found out another good friend is NOT a CHRISTIAN!!!!

[Tito24]

this is not a "cut" against you, but i doubt you actually know what "biblical" christianity is.  so many people going around today claiming to be a christian, but they all believe different things...none of which are supported by the Bible. 

maybe you could let us know here what youve been told about christianity and how a person is saved.  it would be good to see what others who call themselves christians have been telling you.  a true christians faith should be based off of the bible and not just "what they feel" is right.  sadly, most so-called christians today have never even gotten through the first book, and yet they all claim to know this or that is right.

This is the most stupid post i read all week..
 
all organized religion is for sheep..

When you children grow up and become men you will understand the scam that is religion..

Most Intellectuals like myself are atheists.

[Ursus]

I have not seen that film.

Can you explain your 'witty retort.'

[Jezebelle]

This is the most stupid post i read all week..
 
all organized religion is for sheep..

When you children grow up and become men you will understand the scam that is religion..

Most Intellectuals like myself are atheists.

Yet you still have no respect for Evidence and a Scientific Consensus. You believe things opposite to evidence and fact all the time, I read through your posts on the Political Board and can`t believe my fuckign eyes how much faith and ignorance guides some of your thought process.

[~UN_$ung~]

Haha X 2 this guy sounds like the type of fag that is 1st in line for sex change for a sex change operation and is going to school to becomie a baby killing abortionist that freequents bug parties.

lol, you cant get more diverse and inclusionist then a trans-homosexual abortionist bug-chaser......maybe he/she has a future in san Fransisco politics

[Jezebelle]

no fuckdick, they are people who are humble enough to admit that they as humans simply do not have the information available to them to make a definite, indisputable declaration either way.

something over-emotional, illogical white trash like yourself would not be able to understand because you are so convinced that you already know everything, which you dont cause your a fucking moron with the critical thinking capacity of a house fly

though i wouldnt technically be classified as a true agnostic because i believe in a higher intelligence, just not of the understanding of mainstream religion, but in the same sense it would be arrogant to say that i know 100% for certain that god exists, because like i said, i just dont have that level of information.

it all-or-nothing, black and white ideologue retards like yourself who are responsible for all the intolerance and hate presently observed in our society

NewsFlash,

The evidence for both sides being true is hardly equal. Why do you covet intelligence so much?  "RNA", Bacteria is the best equipped living organism on Earth that could survive in other areas of the Universe as we know it.  Bacteria will outlive everything on earth.  Why do you not find them to be the epitome of organic life since they clearly dominate all environments?

The probability for your god existing is nowhere close to the probability of non-existence.  I find Agnostics really annoying because they act as if there is some other realm and believe it to be true WITHOUT any shred of evidence.

Perhaps this will help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

The argument from ignorance,[1] also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance"[1][2]), or negative evidence,[1] is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true.

[#1 Klaus fan]

NewsFlash,

The evidence for both sides being true is hardly equal. Why do you covet intelligence so much?  "RNA", Bacteria is the best equipped living organism on Earth that could survive in other areas of the Universe as we know it.  Bacteria will outlive everything on earth.  Why do you not find them to be the epitome of organic life since they clearly dominate all environments?

The probability for your god existing is nowhere close to the probability of non-existence.  I find Agnostics really annoying because they act as if there is some other realm and believe it to be true WITHOUT any shred of evidence.

Perhaps this will help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

The argument from ignorance,[1] also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance"[1][2]), or negative evidence,[1] is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true.

Thank you. Deep down they ARE religious. They assume something supernatural. All hokus pokus.

[Tito24]

Yet you still have no respect for Evidence and a Scientific Consensus. You believe things opposite to evidence and fact all the time, I read through your posts on the Political Board and can`t believe my fuckign eyes how much faith and ignorance guides some of your thought process.

Because i don't believe "In man" made Global warming? Or because i don't believe in organized religion? or god for that matter?

Haha, why don't you show us your gravity suit for getting super lean?

