 AM) | ||
The bible hasn't been proven also...you cannot prove something that is purely based on faith...hence it being faith |
Of course, nothing in this field (Evolution or Creation) can be proven. The point is to disprove/discredit the other.
Science: observation, repetition, and measurement.
Post by: Lizard_King on March 13, 2003, 12:10:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| Finally, Dr. Libby and the evolutionist crowd have assumed that all plant and animal life utilize carbon-14 equally as they do carbon-12. To be grammatically crass, this aint necessarily so. Live mollusks off the Hawaiian coast have had their shells dated with the carbon-14 method. These test showed that the shells died 2000 years ago! This news came as quite a shock to the mollusks that had been using those shells until just recently. |
That's not grammatically crass. That's overt deception. Without noting what part of the shell was tested, nor what the hell is exactly meant by a shell "dying", or attempting to correlate that in any way to the complex method in which a shell is created, this experiment (which of course lacks documentation) is meaningless in the way it is detailed here. It is all too obvious that the purpose was not to test carbon dating in a rational manner; the "scientist" entered with a thesis denying any useful patterns in carbon decay and constrained the data until it upheld it.
Yours is not a scientific argument. It is an ideological one. That is not bad or wrong in a question of creation; but theology and science are different disciplines for a reason. When Bacon created scientific method, he sought to avoid such a conflict. As a devout Christian but a committed scientist, he divided science into the "how" and theology into the "why". I consider it sound methodology.
jujupinto85
I would urge you to do a search for the "religion" thread that there was right around the time I signed up. A lot of interesting things were said, in my opinion.
Personally, while I am fond of the big bang as a thought experiment, I think it is merely one possibility out of many. Some theories may gain greater weight as computer models become more advanced, but given the limitations man has encountered with simply attempting to account for the mass that ought to be present in our universe, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them.
In any case, since you are in a theology discussion rather than a physics or philosophy classroom, I have a feeling you are in for a lot of frustration, as people will inevitably shift gears from putting forth what can only be considered subjective opinions and attempting to prove or disprove the others as gainpresence has done.
If I were to select a single religious approach as the one I find most interesting, perhaps because I have only relatively recently been exposed to it, it is the Buddhist view of world creation. I am far too tired to go into it right now, and I doubt I would do it justice, but it makes a lot more sense than the more anthropomorphic and almost witch doctor-like approaches that other religions seem to take with their creation myths.
[edit] grammar
Post by: gainpresence on March 13, 2003, 12:19:00 AM
.
Post by: btz on March 13, 2003, 12:20:00 AM
Post by: gainpresence on March 13, 2003, 12:26:00 AM
| QUOTE (Lizard_King @ Mar 13 2003, 02:23 AM) | ||
Yeah, I think we've been down this dark path before... |
You know I'd smoke you in a debate
.Lizard King: He's always right, even when he's wrong.
Gainpresence: er..... uhh.... I'm Awesome!
Post by: capt_n_yayo on March 13, 2003, 01:17:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| Lizard King: He's always right, even when he's wrong. |
As far as how the universe was created..shit, I did it!! 
Post by: ph7 on March 13, 2003, 04:35:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| The way we see ANYTHING is completely subjective. Think about the computer and desk in front of you. How do we know that is what it really looks like? Well i can say my desk is woodgrain, i can see it. However, can i really make that assumption? It does physically exist, i can feel and see it, lets assume this much is true- however, what if from a completely objective viewpoint the desk is polka-dotted but i see wood? If i took a picture suppose the picture shows a polka dotted desk but my eyes still see wood? Is what i see as wood really wood to you? What if i see purple and you see pink- we would have been trained from preschool to equate the same flashcard with the color name, so its possible. |
I have had the same theory for years, but whenever I've tried to explain it to anyone it gets a bit confusing.....how could you test it??? Does it explain for some peoples bad colour co-ordination?
One other thing....how do we know that the universe is it (the end, everything?).....
people thought earth was it until they realised what the sun was,
....they thought the sun was it until they spotted the solar system...
....they thought the solar system was it until the spotted the galaxy...
....they thought the galaxy was it until the universe was figured......
...so how do we know that there aren't lots of universes held together in something even bigger??!!??!!??
PS and that even bigger thing is kept safe inside Gods inside pocket
Post by: 007jamesbond on March 13, 2003, 04:43:00 AM
But a Big Bang is fake, cause where did the rocks came from? who was first the chicken or the egg?
It was the chicken, God made humans, animals, fauna everything.
If you dont believe it, its ok to me
Post by: Raver758 on March 13, 2003, 05:22:00 AM
Post by: whiffin on March 13, 2003, 05:57:00 AM
Post by: ph7 on March 13, 2003, 06:37:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| But still, with Creationism AND Evolutionism, there is always the question of "Where did X come from?". |
MS Xbox
Post by: gsxr on March 13, 2003, 07:31:00 AM
Post by: Lizard_King on March 13, 2003, 08:00:00 AM
| QUOTE (007jamesbond @ Mar 13 2003, 01:43 PM) |
| But a Big Bang is fake, cause where did the rocks came from? who was first the chicken or the egg? It was the chicken, God made humans, animals, fauna everything. If you dont believe it, its ok to me |
Well, I understand what you're saying, but for many people who were not raised in a Christian/Muslim/Jewish manner (although even then I sure do know a lot of Jewish atheists...), there is no logical distinction between saying your biblical God, unknowable except through faith, was the creator of the universe and saying a bunch of invisible, unknowable little green men are running around the universe creating and manipulating things. There is just as much evidence for either.
Hobbes (Thomas, not Calvin &) referred to this as the GRBLFX conundrum: Any deity whose existence is predicated on faith is automatically as rationally valid (of course, not necessarily morally) a choice of Creator as any other, even a one-eyed monster named GRBLFX.
| QUOTE |
| Sorry for the warm and fuzzy, I'm just in awe after the Iraq thread(s) |
It's only a matter of time, jason. If you build it, the trolls will come and crap on you.
