Giving up Cubing for Lent

[RyanO]

Yay, I found what I was looking for. (Unlike bono.)

http://www.missiontoamerica.org/genesis/six-thousand-years.html

By the way, I'm going to bed now. Cya.

Hahaha, thanks for the "educational" link. It's sad that some people will read this and actually be fooled by it. It's not sad enough to keep me from laughing about it though.

 

[Dene]

Not thinking about why you belive something can lead to terrible consequences.

+1, True

Shame on you Johannes! I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you completely misread what he said. This is the reply I gave to his stupid statement:

It can also have no consequences whatsoever. Thanks for contributing that completely pointless statement though!

I'm actually embarrassed for you right now.

What if my belief is that God is out there, just watching and not interfering in the lives of the living? How am I supposed to challenge this, or find reason to disbelieve it?

Not having a reason to believe it is a perfectly valid reason to not believe it. Can you prove that the world will not magically end in 2038? Why don't you believe it will?

I have already given other reasons why I believe God exists (I actually already asked for everyone to excuse me for implying that I believe that God is completely passive. I don't actually believe this). However I have no reason at all to believe the world will magically end in 2038.

Honestly Johannes, this is a shameful effort on your part. Please come back when you are thinking straight.

 

[irontwig]

Yay, I found what I was looking for. (Unlike bono.)

http://www.missiontoamerica.org/genesis/six-thousand-years.html

By the way, I'm going to bed now. Cya.

That was an entertaining read, I also like this page:

http://www.missiontoamerica.org/genesis/dinosaurs-people.html

 

[RyanO]

They did an awful lot of work to make that site look like they actually believed the nonsense they were spouting out. They must of had a lot of time on their hands.

 

[Johannes91]

They did an awful lot of work to make that site look like they actually believed the nonsense they were spouting out. They must of had a lot of time on their hands.

Poe's law — "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humour, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing."

For more "fun", see http://www.answersingenesis.org/ and http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page. Or talk.origins.

Not thinking about why you belive something can lead to terrible consequences.

+1, True

Shame on you Johannes! I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you completely misread what he said. This is the reply I gave to his stupid statement: [snip]

The way I read it, it's not stupid at all. I've seen it happen several times: You get brainwashed as a kid, live as a happy fundamentalist idiot for a while, some day ask yourself "Why do I believe all this when all those smart people I know don't?". You can't come up with any satisfactory answer, slowly start to realize it's all ********, then either a) get over it or b) have some kind of mental breakdown (there has to be a name for this; existential crisis?). If you never question anything, good for you; ignorance is bliss, as everybody knows. But if you do, the sooner it happens, the better; that'll make it more likely you manage to pull off option (a) and reduce the brain damage done and amount of time wasted.

If you base your whole life and world view on some very strong assumptions, questioning them is IMHO a very important thing to do.

I have already given other reasons why I believe God exists (I actually already asked for everyone to excuse me for implying that I believe that God is completely passive. I don't actually believe this).

Sorry, although I skimmed the whole thread I didn't read everything. In that one post you simply said "I believe this, why shouldn't I?", and with no context that sounds stupid.

I see you mentioned the simulation hypothesis now. That's very interesting indeed, I'm not sure what to think about it.

 

[Johan444]

It's uncomfortable for alot of people to have their beliefs probed in this way, and the last thread decended very quickly into flaming. I'd rather that not happen again.

Then stop posting charts which makes fun of religious people

If anything, consider this: If you are an athiest, and there is a god, you're screwed. If you believe in God, and there isn't a God, what happens?

If you choose to become a christian just to be sure you're not going to hell when you die would lead to a very uncmfortable life. You would base your actions and everyday life on what the bible says even though you would not think it's God words in it. In some cases you would let the bible do the thinking for you.

 

[Zane_C]

If anything, consider this: If you are an athiest, and there is a god, you're screwed. If you believe in God, and there isn't a God, what happens?

If anything, consider this: If you are an athiest, and there is no god, you rock! If you believe in God, and there isn't a God, what happens?

If you believe in god and it turns out there is no such thing, well that just sucks and your've wasted a lot of time going to church (if you go to church that is). You have also made a complete fool out of yourself and have proven to be a very nieve person.

