Don't you dare act like every other evolutionist I have ever debated with, or I'll be out of here in a second. I hate it when people make assumptions about what I am going to argue, and then go on to mock the assumed argument. Who are you to read my mind?
I agree that the heavens are several billion years old. The earth, however, is not. You probably think this is twisted. I assure you it is not. Read this book if you want to know how.
But you need to tell me in your next post whether you are going to keep acting childish, or whether you are interested in a real discussion. Then I will know whether to reply or not.
If you are interested to learn, the evidence is there. I can point you to the place where the most misunderstandings occur - and that's with inheritence. Evolutionists commonly quote examples similar to Darwin's finches as proof of evolution. They do not understand that these observations are explained equally well, or better, under the creationist model.
Either way, if you can't tell, I don't feel like getting into a debate on specifics unless the person is willing to actually consider what I say. Some people argue because they think they are right. Others are almost positive they are right, but willing to concede they may misunderstand and be wrong. That's my position, and I only want to discuss with others of a similar mind.
No thanks. At what might seem like a cop-out, I'll not engage in debates on specifics here on slashdot. It quickly deteriorates into a waste of time, and I'm sick of being called a believer in fairy tales before the idiot who's "discussing" with me understands what it is I believe.
However, if you are genuinely interested, and not just interested in a good debate, then e-mail me at tunip at tyreth.homelinux.org.
I understand what you mean, and you are right. I guess what I'm saying is I already have proof more than adequate for myself. So you would have to prove that evidence as being false. That is what I mean by "extraordinary proof" - extraordinary proof that my evidences are wrong. I wasn't using the right words in this way, so yes you are correct.
I'll add that as an Atheist here in the U.K I really couldn't care wether you think that there is a God. Thats upto you, believe what you like, but why should I have to defend my beliefs any more than you?
Good, the only reason I bit is because you sounded like you were mocking us talking about sadistic puppetmaster, etc. Btw, you say "no thanks to religion", but many of the greatest scientists and their discovieries were by creationists (taken from a book):
Physics - Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin
Chemistry - Boyle, Dalton, Ramsay
Biology - Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, Agassiz
Geology - Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Buckland, Cuvier
Astronomy - Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, Maunder
Mathematics - Pascal, Leibnitz, Euler
So please don't mock us or assume we can't contribute anything related to intelligence. You may find that many discoveries today are by creationists. I have read on how evolutionary assumptions have caused a lot of problems in the area of back pain - refer to Technical Journal Volume 15(3) 2001, pg 79 "Back problems: how Darwinism misled researchers". It was also Mendel who discovered the principles of inheritence, and the result of creationist assumptions that we can selectively breed plants for ultimate effect.
No, your point is good. But as they say, it's the one who is making an extraordinary claim that needs extraordinary evidence. Atheism is by far the minority the world over, so I consider the burden of proof with them. I've seen ample evidence to prove God exists. I'd have to go through all that with you step by step - and you'd have to demonstrate to me each one how that particular evidence is in fact no proof of God. An arduous task no doubt.
I am a creationist and I have not come across a single evolutionist who understood our position yet. Argh. And I need to remind myself not to get into these discussions. Still, a few comments...
This is the experiment I use to argue with creationists. They always say where did life come from and I point them towards this.
Next time you are talking to a creationist, make them defend there belief. Aks them where god came from or something similar.
I have defended creationism many times. I'll tell you where it ends up every time. The simple fact that the evolutionists arguing don't understand the creationist position. I'm not saying I'm better - I just have an unfair advantage. I was brought up in an evolutionist teaching society so I've been exposed to the theories I now reject. However, creationism is something new and foreign to evolutionists today.
As for where God came from, that is a stupid question. God created all things. He exists outside all things that were created, and one of those things was time. Without time the concept of beginning and end is absurd. Can we explain this? No. Do we need to? Of course not. It's outside our understanding, outside of everything we know. In fact, it is no different from asking an evolutionist where all the matter for the big bang came from. Evolution teaches that time was one such thing created then.
