Quake3World

Kracus, just leave.

tnf wrote:BTW - EVERYTHING IS A FUCKING THEORY.

Hey... now we're being to think along the same lines...

werldhed wrote:

Kracus wrote:Well the story being in a chrisitian bible kinda does make it christian related doesn't it?

This is where you're making your mistake. Literal biblical interpretation and Christianity aren't the same thing. Many Christian churches omit parts of the bible. Revelations, for example, is rarely discussed. A book does not a religion make.

edit: oops.. tnf just already mentioned it.

Right... so you're saying the bible isn't essential to the existance of the christian religion!? What about the Koran!? All these religions have very intrical ideas based on these books alone!

Kracus wrote:Yeah sorry tnf I'm through with the book routine, I'm discussing my points on the subject you're simply refusing to. I don't care that's cool if you don't want to talk about then don't talk about it but don't fucking get your panties in a wad when you refuse to talk about it cause "it's too in depth a topic" and refer me to one of your fucking books. You do it EVERY GODAMN time. With the science related shit that's fine, I understood that but now I'm seeing it's not just science it's just on plain questions that can be easily awnsered. I guess I just made a point you couldn't refute. Just admit it instead of tossing the entire discussion aside. IF your so fucking smart it should be a breeze for you to explain why you think you can label yourself chrsitian yet only beleive in certain parts of the bible. Love to hear it.

Kracus, you just said, in that one same breath, that you are uninterested in books and basically that they have no use for forming arguments. Then you say that you can't be a Christian without following exactly the literal interpretation of a book. Stop and think on it for a second.

Massive Quasars wrote:Kracus, just leave.

Why? Fuck man this is why you guys hate me so much, I challenge an idea, you refer me to a fucking book. Like WTF? You can't discuss anything here it's all fucking either you're with us or you need some books opinion. I already have one thanks!

hahaha jesus fuck ...

werldhed wrote:

Kracus wrote:Yeah sorry tnf I'm through with the book routine, I'm discussing my points on the subject you're simply refusing to. I don't care that's cool if you don't want to talk about then don't talk about it but don't fucking get your panties in a wad when you refuse to talk about it cause "it's too in depth a topic" and refer me to one of your fucking books. You do it EVERY GODAMN time. With the science related shit that's fine, I understood that but now I'm seeing it's not just science it's just on plain questions that can be easily awnsered. I guess I just made a point you couldn't refute. Just admit it instead of tossing the entire discussion aside. IF your so fucking smart it should be a breeze for you to explain why you think you can label yourself chrsitian yet only beleive in certain parts of the bible. Love to hear it.

Kracus, you just said, in that one same breath, that you are uninterested in books and basically that they have no use for forming arguments. Then you say that you can't be a Christian without following exactly the literal interpretation of a book. Stop and think on it for a second.

Kracus wrote:

werldhed wrote:

Kracus wrote:Well the story being in a chrisitian bible kinda does make it christian related doesn't it?

This is where you're making your mistake. Literal biblical interpretation and Christianity aren't the same thing. Many Christian churches omit parts of the bible. Revelations, for example, is rarely discussed. A book does not a religion make.

edit: oops.. tnf just already mentioned it.

Right... so you're saying the bible isn't essential to the existance of the christian religion!? What about the Koran!? All these religions have very intrical ideas based on these books alone!

No. With the exception of radicals, most people I've known/heard don't take those books literally. Even Hindus. The Vedas are the "official" books, but they do little to explain the world completely. That's why Hinduism has so many variations -- everyone follows the basic tenets, and interprets the rest personally.

werldhed wrote:Kracus...Stop and think on it for a second.

Impossible.

Kracus wrote:Yeah sorry tnf I'm through with the book routine, I'm discussing my points on the subject you're simply refusing to. I don't care that's cool if you don't want to talk about then don't talk about it but don't fucking get your panties in a wad when you refuse to talk about it cause "it's too in depth a topic" and refer me to one of your fucking books. You do it EVERY GODAMN time. With the science related shit that's fine, I understood that but now I'm seeing it's not just science it's just on plain questions that can be easily awnsered. I guess I just made a point you couldn't refute. Just admit it instead of tossing the entire discussion aside. IF your so fucking smart it should be a breeze for you to explain why you think you can label yourself chrsitian yet only beleive in certain parts of the bible. Love to hear it.