Post by: sith on March 13, 2003, 09:01:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| The accuracy of radiocoarbon dating was tested on objects with dates that were already known through historical records such as parts of the dead sea scrolls and some wood from an Egyptian tomb. Based on the results of the Carbon 14 test the analysis showed that C14 agreed very closely with the historical information. |
and here where they dated a roughly 1000 year old piece of wood and where pissed because at one point the data didn't matchup, and they were 20 years off.. so even if something is missdated slightly, it is never less acurate that 30 years.. it just doesn't nappen..
you can post links to garbage on the net all day.. everyone believes something.. and so just because someone believes something and makes a web site with false facts, that does not make it fact..
i am a christian myself, but science is reproducable and reliable, the bible is not.. here is another "great" site that thinks it disproves man's facts by no fact whatsoever.. check it out here
i can see what u are doing, and its fine, i just hope not everyone beleives everything they see/hear, make your own conclusions.. i like to beleive the theorys that have some evidence, well before i beleive ones that are based on words..
.sith.
Post by: J.P. Patches on March 13, 2003, 11:07:00 AM
Post by: gainpresence on March 13, 2003, 11:10:00 AM
| QUOTE (J.P. Patches @ Mar 13 2003, 01:07 PM) |
| Where does it say this? I'm confused. |
Eh?
Post by: J.P. Patches on March 13, 2003, 11:14:00 AM
Post by: gainpresence on March 13, 2003, 11:29:00 AM
Galatians, 1:20
Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.
Hebrews, 6:18
That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:
Titus, 1:2
In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
Numbers, 23:19
God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
Post by: Mage on March 13, 2003, 11:29:00 AM
Post by: gainpresence on March 13, 2003, 11:31:00 AM
| QUOTE (Mage @ Mar 13 2003, 01:29 PM) |
| Besides, how many of you know that old hewbrew it was written in? You're reading a translated version...so man is known to err, can you assume another man who didn't have 'divine intervention' translate it perfectly? |
I believe that the King James Version is the closest we'll ever get to a "Perfect" translation, and it's damned close (no pun intended).
I believe there was a mixture of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin(?), depending on the different authors.
Post by: J.P. Patches on March 13, 2003, 11:33:00 AM
Post by: Icculus on March 13, 2003, 11:34:00 AM
...This is why the official Quran is kept in arabic, to remove these inconsistences.
Post by: gainpresence on March 13, 2003, 11:43:00 AM
| QUOTE (J.P. Patches @ Mar 13 2003, 01:33 PM) |
| So, you do no work on Saturdays (Exod 31:15)? |
Luke, 6:1-10
1": And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.
"2": And certain of the Pharisees said unto them, Why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days?
"3": And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which were with him;
"4": How he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone?
"5": And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
"6": And it came to pass also on another sabbath, that he entered into the synagogue and taught: and there was a man whose right hand was withered.
"7": And the scribes and Pharisees watched him, whether he would heal on the sabbath day; that they might find an accusation against him.
"8": But he knew their thoughts, and said to the man which had the withered hand, Rise up, and stand forth in the midst. And he arose and stood forth.
"9": Then said Jesus unto them, I will ask you one thing; Is it lawful on the sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? to save life, or to destroy it?
"10": And looking round about upon them all, he said unto the man, Stretch forth thy hand. And he did so: and his hand was restored whole as the other.
Luke, 13:10-16
10": And he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the sabbath.
"11": And, behold, there was a woman which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up herself.
"12": And when Jesus saw her, he called her to him, and said unto her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity.
"13": And he laid his hands on her: and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God.
"14": And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the sabbath day.
"15": The Lord then answered him, and said, Thou hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering?
"16": And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day?
John, 5:8-19
"8": Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk.
"9": And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked: and on the same day was the sabbath.
"10": The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured, It is the sabbath day: it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed.
"11": He answered them, He that made me whole, the same said unto me, Take up thy bed, and walk.
"12": Then asked they him, What man is that which said unto thee, Take up thy bed, and walk?
"13": And he that was healed wist not who it was: for Jesus had conveyed himself away, a multitude being in that place.
"14": Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.
"15": The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus, which had made him whole.
"16": And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.
"17": But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
"18": Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
"19": Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
Post by: gainpresence on March 13, 2003, 11:45:00 AM
| QUOTE (Icculus @ Mar 13 2003, 01:34 PM) |
| Right- even if you assume that the men the originally wrote the bible did so with divine intervention and the bible and scriptures are, in fact, divine infallible text, who knows what we have now? It has been translated, and perhaps even edited ... This is why the official Quran is kept in arabic, to remove these inconsistences. |
The originals of the Bible are still kept, and there are several copys as well.
I know several preachers/etc.. that often compare our translation to the original. The only thing that comes up is the 3 different types of Love.
Post by: J.P. Patches on March 13, 2003, 11:53:00 AM
Exodus 31:
15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
Jesus doesn't say that you SHOULD work on a sabbath... Just that these other people already are. So, should you be put to death?
Post by: gainpresence on March 13, 2003, 11:57:00 AM
| QUOTE (J.P. Patches @ Mar 13 2003, 01:53 PM) |
| Right. I know about those passages, Gain... But, err... You believe the whole bible, so you must also believe this: Exodus 31: 15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Jesus doesn't say that you SHOULD work on a sabbath... Just that these other people already are. So, should you be put to death? |
Well, now we don't have to kill a lamb to get to heaven. We don't have to talk to a priest and have them talk to God for us. The old Covenant was changed when the curtain ripped after Jesus died.