Yet no-one has been able to prove god. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Correction: no one has pursuaded you that God exists. I have seen more than enough evidence to convince - ie, prove - that He exists. Just because you have not yet encountered it does not mean nobody has.
Extraordinary claim is that there is no God. Ordinary claim is that there is. This is all a matter of bias - everything you say can equally be reversed against your own position, so you should be careful what arguments you present.
I do agree that the original poster's idea that "you can't prove/disprove the soul" is good.
As I said earlier to someone else, did you even read the article? They were not just "making a good movie":
The film's creators, brothers Larry and Andy Wachowski, have been remarkably tight-lipped about their vision for the trilogy. But these comic-book aficionados have pulled back the curtain enough to reveal which levers they are pulling.
"We're interested in mythology, theology, and, to a certain extent, higher-level mathematics," Larry told Time in 1999. In a Warner Bros. Web chat that year, they were asked to what extent their allusions to myths and philosophy were intentional. "All of it," they said.
I can't help but feel that your teacher in a way was right. We don't just like flying colors, moving things. In order to enjoy a film we *must* identify with it to a certain degree.
What I'm saying, is there's always a reason for our enjoyment - and just because you can't put your finger on it doesn't mean it's not there. We imagine and empathise with it to a certain degree, otherwise we wouldn't enjoy it. Whether or not you want to be Michael Knight in Knight Rider is not important - there may be something else you identify with. It's there, I'm telling you.
I, like many others, like Spiderman the movie because we wish we could swing from building to building, or because we wish that there was someone who could, or something else. Different probably for each person.
Don't you dare treat us like uninformed children - just because slashdot has more people of a similar belief to yours (atheism I assume) does not mean you can patronise us. You are alone in the world not believing in God. Almost every wise or intelligent man around the world believes in God. Where do you stand?
You think I haven't spent time to research what I believe? To be sure of these things that I'm not believing a lie? You think that your position is so secure? Religion is NOT just to keep people sane and controlled.
I think you are quite proud to believe that you are wise enough to have stumbled on a truth that your ancestors had neglected to see. I'm guessing here - but just because your encounter with religious types has resulted in confirming your intelligence does not mean that there isn't someone out there who could stand up to you. I think, I learn, I understand. I respect pure logic, reason. I want to know the truth.
At any rate: these comments of yours are pure pride and fantasy.
I agree with you - just looking for some awesome fight scenes.
However, you can't ignore the fact that this film was created deliberately with these similarities to religion, as the creator's wrote:
The film's creators, brothers Larry and Andy Wachowski, have been remarkably tight-lipped about their vision for the trilogy. But these comic-book aficionados have pulled back the curtain enough to reveal which levers they are pulling.
"We're interested in mythology, theology, and, to a certain extent, higher-level mathematics," Larry told Time in 1999. In a Warner Bros. Web chat that year, they were asked to what extent their allusions to myths and philosophy were intentional. "All of it," they said.
...with an advertisement at the bottom of the article:
---
Unisys
Wehavethewayout.com
join the escape from unix.
the windows datacenter is here.
JOIN US.>
---
As if.
I agree with you, and not the other posters who tout about how they are immune to addictions. I played mud for maybe two years also. It consumed a lot of my time. But when I stopped I had no problems - no addictions seeking me to return. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a problem.
MMORPG's scare me. I can see very easily how I would get into them as I did with MUD's, and I have other things I want to do - programming, learning languages, spending time with people, kung fu, etc. MMORPG's I think are a dangerous thing, for those with or without addictive personalities.
I can't imagine what harm it's done for the SK economy. Think of how many man hours are wasted playing games instead of doing some other activities. Sure they get some skills in it - but it's not a very efficient method.
It seems that MMORPGs will replace real life in the ways taht people are scared computer games will.
Maybe I'm just biased, but it doesn't strike me as anything exciting. It looks like it's just using up even more desktop space for no reason (my preferred WM is Ion, but I do love a WM that looks very nice, and kde is not bad recently).
