I never said I was "happy to accept any source that agrees with what you read in the Bible". I said I believe the Bible.
And what has age of a book got to do with accuracy?
Fairy tales, eh? Look at the unsubstantiated claims of evolutionary theory and tell me who's "faith" is misplaced. And as I said, if you've made up your mind, I shant waste another breath...
There are these places called "libraries" where you can get "books" which can be "read."
Did they teach Superiority Complex at a "major research university" or were you born with that?
However, slashdot is not some personal tutorial for settsu. And unless you want to pay me to be your individual tutor, I have neither the time nor the patience to remedy your lack of learning.
Actually you've been an excellent subject for my informal studies on highly intelligent people who are too smart for their own good. I'm sorry, it's not a paid study...
I do appreciate the link, unfortunately as there is no unbiased information available from humans, I'll stick to the one source that's proven the most reliable for centuries.
My positions
entirely agree with the Biblical account. A reliable source of historical data.
I believe
ditto the above, although I don't care how since neither of our sides can be proven or refuted to any level of scientific satisfaction.
These beliefs have been informed by my studies
of the exceptionally well-designed world around me
, and I
as a graphic artist will wish my far less complex designs could evolve without my help.
Wouldn't it be divine if a tree exploded in Oregon and, a few weeks later, a 4-color 2-sided postcard that is exactly what a client needs arrives in 25,000 mailboxes? I suppose I won't hold by breath, since how likely is that, eh?
Honestly, becuase fundamentally I don't believe the whole topic merits anything more than stimulating conversation and brain exercise. I have willingly chosen to put my faith in God and His truth and precepts.
All the variables and dependency on other peoples observations yields a conclusion that evolution requires a mass delusion into the idea of the superiority of human observation and distraction from far more important questions of life.
If not, then that returns us to my inital presumption that if our existence is entirely inconsequential, why carry on?
Your opinion of me, though unfortunate, seems to reinforce your belief of this. I have no way of convincing you otherwise, if you think faith in God is pathetic or unscientific or whatever.
That's the beauty of Free Will. Which, from your viewpoint, I'd guess is an impossible delusion on my part.
Jupiter? Let's not bring in something we know relatively nothing about. But for kicks.. if I keep adding logs to a fire it would keep burning. Remove the fuel and the fire "decays". Jupiter's Red Spot (from what we guess) and a storm on Earth can be "fed" and thus persist.
I suggest instead of assumptions anout my cognitive abilities, you state your position(s). From your standpoint, how could I possibly "learn" if you refuse to "educate" me?
Why, after billions of years, do all these transitional species exist concurrently? Think of the number of insects alone, not to mention vertebrate and invertebrate creatures.
How about instead of your tired insults on my capabilities for logical thought (for which you have relatively no basis anyhow), you pose some demonstrative examples to back your suppositions.
Re-read your post(s); you don't want me to respond, you want me to fuel your fire so that you can justify further insults and mockery.
I've resisted the urge to sink to your level of shit-hurling, which reminds me of another creature you seem OK with decending from, but anyway...
Listen, you've chosen to agree with other very intelligent people with very good arguments.
People who postulate our entire planet of interconnected complex systems is the result of a cosmic "OOPS!" and, despite the overwhelming tendendency of said systems to decay in short spans, have managed to sustain and persist in the absence of any evidence of how.
Sure, why not?
That is SO much easier to accept than the idea of a Designer and Creator.
I can't possibly have a fighting chance of convincing you if you've forgotten Common Sense.
Shouldn't we be chest deep in transition species? Why isn't my neighbor a lower or higher level of creature? Have we hit a evolutionary plateau? Why is there such a diverse selection of species anyhow? Ad naseum...
Lastly, Occam's Razor seems to reinforce the case for a living God given that evolution requires dozens of leaps of logic while God requires just one.
Then while I don't understand why, pray tell, you would you come here, admittedly, I should have perused your other posts to learn you had no interest in dialog whatsoever, what with the obvious chip on your shoulder the size of Detroit... too bad you use your zeal for such hateful name-calling.
You're placing an awful lot of faith in other men that are just as prone to imperfection as you and I. Are you really willing to do that without question?
I'm not interested in a yelling match so take a deep breath and relax. The internet is a highly restrictive communication medium, so let's take it slow.
Lest your gross generalizations take hold, have you read these:
I'm far from capable of explaining every last minutiae in this discussion, but I am having trouble understanding what exactly you are suggesting. It's entirely likely you are far more intelligent than I and I can't hold a satisfying conversation for you.
