Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vester]

I just came back from the university and  started thinking about what has been discussed in this thread.
An all at one my Wtf meter jumped to 10. Poeple are you seriously sugesting that god broadcast light and other stuff to make us belive that the universe is older than it seems.

Can you realy say that with a straigh face or are you just messing with us?

Because I don't know what to say. This is one of the many absolute proof that cannot be refuted unless "an all powerful  being" is being a **** and just want to **** with the scientific community by feeding us false data by a spectacular and unprovable medium.

Realy poeple you're ready to believe anything.
And if it's what to think stop doing science, becuse obviously your god hate it.

Shush. That seems like a trollpost to me. Let people believe what they wish to believe.

[kuro_suna]

But isn't it entirely consistent with how god is depicted in the old testament?

[Phmcw]

It's not trolling if the universe is 10000 years old then, for instance, why is the light that we get in our telescope old then thant (because coming from object located at more then 10000 light-year?).

And Id get refused in any scienific revue because it doesn't make any sense.

[Micro102]

I had read at one time that our pinky toes are slowly getting smaller with each generation (I think it was stated that we didn't need them to grab hold of things anymore...) and our wisdom teeth are starting to not form as well.  That is... if you are looking for signs of evolution.  Of course, you won't see someone walking down the street and grow a pair of wings because a car is going to hit them kind of evolution speed... that's crazy talk.

My personal favourite is that the Y chromosome is apparently deteriorating.

EDIT: I can't imagine a monogendered human race, honestly.

I can...I can imagine a lot of possibilities... And it's scary

[chaoticag]

I'm trying to remember a species, in which the male reproduction actually jumped onto the X chromosome.

If what I remember from the discovery channel is right, it's that men will end up with less hair (?) if that happens?

Not too sure on the details.

[Leafsnail]

It has actually happened to another species, actually, although the exact one escapes me now.  In any case, the stuff coding for male gender gradually shifted to another gene, which is just as well, since otherwise the species would die.  Of course, now its new chromosone is gonna start deteriorating... male gender coding always seems to cause problems .

We know it's deteriorating because, well, it used to be an X.

[kuro_suna]

My guess is the deterioration is also a adaptation, by having the Y chromosome too incomplete to allow anyone with double Y to survive it keeps a third gender from appearing and screwing up the gene pool.

[Wyrm]

The selection as designer was just my way of pointing out that for a random process a lot of semi-intelligent qualities seem to be thrust upon it to explain things.

Selection is not random. Variation is for all practical purposes, but the selection amongst that variation is not, and selection is directed for very mechanistic reasons and require no intelligence.

As for the woman's explanation, I am not surprised. When I said the argument is futile, this is what I meant. When the woman discovered tissue that simply should not exist, her thoughts did not turn to "Maybe we've got this wrong. Maybe dinosaurs existed for longer than we thought." Her only thoughts were "Well, we already know our timeline cannot be wrong, so we just don't know the process of fossilization well enough." It's actually very frustrating for me. When asked for proof, creationists are willing to provide should we find any. But when we provide, it is typically cast aside with a wave and a thinly veiled insult (not necessarily from anyone on this forum. Just generally)

Tissue exists until it's destroyed or altered, usually by bacteria. If you had a completely sterile environment, you could keep a piece of flesh fresh forever, even at room temperature. It is not inconcievable that under very rare conditions a bone may fossilize around a sterile pocket of flesh and keep it sterile and fresh for 65 million years.

I mean, by this "flesh rots" argument of yours, the universe is barely two years old, because if it were 10000 years old as you claim, that flesh should have rotted away by now!

Yes, defenses of creationism are all over the place, and by that I mean they are scattered all over the place and present no coherent explanation for the variety of life, nor a coherent explanation of age of the Earth, nor any coherent explanation about anything else. Evolution and the physical sciences in general, despite everything creationists have thrown at it, does.

[GuestJr]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

There is a phrase, the 'heat death of the universe'. It is a dramatisation of certain accepted principals that suggest that existence is a very very bad place to be. I am not all that concerned about everything reaching consistent entropy. If it happens then it is a long way off, and I think gravity still has a few tricks up it's sleeve. But the principals underlying it are very real parts of the world we live in and they do make existence much more difficult.
 The reliability of these principals suggest that the universe is perfect, but perfection by itself is not a good thing. Nor is it particularly unlikely, the best evidence of a 'god' would be in it's actions, which, as the actions of an intelligent being would be guided by purpose rather than cause, and as a god they could bypass cause. The absence of evidence to support this strongly suggests that any 'gods' that may exist have not had any direct involvement in the world for it's duration.

*sighs* I'm weak, so sue me...


What would you hope to achieve with this discussion?
Such discussions have cause much strife throughout history, if it doesn't have any value to you then I suggest that you avoid the issue...