Post by: chilin_dude on March 13, 2003, 11:59:00 AM
my simple answer is that there is no simple answer... when you think about it how could there:e.g
some one's theory that the big bang created the universe can always be answered with 'but what made the big bang?' and so on. It's a process that DOES go on forever. I personnaly believe in God creating the Universe, however i have no idea who created God etc.
When you think about it, its a weird thing life, i mean what is the point of our existence?
Also to the people that say there was nothingness before the big bang and such then this can't be possible as there is no such thing as nothingnes...
well theres my 2p
Post by: M3_DeL on March 13, 2003, 12:04:00 PM
| QUOTE (gainpresence @ Mar 13 2003, 12:57 PM) | ||
Well, now we don't have to kill a lamb to get to heaven. We don't have to talk to a priest and have them talk to God for us. The old Covenant was changed when the curtain ripped after Jesus died. |
Actually I think Jesus talks about this and how if an Ox is fallen on the side of the road on the sabbath you should still help it.........blah blah blah something to that sort
Post by: Raised on March 13, 2003, 12:20:00 PM
But blind faith? I don't know about that... Everything is so complex in this universe, there are different (infinite?)approaches in trying to understanding the many scales of world we live in.
Finding all the answers in one book, written at a time were we didn't have the most basic scientific knowledge by men (inspired or not by God) is not sufficient for me...
As intelligent as men are, I have little faith that we will ever know how the universe works.
Just a quick question to the religious people, not out of arrogance, just curriosity - What does "God created men to his image" means?
Post by: gainpresence on March 13, 2003, 12:30:00 PM
| QUOTE (Raised @ Mar 13 2003, 02:20 PM) |
| Just a quick question to the religious people, not out of arrogance, just curriosity - What does "God created men to his image" means? |
| QUOTE |
| Genesis 1:26,27, "God said, Let Us [Father, Son, and Holy Spirit] make mankind in Our image, after Our likeness, and let them have complete authority over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the [tame] beasts, and over all of the earth, and over everything that creeps upon the earth. So God created man in His own image, in the image and likeness of God He created him; male and female He created them." |
Here is a little exerpt from a discussion on the subject:
God Created Man in His Image
"God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them" (Genesis 1:27). This sweeping statement of the creation of man is both profound and perplexing. In part it answers the question of why man is unique in all creation. But it raises questions concerning the ways man and God are similar. As he was originally created, man was as close to being like God as humanly possible. Yet at the same time man was sufficiently different to make him dependent on his Creator for knowledge and guidance.
When God created man in His own image, He gave him a distinctive nature and place in creation (Genesis 5:3; 9:6; I Corinthians 15:39; James 3:9). Man "is the image and glory of God" (I Corinthians 11:7), "made a little lower than the angels, and [God] hast crowned him with glory and honour" (Psalm 8:5; cf. Hebrews 2:9). As sovereign among the creatures, man had dominion over everything on earth (Genesis 1:26, 28). Being in God's image means we can do things God does, such as, talk (2:3; 8:13), rest and sit (2:2; Psalm 47:8), walk (Genesis 2:8), hear and talk (6:12; Exodus 16:12), smell (Genesis 8:21), reason, think, etc., and even have some features as God has, such as, a face and back (Exodus 33:20, 23), a mouth (Isaiah 1:20; Matthew 4:4), hands (Psalm 10:12; Isaiah 41:20), etc. This does not mean God has the same physical features man has, but that man can function, in part, like God does.
After God created man out of the elements of the earth, He "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul" (Genesis 2:7). As a result of this divine action, man has both a material and a spiritual nature. The spiritual nature of man reflects his being created in God's image. This means man has a "spirit and soul and body" (I Thessalonians 5:23). Soul and spirit seem to be two distinctive features: Mary said "My soul doth magnify the Lord; And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour" (Luke 1:46, 47); the writer of Hebrews speaks of the word of God being able to divide the "soul and spirit" (Hebrews 4:12). These scriptures seem to indicate the soul and spirit are two different identities. Jesus comments that "thou shalt love the Love thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul. And with all thy mind" (Matthew 22:37) shows still other aspects (heart, mind) of mans being. Yet these two should not necessarily be thought of as parts of man but perhaps as a way to express his personality.
Soul and spirit are in some aspects similar but in other ways different. We see this in Scriptures saying that "God is a Spirit" (John 4:24), but it never speaks of Him having a soul. Soul seems to speak to an aspect of animate life. It is also used sometimes to refer to people (Genesis 12:5; 46:18; Acts 2:41; I Peter 3:20, etc.), and to one's self (Romans 8:16; I Corinthians 16:18). Spirit is used several ways in Scripture. For instance, about a third of the Old Testament uses refer to "wind." Another usage refer to breath, the breathing out of air. The spirit is the source of man's insight (Matthew 2:8), his intellect ("what man knowth the things of a man, save the spirit of man," I Corinthians 2:11), his will (Matthew 26:41), feelings (Luke 1:47; 10:21; John 11:33; 13:21). It also refers to man's disposition (I Corinthians 4:21; Ephesians 4:23; I Peter 3:4). The most important aspect of spirit is its reference to the immaterial part of man; the Scriptures saying God "formeth the spirit of man within him" (Zechariah 12:1) and is "the Father of spirits" (Hebrews 12:9); that is, the Father of men. "The body without the spirit is dead" (James 2:26; cf. Judges 15:19; Luke 8:55; 23:46). At death some spirits return to God (Ecclesiastes 12:7; Acts 7:59), and the others remain forever separated from God in the place called hell. As we will see the child of God has "the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God" (I Corinthians 2:11, 12). Man's spirit enables him to have fellowship with God. The spirit is what makes man different than animals.