Let me just start by saying this was a great discussion that has come to a natural end. With that said, I conclude my thoughts with this:
No, I would not have any monuments built, for they would be inadequate and only serve to boost our own ego.
As for the fence, it was a metaphor. Literally it's too vague since I didn't specify visble light or not. So that's neither here nor there.
If you can say, "Longer life is better because human life is good. I know I can't justify that objectively, but it's still true.", can't I say, "God is real. I know I can't justify that objectively, but it's still true."?
Obviously I can say it though it seems you would disagree.
Why, between the two, would you choose to believe that humanity's existence is meaningless and not that there is a God that cares for you personally? Wouldn't that be the most fundamental question of our existence?
On the contrary, humanity has become more comfortably self-serving.
If I painted a fence an off-white and you said it wasn't white enough, by what standard could you argue? Popular opinion? Then whose to say Hitler was not perfectly sane?
And exactly why is simply the length of life better? Doesn't survival of the fittest demand only the strong survive?
The moral debate is inextricable from the evolution discussion. For if we are as the theory of evolution suggests, then I may act on my every whim, as what empirical truth would anyone have to deny me?
To beat the slavery thing to death, let me challenge you with this: What if, instead using white-skinned people, we instituted slavery today? Could we not just alter the slaves' emotional states such that they quite enjoy their lot in life?
It's not ludicrous. I've simply suggest taking your ideas to their full and logical end. The result of which is an empty and meaningless existence. Is that an improvement for humanity at large?
I'm stating that objects do not make people better. The topic was Intelligent Design is Psuedoscience and you seemed to be claiming (though perhaps not) that inventions make "life" better, possibly implying that humans have evolved due to applied science.
I say that people have not and will not change for milennia. Likewise the abolition of slavery had no universal effect on humanity either. It was a benefit for slaves and would-be slaves. No one else. As glad as you and I may be about it, that doesn't make us better.
Not once did I suggest or imply that murdering is acceptable. But wre we better if we exist indefinitely?
As for dying young, what's "young"?
The common thread of these is that not mine, not yours, not anyone's emotional state has any effect on humanity as a species. Emotional state can be modified. What if murdering people at a young age made me happy?
By what standard can we claim that slavery was bad? What is our basis for morality?
We're only better off due to physical comfort or convenience. I thought science was about discovery. not improvement.
Application of discovery, in in your example: inventions, may mean comfort and convenience. But it doesn't equal improvement. In fact, comfort most often leads to apathy. And convenience to laziness.
Take the average first-world diet. Are we really better with millions of extended lifespans when what we're really looking at is millions of fat asses living forever?
Oh well, it's is a matter of perspective.
And I think many plantation owners in the 1800s would disagree with you. The abolition of slavery was rather sucked for them. Would you say their life was improved? Isn't parasitic behavior natural? Can't it be good under certain circumstances? Not all slaves were treated poorly.
There's a fine line between the slaves of the 1800s and a modern worker. And that fine line is thanks to those wonderful iventions of yours.
And don't bring anything moral into the discussion since what basis would we have?
And since when was the abolition of slavery thanks to industrialisation. Plenty of people WEREN'T slaves prior to industrialization.
For the sake of those of you who nodded in agreement with that question: They're called "Friends." They're these other people who come over--often in groups withOUT LAN party cases in their arms--to socialize with you IN YOUR HOME (not it your garage basement) (!).
Slashdot Mirror
My computer? Quantum mechanics? How 'bout we keep the bull out of the crystal shop.
Your god = Big Bang. My God = God.
I never said I was "happy to accept any source that agrees with what you read in the Bible". I said I believe the Bible.
And what has age of a book got to do with accuracy?
Fairy tales, eh? Look at the unsubstantiated claims of evolutionary theory and tell me who's "faith" is misplaced.
And as I said, if you've made up your mind, I shant waste another breath...
Thanks for the help there, Professor Higgins.
There are these places called "libraries" where you can get "books" which can be "read."
Did they teach Superiority Complex at a "major research university" or were you born with that?
However, slashdot is not some personal tutorial for settsu. And unless you want to pay me to be your individual tutor, I have neither the time nor the patience to remedy your lack of learning.
Actually you've been an excellent subject for my informal studies on highly intelligent people who are too smart for their own good. I'm sorry, it's not a paid study...
I do appreciate the link, unfortunately as there is no unbiased information available from humans, I'll stick to the one source that's proven the most reliable for centuries.
My positions
entirely agree with the Biblical account. A reliable source of historical data.