[boonasty]

Haha, why don't you show us your gravity suit for getting super lean?

jus eat a donut son

[ShipSekki]

Christianity is on it's way out...

time + science = Crushing the christian faith, and all other religions too

the only way someone can believe this shit is to never question it

 Exactly. It's a stupid belief system for stupid people.

[Tito24]

jus eat a donut son

Adonis can be funny sometimes..However, you can't take that fool to serious..

[boonasty]

brutal thread that didn't go the way the OP intended

[Van_Bilderass]

this is not a "cut" against you, but i doubt you actually know what "biblical" christianity is.  so many people going around today claiming to be a christian, but they all believe different things...none of which are supported by the Bible. 

maybe you could let us know here what youve been told about christianity and how a person is saved.  it would be good to see what others who call themselves christians have been telling you.  a true christians faith should be based off of the bible and not just "what they feel" is right.  sadly, most so-called christians today have never even gotten through the first book, and yet they all claim to know this or that is right.

Problem is that the bible leaves tons to interpretation and Jesus/God isn't here to arbitrate the disagreements. Is there a Christian denomination that interprets the bible correctly all the way through in your opinion? Humans are fallible, right? How can you be certain your interpretation is correct when all Christians disagree on a number of points? Can't ask God directly can you? Or maybe he does reveal these things to his children through a mystical process?

Even in your particular denomination I'm sure there's tons of different factions where key points are interpreted slightly differently. Clearly not black and white issues or there would be no disagreements.

[tbombz]

NewsFlash,

The evidence for both sides being true is hardly equal.

what "two sides"? are you saying that god can not exist if science does?

The probability for your god existing is nowhere close to the probability of non-existence.  I find Agnostics really annoying because they act as if there is some other realm and believe it to be true WITHOUT any shred of evidence.

whats the probability of existence without a god?   you just got owned

[Jezebelle]

There are MOUNTAINS of evidence why not to believe in a god, there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever to believe in a god.  These are the two sides that ignorant agnostics seem to think have an equal probability of being true despite a hugely imbalanced scale.  

The probability of Existence without a god is 100 percent.  I am here.

[tbombz]

There are MOUNTAINS of evidence why not to believe in a god, there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever to believe in a god.  These are the two sides that ignorant agnostics seem to think have an equal probability of being true despite a hugely imbalanced scale.  

The probability of Existence without a god is 100 percent.  I am here.

lol! your funny.

theres a mountain of evidence against God? please, give me JUST ONE piece of information against God. 

no evidence for god? the foundations of science rest upon the idea of God. Causality, for one. 

[Jezebelle]

Furthermore, your second question is just pure juvenile ignorance.  That is akin to asking whats the probability of existence without Unicorns or Leprechauns.

You do realize as evidence dictates (or total lack thereof in this case) that the same Probability for Leprechauns, Fairies and Talking Vacuum Cleaners existing is the EXACT same for your god when it comes to empirical evidence.

[boonasty]

There are MOUNTAINS of evidence why not to believe in a god, there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever to believe in a god.  These are the two sides that ignorant agnostics seem to think have an equal probability of being true despite a hugely imbalanced scale.  

The probability of Existence without a god is 100 percent.  I am here.

blah ha!  why do sperm and egg need to unite to reproduce anuslicious?  shit if repro was that easy that step woul never be a requirement no?  

let's hear your mountains of evidences not t believe in a god, tuna pants

[tbombz]

Furthermore, your second question is just pure juvenile ignorance.  That is akin to asking whats the probability of existence without Unicorns or Leprechauns.

You do realize as evidence dictates (or total lack thereof in this case) that the same Probability for Leprechauns, Fairies and Talking Vacuum Cleaners existing is the EXACT same for your god when it comes to empirical evidence.

CAUSALITY

also, law of thermodynamics, and matter nor energy can ever be created nor destroyed in any action or reaction, and there must be equal cause as their is in the effect.

[Jezebelle]

lol! your funny.

theres a mountain of evidence against God? please, give me JUST ONE piece of information against God. 

no evidence for god? the foundations of science rest upon the idea of God. Causality, for one. 