I don't believe in the Bible. I believe in a God. I have faith in the stories told of Jesus in the New Testament, but I have no way of proving that they are true, other than what was written - which is why I call it faith. I see the old testament books as being metaphorical in the creation stories (they parallel the babylonian creation tradition pretty closely), I see the old testament 'legal' books as people attempting to figure out, mistakenly, what they needed to do to 'appease' this God, I see the New testament as Jesus explaining to everyone how wrong they were in what it was God really wanted and how Christianity is not about running around telling everyone who wasn't perfect morally that they were scum and worthless. I see it as a redemptive story that proves that nobody is beyond salvation, and that the teachings of Christ offer a pretty good model by which people could live their life. But it is by faith and faith and faith alone.

Because I am not a literalist (and most Christians aren't...just like they don't believe 'IN THE BIBLE' - that is biblical idolatry...the stuff that these kasas whackjobs do) I have no problem with what humans find during their study of the universe. HUmans evolved. The universe probably came into existence (at least this time) by a massive explosion we call the big bang. Nothing I discover in my studies of science intereferes with my faith, because they are, as Gould has stated (IN BOOKS) 'non-overlapping magisteria.'

When I read your posts, it is like looking at a paper written by a kid. They throw words like "believe" and "theory" around in the wrong context because they don't have a complete understanding of the subject.

tnf wrote:

Cool Blue wrote::lol:

Evolution hasn't been observed, only speculated.

Show me one study that has and can repeatedly cause a favorable mutation in a genetic line that creates such a large increase in the survival rate ensuring its (the desired trait) is passed on.

I haven't found one yet. And to me, like with String theory, if you can't reproduce or prove something conclusively via tests in a labratory, it's merely a theory. This one seems to be a well thought out theory, but it's still just a theory. And until someone can recreate evolution on demand (or even a portion thereof) it hasn't been 'observed' either.

It's not a fault of the theory that the timescales involved in generating the 'appreciable' change that people "want" to see are too long to devise more traditional experiments.

And for the first one - antibiotic resistance.

And here are some observed instances of speciation.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

And for your 'just a theory' stuff - gravity is 'just a theory.' The nature of light is 'just a theory.'

I'm going to read that link later, I just smoked a bowl of stupid, however I look forward to reading it.

I'm not an opponent of The Theory of evolution, but I hold it in regard like other theories; open to speculation, not assumed as total fact yet.

On your comment earlier, I feel the same way about light, energy and gravity.

At one point they have all be re-written. Some re-written after that. One would be a fool to think we know for pure truth and understanding of something and have mastered it. I say most of physics and our prinicipal of understanding today will be hugely shaken again in the future.

Kracus wrote:
Evolution man, it stands against everything Christianity represents.

Actualy i disagree. If you take the book as mostly metephor and stories to get points across, the bible and the religions that flow from it have great validity. Do i believe that jesus walked on water, mutiply bread and was nailed to a cross and rose again ? Perhaps not.

However, i do believe that ezekiel seeing a burning wheel in the sky could have a hidden significance, i do ponder at what a yahweh really is and just how it was the spirit that was " god" in eden and what and where eden really was. I wonder if perhaps adam and eve were black and possibly eden was in africa. Perhaps the bible and its stories have something to this, just not in a literal sense, but more in a sense that you would put events to a child.


My point is, that with the right perspective, the bible perhaps does not deny evolution, but merely tells us a slice of time in the evolution/evolutions of man.


Then again, maybe i just farted



If your still not getting where im coming from, ponder on sumeria, aztec, egypt, greece, think about what " gods" really are, then think about who jesus might have really been ... hmm.

I'm doubting about stepping in this thread

Cool Blue wrote:

tnf wrote:

Cool Blue wrote::lol:

Evolution hasn't been observed, only speculated.

Show me one study that has and can repeatedly cause a favorable mutation in a genetic line that creates such a large increase in the survival rate ensuring its (the desired trait) is passed on.

I haven't found one yet. And to me, like with String theory, if you can't reproduce or prove something conclusively via tests in a labratory, it's merely a theory. This one seems to be a well thought out theory, but it's still just a theory. And until someone can recreate evolution on demand (or even a portion thereof) it hasn't been 'observed' either.

It's not a fault of the theory that the timescales involved in generating the 'appreciable' change that people "want" to see are too long to devise more traditional experiments.

And for the first one - antibiotic resistance.

And here are some observed instances of speciation.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

And for your 'just a theory' stuff - gravity is 'just a theory.' The nature of light is 'just a theory.'

I'm going to read that link later, I just smoked a bowl of stupid, however I look forward to reading it.

