Religion, mainly the concept of the afterlife or that there is something higher than you in control, is a way to satiate the masses and provide a false sense of hope or a reason for their lack of control. If this life is only temporary then why try to change things, especially if you do not have control anyways?
Posted by Seandroid on Dec-29-2010 21:11:
I've never understood the concept of the devil being the creator of hell but God using it to his disposal for people he doesn't think are hip enough to go to heaven. So in other words God and the devil are bros and they work together and frequently eat tea and crumpets or something?
Does that make any sense to anyone else?
Posted by ModernNosferatu on Dec-29-2010 21:45:
Posted by Saka on Dec-29-2010 22:18:
If a person has beliefs and it means no harm comes to others I don't see a problem with it.
For me the Bible is too accurate, and science just backs up the fact that there has to be a creator.
The "math" for evolution does not in any way add up.
Posted by MrJiveBoJingles on Dec-29-2010 22:20:
quote:
Originally posted by Saka
For me the Bible is too accurate, and science just backs up the fact that there has to be a creator.
The "math" for evolution does not in any way add up.
Posted by Nrg2Nfinit on Dec-29-2010 22:29:
quote:
Originally posted by Saka
The "math" for evolution does not in any way add up.
If that's the case, i would start praying to god right now for your wife start growing some tits.
lol, you're bringing my wife into this you sad man?
You really take my opinion as an offence. If I knew you were so fragile minded I would have kept myself from commenting.
Post pics of your wife/gf/bf/? I dare you.
Out of all the douches in here, you by far have proven yourself to be the biggest and dampest.
Why does my opinion offend you?
I haven't attacked evolution, I'm saying it doesn't add up to me, it isn't a fully fitted jigsaw, and more questions are posed now than ever, and fewer answers are given.
People can disagree with me but in a thread where there is discussion and you bring nothing but insults is childish.
I'd like to hear your opinion, please.
Posted by -FSP- on Dec-29-2010 23:41:
I'm Catholic. Why? Because I don't like self-righteous hipsters. I also like eating meat. Take that animals. I also donate my old crap to St. Vincent De Paul and since hipsters hate religion, they will avoid that place and my old stuff will not be consumed by some rich hipster who just read Nietzsche and claims to understand him or some shit.
Posted by Comrade Stalin on Dec-29-2010 23:47:
quote:
Originally posted by Saka
For me the Bible is too accurate, and science just backs up the fact that there has to be a creator.
You do realize the Bible is full of talking animals, mythical beasts, and things that are as verifiable as pink unicorns orbiting the sun.
quote:
The "math" for evolution does not in any way add up.
What math are you talking about?
quote:
I haven't attacked evolution, I'm saying it doesn't add up to me, it isn't a fully fitted jigsaw, and more questions are posed now than ever, and fewer answers are given.
Whether it adds up to you or not is irrelevant as to the fact of evolution by natural selection. You can also not believe the earth is round because it "doesn't add up" to you. Whether you believe that or not takes nothing away from the fact that the earth IS round.
Posted by infiniteJEST on Dec-29-2010 23:50:
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Stalin
You do realize the Bible is full of talking animals, mythical beasts, and things that are as verifiable as pink unicorns orbiting the sun.
It's normally a teacup but given the nature of the forum pink unicorns fit quite well. Posted by Saka on Dec-29-2010 23:52:
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Stalin
What math are you talking about?
The probability that everything has happened the way its believed to have happened.
It's impossible.
Posted by Saka on Dec-29-2010 23:55:
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Stalin
Whether it adds up to you or not is not any indications as to the fact of evolution by natural selection. You can also not believe the earth is round. Whether you believe that or not takes nothing away from the fact that the earth IS round.
lol.
I know the earth is round, even though you mock the bible the bible states the world is round, and had done thousands of years before man worked it out.
Man has stated many times in his history of FACTS that just turned out to be false.
And I have seen proof of natural selection, and of adaption to environment but no evolution.
Natural selection does not immediately lead to evolution.
Posted by Comrade Stalin on Dec-29-2010 23:56:
quote:
Originally posted by Saka
The probability that everything has happened the way its believed to have happened.
It's impossible.
Post the mathematical calculations you've made to come up with such an enlightened view.
Posted by Comrade Stalin on Dec-29-2010 23:59:
quote:
Originally posted by Saka
lol.
I know the earth is round,
I never said you didn't.
quote:
even though you mock the bible the bible states the world is round, and had done thousands of years before man worked it out.
Man has stated many times in his history of FACTS that just turned out to be false.
I'm not mocking the bible. Are you telling me there aren't talking animals, multi-headed beasts coming out of the ocean, and statements of fact that will never be verifiable, in the bible? The fact that you see the bible as a scientific text to be believed as scientific truth, as if it were a textbook on biology, is quite sad really.
quote:
And I have seen proof of natural selection, and of adaption to environment but no evolution.