I imagine a good IQ test measures your ability to learn and apply common knowledge.
SAT's, are they something people study and prepare for? For me, an IQ measures a person's intelligence best when they don't prepare for it - and it tests generic things which are based as little as possible on culture (unless examining general knowledge).
Correct. Nothing is going to happen until someone puts in an official timeline. A set of phases that the world must follow or face being left off the internet.
That way the changeover becomes necessary much like the y2k bug.
The last month or two I've been thinking a little about these games, wishing there were some to play. They have an incredible capacity for someone to tell a story like reading a book - controlling and describing the scene. You actively take part. Sure it's linear, but so are books. I love roleplaying games and the freedom, but it's not all there is to enjoy.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that the heavens are several billion years old. The earth, however, is not. You probably think this is twisted. I assure you it is not. Read this book if you want to know how.
But you need to tell me in your next post whether you are going to keep acting childish, or whether you are interested in a real discussion. Then I will know whether to reply or not.
Either way, if you can't tell, I don't feel like getting into a debate on specifics unless the person is willing to actually consider what I say. Some people argue because they think they are right. Others are almost positive they are right, but willing to concede they may misunderstand and be wrong. That's my position, and I only want to discuss with others of a similar mind.
No thanks. At what might seem like a cop-out, I'll not engage in debates on specifics here on slashdot. It quickly deteriorates into a waste of time, and I'm sick of being called a believer in fairy tales before the idiot who's "discussing" with me understands what it is I believe.
However, if you are genuinely interested, and not just interested in a good debate, then e-mail me at tunip at tyreth.homelinux.org.
Good, the only reason I bit is because you sounded like you were mocking us talking about sadistic puppetmaster, etc. Btw, you say "no thanks to religion", but many of the greatest scientists and their discovieries were by creationists (taken from a book):
Physics - Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin Chemistry - Boyle, Dalton, Ramsay
Biology - Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, Agassiz
Geology - Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Buckland, Cuvier
Astronomy - Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, Maunder
Mathematics - Pascal, Leibnitz, Euler
So please don't mock us or assume we can't contribute anything related to intelligence. You may find that many discoveries today are by creationists. I have read on how evolutionary assumptions have caused a lot of problems in the area of back pain - refer to Technical Journal Volume 15(3) 2001, pg 79 "Back problems: how Darwinism misled researchers". It was also Mendel who discovered the principles of inheritence, and the result of creationist assumptions that we can selectively breed plants for ultimate effect.
Hardcore. Couldn't have it any other way :)
No, your point is good. But as they say, it's the one who is making an extraordinary claim that needs extraordinary evidence. Atheism is by far the minority the world over, so I consider the burden of proof with them. I've seen ample evidence to prove God exists. I'd have to go through all that with you step by step - and you'd have to demonstrate to me each one how that particular evidence is in fact no proof of God. An arduous task no doubt.
See these posts:
One and two.
I have defended creationism many times. I'll tell you where it ends up every time. The simple fact that the evolutionists arguing don't understand the creationist position. I'm not saying I'm better - I just have an unfair advantage. I was brought up in an evolutionist teaching society so I've been exposed to the theories I now reject. However, creationism is something new and foreign to evolutionists today.
As for where God came from, that is a stupid question. God created all things. He exists outside all things that were created, and one of those things was time. Without time the concept of beginning and end is absurd. Can we explain this? No. Do we need to? Of course not. It's outside our understanding, outside of everything we know. In fact, it is no different from asking an evolutionist where all the matter for the big bang came from. Evolution teaches that time was one such thing created then.
Correction: no one has pursuaded you that God exists. I have seen more than enough evidence to convince - ie, prove - that He exists. Just because you have not yet encountered it does not mean nobody has.
Extraordinary claim is that there is no God. Ordinary claim is that there is. This is all a matter of bias - everything you say can equally be reversed against your own position, so you should be careful what arguments you present.
I do agree that the original poster's idea that "you can't prove/disprove the soul" is good.
The same results then should be produced by watching traffic passing by, or some other random scene of "action".