I think I'll take my chances with being screwed.

 

[jms_gears1]

Not thinking about why you belive something can lead to terrible consequences.

+1, True

Shame on you Johannes! I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you completely misread what he said. This is the reply I gave to his stupid statement: [snip]

The way I read it, it's not stupid at all. I've seen it happen several times: You get brainwashed as a kid, live as a happy fundamentalist idiot for a while, some day ask yourself "Why do I believe all this when all those smart people I know don't?". You can't come up with any satisfactory answer, slowly start to realize it's all ********, then either a) get over it or b) have some kind of mental breakdown (there has to be a name for this; existential crisis?). If you never question anything, good for you; ignorance is bliss, as everybody knows. But if you do, the sooner it happens, the better; that'll make it more likely you manage to pull off option (a) and reduce the brain damage done and amount of time wasted.

If you base your whole life and world view on some very strong assumptions, questioning them is IMHO a very important thing to do.[/QUOTE]

First of all your implying that believing in a God or more specifically the christian god makes you stupid? (thats how i read it..)

also how i see it is like this:
athiests are the people to smart to blindly believe but not smart enough to look at all the evidence of intelligent design. Look around what evidence do you see that theres an intelligent design? everywhere, everything thats not man made screams of a designer.

If anything, consider this: If you are an athiest, and there is a god, you're screwed. If you believe in God, and there isn't a God, what happens?

If anything, consider this: If you are an athiest, and there is no god, you rock! If you believe in God, and there isn't a God, what happens?

If you believe in god and it turns out there is no such thing, well that just sucks and your've wasted a lot of time going to church (if you go to church that is). You have also made a complete fool out of yourself and have proven to be a very nieve person.

I think I'll take my chances with being screwed.

this is an ignorant statement...

 

[Escher]

everything thats not man made screams of a designer.

I'm sorry, but no, you cannot think like that.
We are human and completely limited in what we can grasp by our intelligence and the fact we exist for such a short time.

The reasons you think that nature 'screams of a designer' are:
a) you already have a concept of an intelligent designer through social conditioning which you apply to everything natural and complex you see, and
b) because people cannot grasp how amazing and powerful evolution over millions of years is, which creates intricately complex organisms and organs that seem perfectly 'designed' for their purpose, and that we are too dumb to currently understand.

 

[Kirjava]

athiests are the people to smart to blindly believe but not smart enough to look at all the evidence of intelligent design. Look around what evidence do you see that theres an intelligent design? everywhere, everything thats not man made screams of a designer.

And before I hear "This can't've happened by chance, it's so unlikely". SOMETHING had to happen, it just so happens that THIS happened. The basic premise of evolution is only that present day species have evolved from primitive ancestors. Evolution does not require that this had to occur by chance. Something with superior vision is more likely to survive than something without => converges towards good vision.

If everything was created by a designer, he's certainly not intelligent. Why is our immune system so weak?

 

[jms_gears1]

everything thats not man made screams of a designer.

I'm sorry, but no, you cannot think like that.
We are human and completely limited in what we can grasp by our intelligence and the fact we exist for such a short time.

The reasons you think that nature 'screams of a designer' are:
a) you already have a concept of an intelligent designer through social conditioning which you apply to everything natural and complex you see, and
b) because people cannot grasp how amazing and powerful evolution over millions of years is, which creates intricately complex organisms and organs that seem perfectly 'designed' for their purpose, and that we are too dumb to currently understand.

You can think like that, Do you have proof that the earth has existed more than several thousands of years? I do believe that the only 'proof' we have are fossils of dinosaurs and rocks that are dated back millions of years.

What else do we have that dates the world as old as evolution requires it to be?

also read my response to kirjava.

athiests are the people to smart to blindly believe but not smart enough to look at all the evidence of intelligent design. Look around what evidence do you see that theres an intelligent design? everywhere, everything thats not man made screams of a designer.

*YT vid*


And before I hear "This can't've happened by chance, it's so unlikely". SOMETHING had to happen, it just so happens that THIS happened. The basic premise of evolution is only that present day species have evolved from primitive ancestors. Evolution does not require that this had to occur by chance. Something with superior vision is more likely to survive than something without => converges towards good vision.