Evolution ruins the idea of perfect design and special design which are the hallmarks of your phony god.

The Foundations of Science rely upon verifiable and testable evidence.  You are simply spinning yourself in circles with pure mumbo-jumbo bullshit and you have no clue as to what you think you are typing.

Sorry Taylor,  while you have come a long way in some areas, going from a shit-brained Hardcore Right-Wing Republican to at least a somewhat reasonable politically minded person, you still have the mental capacity of believing in things with ZERO evidence and a want for a supernatural element that simply does not exist.

I will celebrate the day when you educate yourself just a bit more and drop your useless faith-based beliefs.

[Jezebelle]

CAUSALITY

also, law of thermodynamics, and matter nor energy can ever be created nor destroyed in any action or reaction, and there must be equal cause as their is in the effect.

ROFLMAO you must be one of those who believe the earth is only 6000 years old if you are trying to rehash the old 1899 Thermodynamic myth that has been slung around by creationists since then.  Only the young earthers and the woefully misinformed try it.



      Nothing violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The great astrophyisicist Sir Arthur Eddington put it with memorable irony. "If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation." It is not for nothing that C P Snow used familiarity with the Second Law as his litmus test of scientific literacy.

      The Second Law states that, in a closed system without external energy fed in from outside, entropy always increases. Entropy is often said to mean disorder, but in some ways the word 'mixed-upness' (Willard Gibbs's coining) fits better. A familiar metaphor is that of a library. If the readers in a library always leave books lying around on the tables, or shove them back on the shelves at random, the library will become increasingly disordered. To remain in a state of order, it needs an energetic librarian, constantly working to put books back on their proper shelves, and constantly checking the shelves for misplaced volumes. It is not that libraries have a magnetic attraction or an urgent drive towards a particular goal state called disorder. It is simply that the number of states of a library that we would call disordered is much greater than the tiny minority of states that we would recognize as ordered. There are many more ways of being disordered than of being ordered. No work needs to be done to drive a library toward one of the many states that we call disordered. It will just happen, willy nilly, unless energetic work is done to prevent the otherwise inevitable slide downhill into disorder.

The Second Law recognizes a similar downhill slide towards disorder in any closed system such as the universe, which lacks a source of externally supplied energy. In a local region with externally supplied energy, on the other hand, we may see what look like reversals, but the stress must be on 'local' and 'externally supplied'. Life on Earth may evolve towards greater complexity and increased order, but this is only possible because of a massive transfusion of energy from the sun. To return to the library analogy, natural selection, the nonrandom survival of successful genes in gene pools, could be called the librarian of life. And the energy to power it comes ultimately from the sun. The overall trend of the thermodynamic river is still downhill. But a small tithe of the sun's energy is trapped by plants and used to power a trickle in the reverse direction. This reverse trickle is to be found not only in evolution but in the physiology of every individual organism, and in many chemical reactions. It is like a ram pump, which uses the energy of a flowing river to pump a small quantity of the water uphill.

   Once again, it is not my purpose here to argue for the validity of the Second Law. It is undisputed. Nor is it my purpose to defend evolution against the charge of violating it. My purpose is again to convey the sheer magnitude of the error that Burgess and McIntosh are attributing to their hugely more numerous 'establishment' colleagues, who accept evolution and supply cogent arguments against the suggestion that it violates the Second Law. As with the age of the Earth, this is not some minor, recondite dispute among scientists. It is a monumental disagreement. One side or the other has got to be wrong, and not just slightly wrong but catastrophically, ignominiously, disastrously wrong. Evolutionists are accused of believing in a theory that violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If Burgess and McIntosh are right, almost all the scientists in the world should, in Eddington's words, 'collapse in deepest humiliation.' If they are right, evolution has to be ruled out, not because of some evidential problems or deficiencies as is common in science, but for a much more radical reason. Evolution, on their view, is completely and utterly ruled out for the same kind of reason as a patent inspector will reject a design for a perpetual motion machine without even looking at it. We earlier saw that McIntosh is, in effect, accusing the scientific establishment of believing that a man is 521 miles tall. Now we see that he also accuses us of believing something as absurd as that a river will run uphill. Maybe he is right on both counts, but the sheer magnitude of the error attributed to the rest of us should at least give him pause. When I say it is not a minor mistake we scientists are accused of, I am giving a whole new depth of meaning to the word understatement.