Man was given intellect, which means he could think and reason. As a rational being, man was unique in creation and clearly distinct from the animals. The image of God in man means he was "created in righteousness and true holiness" (Ephesians 4:24; cf. Colossians 3:10). Man therefore would have had a natural tendency to do what is right. In his moral perfection, man had free and open communion and fellowship with his Maker. Man walked and talked with God.
- From http://www.bibleviews.com
Post by: ph7 on March 13, 2003, 12:40:00 PM
There's been the talk of the one with divine intervention, but just imagine for one second, that the person who first invisioned God was mad......
Now I'm not trying to be flippant about religion as I believe that it has helped people to focus, I know a few people that have found comfort in faith and it has helped them. But if my above statement was correct and he convinced others of what has been given to him as a 'gift' and then made things up on the fly.....for all we know we have been reading the worlds best selling book!!!!!!
Any way that was just a thought that suddenly popped into my head while i was reading, 'divine inspiration' perhaps??
Post by: hanzblinx on March 13, 2003, 12:40:00 PM
This is like the universe. It always existed. But you can put a time stamp on when certain things (like stars, planets, people) were created from existing materials.
Did the big bang occur? Possibly. But that is not the creation of matter from nothing. That just assumes matter collapsed on itself then exploded. So it is mathematicly possible.
Conclusion: The universe has always existed, in one form or another. It had no start.
Post by: ph7 on March 13, 2003, 12:44:00 PM
Post by: Raised on March 13, 2003, 12:47:00 PM
| QUOTE (hanzblinx @ Mar 13 2003, 04:40 PM) |
| Was the universe created or did it always exist? That is answerable. Consider your car. It was built during a period of time and completed on a specific date. The raw materials (atoms) it was made of were sitting around for billions of years. Material can be converted to energy and vice versa. But it cannot just appear. So your car (it's raw material) has always existed. It had no beginning. But you can say it was created on a certain day. This is like the universe. It always existed. But you can put a time stamp on when certain things (like stars, planets, people) were created from existing materials. Did the big bang occur? Possibly. But that is not the creation of matter from nothing. That just assumes matter collapsed on itself then exploded. So it is mathematicly possible. Conclusion: The universe has always existed, in one form or another. It had no start. |
You are right... Until the (robot?) scientists from the distant future show you how they can create new atoms, that is.
Except for diamonds, nothing is forever, especialy the thruth
Post by: hanzblinx on March 13, 2003, 12:58:00 PM
| QUOTE (Raised @ Mar 13 2003, 09:47 PM) | ||
You are right... Until the (robot?) scientists from the distant future show you how they can create new atoms, that is. Except for diamonds, nothing is forever, especialy the thruth |
Well you dont have to come from the future to convert energy into matter. Humans have been doing it for a while. Heck, even a blade of grass can do that. Creating an atom is not hard. Creating one from nothing... that is impossible even for robot scientists.
Post by: Raised on March 13, 2003, 01:04:00 PM
Don't under estimate robot scientists, now if you'll excuse me I'll be in the holodeck.
Post by: ph7 on March 13, 2003, 01:15:00 PM
Ahhh, there you are....
Post by: Raised on March 13, 2003, 01:19:00 PM
| QUOTE (ph7 @ Mar 13 2003, 05:15 PM) |
Ahhh, there you are.... |
"Computer - initiate program Raised-I've Got Hoes-alpha3"
Post by: gainpresence on March 13, 2003, 01:21:00 PM
Post by: ph7 on March 13, 2003, 01:31:00 PM
Post by: exstazi on March 13, 2003, 04:00:00 PM
Post by: Lbtg43 on March 13, 2003, 06:54:00 PM
Edit:
I also want to point out the fact that religion has lost its strangle hold on society in the last few hundred years. Religion is just a way of explaing things that humans cannot grasp. First it was why rivers flow, then where humans came from and now the origin of the universe. We discovered gravity and realized God didnt make the rivers flow. We discovered evolution( a proven scientific occurence accepted by over 3/4 of sceintists religous and non) and realized God didnt just zap down humans. Now its the origin of the universe and only a matter of time before we realize it wasnt god that made everything, but a different cause.
Post by: Lbtg43 on March 13, 2003, 09:15:00 PM
i agree that religion is far from gone but it is no longer the reason for everything we do as it was way back when in the times of Karl Marx.
The only really thing i agree with(obviously aside from the existance of god) is what you said about humans not being able to reason the origin of existance. I believe that one day we or some species will comprehend this, not to get all sci-fi by saying that other more advanced species may be able to understand this, or to even say a more advance species does/will exist, but i firmly believe that eventually intelligent life will be able to understand this. Theres not much i can say to back this up and the fact that its going on 1am doesnt help either but its just one of my beliefs.
Theres not much more i can say in response due to the fact that i havent had much religous education(a few years of sunday school when i was a kid) but the idea of good little christians going to heaven and bad ones going to hell seems like a fantasy.
It is more likely that i am ignorant rather than right as i do not fully understand everyone's perception of what God is. As shallow as it may be, the only thing i know for sure is that what i was taught as a kid in church sounded like a load of crap but different perceptions of God trip me up. More abstract things like saying God is life as a whole or God is what allows physics to exist wasnt what i was taught.
Crap, enough of this.... i have to wake up in a few hours to go to school. Some of what i wrote may sound stupid but its the best i could do right now, ill try to clean it up and make it more clear tommorrow.
Post by: sorienor on March 13, 2003, 09:40:00 PM
But nothing is perfect. Did you know through DNA testing we have determined that every human on earth decended from 1 female that lived approximatly 11000 years ago? Humans have very very little genetic diversity compared to other species (like primates). There was a massive volcanic eruption about that time that almost wiped out our species. Even though 11k years (i think) is too old for biblical garden of eden, it isn't far off.
The point I am trying to make is that nothing is certain, so no need to fly off the handle because someone believes differently than you.
