First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Post Reply Applying Occam's razor to theory of Jesus birth.
3398 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Online
Posted 6/25/13


Iainfixie wrote:




Syndicaidramon wrote:Here's a crazy idea: If that's all you want, then stay in the "Entertainment" subsection of the forum.



How 'bout no and I'll continue to voice how silly religious folks are, if i have to put up with that lunacy I have full reign to spread my own opinions as well.




(Just be glad I chose a less offensive image from my "piss off religious nuts" folder!)


Sure, by all means.
But if you're gonna do that, then it's your own decision to subject yourself to it. And if that is the case, don't complain about there being so much religious stuff.
Posted 6/25/13



One is make-believe and filled with silly, ridiculous, or otherwise untrue/impossible situations regarding people from another country.
The other is cartoons made by folks in Japan.
17061 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 6/28/13 , edited 6/28/13
17061 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 6/28/13
Okay didn't I say I have no religion based on the fact that there are so many branched off other human beliefs? I know whats going on in the middle east and its sickning. The reason its like that in the middle east is because rulers over there have twisted the original bible into there own plan and changed stuff around to feel like men can have complete control over their woman. It was like that with the Penecostals exept they used what was said in bible rather than changing it and twisted the meaning. Im not trying to get off subject but stricked pentecostals do not let you have any technology, woman have to be plain with long hair and dresses that cover their arms and legs and can not wear jewelry and sometime not even a wedding ring. If a woman in the church broke these rules they were told they would go to hell. It reminds me of the middle easts religious rules but theirs are terrible and more opressive towards their woman. I have totally different understanding of religion to a very high extent. Im not saying you do but do not think I do not know about scientific proof or that I am just dumb to the fact of proven science. And as for the monkey thing lmao, I already know that they have studied into DNA and found maches to Humans DNA, but I do not believe my ancestors were birthed in the past and evolved after along process from monkeys. Im sorry I do not believe it. Its a good point tho. Evolution is science and a interesting one but it all depends on how a person takes in in and interprets it. I believe it but I look at it from a very different perspective. I obviously do if I believe in creation, and all things are similar. Okay and about the space thing you are right, exactly we can't wrap our mind around a god and we will never fully understand creation as a whole, just theorys. I do believe in the big bang explosion and all that science says was done to prove our existance to an extent with also both facts, proof and theories. I believe in all of that but I believe a creator did it lol. People can believe Im ignorant all they want but I believe science is god. I sometime find it silly that people believe in creation without a creator. How do humans have anything such as technology without first creation to make it possible. I can't draw a picture without first creating an image in my mind than drawing it to life on paper. Even though I have that image in my mind of a living creation I don't have the power to make it actually pop off a piece of paper and move around with actual life. Everything we know comes from what is already here. We humans only know how to recreate what is already created and put into our minds. Im not talking about being able to animate a creation and put in on screen or project it like a hologram like miku hatsune which blows my mind. Im stalking about creating actual life. Like cloning a human we can do it with what is already here because we can study it and knit it together. (Its not perfect and its still in the process of being learned). What Im trying to say is we can't create any other possible images or life or anything that we can come up with or anything that is beyond our minds because we havn't seen it yet or experienced it. We can only create what was given and already created....thats what I mean't about the creation of space and not being able to actual create what is out of our reach.

Anyways you have some good points. Whether it is dumb to another person or can't be fully understood, its your belief. Debates are awesome.
17061 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 6/28/13 , edited 6/28/13
That made no actual sense debt else were.............................lmao.
3398 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Online
Posted 6/28/13

MarshDiamond wrote:
Im not trying to get off subject but stricked pentecostals do not let you have any technology, woman have to be plain with long hair and dresses that cover their arms and legs and can not wear jewelry and sometime not even a wedding ring. If a woman in the church broke these rules they were told they would go to hell.


Sounds pretty similar to the amish. Except way more strict and inhumane.




MarshDiamond
And as for the monkey thing lmao, I already know that they have studied into DNA and found maches to Humans DNA, but I do not believe my ancestors were birthed in the past and evolved after along process from monkeys. Im sorry I do not believe it. Its a good point tho.


Why not? What reason do you have not to think so? What justification do you have for this when it contradicts all modern biological science?
Is it simply because you don't WANT to believe it? Because that is not enough reason to dismiss something.



MarshDiamond
Evolution is science and a interesting one but it all depends on how a person takes in in and interprets it.

It really doesn't. Scientific fact is scientific fact. There's no room for opinions in science.
The closest you can come to an opinion in this case is if you believe that god used evolution from apes to humans as a way of getting us here. But that's as far as anything resembling an opinion on the subject can go.