Natural selection does not immediately lead to evolution.
And you came up with this brilliant insight how?
Posted by Saka on Dec-30-2010 00:05:
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Stalin
Post the mathematical calculations you've made to come up with such an enlightened view.
"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 10(50) has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence.
I.L Cohen
"This means that 10(89190) DNA molecules, on average, must form to provide the one chance of forming the specific DNA sequence necessary to code 124 proteins. 10(89190) DNAs would weigh 10(89147) more than the earth ... A quantity of DNA this colossal could never have been formed.
R.L. Wysong
Posted by MrJiveBoJingles on Dec-30-2010 00:10:
quote:
Originally posted by Saka
"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 10(50) has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence.
I.L Cohen
"This means that 10(89190) DNA molecules, on average, must form to provide the one chance of forming the specific DNA sequence necessary to code 124 proteins. 10(89190) DNAs would weigh 10(89147) more than the earth ... A quantity of DNA this colossal could never have been formed.
R.L. Wysong
DNA strands weren't the first self-replicating molecule. RNA at least was earlier, and that probably had a precursor, too. That's the current view in biology, as far as I know. You can't extrapolate past probability based on the current complexity of life, because lifeforms and their chemistry were not always that complex.
Posted by Saka on Dec-30-2010 00:12:
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Stalin
Are you telling me there aren't talking animals, multi-headed beasts coming out of the ocean, and statements of fact that will never be verifiable, in the bible? The fact that you see the bible as a scientific text to be believed as scientific truth, as if it were a textbook on biology, is quite sad really.
And you came up with this brilliant insight how?
I do see the bible has scientific fact in, but I don't use it as a text book for science in that way. it wasn't built to be specifically a science book. Though it does hold various scientific truths.
And my insight on adaptation has come from studies at high school, concerning moths and grazing mammals, but evolution doesn't stem from animals adapting to an environment.
Posted by ModernNosferatu on Dec-30-2010 00:22:
quote:
Originally posted by Saka
The probability that everything has happened the way its believed to have happened.
It's impossible.
I may not be completely understanding what you just wrote there but isn't that a contradiction towards the Bible as well?
Because you stated earlier that the Bible was way too perfect to be wrong but doesn't the Bible predict everything that has and is happening according to what the Bible beliefs are. So the Bible has the probability that everything that has happened was supposed to have believed to happen. So thus this can be impossible as well.
Posted by Saka on Dec-30-2010 00:23:
quote:
Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
DNA strands weren't the first self-replicating molecule. RNA at least was earlier, and that probably had a precursor, too. That's the current view in biology, as far as I know. You can't extrapolate past probability based on the current complexity of life, because lifeforms and their chemistry were not always that complex.
We aren't just talking about complex lifeforms here, we're talking about lifeforms so complex that there is no route to de-evolve them.
Many evolutionary steps must have taken place simultaneously for pretty much all lifeforms to have kept on living, one minor missing evolutionary process would have thrown off the course of a species.
Posted by Vernon Wanderer on Dec-30-2010 00:24:
Posted by Saka on Dec-30-2010 00:25:
quote:
Originally posted by ModernNosferatu
Because you stated earlier that the Bible was way too perfect to be wrong but doesn't the Bible predict everything that has and is happening according to what the Bible beliefs are. So the Bible has the probability that everything that has happened was supposed to have believed to happen. So thus this can be impossible as well.
lol. Tough reading but if I have understood what you've said then no.
It's not impossible.
Posted by ModernNosferatu on Dec-30-2010 00:26:
Originally posted by Saka
"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 10(50) has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence.
I.L Cohen
"This means that 10(89190) DNA molecules, on average, must form to provide the one chance of forming the specific DNA sequence necessary to code 124 proteins. 10(89190) DNAs would weigh 10(89147) more than the earth ... A quantity of DNA this colossal could never have been formed.
R.L. Wysong
Now you're changing the subject to display your disbelief in a non-theistic abiogenesis. Why do you believe a mathematician (who obviously has his math wrong) in regards to complex natural phenomenon, and then, after seemingly disproving evolution and natural abiogenesis (which Cohen nor you did) with bad statistics, you hypothesize an even more improbable explanation (God did it). Evolution is based on predictable natural phenomenon, unlike your religious "theory". Evolution based on natural selection is inherently a NON-RANDOM process, though randomness isn't absent. There are no theories or mathematical formulas that make your religious explanation, actually a NON-explanation, (i.e. God explains everything) at all valid in the least bit no matter how much you desire it. Clearly you are misinformed when it comes to biological evolution.
Posted by Saka on Dec-30-2010 00:34:
quote:
Originally posted by ModernNosferatu
Saka. Is this basicly what you beleive in?