If everything was created by a designer, he's certainly not intelligent. Why is our immune system so weak?

What does the video have to do with my statment, just curious.

I honestly believe that it cant have been some cosmic chance that enabled us to exist, to be having this argument. Sure its plausbible that the earth and all the planet and planetoids could have been created 'on accident', but then for one of them to have the conditions required to sustain life would decrese the already miniscule chance. But then for life to actually evolve makes that chance much smaller.

And sure Darwinism can explain some mutations that would enhance an organisms survival ability, but mutation never produces new information, it only depletes it.
it went:
wolf => chihuahua
not
chihuahua => wolf.

Ok now i did a bit more research and i found a scientific law that says exactly what i just did.

Its the Second law of Thermodynamics, or the law of Increased Entropy: (source: http://www.allaboutscience.org/second-law-of-thermodynamics.htm)

"While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time."

 

[Escher]

You can think like that, Do you have proof that the earth has existed more than several thousands of years? I do believe that the only 'proof' we have are fossils of dinosaurs and rocks that are dated back millions of years.

What else do we have that dates the world as old as evolution requires it to be?

...

How on earth is carbon dating *not* good enough proof?

And what do you have that dates the world ~6000 years old?
Oh yes, a translation of a translation of oral history passed down through generations, that is marred by hundreds of anachronisms when read as a factual historical text.

EDIT:

Ok now i did a bit more research and i found a scientific law that says exactly what i just did.

Its the Second law of Thermodynamics, or the law of Increased Entropy: (source: http://www.allaboutscience.org/second-law-of-thermodynamics.htm)

"While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time."

...

 

[jms_gears1]

You can think like that, Do you have proof that the earth has existed more than several thousands of years? I do believe that the only 'proof' we have are fossils of dinosaurs and rocks that are dated back millions of years.

What else do we have that dates the world as old as evolution requires it to be?

...

How on earth is carbon dating *not* good enough proof?

And what do you have that dates the world ~6000 years old?
Oh yes, a translation of a translation of oral history passed down through generations, that is marred by hundreds of anachronisms when read as a factual historical text.

Carbon dating is only 'accurate' up through about 50,000 years, and even then because of a host of natural processes and activities of humans destroy any credibility carbon dating has.

and as for the ~6000 years old remark, what do you have that dates the world back millions of years?

while the 50k mark is to long for what I as a christian believe, its not near long enough to imply evolution.

EDIT:

Ok now i did a bit more research and i found a scientific law that says exactly what i just did.

Its the Second law of Thermodynamics, or the law of Increased Entropy: (source: http://www.allaboutscience.org/second-law-of-thermodynamics.htm)

"While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time."

...

Meaning?

 

[Escher]

You can think like that, Do you have proof that the earth has existed more than several thousands of years? I do believe that the only 'proof' we have are fossils of dinosaurs and rocks that are dated back millions of years.

What else do we have that dates the world as old as evolution requires it to be?

...

How on earth is carbon dating *not* good enough proof?

And what do you have that dates the world ~6000 years old?
Oh yes, a translation of a translation of oral history passed down through generations, that is marred by hundreds of anachronisms when read as a factual historical text.

Carbon dating is only 'accurate' up through about 50,000 years, and even then because of a host of natural processes and activities of humans destroy any credibility carbon dating has.

and as for the ~6000 years old remark, what do you have that dates the world back millions of years?

while the 50k mark is to long for what I as a christian believe, its not near long enough to imply evolution.

EDIT:

Ok now i did a bit more research and i found a scientific law that says exactly what i just did.

Its the Second law of Thermodynamics, or the law of Increased Entropy: (source: http://www.allaboutscience.org/second-law-of-thermodynamics.htm)

"While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time."

...

Meaning?

Meaning that it has almost nothing to do with evolution.
Having to do 'a bit more research' to find out about something as basic as the 2nd law of thermodynamics shows you up.

Re: proof that it isn't 6000 years old, how about you read this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

and then research the methods used?

And then why don't you read about aborigine australian history, and that it goes back to around 30-40k years old, iirc?