I believe
ditto the above, although I don't care how since neither of our sides can be proven or refuted to any level of scientific satisfaction.
These beliefs have been informed by my studies
of the exceptionally well-designed world around me
, and I
as a graphic artist will wish my far less complex designs could evolve without my help.
Wouldn't it be divine if a tree exploded in Oregon and, a few weeks later, a 4-color 2-sided postcard that is exactly what a client needs arrives in 25,000 mailboxes? I suppose I won't hold by breath, since how likely is that, eh?
Honestly, becuase fundamentally I don't believe the whole topic merits anything more than stimulating conversation and brain exercise. I have willingly chosen to put my faith in God and His truth and precepts.
All the variables and dependency on other peoples observations yields a conclusion that evolution requires a mass delusion into the idea of the superiority of human observation and distraction from far more important questions of life.
If not, then that returns us to my inital presumption that if our existence is entirely inconsequential, why carry on?
Your opinion of me, though unfortunate, seems to reinforce your belief of this. I have no way of convincing you otherwise, if you think faith in God is pathetic or unscientific or whatever.
That's the beauty of Free Will. Which, from your viewpoint, I'd guess is an impossible delusion on my part.
Jupiter? Let's not bring in something we know relatively nothing about. But for kicks.. if I keep adding logs to a fire it would keep burning. Remove the fuel and the fire "decays". Jupiter's Red Spot (from what we guess) and a storm on Earth can be "fed" and thus persist.
I suggest instead of assumptions anout my cognitive abilities, you state your position(s). From your standpoint, how could I possibly "learn" if you refuse to "educate" me?
Where did any creature come from? Where did all the different creatures start? Who else subscribes to your transition-less, species-less theories?
More insulting metaphors and still no data?
No transitional species? That's convenient.
How did Homo Sapiens originate? Where did any creature (with no species?) originate?
Which scientific organizations back your viewpoint?
What natural system ISN'T decaying?
Why, after billions of years, do all these transitional species exist concurrently? Think of the number of insects alone, not to mention vertebrate and invertebrate creatures.
How about instead of your tired insults on my capabilities for logical thought (for which you have relatively no basis anyhow), you pose some demonstrative examples to back your suppositions.
What would you have me say?
Re-read your post(s); you don't want me to respond, you want me to fuel your fire so that you can justify further insults and mockery.
I've resisted the urge to sink to your level of shit-hurling, which reminds me of another creature you seem OK with decending from, but anyway...
Listen, you've chosen to agree with other very intelligent people with very good arguments.
People who postulate our entire planet of interconnected complex systems is the result of a cosmic "OOPS!" and, despite the overwhelming tendendency of said systems to decay in short spans, have managed to sustain and persist in the absence of any evidence of how.
Sure, why not?
That is SO much easier to accept than the idea of a Designer and Creator.
I can't possibly have a fighting chance of convincing you if you've forgotten Common Sense.
Shouldn't we be chest deep in transition species? Why isn't my neighbor a lower or higher level of creature? Have we hit a evolutionary plateau? Why is there such a diverse selection of species anyhow? Ad naseum...
Lastly, Occam's Razor seems to reinforce the case for a living God given that evolution requires dozens of leaps of logic while God requires just one.
Then while I don't understand why, pray tell, you would you come here, admittedly, I should have perused your other posts to learn you had no interest in dialog whatsoever, what with the obvious chip on your shoulder the size of Detroit... too bad you use your zeal for such hateful name-calling.
You're placing an awful lot of faith in other men that are just as prone to imperfection as you and I. Are you really willing to do that without question?
Who has more misplaced faith in that case?
Did you say you had seen it? No.
I'm sorry you spent so much time on someone as unworthy as me. But who's choice was that?
And what did I ever say to you to deserve your foul-mouthed retorts? Nothing, of course.
I mistakenly believed you were in search of intelligent conversation.
If you were just looking to spit vitriol at me, you could have been honest from the start.
I'm not interested in a yelling match so take a deep breath and relax. The internet is a highly restrictive communication medium, so let's take it slow.
Lest your gross generalizations take hold, have you read these:
http://www.icr.org/faqs/Biology_Evolution/
I'm far from capable of explaining every last minutiae in this discussion, but I am having trouble understanding what exactly you are suggesting. It's entirely likely you are far more intelligent than I and I can't hold a satisfying conversation for you.
Perhaps you could take it one step at a time.
Falling off a cliff is not proof of gravity. But I'm guilty of bad examples myself so I digress.
If you have decided that evolution is the way to go and/or God (in any form) is non-existent, then no amount of discussion will change your mind.