MarshDiamond
I do believe in the big bang explosion and all that science says was done to prove our existance to an extent with also both facts, proof and theories. I believe in all of that but I believe a creator did it lol. People can believe Im ignorant all they want but I believe science is god. I sometime find it silly that people believe in creation without a creator. How do humans have anything such as technology without first creation to make it possible. ---

Again, this is pretty much just a matter of limited understanding. I'm sorry if that is rude, but it really is.
Once you delve deeper into science and the workings of the universe, it is easy to see how it could all happen without a creator.
And you can't really compare how humans work to the universe itself works.






17897 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Los Angeles
Offline
Posted 6/29/13 , edited 6/29/13

MarshDiamond wrote:

I just believe what the bible says about an angel coming to marry and telling her she will birth the son of god and his name will be Jesus.

Getting techinical is kind of dirty and its like doubting what your taught, but I think the seed of god was placed inside Marry the virgin. By the angel god sent. Kinda of like artificial insemination except there was no contact besides maybe a light touch.

If you are reading this and have no belief. Please do not attack me with some lame comment other than what I have said in correction of what you think.

Most of the time I stay off this topic because I can tell you alot

Oh yeah and God is God he can do whatever the heck he wants that surpasses the humans imagination. Thats why we are so opinionated on the topic of topics because we have no true answer to give.


Worddd dude. I mean it's God. He can do anything, he created the universe, the atom, dark matter etc.. why wouldn't he be able to a baby inside a person?

People talk about the Big Bang and stuff but what caused the bang, heck, what even put the "stuff" in place to "bang" anyways.

Another thing people like to ignore is that face that life MUST come from life. Life CANNOT come from something that isn't alive already. Science has tried to recreate the scenario of earth billions of years ago where it was just a hot boiling humid clusterf**k of of an environment to try and recreate life, but they weren't able to create even the simplest single cell bacteria. They were however, able to create certain chemicals, compound and amino-acids that ARE essential to life, but not life itself. Life must come from life and cannot come from something that isn't already alive, and God say's that He always was and always will be.
14066 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 7/2/13 , edited 7/2/13


And I'm sorry if this is rude, but this really isn't something that is up for discussion. This is something that has been PROVEN. Those that argue otherwise do so because they are ignorant regarding the evidence.


Sorry... just have to say: WRONG. That is why it's a THEORY.

The CORRELATION of a thing does not necessitate the CAUSATION of a thing. We may have quite similar genetic makeup to monkeys, but that does not NECESSITATE that we came FROM monkeys. It's a POSSIBILITY, but not the ONLY logical inference. To claim that it has been PROVEN that man descended from apes is erroneous and bad science. This phenomenon has never been observably reproduced, neither is there any indication that it is currently occuring. And why not? Why are apes not STILL evolving into people? Or other things? For whatever reason, there are very few existing lifeforms (if any? Not sure if there are any... ??) to substantate this claim. There IS the fossil record that you mentioned, although, that TOO does not NECESSITATE the descent (or ascent??) of man from apes.

As for the fossile record, there are ALSO areas where more advanced lifeforms are found intermingled with more primitive ones. I suppose some of that can be explained by geological phenomena, ie. floods or major disruption to the strata or whatever it's called... but that's not always the case. In addition, there are cave paintings and sculptures and even folklore/fairy tales that suggest the possibility that man and dinosaurs could have lived during the same timeframe & not necessarily millions of years later. I find these things particularly interesting, especially in relation to the fossil record.

I don't think it's a matter of stupidity or lack of/limited understanding on either side. It's just a matter of CHOOSING which EVIDENCE you look at and find the most substantial. Lots of creationists have done plenty of research and have found their beliefs actually bolstered and substantiated by science, even biology.



Once you delve deeper into science and the workings of the universe, it is easy to see how it could all happen without a creator.


Ahem. This is also not so. There are MANY things that science has yet to explain about the beginning of the universe, if it has a beginning. And, as XxNaruTheNarcis pointed out, the existence of LIFE is one of those things.

The fact of the matter is, regardless of the theories proposed and the number of attempts to test and prove it, no scientist (or creationist for that matter) has ever been able to observe the formation of life. I think the closest anyone has ever come is the formation of some protein strings or amino acids or something? I have a vague recollection of something of that sort... some "building block" of life being able to form under certain conditions or whatever, but.... not actual "LIFE."

Let us be careful not to call assumptions facts. I would gander that just about any creationist admits to a "faith" regarding his beliefs on the creation of things, whatever form of creation he chooses to believe in. In all honesty, those who don't believe in "creation" or things like "intelligent design" ought to make the same admission.