Perhaps you should read this too: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/age.htm

 

[Kirjava]

athiests are the people to smart to blindly believe but not smart enough to look at all the evidence of intelligent design. Look around what evidence do you see that theres an intelligent design? everywhere, everything thats not man made screams of a designer.

*YT vid*


And before I hear "This can't've happened by chance, it's so unlikely". SOMETHING had to happen, it just so happens that THIS happened. The basic premise of evolution is only that present day species have evolved from primitive ancestors. Evolution does not require that this had to occur by chance. Something with superior vision is more likely to survive than something without => converges towards good vision.

If everything was created by a designer, he's certainly not intelligent. Why is our immune system so weak?

I honestly believe that it cant have been some cosmic chance that enabled us to exist, to be having this argument. Sure its plausbible that the earth and all the planet and planetoids could have been created 'on accident', but then for one of them to have the conditions required to sustain life would decrese the already miniscule chance. But then for life to actually evolve makes that chance much smaller.

You're surprised that life evolved in a place where conditions enable evolution?

This is like saying that you roll an 10000 sided die and when it lands on 1337 it must have had intervention by the magical sky wizard, because it couldn't have landed on that by chance, 1/10000 is just too unlikely. But it had to land on SOMETHING, and it'd be a 1/10000 chance whatever it landed on.

And sure Darwinism can explain some mutations that would enhance an organisms survival ability, but mutation never produces new information, it only depletes it.

I think you should watch the video again. This is a willfuly ignorant statement.

it went:
wolf => chihuahua
not
chihuahua => wolf.

Why does a chihuahua have 'less information' than a wolf? Because it's smaller?

Ok now i did a bit more research and i found a scientific law that says exactly what i just did.

Its the Second law of Thermodynamics, or the law of Increased Entropy: (source: http://www.allaboutscience.org/second-law-of-thermodynamics.htm)

"While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time."

I'm pretty sure you're regurgitating information you discovered on a creationist website. You think that because you're now using 'Science' that it has to be accepted.

Your application of science is incorrect.

It is true that any natural process contained within a closed system will distribute its energy in such a manner that its entropy will increase over time. This is essentially what the Second Law of Thermodynamics attempts to define.

However, the earth is not a closed system. There is an external body of heat that has been affecting this planet for some time now.

It's called the Sun.

while the 50k mark is to long for what I as a christian believe

If you believe the universe was created <50000 years ago....

Light from stars we can see in the sky would take longer than this to reach us. We're looking into the past.

 

[jms_gears1]

Meaning that it has almost nothing to do with evolution.
Having to do 'a bit more research' to find out about something as basic as the 2nd law of thermodynamics shows you up.

Re: proof that it isn't 6000 years old, how about you read this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

and then research the methods used?

And then why don't you read about aborigine australian history, and that it goes back to around 30-40k years old, iirc?

Perhaps you should read this too: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/age.htm

It does have something to do with evolution....
Its proof that time is the enemy of complexity....

also I was more looking for a substantial source to site when i made that statement....

while this is obviously a creation-biased site ill still give the link:
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Why methods in general are inaccurate

The bottom line is, any type of method that trys to date the earths existence, by nature, whill be horribly inaccurate.

 

[Muesli]

The bottom line is, any type of method that trys to date the earths existence, by nature, whill be horribly inaccurate.

There is inaccuracy, and there is being 553,999,994,000 years wrong.

 

[d4m4s74]

Post enough there?

Pseudoscience

How?

Possivle argument for a God, but a pathetic argument for a Christian God.

Again, why? How on earth could all this have come about by chance?

As above

...you get the drill. Learn some arguing, boy.

Lol

You know quite well I was referring to all the christians, not you.


If anything, consider this: If you are an atheist, and there is a god, you're screwed. If you believe in God, and there isn't a God, what happens?

if you believe in god, and there is a god, but he turns out to be the wrong god, you're just as screwed as an atheist, even after a life of worship.

and with the billions of gods people have believed in during he history of mankind, that chance is HUGE


also, for the carbon dating thing, after about 5000 years it's not that accurate anymore, but after a few million years they're usually just around 700 to a few thousand years off

 

[Escher]

It does have something to do with evolution....
Its proof that time is the enemy of complexity....

also I was more looking for a substantial source to site when i made that statement....

while this is obviously a creation-biased site ill still give the link:
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Why%20methods%20in%20general%20are%20inaccurate

The bottom line is, any type of method that trys to date the earths existence, by nature, whill be horribly inaccurate.