Evolution is, by definition, change. How can a system of change be subject to any absolute? What is the source of an absolute?
Doesn't morality allow for the propagation of weak characteristics?
Doesn't that contradict evolution?
Let me just start by saying this was a great discussion that has come to a natural end. With that said, I conclude my thoughts with this:
No, I would not have any monuments built, for they would be inadequate and only serve to boost our own ego.
As for the fence, it was a metaphor. Literally it's too vague since I didn't specify visble light or not. So that's neither here nor there.
If you can say, "Longer life is better because human life is good. I know I can't justify that objectively, but it's still true.", can't I say, "God is real. I know I can't justify that objectively, but it's still true."?
Obviously I can say it though it seems you would disagree.
Why, between the two, would you choose to believe that humanity's existence is meaningless and not that there is a God that cares for you personally? Wouldn't that be the most fundamental question of our existence?
On the contrary, humanity has become more comfortably self-serving.
If I painted a fence an off-white and you said it wasn't white enough, by what standard could you argue? Popular opinion? Then whose to say Hitler was not perfectly sane?
And exactly why is simply the length of life better? Doesn't survival of the fittest demand only the strong survive?
The moral debate is inextricable from the evolution discussion. For if we are as the theory of evolution suggests, then I may act on my every whim, as what empirical truth would anyone have to deny me?
To beat the slavery thing to death, let me challenge you with this: What if, instead using white-skinned people, we instituted slavery today? Could we not just alter the slaves' emotional states such that they quite enjoy their lot in life?
It's not ludicrous. I've simply suggest taking your ideas to their full and logical end. The result of which is an empty and meaningless existence. Is that an improvement for humanity at large?
I'm stating that objects do not make people better. The topic was Intelligent Design is Psuedoscience and you seemed to be claiming (though perhaps not) that inventions make "life" better, possibly implying that humans have evolved due to applied science.
I say that people have not and will not change for milennia. Likewise the abolition of slavery had no universal effect on humanity either. It was a benefit for slaves and would-be slaves. No one else. As glad as you and I may be about it, that doesn't make us better.
Not once did I suggest or imply that murdering is acceptable. But wre we better if we exist indefinitely?
As for dying young, what's "young"?
The common thread of these is that not mine, not yours, not anyone's emotional state has any effect on humanity as a species. Emotional state can be modified. What if murdering people at a young age made me happy?
By what standard can we claim that slavery was bad? What is our basis for morality?
We're only better off due to physical comfort or convenience. I thought science was about discovery. not improvement.
Application of discovery, in in your example: inventions, may mean comfort and convenience. But it doesn't equal improvement. In fact, comfort most often leads to apathy. And convenience to laziness.
Take the average first-world diet. Are we really better with millions of extended lifespans when what we're really looking at is millions of fat asses living forever?
Oh well, it's is a matter of perspective.
And I think many plantation owners in the 1800s would disagree with you. The abolition of slavery was rather sucked for them. Would you say their life was improved? Isn't parasitic behavior natural? Can't it be good under certain circumstances? Not all slaves were treated poorly.
There's a fine line between the slaves of the 1800s and a modern worker. And that fine line is thanks to those wonderful iventions of yours.
And don't bring anything moral into the discussion since what basis would we have?
And since when was the abolition of slavery thanks to industrialisation. Plenty of people WEREN'T slaves prior to industrialization.
Is humanity any better as a result of those inventions? Is humanity any better since the theory of evolution was presented?
And since when was the point of believing "some particular manuscript" about improvement of the physical world?
I had something like this and the Shuffle for months.
Touchy, touchy.
Since when was having friends over for dinner, conversation, and laughing at photos of them from the past boring?
Perhaps I should explain the concept of "adult friends who don't have A.D.D."?
Display pics? Doable (but why?)
Classic.
For the sake of those of you who nodded in agreement with that question: They're called "Friends." They're these other people who come over--often in groups withOUT LAN party cases in their arms--to socialize with you IN YOUR HOME (not it your garage basement) (!).
Do you really need a...
Ah yes, the benevolence of international socialism...
Or just deal with it. Common sense too often has a way of losing out to passionate stands for principle amongst our ilk, me thinks.
seriously.
just freakin' BRILLIANT!
"i know let's start making residents pay more to live here, thus driving them out, thus pressing taxes higher, thus...."
i'm not a big fan of smoking, but to tax the heck out of your residents is just ignorant and archaic.
another example of government bureaucracy unable to cope with evolving economies.