The only FACT about the origin of life and the universe is this: we don't ANY of us KNOW how it happened. We ALL of us (unless we were there... and... ahem. I highly doubt that anyone present to witness the birth of life, the universe, and everything is a member of Crunchyroll. Not saying it's IMPOSSIBLE... just improbable enough that I feel I can dismiss it with a relative amount of certainty. Apologies to God if you are on this forum, lol.) have certain things we BELIEVE about it. And MANY of us can trace those beliefs back to science. EVEN many creationists.

But as for things PROVEN: we don't KNOW how we got here or if it involved a creator or not.

As for the idea that the universe has ALWAYS existed, and therefore doesn't need a creator... for reasons of science, logic, and a bit of philosophy... I am personally disinclined to think that's the case. If that's something you prefer to believe, I'd be interested to see how you explain the current existence of the universe, ie. why has it not broken down into chaos or whatever by now? Considering an infinite regression backward... the death of this universe ought already have occurred an infinite number of times. Might be a fun topic to discuss in another thread.

I think we got off of Jesus' birth somehow, lol.
17061 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 7/3/13
Woooh Woooh Woooh hold on a minute you are totally missing the point I believe in God all the way! And you are comparing something similar to my thoughts that is contraditive to your thoughts as well as mine because they are the same. You havn't seen my last few crazy posts.....everything you said I have already said I believe.
Posted 7/3/13
3398 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Online
Posted 7/3/13

dirkgent1y wrote:



And I'm sorry if this is rude, but this really isn't something that is up for discussion. This is something that has been PROVEN. Those that argue otherwise do so because they are ignorant regarding the evidence.


Sorry... just have to say: WRONG. That is why it's a THEORY.


This argument again. Oh dear...
It is a common misconception, so allow me to shed some light on this for you. The definition of "a scientific theory" is as follows:
"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon."
Or a shortened version:
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

To quote livescience.com:

When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change.


So you see, the argument that evolution is unvalid because it is "just a theory" makes no sense, because a scientific theory is not simply an assumption, but a hypothesis that has been proven time and time again through various scientific tests.

Hope this clarifies the misconception regarding what a scientific theory is.




dirkgent1y
The CORRELATION of a thing does not necessitate the CAUSATION of a thing. We may have quite similar genetic makeup to monkeys, but that does not NECESSITATE that we came FROM monkeys. It's a POSSIBILITY, but not the ONLY logical inference. To claim that it has been PROVEN that man descended from apes is erroneous and bad science.


That is true. Except that we also have transitional fossils to back it up, not to mention that we can see traces of our ape ancestors in our own current day bodies.
Our social behaviour, while in many ways more evolved due to a higher brain and language, is still essentially exactly the same as what we observe in other modern day primates.

In addition to that, now that we have relatively advanced gene technology, we can actually find dormant genes in our own DNA, just lying there uselessly. One of such is the gene that makes us grow thick hair all over our bodies, just like apes.
It is with this very same technology that we have also found chicken genes in dinosaur DNA (or rather, dinosaur genes in chickens). It has also revealed chickens to have a hidden gene that allows them to actually grow teeth. Genes that they inherited from their ancestors who evolved from dinosaurs.




dirkgent1y
This phenomenon has never been observably reproduced, neither is there any indication that it is currently occuring. And why not? Why are apes not STILL evolving into people? Or other things? For whatever reason, there are very few existing lifeforms (if any? Not sure if there are any... ??) to substantate this claim. There IS the fossil record that you mentioned, although, that TOO does not NECESSITATE the descent (or ascent??) of man from apes.


Where you have this information from I have no idea, but it is surely NOT from a scientific publication.
Evolution happens every single day. On a microscopic level. Every time someone pass on their genes to an offspring, a small evolution happens.
It's what we call microevolution.

And it gets even more impressing, because as a matter of fact, we ARE watching larger step evolution happening right before our eyes.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/natural-selection5.htm



dirkgent1y
As for the fossile record, there are ALSO areas where more advanced lifeforms are found intermingled with more primitive ones. I suppose some of that can be explained by geological phenomena, ie. floods or major disruption to the strata or whatever it's called... but that's not always the case. In addition, there are cave paintings and sculptures and even folklore/fairy tales that suggest the possibility that man and dinosaurs could have lived during the same timeframe & not necessarily millions of years later. I find these things particularly interesting, especially in relation to the fossil record.


Except cave paintings are not evidence. Merely pictures that could just as well be figments of the imagination of these cave people.
Geological evidence has proven that dinosaurs and humans did not live at the same time. Both due to rock layering and carbon dating.