This should've been taken 272 pages ago.
I'm a stout Christian believer, but trying to change others religious beliefs, (Or non-religiousness) is like stepping on a Dogs tail, they'll yelp and bite.
Its the same in all categories of life.

[MrWiggles]

Shush. That seems like a trollpost to me. Let people believe what they wish to believe.

Can't.

Beliefs can be wrong and dangerous to themselves and others.

[kuro_suna]

The thing is although nobody really knows if or what god is with the young earth creationist we can't just back down and say we respect your beliefs if we want to keep living in a industrialized world, and if you think I'm being closed minded I will change my views when creationists start curing diseases, finding vital natural resources and inventing means of clean energy production.

[Bauglir]

Shush. That seems like a trollpost to me. Let people believe what they wish to believe.

Can't.

Beliefs can be wrong and dangerous to themselves and others.

Sure you can. Beliefs can be wrong, but only the actions they undertake because of those beliefs can be dangerous to others. The practical solution is to eliminate the beliefs, but I can't endorse it as ethically correct. I can't accept stomping on somebody's beliefs because I disagree with them or some possible consequences are bad; that's precisely the same mindset that encourages evangelism. The only thing to do is stop them from taking wrong actions.

You can believe whatever you want. You just can't do whatever you want.

[MrWiggles]

Shush. That seems like a trollpost to me. Let people believe what they wish to believe.

Can't.

Beliefs can be wrong and dangerous to themselves and others.

Sure you can. Beliefs can be wrong, but only the actions they undertake because of those beliefs can be dangerous to others. The practical solution is to eliminate the beliefs, but I can't endorse it as ethically correct. I can't accept stomping on somebody's beliefs because I disagree with them or some possible consequences are bad; that's precisely the same mindset that encourages evangelism. The only thing to do is stop them from taking wrong actions.

You can believe whatever you want. You just can't do whatever you want.

Why cant you exactly discuss someone belief? How is it unethical? I'm for free speech, so I dont see anything wrong with evangelism, just annoying. I'm for freedom of religion, with those combined results in discussion of beliefs. Debating, and dissuading someone from belief that are wrong and or harmful is healthy and nessicarry.

Without said debate/discussion how can you learn the bad belief that stem bad actions? Without debate/discussion how can you learn about others belief?

What are the advantages from supporting passively or overtly wrong belief [a limited example, such as the Four Humors, or the Earth is Flat)?

What are the advantages from supporting passively or overtly harmful belief [limited example, airism, heal by faith, child abuse]?

Why shouldn't you try to improve what you believe in?

How do you improve what you believe in without debate?
On a side way related kinda of way, this 'Its Taboo to Discuss Religious belief is rude/wrong/bad', is a meme defense mechanism relaying its own weakness. Stronger belief systems from my experience don't have this defense mechanism.

[Bauglir]

Shush. That seems like a trollpost to me. Let people believe what they wish to believe.

Can't.

Beliefs can be wrong and dangerous to themselves and others.

Sure you can. Beliefs can be wrong, but only the actions they undertake because of those beliefs can be dangerous to others. The practical solution is to eliminate the beliefs, but I can't endorse it as ethically correct. I can't accept stomping on somebody's beliefs because I disagree with them or some possible consequences are bad; that's precisely the same mindset that encourages evangelism. The only thing to do is stop them from taking wrong actions.

You can believe whatever you want. You just can't do whatever you want.

Why cant you exactly discuss someone belief? How is it unethical? I'm for free speech, so I dont see anything wrong with evangelism, just annoying. I'm for freedom of religion, with those combined results in discussion of beliefs. Debating, and dissuading someone from belief that are wrong and or harmful is healthy and nessicarry.

Without said debate/discussion how can you learn the bad belief that stem bad actions? Without debate/discussion how can you learn about others belief?

What are the advantages from supporting passively or overtly wrong belief [a limited example, such as the Four Humors, or the Earth is Flat)?

What are the advantages from supporting passively or overtly harmful belief [limited example, airism, heal by faith, child abuse]?

Why shouldn't you try to improve what you believe in?

How do you improve what you believe in without debate?
On a side way related kinda of way, this 'Its Taboo to Discuss Religious belief is rude/wrong/bad', is a meme defense mechanism relaying its own weakness. Stronger belief systems from my experience don't have this defense mechanism.

I didn't say that, actually. There's a difference between a debate and saying, "You can't believe this." If you're debating with somebody, you're ultimately letting them realize the truth of what you're saying. You're just providing arguments that demonstrate it. The choice is theirs.

[Grakelin]

This should've been taken 272 pages ago.

This thread is like real life.

No matter how clever you think something is, it has been said already. The only reason you haven't seen it is because it got lost in the 272 page thread.

It's actually just a series of people all joining in on opposite sides and debating the same thing with eachother that the last generation of forumites did. The only person who consistently posted in this thread from the beginning has been banned now, partly as a result of it.

It would be a legend if every active forum didn't have one like it.