The reliability of creationist sources is often questioned because those who write them are not always experts in the areas they write about. But I believe that their message is true, namely, God created the universe, the earth, and all that is in it, God created life on earth recently, and the earth since then has experienced a major catastrophe.

So he values the message they carry above the fact that they are not experts in their field? I can hardly be bothered to read the rest of the page.

I don't care about the source (wiki or not), I care about the fact you had to research the second law of thermodynamics, and that you applied it hilariously badly.

 

[jms_gears1]

athiests are the people to smart to blindly believe but not smart enough to look at all the evidence of intelligent design. Look around what evidence do you see that theres an intelligent design? everywhere, everything thats not man made screams of a designer.

*YT vid*


And before I hear "This can't've happened by chance, it's so unlikely". SOMETHING had to happen, it just so happens that THIS happened. The basic premise of evolution is only that present day species have evolved from primitive ancestors. Evolution does not require that this had to occur by chance. Something with superior vision is more likely to survive than something without => converges towards good vision.

If everything was created by a designer, he's certainly not intelligent. Why is our immune system so weak?

I honestly believe that it cant have been some cosmic chance that enabled us to exist, to be having this argument. Sure its plausbible that the earth and all the planet and planetoids could have been created 'on accident', but then for one of them to have the conditions required to sustain life would decrese the already miniscule chance. But then for life to actually evolve makes that chance much smaller.

You're surprised that life evolved in a place where conditions enable evolution?

This is like saying that you roll an 10000 sided die and when it lands on 1337 it must have had intervention by the magical sky wizard, because it couldn't have landed on that by chance, 1/10000 is just too unlikely. But it had to land on SOMETHING, and it'd be a 1/10000 chance whatever it landed on.

... magical sky wizard really?

Yes it had to land on something, but the theory of evolution would be more akin to the die landing on a side with no numbers.

Its not a fixed chance for all outcomes, the percentage chance for each possible outcome of the Big bang theory, are all horribly skewed.

And sure Darwinism can explain some mutations that would enhance an organisms survival ability, but mutation never produces new information, it only depletes it.

I think you should watch the video again. This is a willfuly ignorant statement.

that is not an ignorant statement. that video suggests that information is added however mutation depletes the information.

it went:
wolf => chihuahua
not
chihuahua => wolf.

Why does a chihuahua have 'less information' than a wolf? Because it's smaller?

because it serves no purpose at all. Other dogs such as beagles are hunting dogs, they are bred for their unique bark and their ability to track.
Dachshunds are bred to dig and bark.

What do chihuahuas do?

aside from that, it was more of an example to explain what i was talking about. I think my point was clear.

Ok now i did a bit more research and i found a scientific law that says exactly what i just did.

Its the Second law of Thermodynamics, or the law of Increased Entropy: (source: http://www.allaboutscience.org/second-law-of-thermodynamics.htm)

"While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time."

I'm pretty sure you're regurgitating information you discovered on a creationist website. You think that because you're now using 'Science' that it has to be accepted.

Your application of science is incorrect.

It is true that any natural process contained within a closed system will distribute its energy in such a manner that its entropy will increase over time. This is essentially what the Second Law of Thermodynamics attempts to define.

However, the earth is not a closed system. There is an external body of heat that has been affecting this planet for some time now.

It's called the Sun.

The point was, evolution could not create the complexities that are present in the world today. Because time is the enemy of comlexity, the Sun doesnt have anything to do with evolution.

while the 50k mark is to long for what I as a christian believe

If you believe the universe was created <50000 years ago....

Light from stars we can see in the sky would take longer than this to reach us. We're looking into the past.

if you think that the earth was created >50k years ago...

just because the earth wasnt here doesnt mean nothing else was, the bible talks about the creation of the earth not the creation of the entire universe.