I can't help but feel that your teacher in a way was right. We don't just like flying colors, moving things. In order to enjoy a film we *must* identify with it to a certain degree.
What I'm saying, is there's always a reason for our enjoyment - and just because you can't put your finger on it doesn't mean it's not there. We imagine and empathise with it to a certain degree, otherwise we wouldn't enjoy it. Whether or not you want to be Michael Knight in Knight Rider is not important - there may be something else you identify with. It's there, I'm telling you.
I, like many others, like Spiderman the movie because we wish we could swing from building to building, or because we wish that there was someone who could, or something else. Different probably for each person.
Don't you dare treat us like uninformed children - just because slashdot has more people of a similar belief to yours (atheism I assume) does not mean you can patronise us. You are alone in the world not believing in God. Almost every wise or intelligent man around the world believes in God. Where do you stand?
You think I haven't spent time to research what I believe? To be sure of these things that I'm not believing a lie? You think that your position is so secure? Religion is NOT just to keep people sane and controlled.
I think you are quite proud to believe that you are wise enough to have stumbled on a truth that your ancestors had neglected to see. I'm guessing here - but just because your encounter with religious types has resulted in confirming your intelligence does not mean that there isn't someone out there who could stand up to you. I think, I learn, I understand. I respect pure logic, reason. I want to know the truth.
At any rate: these comments of yours are pure pride and fantasy.
I agree with you - just looking for some awesome fight scenes.
However, you can't ignore the fact that this film was created deliberately with these similarities to religion, as the creator's wrote:
...with an advertisement at the bottom of the article: --- Unisys Wehavethewayout.com join the escape from unix. the windows datacenter is here. JOIN US.> --- As if.
I agree with you, and not the other posters who tout about how they are immune to addictions. I played mud for maybe two years also. It consumed a lot of my time. But when I stopped I had no problems - no addictions seeking me to return. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a problem.
MMORPG's scare me. I can see very easily how I would get into them as I did with MUD's, and I have other things I want to do - programming, learning languages, spending time with people, kung fu, etc. MMORPG's I think are a dangerous thing, for those with or without addictive personalities.
I can't imagine what harm it's done for the SK economy. Think of how many man hours are wasted playing games instead of doing some other activities. Sure they get some skills in it - but it's not a very efficient method.
It seems that MMORPGs will replace real life in the ways taht people are scared computer games will.
It looks ungly, IMHO.
Maybe I'm just biased, but it doesn't strike me as anything exciting. It looks like it's just using up even more desktop space for no reason (my preferred WM is Ion, but I do love a WM that looks very nice, and kde is not bad recently).
That's a significant increase. So if at 18 I have an IQ of 100, I can expect it to be ~140 by the time I am 60? 130+ is considered genius I believe.
Considering what's involved in making a RAM chip, is it possible that these will cost more in terms of the environment than they will save?
I imagine a good IQ test measures your ability to learn and apply common knowledge.
SAT's, are they something people study and prepare for? For me, an IQ measures a person's intelligence best when they don't prepare for it - and it tests generic things which are based as little as possible on culture (unless examining general knowledge).
Correct. Nothing is going to happen until someone puts in an official timeline. A set of phases that the world must follow or face being left off the internet.
That way the changeover becomes necessary much like the y2k bug.
So, just like the metric system then, it should be possible to switch everyone - just like it was done in other contries that used to use feet/inches.
The US is so retro.
So we file lawsuits against them for defamation, saying that we DoS'd their servers - and we do this by DoS'ing their legal department?
Sounds fun!
The last month or two I've been thinking a little about these games, wishing there were some to play. They have an incredible capacity for someone to tell a story like reading a book - controlling and describing the scene. You actively take part. Sure it's linear, but so are books. I love roleplaying games and the freedom, but it's not all there is to enjoy.
They've played right into my hands. Now I can familiarise myself intimately with the center for aiding a real breakout!
Muahahahaa!!
Seriously, I hate our policy and detention centers. Problem is that breaking them out does more harm than good, ultimately.