Post by: capt_n_yayo on March 13, 2003, 10:06:00 PM
Post by: ZildjianKX on March 13, 2003, 10:52:00 PM
| QUOTE (Raised @ Mar 13 2003, 12:47 PM) |
| Except for diamonds, nothing is forever, especialy the thruth |
Actually diamonds aren't forever, its not a totally stable form of carbon
Anyways, I personally don't want to believe in creationism; that would entitle believing that human-kind started with incest...
Post by: falconsfan on March 13, 2003, 11:37:00 PM
Science can't explain everything.... because like someone posted before there was no scientist there to document the truth... The Bible is the ONLY book that has mans beginnings documented. Again, its just faith.. I choose to believe what was writen in that book to be fact
explained or not.
Cheers
Post by: gainpresence on March 13, 2003, 11:45:00 PM
Also, LK might be able to answer this, but how can Amino Acids be created? People have tried, but it's impossible (for them to survive at least), I might be getting this wrong, but you *may* know what I'm talking about (this is all from memory of several years ago), Amino Acids can't form in oxygen, BUT life HAS to have oxygen, is there some exact moment in time where both oxygen came into existence as well as Amino Acids forming? I'll do some research and rephrase that accordingly.
There is just too much factors involved for evolution to work (especially concerning mutations and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics).
Post by: falconsfan on March 14, 2003, 12:05:00 AM
Thats something you can ask him ( I say "him" for a reason, but thats a whole nother topic)someday
Again just like my previous post.. these are "MY" beliefs.. I'm not trying to change anyone elses, I just want people to consider the alternatives to what is taught in schools any more. I have done my personal research on the topic and found enough evidence (FOR ME) be believe in what the Bible claims.
Post by: froescheD on March 14, 2003, 12:10:00 AM
Post by: froescheD on March 14, 2003, 12:26:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| It all makes perfect sense now! |
LOL
Post by: Novahux on March 14, 2003, 04:25:00 AM
A fair estimate is that over 90% of the worlds population still belive in an afterlife and some form of divine being (god, budda or Johova, islam, celtic fair gods etc).
If you take the above estimate as fact, then humans will need another million years of evolution before we will begin to understand the creation of the universe.
Post by: Lbtg43 on March 14, 2003, 05:09:00 AM
| QUOTE (falconsfan @ Mar 14 2003, 02:37 AM) |
| In referance to theory of evolution - I also do NOT believe in evolution because I refuse to believe that a human beings came from monkeys, personally I believe that they are completely stupid species of animals.. damn look at certain types of birds... even they can be taught to talk, monkeys stick there finger in there asses and fall out of trees... LMAO ( I know you all have seen what I'm talking about) |
nice way of putting it
Post by: stee-blak on March 14, 2003, 05:36:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| I am uncertain what you are asking. Life does not *require* oxygen; are you familiar with the concept of anaerobic bacteria, for example? It is perfectly feasible and likely that anaerobic, plant-like organisms were the first created via the random combination of amino acids in the primordial soup. Once oxygen became more prevalent, as a waste product or as a result of environmental phenomena, it stands to reason that aerobic organisms became possible from an adaptational standpoint. |
Damn this guys good. probably one of them 'blue children' or sumthin.
| QUOTE |
| As far as how the universe was created..shit, I did it!! |
get outta here man!
Post by: Lbtg43 on March 14, 2003, 06:06:00 AM
http://www.ilovephil...icles.php?no=12
good article, check it out
Post by: marduke on March 14, 2003, 07:37:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| The way we see ANYTHING is completely subjective. Think about the computer and desk in front of you. How do we know that is what it really looks like? Well i can say my desk is woodgrain, i can see it. However, can i really make that assumption? It does physically exist, i can feel and see it, lets assume this much is true- however, what if from a completely objective viewpoint the desk is polka-dotted but i see wood? If i took a picture suppose the picture shows a polka dotted desk but my eyes still see wood? Is what i see as wood really wood to you? What if i see purple and you see pink- we would have been trained from preschool to equate the same flashcard with the color name, so its possible. |
sounds like the matrix... lol
anyways im with gainpresence, and falconsfan. i belive in God and believe the Bible to be true.
| QUOTE |
| BTW: God not only *knows* that Amino Acids are needed, but he created the need for it. The only complete physics book is in God's mind. |
lol damn straight!
Post by: switzch on March 14, 2003, 08:52:00 AM
Post by: Novahux on March 14, 2003, 09:17:00 AM
Post by: Lbtg43 on March 14, 2003, 09:23:00 AM
| QUOTE (Novahux @ Mar 14 2003, 12:17 PM) |
| Human beings are essentially all vain know it alls, So rather than admit they dont know something, they make things up, or claim to know the person (God) who did make it. |
exaclty what i was trying to get at with my analogy of religion loosing its hold on us
Post by: Mage on March 14, 2003, 10:20:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| In short, no amount of time could account for the spontaneous appearance of life through random chance because the "building blocks of life" require the intervention of an informed intelligence to build them into something living. |
That ending statement shows how biased the report it. How can that person prove such a statement? Random events are just that, random and unpredictable. We do not fully understand this universe, nor what can be done. Hell, we don't fully understand quantum physics even. You can have two atoms linked based on their quantum state, and they can physically be miles away...
So how can someone disprove saying randomness can create things when they know not what randomness can indeed do?
Post by: Lbtg43 on March 14, 2003, 10:50:00 AM
| QUOTE (Mage @ Mar 14 2003, 02:20 PM) | ||
|
and where exactly did this "informed intelligence" that 'built' us come from? according to all the religous people, this "informed intelligence" is by far a much more complex and would require much more 'intervention' to have been built since according to that bs article it couldnt be done randomley. if it could be done through chaos theory why couldnt we? and if not who is the "informed intelligence" that built the "formed intelligence" etc etc etc that built us?