Richard Dawkins FRS is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. His books include The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable, The Ancestor's Tale and, most recently, The God Delusion.

[MJK]

Religion is for the sheep of this world.

[tbombz]

Evolution ruins the idea of perfect design and special design which are the hallmarks of your phony god.

The Foundations of Science rely upon verifiable and testable evidence.  You are simply spinning yourself in circles with pure mumbo-jumbo bullshit and you have no clue as to what you think you are typing.

Sorry Taylor,  while you have come a long way in some areas, going from a shit-brained Hardcore Right-Wing Republican to at least a somewhat reasonable politically minded person, you still have the mental capacity of believing in things with ZERO evidence and a want for a supernatural element that simply does not exist.

I will celebrate the day when you educate yourself just a bit more and drop your useless faith-based beliefs.

Evolution ruins what? Does existence have to be "perfect" in order for God to exist? Even if so, What would a perfect existence be like?

Its quite possible, in fact i believe it to be true, that existence as it is now is as perfect as it could possibly be. Or, to better state the idea: "We live in the best of all possible worlds" ( -Gottfried Leibniz).

Science, no matter what it ever unveiled about the mechanics of reality, would never produce any piece of information that would in any way damage the argument for the existence of God.

Science should lead you to a deeper respect for the brilliance of God, the brilliance of the world he created, not push you away from it.

Evolution is an absolutely amazing process that sheds a little bit of light on the extrordinary power and Goodness of God.


BTW,  if the only thing that existed was a small bit of potassium somewhere in empty space.. it would be all the proof necessary to logically prove, with the basic laws of science, that god exists.

[#1 Klaus fan]

CAUSALITY

also, law of thermodynamics, and matter nor energy can ever be created nor destroyed in any action or reaction, and there must be equal cause as their is in the effect.

Prove that causality and laws of thermodynamics are always present. Hint, you cant.

[tbombz]

ROFLMAO you must be one of those who believe the earth is only 6000 years old if you are trying to rehash the old 1899 Thermodynamic myth that has been slung around by creationists since then.  Only the young earthers and the woefully misinformed try it.

You assumption was wrong.

Matter can never be created, nor destroyed in any natural action or reaction. basic law of physics.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

causality:

"Causality postulates that there are laws by which the occurrence of an entity B of a certain class depends on the occurrence of an entity A of another class, where the word entity means any physical object, phenomenon, situation, or event. A is called the cause, B the effect.

"Antecedence postulates that the cause must be prior to, or at least simultaneous with, the effect.

"Contiguity postulates that cause and effect must be in spatial contact or connected by a chain of intermediate things in contact."

[Jezebelle]

Evolution ruins what? Does existence have to be "perfect" in order for God to exist? Even if so, What would a perfect existence be like?

Its quite possible, in fact i believe it to be true, that existence as it is now is as perfect as it could possibly be. Or, to better state the idea: "We live in the best of all possible worlds" ( -Gottfried Leibniz).

Science, no matter what it ever unveiled about the mechanics of reality, would never produce any piece of information that would in any way damage the argument for the existence of God.

Science should lead you to a deeper respect for the brilliance of God, the brilliance of the world he created, not push you away from it.

Evolution is an absolutely amazing process that sheds a little bit of light on the extrordinary power and Goodness of God.


BTW,  if the only thing that existed was a small bit of potassium somewhere in empty space.. it would be all the proof necessary to logically prove, with the basic laws of science, that god exists.

You really are delusional my friend.  You are all over the map, spouting popular young Earth Creationist Myths.

Hope this helps:


This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.