Besides, that raises several questions.
1. If God DID in fact have dinosaurs living at the same time as humans, why did he let them go extinct so quickly. Seems like a waste to create so many magnificent kinds of dinosaurs, only to have them live for maybe a millennia or two and just have them go extinct.

2. Doesn't the concept of "cave men" contradict creationism? If we go by the logic of the bible, that means that the dinosaurs became extinct at least after the great flood. According to the bible, people only started populating other parts of the world after God split them apart due to the whole tower of Babel thing, meaning after the great flood.
Which means that the dinosaurs simply couldn't have existed at the same time as those people did, unless those cave paintings were only found in the only area that was populated prior to the great flood, according to the bible. Which they weren't, because these cave paintings have been found both in Utah and in France.

3. Why all the carnivorous dinosaurs? If I remember correctly, no animals were predators prior to the great flood. And they certainly weren't in the garden of Eden, when they were created. So why were there so many different types of carnivorous dinosaurs?
Hell, scratch that, why are there so many carnivorous non-dinosaurs that are still alive today?



dirkgent1y
I don't think it's a matter of stupidity or lack of/limited understanding on either side. It's just a matter of CHOOSING which EVIDENCE you look at and find the most substantial. Lots of creationists have done plenty of research and have found their beliefs actually bolstered and substantiated by science, even biology.


Except like I said, cave paintings are not evidence. And certainly not when put up against geological science, which all points to the direct opposite scenario. Namely that dinosaurs and humans did NOT live side by side.
And like I also pointed out with the whole gene thing, we have undeniable proof that dinosaurs and birds are geneticly linked. There's no doubt about it.





dirkgent1y

Once you delve deeper into science and the workings of the universe, it is easy to see how it could all happen without a creator.


Ahem. This is also not so. There are MANY things that science has yet to explain about the beginning of the universe, if it has a beginning. And, as XxNaruTheNarcis pointed out, the existence of LIFE is one of those things.


Just because the universe has a beginning, doesn't mean it HAS to have a higher sentient being as a cause, or even a cause at all.
Like I said, if you are unable to imagine it, it is simply because you don't understand it well enough.

There's a quote by the famous astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson in which he replied to a comment such as the one you give here. He said:

"... if that's how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever receeding pocket of scientific ignorance that gets smaller and smaller as time goes on."

And I think that sums it up quite well.




dirkgent1y
The only FACT about the origin of life and the universe is this: we don't ANY of us KNOW how it happened. We ALL of us (unless we were there... and... ahem. I highly doubt that anyone present to witness the birth of life, the universe, and everything is a member of Crunchyroll. Not saying it's IMPOSSIBLE... just improbable enough that I feel I can dismiss it with a relative amount of certainty. Apologies to God if you are on this forum, lol.) have certain things we BELIEVE about it. And MANY of us can trace those beliefs back to science. EVEN many creationists.


No, they can't. Because science does not support creationism. And certainly not young earth creationism.



dirkgent1y
But as for things PROVEN: we don't KNOW how we got here or if it involved a creator or not.


That is indeed true. That, however, is not an excuse to be willfully ignorant or self-deceiving.



dirkgent1y
As for the idea that the universe has ALWAYS existed, and therefore doesn't need a creator... for reasons of science, logic, and a bit of philosophy... I am personally disinclined to think that's the case. If that's something you prefer to believe, I'd be interested to see how you explain the current existence of the universe, ie. why has it not broken down into chaos or whatever by now? Considering an infinite regression backward... the death of this universe ought already have occurred an infinite number of times. Might be a fun topic to discuss in another thread.


I don't have to. Because I don't believe that the universe has always existed. And I can't think of a single cosmologist or astrophysicist that does either.
Does "the Big Bang theory" ring any bells for you? Other than the TV-sitcom that is.
Aryth 
39211 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Nashville
Offline
Posted 7/3/13 , edited 7/3/13
To all the people who say that modern humans evolved from monkeys (not using the terms apes or hominids)... You clearly don't know enough about our argument to have any cogent reasoning of your own.
3398 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Online
Posted 7/3/13 , edited 7/3/13
*removed*
Aryth 
39211 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Nashville
Offline
Posted 7/3/13
The ancient primates weren't monkeys. They were primates or hominids. I am not a Christian. Monkeys and humans have common ancestors, but we did NOT evolve from monkeys.
3398 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Online
Posted 7/3/13

Aryth wrote:

The ancient primates weren't monkeys. They were primates or hominids. I am not a Christian. Monkeys and humans have common ancestors, but we did NOT evolve from monkeys.


Seems I misunderstood your comment. Sorry.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.