Post by: Mage on March 14, 2003, 11:12:00 AM
| QUOTE (gainpresence @ Mar 14 2003, 11:53 AM) |
| God was never formed, no one created Him, he has always been (he created time). |
If that's possible for God, that's possible for the universe itself
Post by: Novahux on March 14, 2003, 11:28:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| God was never formed, no one created Him, he has always been (he created time). |
But who created god, If god just always existed, then who created existence.
The only logical assumption is that the universe (with or without god) came into existence from nothing. Therefore none of us exist.
Post by: XxxTHEILLONExxX on March 14, 2003, 11:48:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| this is Falconsfan In referance to theory of evolution - I also do NOT believe in evolution because I refuse to believe that a human beings came from monkeys, personally I believe that they are completely stupid species of animals.. damn look at certain types of birds... even they can be taught to talk, monkeys stick there finger in there asses and fall out of trees... LMAO ( I know you all have seen what I'm talking about) and EVEN if we had come from monkeys, wouldn't that mean that there would be no more monkey species if they all evolved to human beings. What would be the reason for there existance now ??? Wouldn't there be some intermediate species? blonde hair, blue eyed, 6'4", tail, and all half human half monkey species now a days? |
ok i think you are truley a fucking jackass...first we didnt come from monkeys we came from apes and no apes or "monkeys" are not stupid their stucture is nearly the same as us, and alot more...third the only reason why a parrot can talk is their voicebox is near the same as ours...fourth and no that wouldnt mean that all the "monkeys" would be humans there were plenty different types of "monkeys" very long ago and only 2 species were evolving (not all the "monkeys just sum") and one manged to become us and the other was the neandrothol yet the neandrothol disapereared...and lastly fifth of course there wouldnt be a intermediate species see evolutiuon occurs with a change in the enviroment as in the summer weather turns into winter weather and those who dont adapt are gone also there where so many changes back then thats why we dont look like apes cause of all the times they had to go through evolution...o yea and one more thing monkeys fling poo the get predator away... o my o my you must be the stupidest person alive
Post by: Lbtg43 on March 14, 2003, 11:52:00 AM
| QUOTE (XxxTHEILLONExxX @ Mar 14 2003, 03:48 PM) | ||
ok i think you are truley a fucking jackass...first we didnt come from monkeys we came from apes and no apes or "monkeys" are not stupid their stucture is nearly the same as us, and alot more...third the only reason why a parrot can talk is their voicebox is near the same as ours...fourth and no that wouldnt mean that all the "monkeys" would be humans there were plenty different types of "monkeys" very long ago and only 2 species were evolving (not all the "monkeys just sum") and one manged to become us and the other was the neandrothol yet the neandrothol disapereared...and lastly fifth of course there wouldnt be a intermediate species see evolutiuon occurs with a change in the enviroment as in the summer weather turns into winter weather and those who dont adapt are gone also there where so many changes back then thats why we dont look like apes cause of all the times they had to go through evolution...o yea and one more thing monkeys fling poo the get predator away... o my o my you must be the stupidest person alive |
i still think the monkey with is finger in his butt falling out of trees is kind of funny
Post by: Lbtg43 on March 14, 2003, 12:42:00 PM
| QUOTE (DaMulder @ Mar 14 2003, 04:30 PM) |
| - Humans did not descend from monkeys. And not really Apes either. Apes and Monkey and Humans had the same ancestors about 50k years ago. From this species (50k years in the past) evolved 3 distinct groups: One was very ape-like, one was very human like (big brains, less fur) and one was in the middle (the neandrothol). The ape-like creatures survived due to their increasing skills in climbing and eventually managed to inhabit the trees. The human-like race managed to survive by using their brains and developing the first weapons (wooden spears, sharpened rocks) and also helped a great deal to extinguish the neandrothol who simply wasn't specialized on anything which made him a bad survivor in the wild. So that "half-monkey half-human" species you are looking for did exist but it was not able to survive. |
it all makes sense now.
Post by: Lbtg43 on March 14, 2003, 12:46:00 PM
| QUOTE (gainpresence @ Mar 14 2003, 04:42 PM) | ||||
Where is there evidence of these "neandrothol"s? |
fossils my freind, fossils say it all
Post by: Raised on March 14, 2003, 12:48:00 PM
| QUOTE (DaMulder @ Mar 14 2003, 04:30 PM) | ||
As THEILLONE already made pretty clear you absolutely have no idea of biology whatsoever. Well, as I did my exam in Biology last year and my major was evolution let me get a few things even straighter: - Humans did not descend from monkeys. And not really Apes either. Apes and Monkey and Humans had the same ancestors about 50k years ago. From this species (50k years in the past) evolved 3 distinct groups: One was very ape-like, one was very human like (big brains, less fur) and one was in the middle (the neandrothol). The ape-like creatures survived due to their increasing skills in climbing and eventually managed to inhabit the trees. The human-like race managed to survive by using their brains and developing the first weapons (wooden spears, sharpened rocks) and also helped a great deal to extinguish the neandrothol who simply wasn't specialized on anything which made him a bad survivor in the wild. So that "half-monkey half-human" species you are looking for did exist but it was not able to survive. Also I should tell you that the genetical code of chimps is 98% identical with ours. There are only very slight differences. Chimps are basically on the level of a 5 year old human (to whom it could happen that he smells his ass and falls off a tree!). Apes and Monkey are also the animals with the most complex social behaviour. It is also very similar to ours except that humans try to override their instinctive natural social patterns with an intelectual perception of being something better than just horny animals. Well face it. We are just animals that try to pretend to be on a higher level but we are not. Still every male will try to become the Alpha male (by buying a Porsche and showing it off) and every female will try to be the most attractive one so that one day she is chosen by the alpha male. The whole human social network is not anything more than this! I know it hurts to find out but think about it for a while and you will notice it yourself! Phil |
We are at a higher level than other animals. Look around. Who's on the top of the food chain? Ever heard of any animal spending 20 of the best year of their lives to educate themselves? Ever heard of an animal writting a book, or leaving any kind of legacy to their offspring? Do animals learn from one generation to the other?
We sleep, we shit and we like sex, but that isn't to say that we are on the same level as animals.
Post by: Lbtg43 on March 14, 2003, 12:54:00 PM
http://www.ilovephil...icles.php?no=10
^'are humans anything more than gene replicators' analysis
Post by: gainpresence on March 14, 2003, 01:12:00 PM
| QUOTE (Lbtg43 @ Mar 14 2003, 02:46 PM) | ||
fossils my freind, fossils say it all |
There are no fossils that show a missing link, besides a few sanded down jawbones.
Post by: Raised on March 14, 2003, 01:30:00 PM
| QUOTE (Lizard_King @ Mar 14 2003, 05:05 PM) |
| Don't you ever watch the Discovery channel? Parents teach their young all kinds of things, a different amount depending on how much their evolutionary adaptations prioritize such education over gathering more food, etc. It is just that for humans it has become more cost effective to train their young to an advanced degree, whereas for a gorilla instinct will take care of most of their needs. |
Exactly. The more basic the organism, the more basic the needs. It's easy to say "from a biological point of view we are all on the same level", but to discredit all humans achievements because of that is a mistake. We are all made out of atoms, for that matter, yet I think I'm more evolved that a rock.
You know a great deal about philosophy, you should know better. The simple fact that we posses self-awareness and that we are aware of our own mortality makes us distinct from all other living things out there. +
I used to think like this guy (DaMulder), but I think that was mostly due to teen angst... But f00k, to think that women try to be choosed by "the alpha male" is just plain stupid.
Post by: Raised on March 14, 2003, 02:03:00 PM
| QUOTE (Lizard_King @ Mar 14 2003, 05:45 PM) | ||
I don't see what you are trying to get across. I explicitly said that our higher level of of complexity is a special thing, and that I am not seeking to create any moral equivalency between a human and an animal/rock/shrub. I was merely pointing out, as it is apparently necessary to do here, that there is no biological or chemical basis for believing we are unique in the animal kingdom. How is it that you know that animals are not self aware? Moreover, what makes you think that animals, especially in the wild, have no understanding of death? Such purely semantic arguments (ie, based around human language) have little relevance in drawing a distinction you claim to be universal. |
You think animals know they will die one day? That would be great, but unfortunatly very doubtful. Being aware of danger doesn't mean being aware of death.
| QUOTE |
| Let me get this straight, you really think that humans are devoid of instinctual behavior? Freud would have had a field day with you... |
That is absolutely not what I think, or said. Hormones and instincts might influence a certain part of our behavior, but that "alpha male" crap is wrong. It's just like the myth of "maternal instincts", total crap. What is true for a pack of wolves or zebra is by no means apply to humans. If you don't agree I will elaborate.
And Freud.. Freud did some amazing work, yet he is closer to Miss Cleo than to Skinner on a matter of scientific value.
Post by: Lbtg43 on March 14, 2003, 02:05:00 PM
Post by: Hulk Hogan on March 14, 2003, 02:56:00 PM
Post by: Lbtg43 on March 14, 2003, 03:00:00 PM
| QUOTE (Hulk Hogan @ Mar 14 2003, 06:56 PM) |
| I didn't read any of the posts, maniacs. Look at all the pages dude! It's way too many words for me to comprehend man! But anyway, to the question. When I hear the word universe, I assume you mean Hulkamania duuuuude! And NOBODY, not even that dirty no good Mr. McMahon created Hulkamania but the fans, brah! The fans created Hulkamania, or as you guys call it, the "universe." And at Wrestlemania I'll prove it brother! |
someone ban this guy
Post by: Raised on March 14, 2003, 03:00:00 PM
| QUOTE (Hulk Hogan @ Mar 14 2003, 06:56 PM) |
| I didn't read any of the posts, maniacs. Look at all the pages dude! It's way too many words for me to comprehend man! But anyway, to the question. When I hear the word universe, I assume you mean Hulkamania duuuuude! And NOBODY, not even that dirty no good Mr. McMahon created Hulkamania but the fans, brah! The fans created Hulkamania, or as you guys call it, the "universe." And at Wrestlemania I'll prove it brother! |
die
Post by: Lizard_King on March 14, 2003, 05:31:00 PM
| QUOTE (Raised @ Mar 14 2003, 11:03 PM) |
| You think animals know they will die one day? That would be great, but unfortunatly very doubtful. Being aware of danger doesn't mean being aware of death. |
And you know this because...?
The only difference between a man and an ape, in any sense that matters biologically, is the greater complexity (by our standards, although I'd like to see a human brain process visual information like a fly does, or anything like that...it's all in what you're suited for). It stands to reason that animals have some concept of death, particularly in the more near sentient ones. What would you say the great dividing line is biologically that permits you to know of death and not animals?
| QUOTE |
| That is absolutely not what I think, or said. Hormones and instincts might influence a certain part of our behavior, but that "alpha male" crap is wrong. It's just like the myth of "maternal instincts", total crap. What is true for a pack of wolves or zebra is by no means apply to humans. If you don't agree I will elaborate. |
Please, do elaborate. Tell me how mothers aren't driven to protect their youth, and how women aren't naturally drawn to strong, aggressive males that dominate their peers. There are plenty of misconceptions about female behavior, for example, like the myth that females are kinder and more gentle than males by nature (and surely the societal preconceptions we have about that arise largely from environmental/social factors); however that does not mean that the maternal instinct does not exist in human females. Why would something true for every other species suddenly disappear in humans? Are you going to tell me that every time a woman is protective of her child she is acting rationally rather than based on the instinct that drives her to protect it? Are you going to ignore the role, for example, that smell and taste play in human attraction?
| QUOTE |
| And Freud.. Freud did some amazing work, yet he is closer to Miss Cleo than to Skinner on a matter of scientific value. |
That was a joke. Here I am, using an emoticon and all, and no one sees it....
But to call Freud Miss Cleo is uncalled for; his actual works are quite interesting and groundbreaking. For instance, his analysis of Woodrow Wilson is a real page-turner, for a psych book. People get all snotty about Freud's work with libido and specific sexual fixations, but in truth his philosophical works and his scientific works did much to advance the field of psychology (and, unfortunately, the mostly fraudulent field of psychiatry...but that's a story for another day).
Post by: Raised on March 14, 2003, 06:07:00 PM
| QUOTE (Lizard_King @ Mar 14 2003, 09:31 PM) | ||
That was a joke. Here I am, using an emoticon and all, and no one sees it.... But to call Freud Miss Cleo is uncalled for; his actual works are quite interesting and groundbreaking. For instance, his analysis of Woodrow Wilson is a real page-turner, for a psych book. People get all snotty about Freud's work with libido and specific sexual fixations, but in truth his philosophical works and his scientific works did much to advance the field of psychology (and, unfortunately, the mostly fraudulent field of psychiatry...but that's a story for another day). |
| QUOTE |
| And you know this because...? The only difference between a man and an ape, in any sense that matters biologically, is the greater complexity (by our standards, although I'd like to see a human brain process visual information like a fly does, or anything like that...it's all in what you're suited for). It stands to reason that animals have some concept of death, particularly in the more near sentient ones. What would you say the great dividing line is biologically that permits you to know of death and not animals? |
The obvious communication barrier doesn't permit me to elaborate much further about this.. so I'll let it go
| QUOTE |
| Please, do elaborate. Tell me how mothers aren't driven to protect their youth, and how women aren't naturally drawn to strong, aggressive males that dominate their peers. There are plenty of misconceptions about female behavior, for example, like the myth that females are kinder and more gentle than males by nature (and surely the societal preconceptions we have about that arise largely from environmental/social factors); however that does not mean that the maternal instinct does not exist in human females. Why would something true for every other species suddenly disappear in humans? Are you going to tell me that every time a woman is protective of her child she is acting rationally rather than based on the instinct that drives her to protect it? |
Maternal instincts are absolutely not a rule in the animal kingdom. There is such a diversity in Nature that you can't rationnally extract any laws from it. For every example, you can find a counter-example. Think about sea turtles, if you want an example of an animal with an absence of maternal instinct
What unites a human mothers and their children is not instinct, it's no more than an emotional bond, albeit very strong. Emotions are not instincts, they are the result of one's value system, personnality, etc. This is why there are plenty of bad, careless mothers having their child taken away by Youth Protection agencies every year.
| QUOTE |
| Are you going to ignore the role, for example, that smell and taste play in human attraction?[/ |
No, however this plays a limited part in the process, there is much more to it. Are you going to tell me that what you first look for in a woman is Large hips and thighs, and sufficient fat reserves - the qualities of a good child bearer? Could you consider forming a couple with the most annoying woman because she looks, smells, tastes fantastic? Are you also going to tell me that when women look for a partner, they seek a wealthy man to support their child?
Oh and Freud is wonderful theorist, period.
Post by: Raised on March 14, 2003, 06:30:00 PM
| QUOTE (Lizard_King @ Mar 14 2003, 10:17 PM) | ||
Yeah, I think you're on to something there. I think our disagreement is based more on semantics and preconceptions about the other's notions than actual, vast divides of opinion. I am willing to pronounce this horse beaten to death if you are. |
Fair enough.. Always pleasant to dance with you LK
Bottom line is: In all it's ugliness, Men pwnz the animal kingdom.
Post by: Squirrel_ESS_GEN on March 20, 2003, 09:22:00 PM
| QUOTE (Hulk Hogan @ Mar 14 2003, 11:56 PM) |
| I didn't read any of the posts, maniacs. Look at all the pages dude! It's way too many words for me to comprehend man! But anyway, to the question. When I hear the word universe, I assume you mean Hulkamania duuuuude! And NOBODY, not even that dirty no good Mr. McMahon created Hulkamania but the fans, brah! The fans created Hulkamania, or as you guys call it, the "universe." And at Wrestlemania I'll prove it brother! |
I agree with him.
Post by: Rollo on March 20, 2003, 09:41:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| someone ban this guy |
No Way!!
What are you gonna do??????when the Hulkster wraps his 22 inch guns around you!!!!!!
Holy Crap! i can't believe this thread is still runnin'
Post by: Lizard_King on March 20, 2003, 11:03:00 PM
| QUOTE (Squirrel_ESS_GEN @ Mar 21 2003, 06:22 AM) | ||
I agree with him. |
WTF is this? Dig up old dead threads to spam on day?
[realizes he just did the same]
DAMMIT!
Post by: ph7 on March 21, 2003, 12:12:00 AM
Noah would've been asking all the animals to get on the ark, and the ducks and fish and that would've gone "why?" So the flood failed, there are still evil fish out there. Muahahahahaa
Post by: ph7 on March 24, 2003, 05:45:00 AM
Post by: Xbox-Savage on March 24, 2003, 05:52:00 AM
Post by: Novahux on March 24, 2003, 05:58:00 AM
btw: will this thread ever end
Post by: slamer on March 24, 2003, 06:58:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| How Was The Universe Created? |
one word: BAAAH!