I'm not an opponent of The Theory of evolution, but I hold it in regard like other theories; open to speculation, not assumed as total fact yet.

On your comment earlier, I feel the same way about light, energy and gravity.

At one point they have all be re-written. Some re-written after that. One would be a fool to think we know for pure truth and understanding of something and have mastered it. I say most of physics and out prinicipal of understanding will be hugely shaken again in the future.

Ok then, here's the deal:
That evolution occurred is a fact. How evolution occurred is a theory.

saturn wrote:I'm doubting about stepping in this thread

I'm really wishing I hadn't. So, take my advice and just walk away...walk away.

It's called "Christianity" because it's about Christ. It's not call "Biblism." Christian philosophy preceded the adoption of the bible within the church.

Fuck it, I'm going home.

Kracus, you've successfully ruined this thread, as I predicted you would.

No, books ruined it. Stupid things.

Sorry i didnt help, cant help myself sometimes lol.

Damn these eyes !

tnf wrote:No, because not all Christians are involved or engaged in this debate. in fact, I would be willing to bet that a great proportion of us have no problem with evolution at all. We just tend not to be the vocal voice of the religion, because we are the types who aren't out hold society back with dogmatic fascist style beliefs.

The almost-empty box always rattles the loudest, regardless of the area you are in.

Can't agree more on that part.

tnf wrote:

saturn wrote:I'm doubting about stepping in this thread

I'm really wishing I hadn't. So, take my advice and just walk away...walk away.

mostly it's like talking to chalk ©elk

I think you care too much as teacher

Nah, I'm a shitty teacher. I even went so far as to give my kids a summer reading list:
"A Brief History of Time"
"The Universe in a Nutshell"
"In Search of Schroedinger's Cat"
"The Fabric of the Cosmos"
"Before the Beginning"
"DNA"
"The Coming Plague"
"Guns, Germs, and Steel"
"Freedom Evolves"
"The Beak of the Finch"
"The Day the Universe Changed"

BOOKS!

tnf wrote:

Cool Blue wrote:

tnf wrote: It's not a fault of the theory that the timescales involved in generating the 'appreciable' change that people "want" to see are too long to devise more traditional experiments.

And for the first one - antibiotic resistance.

And here are some observed instances of speciation.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

And for your 'just a theory' stuff - gravity is 'just a theory.' The nature of light is 'just a theory.'

I'm going to read that link later, I just smoked a bowl of stupid, however I look forward to reading it.

I'm not an opponent of The Theory of evolution, but I hold it in regard like other theories; open to speculation, not assumed as total fact yet.

On your comment earlier, I feel the same way about light, energy and gravity.

At one point they have all be re-written. Some re-written after that. One would be a fool to think we know for pure truth and understanding of something and have mastered it. I say most of physics and out prinicipal of understanding will be hugely shaken again in the future.

Ok then, here's the deal:
That evolution occurred is a fact. How evolution occurred is a theory.

Philosophically speaking, nothing is fact. Nothing. It is only what we have seen or know so far.

The only thing we have proven conclusively to me is our inability to comprehend 'is'.


While you say evolution happened as fact, I could just as easily suggest that the 'evolution' we have witnessed was actually done by direct and controlled manipulation of quantum particles by high energy beams outside of our perception (essentially martians with ray guns a jillion miles away intentionally 'causing' evolution for some sick and perverted form of reality TV). How do we contest this?

Again, most improbable, however still possible.

A more realistic theory would be that perhaps the only time the earth sees large changes in it's biology is when new biological material is added via meteor or asteroid. Either way...

tnf wrote:Nah, I'm a shitty teacher. I even went so far as to give my kids a summer reading list:
"A Brief History of Time"
"The Universe in a Nutshell"
"In Search of Schroedinger's Cat"
"The Fabric of the Cosmos"

Great books. :icon14:

A Brief History of Time is one of my most recommended books for people that show an interest in space/time concepts but find the math unnappealling. Hawking does an amazing job explaning exceptionally complex concepts in understandable language.

tnf wrote:Nah, I'm a shitty teacher. I even went so far as to give my kids a summer reading list:
"A Brief History of Time"
"The Universe in a Nutshell"
"In Search of Schroedinger's Cat"
"The Fabric of the Cosmos"
"Before the Beginning"
"DNA"
"The Coming Plague"
"Guns, Germs, and Steel"
"Freedom Evolves"
"The Beak of the Finch"
"The Day the Universe Changed"

BOOKS!

like they're gonna read all that. :lol: